Abstract
Gender differences in negotiations can lead women to earn less and become leaders less often than men (e.g., England et al., 2020; Lyness & Grotto, 2018). In light of this, researchers designed specific strategies to support women's negotiation performance (e.g., Bowles & Babcock, 2013; Kray et al., 2012), but Mazei et al. (2020) observed for several specific strategies an
Women's Dilemma in Negotiations and the Implementation Gap
Women have to weigh the benefit of negotiating a higher salary against the risk of being evaluated negatively (Al Dabbagh et al., 2016; Amanatullah & Morris, 2010). This dilemma (Bowles et al., 2022; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012) is due to their gender role (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Gender roles describe how women and men typically behave, prescribe how they ought to behave, and proscribe how they ought not to behave (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012). Men are expected to behave
Bowles and Babcock (2013) examined
Another particularly prominent approach is
However, note that when a negotiation concerns women's
A notable alternative specific strategy is to mentally reframe a negotiation, such that women
Although such specific strategies can be potentially useful (e.g., Bowles & Babcock, 2013), a recent study (Mazei et al., 2020) suggested an implementation gap for relational accounts, feminine charm, and confrontation: Women expected these specific strategies to be less effective than assertiveness in terms of economic outcomes and to be less beneficial than yielding in terms of social evaluations (e.g., building a positive relationship with the counterpart). Due to these expectations, women were found to be rather unlikely to intend to use the specific strategies, especially in comparison to assertiveness (Mazei et al., 2020).
Causes and Extent of the Implementation Gap
In the current research, we compared the specific strategies to
Relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for work by incorporating feminine attributes, as women highlight a concern for others or an organization (e.g., Bowles & Babcock, 2013; Kray et al., 2012). Yet, feminine attributes are seen to characterize an ineffective negotiator (Kray et al., 2014; Kray & Thompson, 2005). In contrast, confrontation is not meant to work by incorporating feminine attributes, but it could be seen as offensive (Mazei et al., 2020) or as being “off-topic,” so that a counterpart could be expected not to concede. Thus, altogether, women may expect relational accounts, feminine charm, being advocated for, and confrontation to lead to lower economic outcomes than assertiveness. With regard to imagining being an advocate, this strategy represents an internal process (i.e., mental reframing). Thus, women using this strategy still have to decide how to behave, making it unclear how they expect it to impact their outcomes. Hence, we raised an exploratory research question regarding the effects of imagining being an advocate (see the end of this section).
Further, as relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for work by incorporating feminine attributes, women using them give the impression of adhering to their gender role. By doing so, however, women could perpetuate gender role expectations (Bowles & Babcock, 2013), which they may recognize (see also Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Thus, women may expect that using relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for would result in greater perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness (confrontation is not included here, as this strategy does not follow women's gender role). In turn, if a strategy is expected to be economically ineffective or to perpetuate gender roles, women should be unlikely to intend to use it. Hence, altogether, we hypothesized (for an overview, see Figure 1):
Conceptual Model of How the Constructs Are Hypothesized to be Related to Each Other.
Women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to lower economic outcomes than assertiveness.
Women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for to result in a higher degree of perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness.
Women would be less likely to intend to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than assertiveness.
Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than assertiveness would be mediated via their expectations regarding economic outcomes and the perpetuation of gender roles.
Although relational accounts and feminine charm work by highlighting feminine attributes, they remain strategies to further one's own interests (Mazei et al., 2020), which contradicts women's gender role (Eagly et al., 2020; Haines et al., 2016). Further, women using feminine charm could be perceived as seeking power via self-sexualization, which could invite backlash (Infanger et al., 2016; Rudman et al., 2012). Moreover, as confrontation could be seen as offensive, women might expect to be evaluated negatively in return. Finally, when being advocated for, women might expect to be seen as shirking responsibility or as weak (a “negative” feminine attribute; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). As people recognize the risk of incurring backlash (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004), women should expect all specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding.
Yet, whereas yielding is fully in line with women's gender role, relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for are meant to improve one's own outcomes—an act of self-concern that is not in line with their gender role (e.g., Bowles et al., 2022; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Kray et al., 2012). Hence, women should expect these specific strategies to lead to a lower degree of the perpetuation of gender roles than yielding.
In turn, when women expect negative evaluations for using a specific strategy, they should be unlikely to intend to use it. Thus, women should be less likely to intend to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding, which should be mediated via their lower expectations regarding social evaluations. As women likely expect yielding to perpetuate gender roles
Women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding.
Women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to a lower degree of perpetuation of gender roles than yielding.
Women would be less likely to intend to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding.
Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding would be mediated via their expectations regarding social evaluations.
In addition, as it is unclear how women expect imagining being an advocate—an unobservable, internal process (see Bear & Babcock, 2017)—to influence any outcomes, we raised the following exploratory research question (RQ) in our preregistration:
How would women evaluate imagining being an advocate as compared to assertiveness and yielding regarding economic outcomes, social evaluations, and the perpetuation of gender roles? And would women be more or less inclined to use this strategy as compared to both conventional strategies?
