Journal of Business Ethics 122 (1):89-102 (2014)

Authors
Abstract
Context shapes negotiators’ actions, including their willingness to act unethically. Focusing on negotiators use of deception, we used a simulated two-party negotiation to test how three contextual variables—regulatory focus, power, and trustworthiness—interacted to shift negotiators’ ethical thresholds. We demonstrated that these three variables interact to either inhibit or activate deception, providing support for an interactionist model of ethical decision-making. Three patterns emerged from our analyses. First, low power inhibited and high power activated deception. Second, promotion-focused negotiators favored sins of omission, whereas prevention-focused negotiators favored sins of commission. Third, low cognition-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience fit between power and regulatory focus, whereas affect-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience misfit between these structural context variables. We conclude that regulatory focus primes different moral templates: promotion-focused negotiators’ decision to deceive is determined by moral pragmatism, whereas prevention-focused negotiators’ decision to deceive is determined by opportunism. Because each combination of power and regulatory focus was tied to a specific subcomponent of trust, we further conclude that negotiators engage in motivated information search to determine whether they should deceive their opponents.
Keywords Deception  Dyadic negotiation  Trust  Power  Regulatory focus
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1754-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,577
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Deception and Mutual Trust: A Reply to Strudler.Peter C. Cramton - 1995 - Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (4):823-832.
Ethics, Deception and Labor Negotiation.Chris Provis - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):145 - 158.
Deception in Commercial Negotiation.James H. Michelman - 1983 - Journal of Business Ethics 2 (4):255 - 262.
Domains of Deception.David M. Buss - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (1):18-18.
Reviewing the Logic of Self-Deception.Ellen Fridland - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (1):22-23.
Self-Deception Vs. Self-Caused Deception: A Comment on Professor Mele.Robert Audi - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):104-104.
The Philosophy of Deception.Clancy Martin (ed.) - 2009 - Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-16

Total views
20 ( #562,880 of 2,533,614 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,614 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes