This meta-analysis investigates gender differences in economic negotiation outcomes. As suggested by role congruity theory, we assume that the behaviors that increase economic negotiation outcomes are more congruent with the male as compared with the female gender role, thereby presenting challenges for women's negotiation performance and reducing their outcomes. Importantly, this main effect is predicted to be moderated by person-based, situation-based, and task-based influences that make effective negotiation behavior more congruent with the female gender role, which should in turn reduce or even reverse gender differences in negotiation outcomes. Using a multilevel modeling approach, this meta-analysis includes 123 effect sizes (overall N = 10,888, including undergraduate and graduate students as well as businesspeople). Studies were included when they enabled the calculation of an effect size reflecting gender differences in achieved economic negotiation outcomes. As predicted, men achieved better economic outcomes than women on average, but gender differences strongly depended on the context: Moderator analysis revealed that gender differences favoring men were reduced when negotiators had negotiation experience, when they received information about the bargaining range, and when they negotiated on behalf of another individual. Moreover, gender differences were reversed under conditions of the lowest predicted role incongruity for women. In conclusion, gender differences in negotiations are contextually bound and can be subject to change. Future research is needed that investigates the underlying mechanisms of new moderators revealed in the current research (e.g., experience). Implications for theoretical explanations of gender differences in negotiation outcomes, for gender inequalities in the workplace, and for future research are discussed.
While people's willingness to work hard can be reduced in teams (i.e., effort losses in teams as compared with individual work), it is less recognized that teamwork can also stimulate additional efforts (i.e., effort gains). Building on and extending existing theory, we (a) suggest an integration of these two research streams, and (b) provide evidence for team-related effort gains in action teams. In a first study, we tested our predictions by reanalyzing a field data set of 302,576 swimming performances in individual and relay races (Neugart & Richiardi, 2013). Consistent with our hypotheses, we observed a linear increase in effort across the relay. The first relay swimmers showed effort losses in the relay as compared with the individual competition whereas the remaining relay swimmers showed effort gains. However, this was only evident (a) when team members could realistically expect meaningful team outcomes in return for their performance, and (b) when the valence of these outcomes was equivalent to individual competitions. If such favorable conditions were not given, we found effort losses in team as compared with individual competitions at all relay positions. Results of a second study (N = 228) showed that the linear increase in effort across the relay was indeed attributable to the team members' serial position and not to their relative strength. Together, the studies demonstrate the motivating potential of teamwork even in the high performance contexts of action teams, such as competitive sports relays, where athletes are already highly motivated in their individual competitions. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.