Power, opportunity costs, and sex in a mixed-motive game.

Bedell, Jeffrey R.; Sistrunk, Frank

doi:10.1037/h0033947

Cited by 42 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the findings are by no means consistent: a number of studies found no difference (e.g., Neu, Graham, and Gilly 1988), while some others found that males negotiate in a more cooperative manner (Bedell and Sistrunk 1973;Gahagan and Tedeschi 1969;McClintock, Messick, Kuhlman, and Campos 1973;Oskamp and Kteinke 1970;Pruitt 1967;Rapoport and Chammah 1965). It is important to note that the great majority of the studies that diverge from the pattern use games such as prisoner's dilemma in which competitive responses are often maladaptive.…”

Section: The Developmental Roots Of Relationship Versus Transaction Omentioning

confidence: 71%

The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics

Greenhalgh

Gilkey

1993

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multimethod research was conducted to investigate how relationship orientation affects cognitions and tactics of dealing with conflicts. In-depth interviews by a clinical psycho|ogist revealed differences in perspective on the relationship, and content analysis of a videotaped laboratory simulatiort revealed differences ir~ tactics attributable to differential concern for relationship preservation. A second laboratory simulation manipulated the duration of the negotiators' relationship to investigate the effects of relationship orientation when situational factors are taken into account. The results generally show that relationship-oriented negotiators tend to view relationships with the other party as continuous rather than episodic, adopt flexible postures, and avoid relationship.-impairing tactics; they also show that situation can have a strong effect.The study of negotiation has gone through several phases, all of which have produced useful information, but none of which has proven fully satisfactory in explaining and predicting the course of everyday conflicts. The first major thrust was undertaken by economists (see, e.g., Nash 1950), relying heavily on gametheoretic formulations. Their work was embellished by social psychologists, who studied similar negotiation scenarios in the laboratory and sought primarily to identify the determinants of outcomes (Rubin and Brown 1975). A more recent thrust has been in the cognitive area, ~4th negotiations being viewed as a more or tess rational process of interdependent decision making (Neale and Bazerman 1991). What all of these approaches have in common is a tendency to tbcus on outcomes rather than process, and a view of disputes as isolated transactions rather than as strains in ongoing relationships between the parties.The yield from years of research in these traditions has been a substantial scientific contribution, but its practical applicability is limited. (In fact, researchers working in these paradigms often have difficulty identifying the usefillness of their most recent study to the dispute in which they themselves were most recently involved.) The reason for the limitations to applicability seems to be that theory 168 LEONARD GREENHALGH/RODERICK W. GILKEY and research in this area have been constrained by a masculine bias, as in other areas of organizational behavior (see~ e.g., Gray 1992; Smircich 1985). That is, negotiation research and theory have focused almost exclusively on masculine preoccupations: transactions rather than the relationships in which they arise, power and status differentials rather than rapport, coalition activity rather than connectedness, outcomes construed as payoffs rather than the future relationship, scorable games rather than disagreements, and decision making aimed at utility optimization rather than accommodation aimed at generating goodwill. Because of this apparent bias, caution must be exercised when generalizing the findings of this stream of research beyond disputes involving masculine negotiators who are strangers...

show abstract

Section: The Developmental Roots Of Relationship Versus Transaction Omentioning

confidence: 71%

The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics

Greenhalgh

Gilkey

1993

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings support the results of Rahim (1983) that females have a more cooperative (integrating/collaborating) orientation to conflict handling than males. However, Bedell & Sistrunk (1973) concluded that females are more competitive (dominating). Brewer et al (2002) found in their study that obliging (accommodating) and avoiding are more consistent with females.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and age differences in conflict management within small businessess

Havenga

2008

SA j. hum. resour. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this exploratory study was to establish, through the application of the Rahim Organisational Inventory (ROC II) instrument, how the gender and age status of owners/managers of small businesses relate to the application of different conflict-handling styles. The sample of 68 participants was taken using a convenience sampling technique to ensure representation from the strata of the 102 small businesses. Analysis of variances was used to determine if differences exist in conflict-handling styles within the gender and age status groups. The results of the statistical analysis done revealed that slight to significant variances were found, which are discussed accordingly.

show abstract

“…They found that, on average, the male-male pairings exhibited greater cooperation than the mixed-sex pairings, with the female-female pairings being least cooperative. Although this study failed to provide a convincing explanation for these results, it nevertheless sparked a great deal of interest in sex differences in cooperation in the late 1960s and early 1970s (e.g., Bedell & Sistrunk, 1973;Grant & Sermant, 1969). However, there was not a clear picture emerging from these studies (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).…”

Section: Sex Differences In Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

Balliet

Macfarlan

et al. 2011

Psychological Bulletin

285

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is commonly believed that women are kinder and more cooperative than men, there is conflicting evidence for this assertion. Current theories of sex differences in social behavior suggest that it may be useful to examine in what situations men and women are likely to differ in cooperation. Here, we derive predictions from both sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives on context-specific sex differences in cooperation, and we conduct a unique meta-analytic study of 272 effect sizes-sampled across 50 years of research-on social dilemmas to examine several potential moderators. The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d ϭ -0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation. However, the association between sex and cooperation is moderated by several key features of the social context: Male-male interactions are more cooperative than female-female interactions (d ϭ 0.16), yet women cooperate more than men in mixed-sex interactions (d ϭ -0.22). In repeated interactions, men are more cooperative than women. Women were more cooperative than men in larger groups and in more recent studies, but these differences disappeared after statistically controlling for several study characteristics. We discuss these results in the context of both sociocultural and evolutionary theories of sex differences, stress the need for an integrated biosocial approach, and outline directions for future research.

show abstract

Power, opportunity costs, and sex in a mixed-motive game.

Cited by 42 publications

References 21 publications

The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics

The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics

Gender and age differences in conflict management within small businessess

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About