Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:02:48.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Instrumental Account of Deception and Reactions to Deceit in Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Lukas Koning ,
Eric van Dijk ,
Ilja van Beest  and
Wolfgang Steinel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the current paper we present an instrumental approach to deception. This approach incorporates the notion that bargainers (a) will use deception as a means to reach their goals in bargaining but (b) will refrain from using deception when they have alternative means to reach their goals. We demonstrate that different goals can lead to differences in the use of deception (Experiment 1). Furthermore, we demonstrate that reactions to deceit can also be understood from an instrumental perspective (Experiment 2).

Type
Special Issue Behavioral Ethics: A New Empirical Perspective on Business Ethics Research
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 57 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Becker, G. M., & McClintock, C. G. 1967. Value: Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 18: 239–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. 2000. Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83: 235–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dees, J. G., & Cramton, P. C. 1991. Shrewd bargaining on the moral frontier: Toward a theory of morality in practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1: 135–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. 1996. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 979–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, W. 1961. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12: 473–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, R. M. 1972a. Exchange theory, part 1: A psychological basis for social exchange. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B. (Eds.), Social theories in progress: vol. 2, pp. 38–57). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. 1972b. Exchange theory, part 2: Exchange relations and networks. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B. (Eds.), Social theories in progress: vol. 2, pp. 58–87). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fellner, G., & Güth, W. 2003. What limits escalation? Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment. Economics Letters, 80: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, J. P. R. Jr., & Raven, B. 1960. The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (Eds.), Group dynamics: 607–23. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U. 2005. Deception: The role of consequences. The American Economic Review, 95: 384–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. 1982. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3: 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadlec, D. 2002. Enron: Who’s accountable? Time. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,193520,00.html.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. 1978. Interpersonal relations. A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Intersience.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koning, L., Steinel, W., Van Beest, I., & van Dijk, E. 2007. Power and deception in bargaining. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association of Conflict Management in Budapest, Hungary. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087363.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J. 1983. Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In Bazerman, M. H. & Lewicki, R. J. (Eds.), Negotiating in organization: 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. 1989. Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19: 353–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. 1968. Motivational basis of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. R., & Biglan, A. 1971. Instrumentality theories: Current uses in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 76: 432–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murnighan, J. K., Babcock, L., Thompson, L., & Pillutla, M. 1999. The information dilemma in negotiations: Effects of experience, incentives and integrative potential. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10: 313–39.Google Scholar
Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. 1995. Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1408–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suleiman, R. 1996. Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7: 531–54.CrossRefGoogle 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: 419–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tenbrunsel, A. E. 1998. Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 330–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. 1999. The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. 1994. Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. 1997. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 733–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed