In January 2001, I attended a CPR Annual Meeting in which Carrie Menkel-Meadow moderated a fascinating panel discussion on “Gender and Negotiation/Mediation.” The question presented was: “Does the gender of participants influence expectations, behaviors, performance or outcomes in negotiation and mediation settings?” The panelists included Charles Craver of George Washington University Law School, Deborah Kolb of Simmons Graduate School of Management, and Margaret Shaw, then of ADR Associates and now affiliated with JAMS.
Since then I have tried to stay at least conversent, if not really current, on this fascinating topic. I admire Deborah Kolb’s book, The Shadow Negotiation: How Womed Can Master the Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success. I am as aware as others that the gender or the race of a negotiator or mediator may have a significant impact on whether a counterparty is willing to listen and to collborate in an outcome. Charles Craver and David Barnes’ article, Gender, Risk Taking and Negotiation Performance, remains fascinating.
So the topic was one of several on the list I distributed to my students for them to choose for their papers. As Prof. Menkel-Meadow would be quick to point out, I was biting off a lot more than I could chew. I was not shy about sharing my predisposition on the topic: It is very difficult for me to accept that professional outcomes might be intransigently different depending on the sex of the lawyer or negotiator involved. And some of the data on gender-related negotiation styles defies clear conclusion. But the student, Amanda Hon, went far to force me to consider to the contrary.
Ms. Hon’s paper appears below, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. (Endnotes appear below the body of the article.)
Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better!
Why Women Are Better at Negotiation than Men
I. Introduction
The ability to negotiate both efficiently and effectively is a highly useful asset, not only in the business setting but also in personal relationships. From a simple decision on which movie to see or where to go to dinner, to finding a fair and balanced solution to a breach of a contract, effective negotiation is essential to reaching a result that “generates value” [1] for the parties involved. Knowing the importance of negotiation is not enough. In order to conduct a truly “value generating” process, one must know how to negotiate. George Ross, the Executive VP and Senior Counsel of the Trump Organization said, “ To be successful, you have to be able to relate to people; they have to be satisfied with your personality to be able to do business with you and to build a relationship with mutual trust.” Hence, for a successful negotiation to transpire, the parties must form a bond that delves deeper than cordial superficialities at the table.
This paper will show that women are better negotiators than men because women, in general, approach a relationship by trying to find common grounds between various parties. This first step, which lays down the foundation for developing a solid relationship between parties, builds trust and respect. Employing those tools, the parties will be more able to negotiate openly without mistrust, leading to a more successful value building and binding accord; maybe not manifested in the initial agreement, but a lasting relationship which will no doubt, lead to greater prospective value for both parties. To demonstrate this point, the paper will begin by weeding out the characteristics that are commonly thought of to be embodied by a successful negotiator. Then it will delve into an array of studies that exemplify how gender affects negotiation styles, specifically the differences between how males and females negotiate. Lastly, this paper will report the results obtained from studies and extrapolate them to see which negotiation style/gender is more effective in “generating value.”
II. What it takes to be a “Good Negotiator” and what “Good Negotiation” Is
To analyze the effectiveness of a negotiation is to look at the resulting products of that negotiation. The disparity in results obtained pursuant to a negotiation lies not within the factual contents, but within the competence of each negotiator to look past myopic problems and delve deeper into the underlying intent of the opposing party. Only by understanding the veiled needs of each party, will a more creative and honed formula for success arise.
According to Raiffa, the elements that a “good negotiator” embodies are: “assertive, rational, decisive, constructive and intelligent.”[2] On the other hand, Lax and Sebanius identifies that the characteristics of a bad negotiator as “weak, emotional, irrational and too conciliatory.”[3] While the traits of an ineffective negotiator are most often associated with being feminine in nature, the traits of an effective negotiator are usually of the masculine.[4] The “good negotiator” traits stated by Raiffa are not solely confined in the world of negotiation. As Catherine Tinsley notes, the divide that is created by gender is also noticeable in management skills. Essentially, the “values and behaviors expected of effective managers are highly correlated with such stereotypically masculine characteristics as independence, assertiveness, self-reliance, and power and inconsistent with such stereotypically feminine characteristics as communality, caring and helpfulness.”[5] Stemming from these several authors, one would tend to conclude that based on stereotypes, stereotypical males would fair better in obtaining their goals from a negotiation than would a female.
Although men are presumed to negotiate better because of their innate masculine attributes, this is not the case if one opts to use negotiations pursuant to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Dissimilar from formal dispute settlements, which focuses more on “rights-based,” [6] win/lose situation, like adjudication, ADR negotiation is more “interest-based”[7] by focusing “on interest instead of positions” and “aims more at attaining a result that meets the needs of both parties.”[8] ADR is a practice most parties utilize before committing themselves to the lengthy and contentious formalities of an adjudication process. In essence, it is a way to negotiate in a non-formal basis.
While “confrontation and aggression” might be more suited for formal verbal battles in the courtroom, Bradstreet explains that a “conciliatory and collaborative” attitude, as seen commonly as stereotypically feminine in nature, are more conducive to this type of negotiation that generates value.[9] In addition, Herman introduces the Thomas Killman Conflict Mode Inventory, which “proposes that individuals approach conflict resolution based on two factors: commitment to goals and commitment to relationships.”[10] Commitment to goals differs from commitment to a relationship. In balancing these two commitments during a negotiation an individual must assess that one’s interests as well as the other party’s concerns are met and that the value of the relationship between the parties is maintained.[11] This type of analysis directs the individual in deciding which type of negotiation style to employ at each step of a particular conflict: “competing, avoiding, compromising, accommodating, or collaborating.”[12] Hence, by employing a fluid approach to conflict resolution, feminine characteristics would seem to place women at an advantage under this type of negotiation process.
III. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus[13]
After discussing what characteristics are necessary for an agreeable and value-generating negotiation, one must factor in the gender variable by seeing how men and women approach the negotiation table. While it is argued that gender is a socially constructed concept and sex is purely biological[14], Deborah Kolb observes that “in the negotiation field, these [gender and sex] tend to be used interchangeably.”[15] Although this paper discusses negotiations purely on a gender basis, one must be wary in viewing negotiation differences solely based on the variable of gender. Isolating gender would disregard and dismiss numerous other factors that dictate how one negotiates.[16]
Peripheral factors aside, studies have shown that variations do indeed exist between male and female negotiators. Catherine Eckel observed that her studies suggest overall that “women tend to be more egalitarian than men, which further indicates that women may be more sensitive than men to issues of overall fairness in negotiations.”[17] Likewise, when Stuchmacher combined 62 research reports, it was found that “women were more cooperative than men in negotiation.”[18] In Eagly and Karau’s reports of their studies, results also showed that men were more likely to emerge as leaders for short-term tasks, because men were less democratic or less likely to seek consensus in their style of leadership. Women leaders, on the other hand, were discovered to use more “inspirational motivation, individual consideration, idealized influence and intellectual stimulation, as well as empowering and mentoring followers, than their male counterparts.”[19] Additionally, when Eagly and Johnson paired for a study in management and leadership, they uncovered that “men used competitive and aggressive communication tactics, while women were more interpersonally inclined to use more cooperative tactics.”[20] Women, in essence, bred a sense of community, working towards a similar goal, while men’s attitudes triggered a sense of rivalry among participants.
Women and men, not only differ in the ways they communicate but also in how they communicate. Deborah Tannen’s studies on the way men and women communicate show that men “tend to talk for longer periods of time and to interrupt more often than women. In addition, men utilize more direct language, while women defer to tentative and deferential speech patterns.”[21] Additional communicative differences are also illustrated in their use of formulations, which are the ways one reframes, rephrases and summarizes information provided by other people and indicate the level of listening and understanding. The studies conducted by Wall and Dewhurst showed that “females tended to use formulations more for clarification while males used formulations more to maintain control.”[22] By using these formulations for clarifications, “women seek to engage the other in a joint exploration of ideas whereby understanding is progressively clarified through interaction.”[23] Furthermore, in trying to persuade, men used more “highly intensive language,” while females employed more disclaimers in their rhetoric, causing them to be perceived as less forceful. Despite their lack of “highly intensive language,” Craver noticed in his studies that women tend to be more attuned to nonverbal queues, hence allowing them to interpret more subtle messages conveyed by the opposing party during a negotiation.”[24] Therefore, it would seem that by being more attuned to interpreting obscure desires of the other party, women could weed out the unnecessary babble and create a solution much more efficiently.