Finally, although cultural differences are not the focus of our research, we included women from Germany and the United States (U.S.). According to Shan et al. (2019), Germany and the United States are both individualistic and assertive cultures, resulting in a negotiation advantage for men. Yet, Germany fares better on the Gender Inequality Index with a score of .084 (GII; Human Development Reports, 2020) than the United States with a score of .204 (scores range from 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating less inequality)—thus, German women might expect less backlash for role-violations. Hence, German women may be relatively likely to just negotiate assertively, rather than using specific strategies. Therefore, we explored the implementation gap among women from Germany and from the United States and asked:
Does the cultural background (Germany vs. the United States) influence women's evaluations and intentions to use certain strategies?
How to Attenuate the Implementation Gap?
We examined whether providing women with theoretical rationales for the specific strategies attenuates the implementation gap. Specific strategies are typically grounded in theory (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013), which is clearly a strength. Yet, without information about the underlying rationales, people may be unable to understand how and why the specific strategies could be effective. In turn, people's understanding of the consequences of using specific strategies—their expectations regarding economic outcomes, social evaluations, and the gender role perpetuation—fuels the implementation gap (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Mazei et al., 2020). Explaining to negotiators how the specific strategies are meant to impact different outcomes in a compensation negotiation could facilitate a deeper understanding of them and, thus, help to close the implementation gap. This general reasoning is in line with expectancy-value theories, the heuristic model of persuasion, as well as insights into people's decision-making.
Vroom’s (1964) VIE theory has three main constructs: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy (for a helpful illustration, see Karau & Williams, 1993).
1
The theory can explain people's intentions and has already been used in research on negotiation and gender (e.g., Reif et al., 2020; Reif et al., 2019). In VIE theory (Vroom, 1964), the technical term
Providing theoretical rationales leverages the instrumentality-component. As hypothesized above and as suggested by first evidence (Mazei et al., 2020), women typically expect that the usage of specific strategies (“p”) would lead to worse economic outcomes (“o”) in comparison to assertiveness. Likewise, women typically expect that the usage of specific strategies (“p”) would lead to less favorable social evaluations (“o”) in comparison to yielding (Mazei et al., 2020). In turn, these unfavorable expectations drive the implementation gap. Altogether, under normal circumstances—when women are not provided with rationales—women do
Yet, when theoretical rationales are provided, women do receive explanations as to how the usage of specific strategies (“p”) could, in fact, result in desired outcomes (“o”; e.g., improved social evaluations). For instance, a theoretical rationale for a relational account might explain that women using this specific strategy may appear more appropriate by highlighting their relationships (Bowles & Babcock, 2013; Table 1). Thus, women are guided in their expectations of how using a strategy (“p”) could lead to valuable outcomes (e.g., if a counterpart perceives a demand as appropriate, it follows that they likely grant it, resulting in better economic outcomes, or “o”). Thus, the provision of theoretical rationales makes clearer the potential benefits that follow from using a specific strategy—their instrumentality. In turn, if women have more favorable expectations regarding their instrumentality, they should become more likely to intend to use them. Altogether, the implementation gap should be attenuated when women are provided with theoretical rationales (vs. when not).
Descriptions of the Seven Negotiation Strategies and Their Underlying Theoretical Rationales.
Moreover, the heuristic model of persuasion (Chaiken, 1987) posits that people process information on a continuum ranging from heuristic to systematic. When people process information
The expected effects described in Hypotheses 1a, 1c, 2a, and 2c would be attenuated when a theoretical rationale for the strategies is presented.
Regarding the perpetuation of gender roles, however, it is unclear how the provision of theoretical rationales may influence women's expectations. Doing so may
How would the provision of theoretical rationales influence the expected perpetuation of gender roles?
Overview of Our Research
Our research included two studies. In Study 1, we surveyed German women to examine all hypotheses and also RQ 3. Study 2 represents a replication and extension of Study 1 that we conducted primarily to address the limitations of Study 1. Preregistrations can be retrieved as per the following links: https://osf.io/zxaqf/?view_only=3bb11a5f286c4fbda8ac43b4c3be0cce (Study 1) and https://osf.io/swtg3/?view_only=fb7769b0e63a45ff8a44b4792bc1106c (Study 2). We share all materials in the Online Supplement. Our data and code are available as per the following links: https://osf.io/f5mdr/?view_only=bf17f099dc9b49138df5ca81cdff70aa (Study 1) and https://osf.io/zqm9f/?view_only=05cb21e8a4a7443a8d8e8d8a566ba79e (Study 2). We disclose our manipulations, our sample sizes, exclusions, all measures, and the general procedure (Simmons et al., 2012).
Study 1
Method
Design
We used a 2 (theoretical rationales: absent vs. present; between-subjects) × 6 (strategy: relational accounts vs. feminine charm vs. confrontation vs. being advocated for vs. assertiveness vs. yielding; within-subjects) mixed-factorial design. 2 Participants were randomly assigned to one of the between-subjects conditions and evaluated all six strategies.
Power Analysis
We conducted an a priori power analysis for repeated measures ANOVA for two groups and six measurements using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007). Based on prior data (Mazei et al., 2020), we set the correlation among measures to .05 and corrected for non-sphericity with a value of .20. The analysis revealed a sample size of 102 women in order to detect a medium-sized main effect (
Sample
In Study 1, we recruited German women via the WiSo-Panel (www.wisopanel.net), a German non-profit panel with demographically heterogeneous panelists. This panel invites at least 550 participants to studies. A total of 573 participants completed our survey. We excluded four participants who wished to withdraw their data at the end of the survey, seven participants who indicated they were not women, and 58 participants who failed an attention check.
