Skip to main content
Log in

Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation

  • Report
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 9:195–217

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok S. (1978) Lying: A Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York, Pantheon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk A. S., Raudenbush S. W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 53:981–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, France

  • Dees J. G., Cramton P. C. (1991) Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a Theory of Morality in Practice. Business Ethics Quarterly 1:135–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 76:253–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 78:889–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M. (1982) Interdependence and Psychological Orientation. In Derlega V. J., Grzelak J. (eds), Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research. New York, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard J. P., Palmer M. T., Kinney T. A. (1995) Relational Judgments in an Influence Context. Human Communication Research 21:331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doney P. M., Cannon J. P., Mullen M. (1998) Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust. Academy of Management Journal 23:601–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:787–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P. (2001) Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage. New York, W. W. Norton & Co

    Google Scholar 

  • Elangovan A., Shapiro D. (1998) Betrayal of Trust in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 23:547–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell O. C., Gresham L. G. (1985) A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske S. T. (1993) Social Cognition and Social Perception. Annual Review of Social Psychology 44:155–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 83:408–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty W. H., Sims H. P. (1978) Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 4:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. M. (1991) Ethical Decision-Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16:366–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. M., Ryan L. V. (1997) The Link Between Ethical Judgment and Action in Organizations: A Moral Approbation Approach. Organization Science 8:663–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley H. H., Stahelski A. J. (1970) Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators and Competitors Beliefs about Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7:401–419

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 233–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollock P. (1994) The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment and Trust. The American Journal of Sociology 100:313–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki R. (1983) Lying and Deception: A Behavioral Model. In Bazerman M. H., Lewicki R. J. (eds), Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki R., McAllister D., Bies R. (1998) Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. Academy of Management Review 23:438–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Meeting

  • 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 22:203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister D. J. (1995) Affect and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38:24–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight D. H., Cummings L. L., Chervany N. L. (1998) Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23:473–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:138–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 105:1396–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 77:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz D. S., Suh E. J., Desaulniers J. (1994) Situational Influences on Gender Differences in Agency and Communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:753–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:313–339

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor K., Carnevale P. (1997) A Nasty but Effective Negotiation Strategy: Misrepresentation of a Common-value Issue. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 23:504–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns M., Smith P. (2005) Moments in Time: Metacognition, Trust and Outcomes in Negotiation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 31:1696–1707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns M., Smith P. L. (2003) Testing the Relationships Among Negotiators’ Motivational Orientations, Strategy Choices and Outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39:101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler D. N, Kerr N. L. (1991) Might Versus Morality Explored: Motivational and Cognitive Bases for Social Motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:756–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schul Y., Mayo R., Burnstein E. (2004) Encoding Under Trust and Distrust: The Spontaneous Activation of Incongruent Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:668–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:2123–2149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer M. E., Croson R. (1999) Curtailing Deception: The Impact of Direct Questions on Lies and Omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management 10:225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard B. H., Sherman D. M. (1998) The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications. Academy of Management Review 23:422–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spranca M., Minsk E., Baron J. (1991) Omission and Commission in Judgment and Choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27:76–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinel W., De Dreu C. K. W. (2004) Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:419–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1994) Gender & Discourse. New York, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, PA

  • Tenbrunsel A. (1998) Misrepresentation and Expectations of Misrepresentation in an Ethical Dilemma: The Role of Incentives and Temptation. Academy of Management Journal 41:330–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino L. K. (1986) Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review 11:601–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:59–77

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • White C. H., Burgoon J. K. (2001) Adaptation and Communicative Design: Patterns of Interaction in Truthful and Deceptive Conversations. Human Communication Research 27:9–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi T., Yamagishi M. (1994) Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion 18:9–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mara Olekalns.

Additional information

Mara Olekalns is a Professor of Management (Negotiations) at the Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne. Her research focuses on communication processes in negotiation. In her research, she has investigated how strategy sequences shape negotiation outcomes. She is extending this research to investigate how impressions and communication shape trust in negotiation. Her work on communication processes in negotiation has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Communication Research, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Philip L. Smith is a Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne. His primary research interest is in building quantitative models of the human visual system. He also applies his modeling expertise to analyses of communication processes in negotiation, focusing on the relationships between situational and dispositional factors, strategy sequences and negotiation outcomes. It has been published in leading management and psychology journals, including Human Communication Research, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Authors' Note The research reported in this paper was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council. We thank Ania Ratzik and Rudi Crncec for assistance with data coding. Correspondence should be addressed to Mara Olekalns, Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia or via email to m.olekalns@mbs.edu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation. J Bus Ethics 76, 225–238 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9279-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9279-y

Keywords

Navigation