Not only do women and men differ in verbal communication but also there are also noticeable differences in nonverbal communications. Empirical evidence has shown that “women smile more than men do, and are better are deciphering the meaning of another’s facial expressions. In addition, women tend to engage in a more mutual and non-mutual gazing at others than their male counterparts.”[25] These traits all help the typical female negotiator to conduct a more intuitively prudent discussion between the parties at the table.
As to the results of a dispute, Maxwell detected that male mediators had a propensity towards steering disputants to a preconceived solution while “female mediators, on the other hand, focused more on the emotional aspect of social interaction in developing disputant relationships in reaching an agreement.”[26] Furthermore, Sampson found in his study that in the allocation of judgments and rewards, fairness presided over a female’s decision on equivalent allotments, whereas males tended to be guided by merit.[27] In Sampson’s studies conducted with single gendered male groups, all participants in general were more inclined to exhibit more “self interest and assertiveness.”[28] This could be the result of “group think.”[29] Because all the groups in Sampson’s studies were single gendered males, the gender stereotypes may more often be elicited by having more members of that group.
The differences in the gender not only lie in social construction but also in how the individual is perceived by third parties. Perception by outsiders is also a dictating factor on one’s actions during a negotiation. Because women usually fill less powerful roles than men, third parties tend to see the female gender as less aggressive, leading to the idea that a woman mediator may not be as influential as a man. Moreover, men endowed with a more dominating speech styles are viewed as more effective. This in turn completely disregards the fact that “mediation relies heavily on masculine as well as feminine role behavior. Therefore, because one is usually more focused on the apparent, the contributions of the female role may not be recognized or valued as highly.”[30]
To build on third party perceptions, studies by Catherine Eckel have shown that “individuals preferred to give money to women, especially to those who were identified as low income, even though there were not aggregate differences in the amount given by men and women. This might be due to the fact that women engender greater altruistic feelings than do men, or perhaps women are perceived as being more deserving of or in need of aid.”[31] However, this third party gender expectation can backlash against the gender not acting in sync with their stereotypical roles. According to a study examined by Tinsley, third parties (both male and female) judged women more harshly when they asked for more compensation than men.[32] More shocking is the fact that both genders were unaware that they penalized women more harshly for their assertiveness.[33] Furthermore, not only were females criticized by both genders for not conforming to stereotypes, it is further compounded by paradoxical assignment of trait quality that while over-aggressiveness in men was considered an asset that advocates their position, in women over-aggressiveness was considered threatening and offensive.[34]
While outside perceptions of one’s gender are essential in influencing ability, self-perceptions also come into play affecting one’s proclivity towards a self-sabotaging effect. Mark Boyer and his colleagues focused their studies on the idea of “self-schemas” or “construals of the self.” Self-schemas are defined as how people perceive themselves in relation to the world as well as how they believe the world perceives them. Boyer looked towards psychological explanations for differences between the genders. In analyzing the psychological make-up of gender Boyer noted that “because men’s schemas tended to be independent their tended to define themselves in terms of distinction from others, while female schemas were more interdependent[35] causing them to define themselves in terms of their connections to others”[36] This in turn, causes women to cater their “actions and rhetoric within a negotiation process towards maintaining and protecting these relationships, while men tend to focus on gains thereby personal preferences and goals become the primary negotiation objectives.”[37] Women, view dialogue as a means to brainstorm and an evolvement of goals and interests and the sharing of ideas to further a better ultimate compromise for both parties.[38] Furthermore, because of the self-schema women are more reluctant to engage in conflicts that potentially jeopardize the relationship and hence concede more often than men during negotiations. In general, “women make concessions in the short term because it is the future relationship that is of most importance.”[39] Contrastingly, because of men’s predisposition towards promoting self interest and goals they are more task-oriented and focus on the repercussion of their action while paying less attention on developing relationships. This notion of “competing for recognition” is what has been observed in male negotiators by the studies conducted concerning gender.[40] These studies suggests that women are more conciliatory in their negotiations, the ultimate “value generating” goal for women is the building of that relationship, while for men the ultimate “value generating” goal is the current gain.
