Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of Deception in Negotiation

Abstract

Social context shapes negotiators’ actions, including their willingness to act unethically. In this research, we test how three dimensions of social context – dyadic gender composition, negotiation strategy, and trust – interact to influence one micro-ethical decision, the use of deception, in a simulated negotiation. To create an opportunity for deception, we incorporated an indifference issue – an issue that had no value for one of the two parties – into the negotiation. Deception about this issue was least likely to be affected by trust or negotiation strategy in all-male dyads, suggesting that dyads with at least one female negotiator were more sensitive to social context than all-male dyads. In mixed-sex and all-female dyads, trust and negotiation strategy interacted to affect the use of deception. A consistent picture emerged in mixed-sex dyads, which increased their use of deception when three forms of trust (affective, benevolent, deterrent) were low and negotiators used an accommodating strategy. However, a more complex pattern emerged in all-female dyads. When negotiators in all-female dyads competed, low benevolence-based trust increased whereas low deterrence-based decreased deception. When negotiators in all-female dyads accommodated, high affect-based trust increased deception. Jointly, these findings suggest that in all-female dyads, negotiators use multiple and shifting reference points in deciding when to deceive the other party.