IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/ijba11/v6y2015i2p86-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Availability Bias Can Improve Women¡¯s Propensity to Negotiate

Author

Listed:
  • Yellowlees Douglas
  • Samantha Miller

Abstract

Women¡¯s reluctance to negotiate aggressively on their own behalf has long been thought to account for the striking disparities between the salaries earned by men versus women. Extensive research has documented women occupying a low-wage ¡°sticky floor,¡± encountering mid-level career bottlenecks, or being confined by a glass ceiling. In numerous studies, women have undervalued themselves, responded to stereotypes on women¡¯s lack of aggressiveness, or placed greater value on interpersonal relationships even in negotiating salaries. However, this study found that, contrary to most studies on women¡¯s and men¡¯s propensity to negotiate, women negotiated as aggressively as did their male colleagues. Not only did more women than men negotiate aggressively for a reward, but women relied on heuristics usually seen as misleading in decision-making to make demands in their favor. This study focuses on women¡¯s and men¡¯s reliance on availability, anchoring, and framing¡ªstaples of understanding negotiating behavior independent of sex¡ªin requesting rewards, linked notably to perceptions of the value of their highest-earned salaries and to their job performance compared to their workplace colleagues¡¯. When faced with situational ambiguity and an absence of targets in negotiating a first offer or reward, women may improve their negotiating skills through training that uses priming, availability, or counterfactual thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Yellowlees Douglas & Samantha Miller, 2015. "Availability Bias Can Improve Women¡¯s Propensity to Negotiate," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(2), pages 86-95, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:jfr:ijba11:v:6:y:2015:i:2:p:86-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijba/article/view/6601/3924
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijba/article/view/6601
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    2. Hiau Joo Kee, 2006. "Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Exploring the Australian Gender Pay Gap," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(259), pages 408-427, December.
    3. S. Christian Wheeler & Jonah Berger, 2007. "When the Same Prime Leads to Different Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(3), pages 357-368, July.
    4. Ayres, Ian & Siegelman, Peter, 1995. "Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 304-321, June.
    5. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcus Dittrich & Andreas Knabe & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences In Experimental Wage Negotiations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 862-873, April.
    2. Shuwen Li & Xiangdong Qin & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Revisiting gender differences in ultimatum bargaining: experimental evidence from the US and China," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 180-190, December.
    3. Iriberri, Nagore & Hernandez-Arenaz, Iñigo, 2022. "Gender Differences in Alternating-Offer Bargaining: An Experimental Study," CEPR Discussion Papers 12561, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Hernandez-Arenaz, Iñigo & Iriberri, Nagore, 2018. "Women ask for less (only from men): Evidence from bargaining in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 192-214.
    5. David Neumark, 2018. "Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 799-866, September.
    6. Jussi Palomäki & Jeff Yan & David Modic & Michael Laakasuo, 2016. ""To Bluff like a Man or Fold like a Girl?" – Gender Biased Deceptive Behavior in Online Poker," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, July.
    7. Adriani, Fabrizio & Pompeo, Monika & Sonderegger, Silvia, 2022. "Gender effects in the battle of the sexes: A tale of two countries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 165-178.
    8. Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012. "Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
    9. Paul Goldsmith‐Pinkham & Kelly Shue, 2023. "The Gender Gap in Housing Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(2), pages 1097-1145, April.
    10. Bowles, Hannah Riley, 2012. "Psychological Perspectives on Gender in Negotiation," Working Paper Series rwp12-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. D. Di Cagno & A. Galliera & W. Güth & N. Pace & L. Panaccione, 2016. "Make-up and suspicion in bargaining with cheap talk: An experiment controlling for gender and gender constellation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 463-471, March.
    12. Iriberri, Nagore, 2016. "Women ask for less (only from men): Evidence from alternating-offer bargaining in the field," CEPR Discussion Papers 11514, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Bowles, Hannah Riley, 2012. "Psychological Perspectives on Gender in Negotiation," Scholarly Articles 9830358, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz & Nagore Iriberri, 2023. "Gender differences in alternating-offer bargaining: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 879-914, September.
    15. Priyanga Gunarathne & Huaxia Rui & Abraham Seidmann, 2022. "Racial Bias in Customer Service: Evidence from Twitter," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 43-54, March.
    16. Alison L. Booth, 2006. "The Glass Ceiling in Europe: Why Are Women Doing Badly in the Labour Market?," CEPR Discussion Papers 542, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    17. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    18. Epifanio, Mariaelisa & Troeger, Vera E, 2013. "How much do children really cost? Maternity benefits and career opportunities of women in academia," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 171, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    20. Brahim Boudarbat & Marie Connolly, 2013. "The gender wage gap among recent post‐secondary graduates in Canada: a distributional approach," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 1037-1065, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jfr:ijba11:v:6:y:2015:i:2:p:86-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jenny Zhang (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://ijba.sciedupress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.