IV. The Results: Who Is Better?
In determining the success of a negotiator, one must first determine what success means; fundamentally, what “value generating” means. Is value generating confined to the present negotiation or does it expand to encompass future prospects? By questioning the definition of “value generating” in a party’s mind, one can easily appraise how both genders fair in their negotiations. The high stakes approach men stereotypically take in a negotiation, can either fair very well for their party or very poorly. It ultimately boils down to a win/lose situation. In order for one party to win, the other has to lose. Conversely, although women have shown to take a softer approach to negotiation, their chances of short term and long term loss are greatly minimized; leaving only value to be generating between the parties.
In 2007, “Terence Burnham conducted a study of gender and concluded that men with high testosterone levels were more likely to burn bridges in the final stage of negotiation.”[41] Despite the masculine approach’s effectiveness in “prompting the opposing party to increase the offer and void rejection[42], fragile negotiations calls for a more sensitivity in the context of a negotiation.[43] Comically, this type of aggressive behavior exemplified by the men in the studies shows that this behavior can be easily manipulated and mollified. Bran Van Den Bergh and Sigfried Dewitte “found that men (even those with high testosterone levels) who had been exposed to pictures of attractive women dramatically decreased the frequency with which the rejected low offers in the Ultimatum Game.”[44] So while, women were not as likely to be altered by sexual impulses, the men’s ability to engage in their stereotypical aggressive negotiation changed greatly upon sexual stimuli. Putting the genders together in a negotiation together also uncovered some interesting outcomes. In opposite gender negotiations, if women employed the same tactics used by males, studies show that men find it “difficult to adopt retaliatory approaches and act competitively against women, therefore giving women the bargaining advantage.”[45] This begs the question whether women should be more assertive when negotiating with a man. More studies need to be done on this subject to obtain a more certain answer but this field is a subject of great interest.
Contrastingly, in studies dealing with same sex negotiations, men opted for more threats, insults and staked out inflexible positions nine times more so than women.[46] Women on the other hand resulted in more creative problem solvers, by acting more collaboratively.[47] Furthermore, other studies showed that females tended to “share more information” than men (92% of women compared to 23% of men)[48] and “opened the floor for broader discussions and better brainstorming.”[49] The sharing of personal information between females happened in the first five minutes of negotiation while men tended only to resort to sharing personal information when there was difficult reaching agreement after twenty minutes.[50] Furthermore, one particular study reported only 17 percent of the females discussed position while all males discussed positions.
In a discussion with Helena Erickson, the Senior Vice President, Research, Development and Education, for the Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Institute on November 25, 2009, Ms. Erickson informed me that she thought both genders performed par on par within the CPR, but personally felt that women are more sensitive as compared to their male counterparts.[51] A follow up email, dated December 1, 2009, that Ms. Erickson sent me, documented the success of their mediations from 2008 up until the current 2009 year. It surprisingly showed that both men and women were approximately the same. The research showed 18 completed mediations within the CPR. Of the total eighteen mediations, eleven were success while seven failed (61% and 39% respectively). Of the eighteen mediators, five were women, and in those five mediations, three were successful while two failed (60% and 40% respectively).[52] Hence, according to research done in CPR mediation, both genders were equally successful in their mediations. Although, this data may seem interesting, that both genders performed equally well, one must also note that the CPR Mediators are hired based on their mediations skills. There statistics do not reflect those of the general public.
The conclusions posed by all these studies “strongly suggest that men typically focus more on the competitive elements of a negotiation while women focus more on the relational aspects.”[53] Linda Babcock and Sara Lashever conclude from their research and studies
“That women use a more productive process and are likely to produce better outcomes for both sides because they exchange more information which is essential to achieving a superior solution in an collaborative bargaining situation…which creates a huge advantage because while the competitive approach favoured by men may produce good short-term “wins”, the collaborative approach produces superior agreements for both parties which improves negotiation positions in the future with the same party.” [54]
In addition, Eckel concludes from her research and studies that while “men’s behavior’s give the upper hand in the beginning, it will eventually hinder them to an agreement, while women are able to swim through delicate situations by their means of building a long term relationship between the parties and come to a more binding agreement.”[55] Therefore, according to all these studies, collaboration seems to be the key to a successful “value generating” negotiation that will not only benefit the parties in the short term, but also in the long term.
Conclusion:
This paper has explored what it means to negotiate as a man and as a woman under their individual social stereotypes. The studies discussed in this paper suggest that the difference in the negotiation styles lies in what men and women view as “value generating.” Men tend to think value generating is the immediate negotiation itself. What is best for them is considered value generating. Women tend to take a more egalitarian view of things. Women, as opposed to men, tend to think value generating is what is good for all. In that aspect, although men might fair better at the initial negotiation, women in the end will prevail at producing a more value generating formula for the parties.
Women, by building relationships between the negotiating parties are better at assessing the problems that lie between the parties and are more efficiently able to adopt a fairer and balanced solution. No doubt the aggressive masculine approach will fare better in formal adjudication, where it is a high stakes game of win or lose, but in mediation or conflict resolution such as ADR, women’s attitudes and capabilities have been shown to triumph over men’s. Through the process of building a relationship, women in the long term, generate more value than men. The parties are able to rely and trust one another, and can come to a more amicable solution where both parties in the game win.
ENDNOTES
[1] Buhring-Uhle, C. Arbitration and Mediation in International Business. Kluwer Law International. (2006) at 138.
[2] Raiffa, H. The Art of Science and Negotiation. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, CA. (1982) in Medina, F.J., A. Povedano, I. Martinez, and L. Munduate. How Do We Approach Accountability with our Constituency? Gender Differences in the Use of Influence Tactics. International Journal of Conflict Management. 20(1) at 49.
[3] Lax, D. and J.K. Sebenius. Negotiating through an Agent. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 35: 474-93. in Medina, F.J., A. Povedano, I. Martinez, and L. Munduate. How Do We Approach Accountability with our Constituency? Gender Differences in the Use of Influence Tactics. International Journal of Conflict Management. 20(1) at 49.
[4] Williams, J.E. and D.L. Best. Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty Nation Study. Sage. Beverly Hills, CA. (1982).
[5] Moore, D.P. Evaluating In-Role and Out-of-Role Performers. Academy of Management Journal. 27(3): 603-618.; Schein, V.E. and R. Mueller. Sex Role Stereotyping and Requisite Management Characteristics: A Cross Cultural Look. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13(5): 439-447.; and Schein, V.E. A Global Look at Psychological Barriers to Women’s Progress in Management. Journal of Social Issues. 57(4): 675-688. in Tinsley, C.H., S.I. Cheldelin, A.K. Schneider, and E.T. Amanatullah. Women at the Bargaining Table, Pitfalls and Prospects. Negotiation Journal. 25(2) at 234.
[6] Supra note 1 at 193.
[7] Id at 193.
[8] Herman, C. Understanding Gender and Negotiation. University of Saskatchewan. http://cfcj-fcjc.org/clearinghouse/drpapers/2005-dra/herman.pdf. (2005) at 12. * This paper focuses on ADR types of negotiations or mediation and how it is affected by gender rather than a trial type of negotiation.
[9] Bradstreet, A.M., Dealing with Socialized Gender-Based Behaviour in Negotiations, For the Defense. Defense Research Institute. (1996) in Id. at 12.
[10] Constructive Problem Solving: Presentation to the Community Living Division, Social Services Conference. (2002) in K.Fenwick (2004) “Supplementary Class Materials” at 8 in Id. at 13.
[11] Constructive Problem Solving: Presentation to the Community Living Division, Social Services Conference. (2002) in K.Fenwick (2004) “Supplementary Class Materials” at 8 in Id. at 13.
[12] Killman, T. Conflict Management Conflict Styles: The Five Conflict Styles. http://web.mit.edu/collaboration/mainsite/modules/module1/1.11.5.html in Id. at 13.
[13] Gray, J. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. HarperCollins. 1993.
[14] Miller, J.B. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Beacon Press. Boston, MA. (1976). and Eagly, A.H. Sex Difference and Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Lawrence Erlbatun Associates. Hillsdale, NJ. (1987). in Kolb, D. Too bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal. 24(4) at 517
[15] Kolb, D. and G. Coolidge. Her Place at the Table. In Negotiation Theory and Practice, edited by J.W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin, pp. 261-277. PON Books. Cambridge, MA. (1991). And Gelfand, M.J. L. Nishii, and J. Raver. Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations. Academy of Management Review. 31(2): 427-451. in Kolb, D. Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal. 24(4) at 517.
[16] Kolb, D. and K.L. McGinn. Beyond Gender and Negotiation to Gendered Negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. 2(1): 1-16. in Kolb, D. Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal. 24(4) at 516. Kolb discusses three major concerns when treating gender individualistically. First, there is a downplay of the cultural and institutional mechanisms that create inequities. Secondly, it elides the ways that other simultaneous dimensions of identity intersect with gender to determine who comes to the table. Lastly, it puts the responsibility for change and remedying any disadvantage solely on the individual – “fix a woman” approach – limiting possibilities for negotiating change in the cultures and institutions that potentially contribute to disparities in performance.
[17] Eckel, C., A.C.M. de Oliveira, and P.J. Grossman. Gender and Negotiation in the Small: Are Women (Perceived to Be) More Cooperative than Men?. Negotiation Journal. 24(4) at 441.
[18] Stuhlmacher, A.F. and M.G. Morrissett. Men and Women and Mediators: Disputant Perceptions. International Journal of Conflict Management. 19(3) at 251. and supra note 5 at 1.
[19] Eagly, A.H., S.J. Karau, and M.G. Mahijani. Gender and the Effectiveness of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 117(1): 125-145. in Id. at 251.
[20] Eagly, A.H. and B.Johnson. Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 108: 233-256. in Medina, F.J., A. Povedano, I. Martinez, and L. Munduate. How Do We Approach Accountability with our Constituency? Gender Differences in the Use of Influence Tactics. International Journal of Conflict Management. 20(1) at 49.
[21] Tannen, D. Talking from 9 to 5. HarperCollins. New York, NY. (1994). in Craver, C.B. The Impact of Gender on Bargaining Interactions. The Negotiator Magazine. 2004. http://www.negotiations.com/articles/gender-interaction/. at 1.
[22] Wall, V.D. and M.L. Dewhurst. Mediator Gender: Communication Differences in Resolved and Unresolved Mediations. Mediation Quarterly. 9(1): 63-85. in supra note 17 at 251.
[23] Kolb, D. and G. Coolidge. Her Place at the Table. In Negotiation Theory and Practice, edited by J.W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin, pp. 261-277. PON Books. Cambridge, MA. (1991). And Gelfand, M.J. L. Nishii, and J. Raver. Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations. Academy of Management Review. 31(2): 427-451. in Boyer, M.A., A. Niv-Solomon, L. Janik, B.R. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, S.W. Brown, C.O. Lima, and A. Ionnaou. Gender, Power, and Negotiation: Some Findings on the Role of Gender in Conflict Resolution. 2006. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_cititaion/0/9/9/9/6/pages99963/p99963-1.php. at 13.
