Cited by 402Conflict Management and NegotiationSocial Power and Status DynamicsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation

Small, Deborah A., Gelfand, Michele, Babcock, Linda, Gettman, Hilary·2007·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Unlike typical negotiation experiments, these studies investigated when men and women initiate negotiations in the absence of overt prescriptions to negotiate. Using a new experimental paradigm, the authors showed that the framing of situations is a critical driver of gender differences in initiating negotiations. Drawing on literature on language, power, and politeness, the authors argued that framing situations as opportunities for negotiation is particularly intimidating to women, as this language is inconsistent with norms for politeness among low-power individuals, such as women. By contrast, framing situations as opportunities for asking is much less intimidating to women, as this language is more polite and role-consistent. Consequently, gender differences in initiating negotiations persisted when situations were framed as opportunities for negotiation yet were eliminated when situations were framed as opportunities to ask. Moreover, primed power attenuated gender differences in aversive reactions to the negotiation frame. In all, the studies presented begin to elucidate the reasons for gender differences in initiating negotiations and further illustrate that such effects depend on the situation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.600

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 402

Metadata

Authors
Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2007
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
600-613
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2128336111
Cited by
402
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
43.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
negotiation initiation, gender differences, framing effects, politeness norms, power priming, intimidation, language and power
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Collective Bargaining, Culture, Female, Games, Experimental, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Power, Psychological, Social Desirability, Social Perception, Negotiating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review