Relationships between individuals' ethical orientations (classified on dimensions of idealism and relativism), their negotiation strategies, their views of ethically ``marginal'' tactics, and their outcomes in dyadic negotiation are examined. Results indicate a relationship between ethical orientation and negotiation strategy. Specifically, absolutists (high on idealism, low on relativism) tended to employ more assertive negotiation strategies than did those of other ethical orientations. Individuals in no one category of ethical ideology outperformed those in any other category in terms of integrativeness of agreements or outcomes. Absolutists viewed ethically questionable tactics as less acceptable, whereas subjectivists found them more acceptable. We found that individuals less accepting of questionable tactics (``lambs''), who negotiated against those more accepting of such tactics (``lions''), were able to achieve better outcomes and a greater percentage of joint outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.