We also included a treatment check, asking whether theoretical rationales were presented, but its wording might have been unclear: Most participants (
This approach led to a final sample of
Measures
Given that participants had to evaluate all six strategies separately, we used one or two items to measure each construct (cf. Mazei et al., 2020).
Expectations Regarding Economic Outcomes
On a scale from 1 (
Expectations Regarding Social Evaluations
On a scale from 1 (
Expectations Regarding the Perpetuation of Gender Roles
On a scale from 1 (
Likelihood of Intending to Use Strategies
On a scale from 1 (
Forced-Choice Item
For exploratory purposes, we asked participants which of the provided strategies they would choose if they had to pick only one (cf. Mazei et al., 2020).
Treatment and Attention Check
Participants were asked whether in most cases the basic idea of the strategies (this expression was used to simplify the language) was presented, along with an example for the behavior, when they had read about the various strategies. An attention check was placed between the questions on negotiation experience, asking participants to simply select the second response option as counted from the left-hand side.
Further Information and Demographics
Participants were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (
Furthermore, participants indicated whether they had ever negotiated aspects of their work (
Procedure and Materials
The study was described as asking about people's opinion concerning negotiation strategies that could be used in work situations. After giving consent, participants read about a hypothetical salary negotiation (adapted from Mazei et al., 2020) and were asked to picture themselves in it. To ensure participants would not skip reading the scenario, the button to continue appeared after ten seconds. Salary negotiations are seen as “masculine” negotiations (Bear, 2011) that typically result in gender differences (e.g., Bowles et al., 2022; Reif et al., 2019). In the scenario, participants were involved in a negotiation and implicitly described as having already made requests, which reflects a certain level of assertiveness (e.g., Bowles & Babcock, 2013; Kugler et al., 2018). Finally, the supervisor in the scenario was described to be hesitant to meet their requests, implying the risk of backlash (cf. Mazei et al., 2020).
Afterwards, participants evaluated all six strategies one after another in a randomized order. For each strategy, an example was given (see Table 1; the original versions in German can be found in Online Supplemental Table 1s). The example for relational accounts was adapted from the skill-contribution script from Bowles and Babcock (2013), the example for feminine charm from Kray et al. (2012), and the example for confrontation from Mazei and Hüffmeier (2014). The example for being advocated for was based on Amanatullah and Morris’s (2010) advocacy approach, whereby the perspective of the person who was advocated for was taken. Finally, the examples for assertiveness and yielding were adapted from Mazei et al. (2020).
In the rationales absent condition, participants were only shown the examples for each strategy. In the rationales present condition, participants were additionally provided with theoretical rationales (Table 1). The rationales were adapted from and closely followed the corresponding explanations presented in the original research (i.e., relational accounts from Bowles & Babcock, 2013; feminine charm from Kray et al., 2012; confrontation from Mazei & Hüffmeier, 2014; being advocated for from Amanatullah & Morris, 2010). The rationales were given in everyday language to make them comprehensible to non-researchers. Notably, theoretical rationales were presented only for the specific strategies, not for assertiveness and yielding, as they served as comparison standards in both conditions. Their depiction was held constant across conditions to prevent introducing a confound: If we had not done so, effects for the between-subject factor could have been due to the rationales provided for the specific strategies
Participants then indicated which of the six strategies they would choose if they had to pick just one. Afterwards, they answered the checks, provided further information, indicated demographics, and were allowed to give comments. At the end of the study, we asked them whether we were allowed to use their data for research purposes and debriefed them.
Results
Due to the numerous single comparisons, we organized all statistics relevant to our hypotheses and RQs in Tables 2 to 5. Test statistics for less central and supplementary analyses can be found in Online Supplemental Material. Further, in order to double-check all results, two of the authors independently conducted all of the analyses.
Study 1: Descriptive Statistics for Both Conditions and Each Negotiation Strategy (
Study 1: Test Statistics for One-Sample t-Tests for the Whole Sample (
Study 1: Test Statistics for Mediation Analyses.
The exact
*
According to the number of mediation analyses for each of women's expectations, Bonferroni corrected α was .013 for expected economic outcomes (as there were four analyses) and .017 for both expected social evaluations and the expected perpetuation of gender roles (as there were three analyses for each of these variables).
Study 1: Test Statistics for Independent Samples t-Tests Comparing the Conditions “Rationales Absent” and “Rationales Present.”
In a re-analysis (all analyses were double-checked), these effects were not significant.
Women's Evaluation of the Strategies
Shapiro-Wilk tests suggested that the assumption of normality was violated for all four main study variables in both conditions. Hence, we conducted non-parametric Friedman's ANOVAs, separately for both conditions, to examine whether there was a main effect for the within-subjects factor of strategy, which could suggest an implementation gap. In both conditions, the strategies significantly differed from each other regarding women's expected economic outcomes, social evaluations, perpetuation of gender roles, and the likelihood with which they intended to use them (see Online Supplemental Table 2s).
We next conducted bootstrapped one-sample
As a robustness check, we additionally conducted multilevel analyses for our main study variables, in which responses regarding the strategies were nested in each individual. For each variable, the results revealed a virtually unchanged pattern of results.
Expected Economic Outcomes
Hypothesis 1a stated that women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to lower economic outcomes than assertiveness. In fact, women expected all specific strategies to lead to lower economic outcomes than assertiveness, which fully supports Hypothesis 1a.
Expected Social Evaluations
Hypothesis 2a stated that women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding. Analyses revealed that women expected feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding. Unexpectedly, however, women expected relational accounts to lead to
Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
Hypothesis 1b stated that women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for to lead to a higher degree of perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness. In fact, women expected each of these three specific strategies to perpetuate gender roles more than assertiveness would, which fully supports Hypothesis 1b. As anticipated, confrontation did not significantly differ from assertiveness. Hypothesis 2b stated that women would expect relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to a lower degree of perpetuation of gender roles than yielding. In fact, women expected all four specific strategies to perpetuate gender roles less than yielding would, which fully supports Hypothesis 2b.
Likelihood of Intending to Use Strategies
Hypothesis 1c stated that women would be less likely to intend to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than assertiveness. In fact, women were less likely to intend to use any of the specific strategies compared to assertiveness, which fully supports Hypothesis 1c. Hypothesis 2c stated that women would be less likely to intend to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding. We found that women were less likely to intend to use feminine charm and being advocated for than yielding, but they were
Women's Expectations as Mediators
We used the procedure by Judd et al. (2001) to examine mediation in within-subjects designs (cf. Mazei et al., 2020). The procedure uses the centered sum of, as well as the difference between, two “
Expected Economic Outcomes and Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
Hypothesis 1d stated that women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for compared to assertiveness would be mediated via their lower expectations regarding economic outcomes. In fact, women's lower likelihoods of intending to use any of the specific strategies compared to assertiveness were mediated via their lower expectations regarding economic outcomes. These results fully support Hypothesis 1d.
Hypothesis 1d also stated that women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts, feminine charm, and being advocated for compared to assertiveness would be mediated via their less favorable expectations regarding perpetuated gender roles. Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts and being advocated for relative to assertiveness were, in fact, mediated via their expectations that using them would lead to a greater perpetuation of gender roles. Yet, women's lower likelihood of intending to use feminine charm compared to assertiveness was not mediated via the expected perpetuation of gender roles. These results mainly support Hypothesis 1d.
Altogether, note that Hypothesis 1d postulated mediation via two expectations—regarding economic outcomes
Results revealed that
Expected Social Evaluations
Hypothesis 2d stated that women's lower likelihoods of intending to use relational accounts, feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding would be mediated via their less favorable expectations regarding social evaluations. Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use feminine charm and being advocated for compared to yielding were, in fact, mediated via their less favorable expectations regarding the social evaluations for these strategies. Women's
Influence of Providing the Theoretical Rationales
To test Hypothesis 3, we conducted robust
Expected Economic Outcomes
Hypothesis 3 stated that the differences between all four specific strategies and assertiveness regarding women's expected economic outcomes would be attenuated when the theoretical rationales for the specific strategies were presented. Yet, providing a rationale did not attenuate the difference between any of the specific strategies and assertiveness regarding women's expected economic outcomes.
Expected Social Evaluations
Hypothesis 3 further stated that the differences between all four specific strategies and yielding regarding women's expected social evaluations would be attenuated when the theoretical rationales for the specific strategies were presented. Providing the rationale for relational accounts did not change its difference from yielding regarding the expected social evaluations (we observed that women expected relational accounts to lead to more favorable social evaluations than yielding). Presenting the rationale for feminine charm also did not attenuate its difference from yielding. Regarding confrontation as compared to yielding, presenting its rationale was initially found to attenuate the difference (
Likelihood of Intending to Use Strategies
Hypothesis 3 further stated that the differences between all four specific strategies and assertiveness or yielding regarding women's likelihood of intending to use the strategies would be attenuated when the theoretical rationales for the specific strategies were presented. Yet, providing the rationales did not attenuate the differences between any of the specific strategies and assertiveness. Moreover, providing the rationales for relational accounts, feminine charm, and confrontation did not affect their differences from yielding (we observed that women were more likely to intend to use relational accounts than yielding and equally likely to intend to use confrontation and yielding). Providing the rationale for being advocated for initially attenuated its difference from yielding (
Exploratory Analyses
Influence of the Rationales on the Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
To explore RQ 3, we conducted bootstrapped independent samples
Forced-Choice Item
A χ2-goodness-of-fit test showed that, when women had to pick one strategy, their choices were not equally distributed (see Table 2), irrespective of whether the theoretical rationales were absent, χ2(5) = 250.72,
Discussion
Hypotheses 1a–d were mostly supported. In comparison to assertiveness, women expected all specific strategies to lead to lower economic outcomes and most of them to a greater perpetuation of gender roles. These expectations (especially, but not only, those regarding economic outcomes) led to their lower likelihood of intending to use specific strategies. The results also largely supported Hypotheses 2a–d. Along with women's expectation that yielding would perpetuate gender roles the most, they expected nearly all specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations, reducing their likelihood of intending to use feminine charm and being advocated for in comparison to yielding. Yet, with regard to Hypothesis 3, providing the theoretical rationales hardly had any influence.
Still, Study 1 was also limited. Most notably, the theoretical rationales used in Study 1 referred to “common social expectations about women” (see Table 1), yet our measure for the perpetuation of gender roles also referred to “expectations of women and their behavior.” These design features might have introduced demand effects. Thus, the main purpose of Study 2 was to address the limitations of Study 1 and to examine whether its results would be replicable. Furthermore, in Study 2, we broadened the set of specific strategies to include imagining being an advocate. Although culture is not the main focus of our research, we included German women and U.S. women in Study 2 to examine the generalizability of our findings from Study 1 more broadly. Altogether, we revised study materials for Study 2 (see below) and again tested Hypotheses 1a–d, 2a–d, and 3, as well as explored RQs 1–3.
Study 2
Method
Design
We used a 2 (theoretical rationales: absent vs. present; between-subjects) × 7 (strategy: relational accounts vs. feminine charm vs. confrontation vs. being advocated for vs. imagining being an advocate vs. assertiveness vs. yielding; within-subjects) mixed-factorial design. In Study 2, we again primarily focus on the influence of the theoretical rationales and the processes underlying the implementation gap (see our hypotheses). Thus, consistent with Study 1, we provide primary analyses based on our full sample and utilizing the 2 × 7 design described above. Afterward, we split our sample by culture and provide exploratory analyses for RQ 2.
Power Analysis and Sample
An a priori power analysis with the same settings as for Study 1, but for a design with seven measurements, revealed that a sample size of
Measures
To improve measurement quality, we used two items for each construct in Study 2. All items were rated on a scale from 1 (
The forced-choice item and the attention check were the same as in Study 1. Given that our treatment check in Study 1 might have been unclear, we simplified the stimulus materials and the treatment check in Study 2: We presented the rationales for the specific strategies in bluish boxes (comparable to info boxes from textbooks), and, for the treatment check, we asked participants whether they were presented with a bluish box for most of the strategies that explained how the strategy is meant to work. In Study 2, fewer participants failed the treatment check (12.83% compared to 42.76% in Study 1). Further, we added a manipulation check asking participants to rate on a scale from 1 (
The measures used for further information and demographics were the same as in Study 1. Again, participants were able to picture themselves well in the described negotiation situation (
Procedure and Materials
The procedure was largely similar to Study 1. We used the same scenario and basic instructions, yet stated additionally that preliminary results from laboratory studies suggest that each of the strategies to be evaluated can potentially be helpful (to make clearer the general potential usefulness of the specific strategies). Further, we used the same behavioral examples for the strategies as in Study 1. For the newly added strategy of imagining being an advocate, we used an example adapted from the feminine-complement prime from Bear and Babcock (2017). One important difference from Study 1 was that we removed from the theoretical rationales any statements about a strategy being congruent with the female gender role (see above; see also Table 1). We did so to address the possibility that women's expectations regarding perpetuated gender roles were guided by the particular wording of the rationales. The rationale for imagining being an advocate was adapted from the corresponding explanation given by Bear and Babcock (2017).
Results
To test our hypotheses, we begin by presenting the results for the complete sample (Tables 6 to 9) and then explore the results for Germany and the U.S. separately (Tables 10 to 12). Again, all results were double-checked by two of the authors.
Study 2: Descriptive Statistics for Both Conditions and Each Negotiation Strategy (
Study 2: Test Statistics for One-Sample t-Tests for the Whole Sample (
Study 2: Test Statistics for Mediation Analyses.
The exact
*
According to the four mediation analyses for each of women's expectations, Bonferroni corrected α was .013.
Study 2: Test Statistics for Independent Samples t-Tests Comparing the Conditions “Rationales Absent” and “Rationales Present.”
Descriptive Statistics Separately for Both Countries and Each Strategy (
Study 2: Test Statistics for One-Sample t-Tests for the U.S. Sample (
Study 2: Test Statistics for One-Sample t-Tests for the German Sample (
Women's Evaluation of the Strategies
Shapiro-Wilk tests suggested that the assumption of normality was again violated for all main study variables in both conditions. Thus, as was done for Study 1, we conducted robust non-parametric tests. Once again, we found that the seven strategies significantly differed from each other in both conditions regarding women's expected economic outcomes, social evaluations, perpetuation of gender roles, and their intended likelihood to use one of the strategies (see Online Supplemental Table 2s).
Thus, we again conducted robust one-sample
Expected Economic Outcomes
Women expected all specific strategies to lead to lower outcomes than assertiveness, which fully supports Hypothesis 1a and informs RQ 1.
Expected Social Evaluations
Women expected feminine charm, confrontation, being advocated for, and imagining being an advocate to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding. Yet, women again expected relational accounts to lead to
Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
Women expected all specific strategies to lead to a greater perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness, which mostly supports Hypothesis 1b (we did not expect such a difference between confrontation and assertiveness). Moreover, women expected relational accounts, confrontation, being advocated for, and imagining being an advocate to lead to a lower perpetuation of gender roles than yielding, which again mostly supports Hypothesis 2b (and informs RQ 1), as women expected feminine charm to lead to a
Likelihood of Intending to Use Strategies
Women were less likely to intend to use most of the specific strategies compared to assertiveness, except for relational accounts (i.e., there was no difference from assertiveness), which mostly supports Hypothesis 1c and informs RQ 1. Women were also less likely to intend to use feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than yielding. Yet, not in line with our hypothesis, they were more likely to intend to use relational accounts and imagining being an advocate in comparison to yielding. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 2c (and again inform RQ 1).
