Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 225–238 | Cite as

Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation

  • Mara Olekalns
  • Philip L. Smith
Report

Abstract

Using a simulated, two-party negotiation, we examined how characteristics of the actor, target, and situation affected deception. To trigger deception, we used an issue that had no value for one of the two parties (indifference issue). We found support for an opportunistic betrayal model of deception: deception increased when the other party was perceived as benevolent, trustworthy, and as having integrity. Negotiators’ goals also affected the use of deception. Individualistic, cooperative, and mixed dyads responded differently to information about the other party’s trustworthiness, benevolence, and integrity when deciding to either misrepresent or leverage their indifference issue. Mixed dyads displayed opportunistic betrayal. Negotiators in all-cooperative and all-individualistic dyads used different information in deciding whether to leverage their indifference issues and used the same information (benevolence) differently in deciding whether to misrepresent the value of their indifference issue.

Keywords

deception dyadic negotiation impressions social motives trust 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aquino K. (1998) The Effects of Ethical Climate and the Availability of Alternatives on the Use of Deception During Negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management 9:195–217Google Scholar
  2. Boon S. D., Holmes J. G. (1991) The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust: Resolving Uncertainty in the Face of Risk. In Hinde R. A., Groebel J. (eds), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bok S. (1978) Lying: A Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York, PantheonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryk A. S., Raudenbush S. W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks CA, SageGoogle Scholar
  5. Butterfield K. D., Trevino L. K., Weaver G. R. (2000) Moral Awareness in Business Organizations: Influences of Issue-Related and Social Context Factors. Human Relations 53:981–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camac C. (1992) Information Preferences in Two-Person Social Dilemmas. In Liebrand W. B. G., Messick D. M., Wilke H. A. M. (eds), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings. Oxford, Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnevale, P. J., C. Wan, R. Dalal, and K. M. O’Connor: 2001, ‚Strategic Misrepresentation of Indifference in Bilateral Negotiation’, Presented at International Association of Conflict Management Conference, Cergy, FranceGoogle Scholar
  8. Dees J. G., Cramton P. C. (1991) Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a Theory of Morality in Practice. Business Ethics Quarterly 1:135–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Dreu C. K. W., Boles T. (1998) Share and Share Alike or Winner Take all?: The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Dreu C. K. W., Weingart L. R., Kwon S. (2000) Influence of Social Motives on Integrative Negotiations: A Meta-analytic Review and Test of Two Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch M. (1982) Interdependence and Psychological Orientation. In Derlega V. J., Grzelak J. (eds), Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillard J. P., Palmer M. T., Kinney T. A. (1995) Relational Judgments in an Influence Context. Human Communication Research 21:331–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doney P. M., Cannon J. P., Mullen M. (1998) Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust. Academy of Management Journal 23:601–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberger R., Lynch P., Aselage J., Rohdieck S. (2004) Who Takes the Most Revenge? Individuals Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekman P. (2001) Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage. New York, W. W. Norton & CoGoogle Scholar
  16. Elangovan A., Shapiro D. (1998) Betrayal of Trust in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 23:547–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrell O. C., Gresham L. G. (1985) A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiske S. T. (1993) Social Cognition and Social Perception. Annual Review of Social Psychology 44:155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giebels E., De Dreu C., Van de Vliert E. (1998) Social Motives and Trust in Negotiation: The Disruptive Effects of Punitive Capability. Journal of Applied Psychology 83:408–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegarty W. H., Sims H. P. (1978) Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 4:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones T. M. (1991) Ethical Decision-Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16:366–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones T. M., Ryan L. V. (1997) The Link Between Ethical Judgment and Action in Organizations: A Moral Approbation Approach. Organization Science 8:663–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley H. H., Stahelski A. J. (1970) Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators and Competitors Beliefs about Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7:401–419Google Scholar
  24. Kenny D., Kashy D., Bolger N. (1998) Data Analysis in Social Psychology. In Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T. (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol 2, 4th ed. New York, McGraw Hill, pp 233–265Google Scholar