[24] Craver, Charles B. The Impact of Gender on Bargaining Interactions. The Negotiator Magazine. 2004. http://www.negotiations.com/articles/gender-interaction/. at 1.
[25] Supra note 5 at 6.
[26] Maxwell, D. Gender Differences in Mediation Style and their Impact on Mediator Effectiveness. Mediation Quarterly.. 9(4): 353-364, see also supra note 17 at 251.
[27] Sampson, E.E. On Justice as Equality. Journal of Social Issues. 31(3): 45-64 in Supra note 17 at 251.
[28] Boyer, M.A., A. Niv-Solomon, L. Janik, B.R. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, S.W. Brown, C.O. Lima, and A. Ionnaou. Gender, Power, and Negotiation: Some Findings on the Role of Gender in Conflict Resolution. 2006. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/9/6/pages99963/p99963-1.php at 9.
[29] Sanfire, W. Group Think. New York Times. August 8, 2004. at 16.
[30] Supra note 17 at 251.
[31] Holm, H. and P. Engseld. Choosing Bargaining Partners – An Experimental Stud on the Impact of Information about Income, Status, and Gender. Experimental Economics. 8(3): 183-216. in Supra note 16 at 436.
[32] Tinsley, C.H., S.I. Cheldelin, A.K. Schneider, and E.T. Amanatullah. Women at the Bargaining Table, Pitfalls and Prospects. Negotiation Journal. 25(2) at 237.
[33] Id. at 239.
[35] Cross, S.E. and L. Madison. Models of the Self: Self Construals and Gender. Labor Bulletin. 122(1): 5-37 in Boyer, M.A., A. Niv-Solomon, L. Janik, B.R. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, S.W. Brown, C.O. Lima, and A. Ionnaou. Gender, Power, and Negotiation: Some Findings on the Role of Gender in Conflict Resolution. 2006. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/9/6/pages99963/p99963-1.php at 7.
[36] Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. (2003). and Markus, H.R. and S. Kitayama. Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review. 98: 224-253. in Boyer, M.A., A. Niv-Solomon, L. Janik, B.R. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, S.W. Brown, C.O. Lima, and A. Ionnaou. Gender, Power, and Negotiation: Some Findings on the Role of Gender in Conflict Resolution. 2006. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/9/6/pages99963/p99963-1.php at 7.
[37] Supra note 27 at 7.
[38] Kolb, D.M. and J. Williams. The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success. Simon and Schuster. New York, NY. (2000). and Babcock, L. and S. Laschever. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. (2003).
[39] Greenhalgh, L. and R.W. Gilkey. Our game, Your Rules: Developing Effective Negotiating Approaches. In L. Moore (Ed). Not as far as you think: the realities of negotiating women. Lexington Books. Lexington, MA. (1986). in Boyer, M.A., A. Niv-Solomon, L. Janik, B.R. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, S.W. Brown, C.O. Lima, and A. Ionnaou. Gender, Power, and Negotiation: Some Findings on the Role of Gender in Conflict Resolution. 2006. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/9/6/pages99963/p99963-1.php at 8.
[40] Id. at 14.
[41] Burnham, T. High-testosterone Men Reject Low Ultimatum Game Offers. Proceedings of Royal Society B. 274(1623): 2327-2330. in supra note 16 at 438.
[42] Id. at 438.
[43] Supra note 16 at 441.
[44] Van den Bergh, B. and S. Dewitte. Digit Ratio (2D:4D) Moderates Impact of Sexual Cues on Men’s Decisions in Ultimatum Games. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences. 273(1597): 2091-2095 in Supra note 16 at 438.
[46] Supra note 5 at 21.
[47] Id. at 21.
[48] Id. at 21.
[49] Id. at 21.
[50] Id. at 21.
[51] Erickson, Helena. Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Telephone Conversation on Nov. 25, 2009.
[52] Erickson, Helena. Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Email on December 1, 2009.
[53] Supra note 5 at 22.
[54] Babcock, L. and S. Lashever. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NY (2003) in note 5 at 22.
[55] Supra note 14 at 442.