Women's Expectations as Mediators
We again begin by using the procedure by Judd et al. (2001) and a robust estimation with a Bonferroni correction (according to the number of conducted analyses for each expectation, see Table 8). We include imagining being an advocate in the report of our results, and display the test statistics in Table 8.
Expected Economic Outcomes and Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use feminine charm, confrontation, being advocated for, and imagining being an advocate compared to assertiveness were mediated via their lower expectations regarding economic outcomes, which supports Hypothesis 1d (as women did not differ in their likelihood of intending to use relational accounts vs. assertiveness, we did not run an analysis).
Women's lower likelihood of intending to use being advocated for compared to assertiveness was also mediated via their expectation that using this strategy would perpetuate gender roles more, which supports Hypothesis 1d. As we reported above, unexpectedly, women also expected confrontation to lead to a greater perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness, which also mediated their lower likelihood of intending to use confrontation compared to assertiveness. However, women's lower likelihoods of intending to use feminine charm and imagining being an advocate than assertiveness were not mediated via their expected greater perpetuation of gender roles, not in line with Hypothesis 1d. Again, as women did not differ in their likelihood of intending to use relational accounts and assertiveness, we did not conduct a related mediation analysis.
We again conducted competitive tests for Hypothesis 1d using the procedure by Montoya and Hayes (2017), as the separate analyses above revealed mediation via both expectations for confrontation and being advocated for. Women's expected economic outcomes and their expected perpetuation of gender roles both mediated their lower likelihood of intending to use confrontation than assertiveness,
Expected Social Evaluations
Women's lower likelihoods of intending to use feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for compared to yielding were mediated via their less favorable expectations regarding social evaluations, which supports Hypothesis 2d. Women's
Influence of Providing the Theoretical Rationales
We again conducted robust
Expected Economic Outcomes
Providing the rationale for relational accounts did not attenuate its difference from assertiveness regarding women's expected economic outcomes. The same was observed for feminine charm. However, providing the rationales for confrontation, being advocated for, and imagining being an advocate was found to attenuate their differences from assertiveness, although substantial differences remained even with rationales present.
Expected Social Evaluations
Providing the rationale for relational accounts did not increase its difference from yielding (we observed that women expected relational accounts to lead to more favorable social evaluations than yielding). Also, providing the rationales for feminine charm, confrontation, being advocated for, and imagining being an advocate did not attenuate their differences from yielding.
Likelihood of Intending to Use Strategies
Providing the rationales did not influence the difference between relational accounts and assertiveness (we observed that women were equally likely to intend to use both strategies) and was not found to attenuate the differences between the remaining specific strategies and assertiveness. Providing the rationales for relational accounts and imagining being an advocate also did not change their differences from yielding (please recall that women were more likely to intend to use these two specific strategies than yielding). Finally, providing the rationales for feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for did not attenuate their differences from yielding. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was mostly not supported (for Bayesian analyses, see the Online Supplemental Material).
Exploratory Analyses
Influence of the Rationales on the Expected Perpetuation of Gender Roles
Providing the rationales neither influenced the differences between the specific strategies and assertiveness nor the differences between the specific strategies and yielding (see Table 9).
Forced-Choice Item
A χ2-goodness-of-fit test showed that women's strategy choice was not equally distributed (see Table 6), irrespective of whether the theoretical rationales were provided, χ2(6) = 271.75,
Influence of the Cultural Background
We conducted Bonferroni corrected one-sample
The pattern of results for both countries appeared largely similar. U.S. women and German women both expected all specific strategies to lead to lower economic outcomes as well as to a higher perpetuation of gender roles than assertiveness. Moreover, women from both countries expected feminine charm to perpetuate gender roles more than yielding, and the remaining strategies to perpetuate gender roles less than yielding. U.S. women and German women also both expected relational accounts to lead to more, but feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for to lead to less favorable social evaluations compared to yielding. Regarding imagining being an advocate, German women expected it to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding, whereas U.S. women did not expect the two strategies to differ. Regarding women's likelihood of intending to use a strategy, German women were less likely to intend to use any specific strategy compared to assertiveness. However, U.S. women were less likely to intend to use only feminine charm, confrontation, and being advocated for than assertiveness, but equally likely to intend to use relational accounts and imagining being an advocate compared to assertiveness. Women's likelihood of intending to use relational accounts over yielding was similar in both countries, as was women's lower likelihood of intending to use feminine charm and being advocated for than yielding. Whereas U.S. women were less likely to intend to use confrontation than yielding, German women were equally likely to intend to use these two strategies. Finally, U.S. women were equally likely to intend to use imagining being an advocate and yielding, whereas German women were more likely to intend to use imagining being an advocate.
In summary, we found that the implementation gap occurred in both countries for most of the specific strategies. Still, U.S. women intended to use relational accounts and imagining being an advocate just as much as assertiveness, whereas German women only preferred to use these two strategies over yielding.