  25. Kollock P. (1994) The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment and Trust. The American Journal of Sociology 100:313–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larrick R., Blount S. (1995) Social Context in Tacit Bargaining Games: Consequences for Perceptions of Affinity and Cooperative Behavior. In Kramer R. M., Messick D. M. (eds), Negotiation as a Social Process: New trends. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications IncGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewicki R. (1983) Lying and Deception: A Behavioral Model. In Bazerman M. H., Lewicki R. J. (eds), Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, SageGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewicki R., McAllister D., Bies R. (1998) Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. Academy of Management Review 23:438–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewicki, R. J., M. A. Stevenson, and B. B. Bunker: 1997, ‚The Three Components on Interpersonal Trust: Instrument Development and Differences Across Relationships’, Paper Presented at the Academy of Management MeetingGoogle Scholar
  30. Liebrand W. B. G., Jansen R. W. T. L., Rijken V. M., Suhre C. J. M. (1986) Might Over Morality: Social Values and the Perception of Other Players in Experimental Games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McAllister D. J. (1995) Affect and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38:24–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKnight D. H., Cummings L. L., Chervany N. L. (1998) Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23:473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matheson K., Holmes J. G., Kristiansen C. M. (1991) Observational Goals and the Integration of Trait Perceptions and Behavior: Behavioral Prediction Versus Impression Formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27:138–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Molm L. D., Takhashi N., Peterson G. (2000) Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experimental Test of a Classical Proposition. The American Journal of Sociology 105:1396–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris M. W., Larrick R. P., Su S. K. (1999) Misperceiving Negotiation Counterparts: When Situationally Determined Bargaining Behaviors are Attributed to Personality Traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moskowitz D. S., Suh E. J., Desaulniers J. (1994) Situational Influences on Gender Differences in Agency and Communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murnighan J. K., Babcock L., Thompson L., Pillutla M. (1999) The Information Dilemma in Negotiations: Effects of Experience, Incentives and Integrative Potential. International Journal of Conflict Management 10:313–339Google Scholar
  38. O’Connor K., Carnevale P. (1997) A Nasty but Effective Negotiation Strategy: Misrepresentation of a Common-value Issue. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 23:504–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olekalns M., Smith P. (2005) Moments in Time: Metacognition, Trust and Outcomes in Negotiation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 31:1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olekalns M., Smith P. L. (2003) Testing the Relationships Among Negotiators’ Motivational Orientations, Strategy Choices and Outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sattler D. N, Kerr N. L. (1991) Might Versus Morality Explored: Motivational and Cognitive Bases for Social Motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:756–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schul Y., Mayo R., Burnstein E. (2004) Encoding Under Trust and Distrust: The Spontaneous Activation of Incongruent Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:668–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schweitzer M. E., DeChurch L. A., Gibson D. E. (2005) Conflict Frames and the Use of Deception: Are Competitive Negotiators Less Ethical? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35:2123–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schweitzer M. E., Croson R. (1999) Curtailing Deception: The Impact of Direct Questions on Lies and Omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management 10:225–248Google Scholar
  45. Sheppard B. H., Sherman D. M. (1998) The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications. Academy of Management Review 23:422–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spranca M., Minsk E., Baron J. (1991) Omission and Commission in Judgment and Choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27:76–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steinel W., De Dreu C. K. W. (2004) Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tannen D. (1994) Gender & Discourse. New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Ten Velden, F. S., B. Beersma, and C. K. W. De Dreu: 2004, ‚Heterogeneous Social Motives in Negotiating Groups: The Moderating Effects of Decision Rule and Interest Position’, Paper Presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  50. Tenbrunsel A. (1998) Misrepresentation and Expectations of Misrepresentation in an Ethical Dilemma: The Role of Incentives and Temptation. Academy of Management Journal 41:330–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trevino L. K. (1986) Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review 11:601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Kleef G. A., De Dreu C. K. W. (2002) Social Value Orientation and Impression Formation: A Test of Two Competing Hypotheses about Information Search in Negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management 13:59–77Google Scholar
  53. Weingart, L., J. Brett, M. Olekalns, and P. Smith: ‚Managing Differences in Orientation and Strategy in Group Negotiation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (under review)Google Scholar
  54. White C. H., Burgoon J. K. (2001) Adaptation and Communicative Design: Patterns of Interaction in Truthful and Deceptive Conversations. Human Communication Research 27:9–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yamagishi T., Yamagishi M. (1994) Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion 18:9–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Business SchoolUniversity of MelbourneCarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations