Sex differences in the effects of visual contact and eye contact in negotiations

Abstract

"Previous research has proposed that the ability to see others would benefit negotiations. We argue that this view is too narrow and that the impact of visual contact on negotiated agreements depends on the meaning individuals ascribe to either its presence or absence. Based on previous research showing that females are more likely to understand others in the presence of visual contact while males understand others better in the absence of visual contact, we explore how visual contact, eye contact, and sex affect the quality of negotiated agreements in a meta-analysis (Study 1) and a laboratory experiment (Study 2). The two studies combined show that because direct communication via the face facilitates a shared understanding for two unacquainted females, their agreements are of higher quality when they have visual contact compared to when they do not (Study 1), and if they have visual contact, their agreements are better when they have eye contact than when they do not (Study 2). Because communication via the face increases discomfort between two unacquainted males, their agreements are of higher quality when they do not have visual contact (Study 1), and if they do have visual contact, their agreements are better when they have no eye contact than when they do (Study 2)." [author's abstract

The observer observed: Frontal EEG asymmetry and autonomic responses differentiate between another person's direct and averted gaze when the face is seen live

“…In negotiating situations, females have been found to cooperate better when in eye contact with another female than when not, but this preference was not observed when females negotiated with males (Swaab & Swaab, 2009). There are also perceived differences in power distribution between female-female and female-male dyads.…”

A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators.

“…With regard to gender differ ences1 in negotiation, previous research suggests that women as compared with men display a lower propensity to initiate negoti ations (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007;Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007) and negotiate less competitively (Walters et ah, 1998). According to the meta-analysis by Stuhlmacher and Walters (1999), women also tend to achieve worse economic outcomes (d = 0.09; a very small-sized effect according to the guidelines proposed by Cohen, 1988).…”

“…Kray & Thomp son, 2005;Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). Importantly, social role theories have been discussed as offering a unifying framework that accounts for many of the gender and negotiation findings (see Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013, for an overview).…”

“…Beyond studying a potential gender main effect, we contribute to the existing knowledge by empha sizing moderating conditions in this meta-analysis. Although the meta-analysis by Stuhlmacher and Walters (1999) tested a number of moderators, none significantly affected the overall finding. However, the authors noted that the relatively small number of effect sizes (at that time) may have precluded the detection of theoretically meaningful moderators.…”

“…We present a meta analysis on gender differences in economic negotiation outcomes that builds on and extends a previous meta-analysis of Stuhlm acher and Walters (1999) by integrating a larger sample of studies (123 as compared with 53 effect sizes) with three times as many participants (i.e., 10,888). Beyond studying a potential gender main effect, we contribute to the existing knowledge by empha sizing moderating conditions in this meta-analysis.…”