Moral Character in Negotiation

References

• Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W., & Curhan, J. R. (2008). Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 723–738. Google Scholar
• Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. Google Scholar
• Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440. Google Scholar
• Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure and the importance of the H factor. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1952–1962. Google Scholar
• Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2016). Age trends in HEXACO-PI-R self reports. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 102–111. Google Scholar
• Aslani, S., et al.. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 1178–1201. Google Scholar
• Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Interpersonal relations and group processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345–359. Google Scholar
• Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 387–406. Google Scholar
• Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014. Google Scholar
• Brett, J. M. (2000). Culture and negotiation. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 97–104. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R. (2017). Guilt-prone negotiators make more positive impressions on their counterparts. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Kim, Y., & Panter, A. T. (2014). The five-item guilt proneness scale (GP-5). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2006). Group morality and intergroup relations: Cross-cultural and experimental evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1559–1572. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., & Morse, L. (2014). Moral character: What it is and what it does. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 43–61. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2012). Guilt proneness and moral character. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 355–359. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Agreement and similarity in self-other perceptions of moral character. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 816–830. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2014). Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 943–963. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 39–50. Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 947–966. Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. Google Scholar
• Diekmann, K. A., Soderberg, A. T., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2012). Fairness and ethics in bargaining and negotiation. In M. OlekalnsW. Adair (Eds.), Handbook of research in negotiation (pp. 191–220). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
• Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: Personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 183–193. Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. Google Scholar
• Elfenbein, H. A. (2015). Individual differences in negotiation: A nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 131–136. Google Scholar
• Fleeson, W., Furr, M. R., Jayawickreme, E., Meindl, P., & Helzer, E. G. (2014). Character: The prospects for a personality-based perspective on morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 178–191. Google Scholar
• Gelfand, M. J., Brett, J., Gunia, B. C., Imai, L., Huang, T.-J., & Hsu, B.-F. (2013). Toward a culture-by-context perspective on negotiation: Negotiating teams in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 504–513. Google Scholar
• Gelfand, M. J., et al.. (2015). Culture and getting to yes: The linguistic signature of creative agreements in the United States and Egypt. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 967–989. Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168. Google Scholar
• Graham, J. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. Google Scholar
• Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528–550.Link , Google Scholar
• Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Paying a price: Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 774–789. Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. Google Scholar
• Handgraaf, M. J. J., van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M., & Vermunt, R. C. (2003). The salience of a recipient’s alternatives: Inter- and intrapersonal comparison in ultimatum games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 165–177. Google Scholar
• Helzer, E. G., Furr, M., Hawkins, A., Barranti, M., Blackie, L. E. R., & Fleeson, W. (2014). Agreement on the perception of moral character. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1698–1710. Google Scholar
• Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior? A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20, 129–140. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Glöckner, A., & Zettler, I. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 529–539. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., Hepp, J., Klein, S. A., & Zettler, I. (2015). From personality to altruistic behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 46–50. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty-humility, social value orientations, and economic behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 516–519. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 72–88. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., & Heydasch, T. (2012). Personality, punishment, and public goods: Strategic shifts towards cooperation as a matter of dispositional honesty-humility. European Journal of Personality, 26, 245–254. Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Leist, F., & Heydasch, T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 598–603. Google Scholar
• Hodson, G., Book, A., Visser, B. A., Volk, A. A., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2018). Is the dark triad common factor distinct from low honesty-humility? Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 123–129. Google Scholar
• Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., Pinter, B., Efaw, J., & Wildschut, T. (2005). Interindividual intergroup discontinuity as a function of trust and categorization: The paradox of expected cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 365–385. Google Scholar
• Jang, D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Bottom, W. P. (2018). More than a phase: Form and features of a general theory of negotiation. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 1–39. Google Scholar
• Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 329–342. Google Scholar
• Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855–875. Google Scholar
• Kapoutsis, I., Volkema, R. J., & Nikolopoulos, A. G. (2013). Initiating negotiations: The role of Machiavellianism, risk propensity, and bargaining power. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22, 1081–1101. Google Scholar
• Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., & Ku, G. (2017). A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138, 28–44. Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2018). Text-based unethical behavior forecasting: The Hidden Information Distribution and Evaluation (HIDE) model (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Google Scholar
• LeBreton, J. M., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The dark triad and workplace behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 387–414. Google Scholar
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2012). The H factor of personality: Why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitive—and why it matters for everyone. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Google Scholar
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2016). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25(5), 543–556. Google Scholar
• Levine, E. E., Bitterly, T. B., Cohen, T. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2018). Who is trustworthy? Predicting trustworthy intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 468–494. Google Scholar
• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2007). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill/Irwin. Google Scholar
• Loewen, P. J., Dawes, C. T., Mazar, N., Johannesson, M., Koellinger, P., & Magnusson, P. K. E. (2013). The heritability of moral standards for everyday dishonesty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 363–366. Google Scholar
• Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., & Shapiro, D. L. (1999). The strategic use of interests, rights, and power to resolve disputes. Negotiation Journal, 15(1), 31–51. Google Scholar
• O’Connor, K. M., & Arnold, J. A. (2001). Distributive spirals: Negotiation impasses and the moderating role of disputant self-efficacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 148–176. Google Scholar
• Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29. Google Scholar
• Pinter, B., Insko, C. A., Wildschut, T., Kirchner, J. L., Montoya, R. M., & Wolf, S. T. (2007). Reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: The role of leader accountability and proneness to guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 250–265. Google Scholar
• Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57–75. Google Scholar
• Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness. In M. R. LearyR. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–381). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. Google Scholar
• Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. Google Scholar
• Sharma, S., Bottom, W. P., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting neogtiation outcomes: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 293–336. Google Scholar
• Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes, T., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A multidomain review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 44(1), 191–217. Google Scholar
• Steinel, W., De Dreu, C. K. W., Ouwehand, E., & Ramírez-Marín, J. Y. (2009). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 67–78. Google Scholar
• Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Kendall, S., Folk, J. B., Meyer, C. R., & Dearing, R. L. (2015). Children’s proneness to shame and guilt predict risky and illegal behaviors in young adulthood. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46, 217–227. Google Scholar
• Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• ten Brinke, L., Black, P., Porter, S., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and cooperative losses in negotiations. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 116–122. Google Scholar
• Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 330–339.Link , Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1523–1536. Google Scholar
• van Dijk, E., & Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1–25. Google Scholar
• Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2006). A paradox of individual and group morality: Social psychology as empirical philosophy. In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology (pp. 377–384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
• Wilson, K. S., DeRue, D. S., Matta, F. K., Howe, M., & Conlon, D. E. (2016). Personality similarity in negotiations: Testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1405–1421. Google Scholar
• Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty–humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 286–295. Google Scholar