The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others.
Abstract
The authors propose that gender differences in negotiations reflect women's contextually contingent impression management strategies. They argue that the same behavior, bargaining assertively, is construed as congruent with female gender roles in some contexts yet incongruent in other contexts. Further, women take this contextual variation into account, adjusting their bargaining behavior to manage social impressions. A particularly important contextual variable is advocacy-whether bargaining on one's own behalf versus on another's behalf. In self-advocacy contexts, women anticipate that assertiveness will evoke incongruity evaluations, negative attributions, and subsequent "backlash"; hence, women hedge their assertiveness, using fewer competing tactics and obtaining lower outcomes. However, in other-advocacy contexts, women achieve better outcomes as they do not expect incongruity evaluations or engage in hedging. In a controlled laboratory experiment, the authors found that gender interacts with advocacy context in this way to determine negotiation style and outcomes. Additionally, process measures of anticipated attributions and backlash statistically mediated this interaction effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Naegele, K. D., & Goffman, E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089106 · Cited by 25,991
(2013) · Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,486
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
The psychology of sex differences
(1975) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(75)80031-1 · Cited by 5,488
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role interpretation
Eagly, A. H. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203781906 · Cited by 3,320
(1998) · Cited by 2,641
Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.122.1.5 · Cited by 2,585
Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.
Feingold, A. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429 · Cited by 2,240
Cited by
Revisiting gender differences: what we know and what lies ahead.
Meyers‐Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003 · Cited by 614
Brescoll, V. L. (2016) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005 · Cited by 426
Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000039 · Cited by 374
A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators.
Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038184 · Cited by 313
Prejudice Toward Female Leaders: Backlash Effects and Women’s Impression Management Dilemma
Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00306.x · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 256-267
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2022105639
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 50.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0017094
- The paper
- Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017094
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