Finally, a χ2-goodness-of-fit test showed that women's strategy choices were neither equally distributed among U.S. women, χ2(6) = 188.76,
Discussion
The results of Study 2 mainly substantiated the results of Study 1, suggesting that demand effects did not play a major role in Study 1. Again, Hypotheses 1a–d were mostly supported: Women expected all specific strategies to lead to lower economic outcomes and to perpetuate gender roles more than assertiveness, which explained the implementation gap that emerged for almost all specific strategies (except for relational accounts; especially, but not only, expectations regarding economic outcomes were a mediator). Largely in line with Hypotheses 2a–d, women expected yielding to perpetuate gender roles more than most of the specific strategies, and for nearly all specific strategies (except for relational accounts), women also had less favorable expectations regarding social evaluations in comparison to yielding, which led them to be less likely to intend to use many of the strategies. Although women were more likely to intend to use relational accounts and imagining being an advocate than yielding and equally likely to intend to use relational accounts and assertiveness, they were
General Discussion
We extended the extant knowledge on the implementation gap in the following ways. First, our studies revealed that women's expected perpetuation of gender roles when using certain strategies can be an additional root of the implementation gap (besides expectations regarding economic outcomes and social evaluations; Mazei et al., 2020). Moreover, our studies showed that the implementation gap, which can impede progress towards gender parity, emerges for more crucial strategies than previously known (i.e., being advocated for and imagining being an advocate) and in at least two cultures (although relational accounts and imagining being an advocate represent exceptions among U.S. women). Finally, despite our repeated and stringent tests, we found that providing theoretical rationales for the specific strategies hardly had any influence on the implementation gap and its underlying processes. Altogether, our research revealed that the implementation gap is a robust phenomenon. A summary of all hypotheses and respective results can be found in Table 13.
Overview of the Hypotheses and Results.
Theoretical Implications
In our studies, we found that an implementation gap can emerge
Yet, also with regard to Vroom's VIE theory (1964), we found that providing the theoretical rationales did not strongly influence women's expectations regarding the achievement of different negotiation outcomes when using specific strategies. We reasoned that providing the rationales would leverage the instrumentality component, or “p → o” (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996), by making clearer the potential benefits (“o”) that can follow from using a specific strategy (“p”). Thereby, the rationales may potentially guide women who contemplate using a specific strategy in their expectations regarding their instrumentality. Accordingly, we hypothesized that providing theoretical rationales would lead women to become more likely to intend to use specific strategies. However, in most cases, providing the rationales did not convince women to use specific strategies. Regardless of the presence of the rationales, women also indicated that it was fairly clear to them how the specific strategies are meant to work. Thus, our results suggest that more detailed explanations as to how the strategies are meant to work will not help to attenuate the implementation gap. The implementation gap, it appears, represents a noteworthy and stubborn hurdle in the pursuit of gender parity.
We also explored a novel cause of the implementation gap: women's expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using a certain strategy. Women mostly expected the specific strategies to perpetuate gender roles more than assertiveness, which partly also mediated their lower likelihood of intending to use specific strategies. Thus, our findings suggest that women were aware of the risk of perpetuated gender roles and considered this risk when making strategic choices (see Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Interestingly, this risk might be particularly relevant for women who believe that they themselves do not need to use a specific strategy, as they would not expect to obtain any personal benefits from using a specific strategy that could outweigh the negative consequence of perpetuating the female gender role. Altogether, our research illuminated a novel cause of the implementation gap, which is a relevant insight because an incomplete understanding of the implementation gap would hinder progress toward closing it. Therefore, an important avenue for future research is to examine how the expected perpetuation of gender roles can be addressed, for instance, by providing explanations that highlight the benefits of using a specific strategy (e.g., improved economic outcomes), which may ultimately help to reduce inequalities and underlying gender roles (as gender gaps in pay would be mitigated).
Our research extended the knowledge about the implementation gap in yet another way: We found that the implementation gap is not limited to the strategies of relational accounts, feminine charm, and confrontation, but also exists for the hitherto neglected but relevant strategies of being advocated for and, in part, imagining being an advocate (among German women). That is, women could hardly imagine handing over the negotiation to someone else. Although being advocated for was evaluated more favorably when its theoretical rationale was provided, such that (a) women's expected social evaluations, relative to yielding, increased (Study 1) and that (b) women's expected economic outcomes, relative to assertiveness, increased (Study 2), women were still not inclined to use being advocated for. Moreover, they still expected it to lead to relatively unfavorable social evaluations, and only yielding was expected to result in even worse economic outcomes. Women's unfavorable social expectations might stem from the possibility of them being perceived as weak or as shirking responsibility when handing over the negotiation. In addition, simply asserting oneself is, at least, consistent with people's expectations of how a negotiation typically proceeds. In conclusion, our findings highlight that the practical usefulness of advocacy could be limited—although related insights are certainly relevant for theory (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Bowles et al., 2005). Regarding imagining being an advocate (Bear & Babcock, 2017), women were more likely to intend to use it than yielding and, for U.S. women, equally likely to intend to use it in comparison to assertiveness. Hence, this strategy appears to be relatively promising. Yet, it has to be kept in mind that a negotiation counterpart likely is unaware of a woman's mental reframing of a negotiation situation, so the risk of incurring backlash can remain upon using this strategy (Bear & Babcock, 2017).
Practical Implications
In compensation negotiations, women can be disadvantaged by gender roles (e.g., Bowles et al., 2022; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012), leading to inequalities in terms of pay and career advancement (e.g., England et al., 2020; Lyness & Grotto, 2018). Unfortunately, our findings revealed that strategies, which can in principle be helpful for women to address their disadvantages (e.g., Bowles & Babcock, 2013), have characteristics that can fuel unfavorable expectations. That is, women may expect that these strategies cannot help them achieve economic success without inviting negative evaluations (Mazei et al., 2020) or perpetuating gender roles. These insights are relevant for different stakeholders. Negotiation trainers or diversity officers (Leslie, 2019) need to consider that these specific strategies may not be actually used—even when their underlying theoretical rationales are explained. Hence, negotiation trainers may need to enable women to more fully experience the application of those specific strategies, for instance, by observing other women (cf. social learning theory; Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 2001) or by using them themselves and observing their actual effects (cf. behavior modeling training; Decker & Nathan, 1985; Taylor et al., 2005). Similarly, as negotiation contexts are as diverse as women are, negotiation trainers could consider the particular contexts in which specific strategies can be of greatest help for women. For example, relational accounts might be particularly effective in negotiations in which relationships with the organization or other people are strongly valued by a counterpart, whereas confrontation might be particularly effective in negotiation situations in which an injustice has demonstrably occurred. Negotiation trainers should also keep in mind that women may be persuaded differently depending on their culture. Women from “principles-first” cultures (e.g., Germany) often aim to understand
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although we addressed some of the limitations that characterize the extant research on the implementation gap, future research should address the limitations of our work. First, similar to Mazei et al. (2020), we used written descriptions for the negotiation scenario and the strategies. Although participants were able to picture themselves in the situation, future research could utilize videos in which actors apply the strategies (cf. social learning theory; Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 2001). It might also be promising to examine women's expectations and likelihoods to use specific strategies when their usage is strongly encouraged, for instance, by a confident advisor with high expertise (Sniezek & Van Swol, 2001).
Moreover, future research could measure women's actual behaviors (Baumeister et al., 2007) with real ensuing consequences (Morales et al., 2017). Further, our scenario included a rather implicit hint toward the risk of backlash. This design feature may help to explain women's relatively high reported likelihood of using assertiveness (see also Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013) and also why German women in Study 1 expected assertiveness to lead to
Future research is also needed to examine further potential influences on women's expectations as well as the implementation gap. For example, our negotiation scenario did not specify the counterpart's gender. Although the imagined counterpart's gender was not found to have a strong impact in our studies, examining the characteristics of women's counterparts (including but not limited to their gender; see, e.g., Bowles et al., 2007) certainly is an important question for future research. Similarly, more light could be shed on the influence of women's own characteristics, such as their age, occupational activities, or type of activity. Gender differences in agency and communion also are greater among heterosexual samples (Hsu et al., 2021), a tendency that might influence the processes examined here. For example, people who self-identify as women but did not internalize traditional feminine traits may evaluate feminine charm relatively unfavorably in comparison to women who conceive of themselves differently. Related to that, women's individual belief about them (not) “needing” a specific strategy might be another cause of the implementation gap that could be worth examining. Lastly, we explored two countries, Germany and the United States, which are both rather individualistic and high in cultural assertiveness. Thus, future research could examine the implementation in countries with less cultural assertiveness.
Further research on advocacy (e.g., Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Kouchaki & Kray, 2018) would also be relevant. For instance, an interesting avenue is to (further) examine when (and why) women would be more inclined to be advocated for, as well as how other people perceive women who use this strategy. Similarly, regarding imagining being an advocate, Bear and Babcock (2017) found that it helps to increase women's economic outcomes in negotiations, but it remains unclear whether using this strategy would lead to a backlash.
Finally, one of the most important routes for future research is to examine further ways to attenuate the implementation gap. Besides avenues based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and behavior modeling trainings (Decker & Nathan, 1985), women could be provided with empirical evidence suggesting that the specific strategies do “work.” Another particularly important route for future research is to develop further strategies that are more attractive to women from the outset and, thus, more likely to be actually used.
Conclusion
The implementation gap represents an important hurdle to the achievement of gender equality in the workplace. Our studies have taken research on this gap several steps forward. We found the implementation gap to be a robust phenomenon that exists even when women are explained how the specific strategies are meant to work. Moreover, the implementation gap has multiple roots—an insight that can aid in designing new strategies. Furthermore, the implementation gap emerges for previously neglected strategies (i.e., being advocated for and, partly, imagining being an advocate). Altogether, we provided novel insights into the implementation gap that help to guide future research and practice.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843221128484 - Supplemental material for Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes?
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843221128484 for Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes? by Melanie Lietz, Jens Mazei, Marc Mertes, and Joachim H?er in Psychology of Women Quarterly
Supplemental Material
sj-pptx-2-pwq-10.1177_03616843221128484 - Supplemental material for Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes?
Supplemental material, sj-pptx-2-pwq-10.1177_03616843221128484 for Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes? by Melanie Lietz, Jens Mazei, Marc Mertes, and Joachim H?er in Psychology of Women Quarterly
Footnotes
Author Contributions
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
Supplemental Material
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
