Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

When Women Ask, Does Curiosity Help?

View more insights in Professional - Business - Management

View more figures from American University

View the page of Alexandra Mislin

Read the Study

· Tools Cite Embed

Alexandra Mislin the potential social benefits of displaying curiosity during a negotiation.

Image courtesy of interviewee. April 30, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month.

Workspace

Faculti AI is thinking...

< >

Summary
Related Studies
Faculti AI
Key Points
Key Quotes
Translate
Transcript

Export as PDF

This video video discusses research focused on the challenges women face in negotiation settings, particularly regarding salary negotiations. It highlights that women can experience backlash for negotiating assertively, which may lead to negative perceptions and decreased willingness from others to collaborate with them.

In response, researchers explored whether adopting a strategy of "social curiosity" could help women navigate these challenges effectively. Social curiosity emphasizes showing interest in the other party's needs and behaviors during negotiations, which could counteract the negative effects typically associated with assertive negotiations.

The research involved three studies. The main predictions were that women who negotiate with curiosity would be perceived more positively and achieve better negotiation outcomes. The studies found that engaging in curiosity led to positive social perceptions, greater willingness to work with the negotiator, and better economic outcomes without the typical negative fallout associated with self-interested behavior.

Additionally, the studies suggested that women felt more comfortable using a curious approach compared to a direct asking strategy, which could alleviate anxiety about potential backlash. The findings indicate that curiosity benefits all negotiators and may help women overcome apprehensions associated with negotiation contexts traditionally viewed as masculine.

Overall, the research suggests that curiosity can be a valuable strategy for women in negotiations and encourages further investigation into changing societal perceptions regarding women negotiating assertively.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.080 --> 00:02.645
There's been a lot of research that shows that,

00:02.645 --> 00:04.285
when women negotiate,

00:04.315 --> 00:08.405
they suffer consequences sometimes in certain settings,

00:08.475 --> 00:10.925
when they're negotiating, for example, for a salary.

00:11.665 --> 00:13.925
Um, some research has shown

00:13.925 --> 00:17.165
that they can experience backlash, for asking,

00:17.665 --> 00:20.885
and that can lead to more negative perceptions,

00:20.885 --> 00:22.405
lower willingness to work with them.

00:22.985 --> 00:25.085
And, so we were curious,

00:25.085 --> 00:27.685
if there's some other strategies that might be helpful

00:27.945 --> 00:29.885
to women in these situations.

00:30.265 --> 00:33.805
Yes, absolutely. So, so, so again, so our interest was

00:33.825 --> 00:35.565
to see whether or not there is a strategy

00:35.565 --> 00:38.045
that could be helpful to women,

00:38.195 --> 00:40.165
when they do sometimes potentially face

00:40.165 --> 00:41.485
this backlash for asking.

00:41.985 --> 00:44.285
And while, idea of curiosity,

00:44.335 --> 00:47.725
being curious in a negotiation is not something new,

00:47.785 --> 00:51.085
you know, it can be very helpful to engage and ask questions

00:51.085 --> 00:53.085
and collect information during a negotiation.

00:53.505 --> 00:55.005
What's different here is the idea

00:55.035 --> 00:58.285
that curiosity might also affect the perceptions

00:58.285 --> 01:00.165
of the person that you're negotiating with.

01:00.585 --> 01:01.685
Um, and this matters

01:01.685 --> 01:05.845
because according to social role theory, the,

01:06.665 --> 01:09.445
you know, we're conditioned to expect people

01:09.545 --> 01:12.245
to behave in ways that are consistent with our norms.

01:12.505 --> 01:14.565
Um, and over time,

01:15.385 --> 01:18.525
or in the past at least, women were expected to,

01:18.535 --> 01:22.605
maybe they were more, more frequently associated with,

01:22.625 --> 01:24.725
taking care of others.

01:25.225 --> 01:27.965
And for example, as a result of that,

01:28.295 --> 01:32.045
women are then expected to be more communal, more kind.

01:32.865 --> 01:36.405
Uh, and so when they engage in behavior

01:36.475 --> 01:39.205
that seems very self-interested,

01:39.665 --> 01:41.805
and counter to those norms,

01:42.335 --> 01:44.525
there can be some backlash to that.

01:45.145 --> 01:48.885
Um, and so our hope was that, a strategy like

01:49.465 --> 01:50.685
social curiosity

01:50.735 --> 01:53.685
where you're really showing interest in the other person

01:53.985 --> 01:57.685
and their sort of needs, that, that might help

01:57.745 --> 02:01.925
to balance and counteract the effects of, the backlash

02:01.955 --> 02:04.205
that can come from engaging in a negotiation

02:04.555 --> 02:05.885
like a salary negotiation.

02:06.155 --> 02:07.685
Yeah, great question. So, curiosity,

02:07.805 --> 02:09.405
I would say is a mindset.

02:09.995 --> 02:13.845
It's is also been defined as an emotional motivational state

02:14.255 --> 02:17.725
where we are interested in understanding,

02:18.205 --> 02:21.165
specifically our focus on social curiosity in the workplace.

02:21.265 --> 02:23.925
And that's specifically an interest in understanding more

02:23.925 --> 02:27.205
about the behaviors and desires of the other party.

02:27.745 --> 02:31.045
Um, so in a negotiation that might look a little bit like

02:31.605 --> 02:34.765
question asking and maybe positive emotions,

02:34.765 --> 02:37.525
and that some work has been done in these areas before,

02:37.985 --> 02:41.565
but different from those, it also involves sort of a comfort

02:41.835 --> 02:42.925
with information

02:42.925 --> 02:45.725
that's not necessarily explicitly beneficial

02:45.785 --> 02:46.925
to the negotiator.

02:47.425 --> 02:50.765
So it's an interest in understanding, not simply

02:50.905 --> 02:54.645
for strategic purposes, sort of I'm okay with,

02:54.675 --> 02:58.045
gathering information about what you really want,

02:58.105 --> 02:59.765
or why, you know, what are your interests,

02:59.765 --> 03:01.885
even if they're not consistent with them helping me

03:01.885 --> 03:03.205
to pursue my objective.

03:03.315 --> 03:06.805
Yeah, absolutely. So, I conducted three studies.

03:07.505 --> 03:09.845
Um, so my, our predictions,

03:09.985 --> 03:12.725
and again, this was research that I did with H Ha Tsel

03:12.725 --> 03:13.765
and Lucy Pruitt.

03:13.945 --> 03:16.285
Um, and so we worked together on this week,

03:16.605 --> 03:18.965
designed a series of studies to test our predictions.

03:19.345 --> 03:21.445
Our first prediction was that, again,

03:21.445 --> 03:22.725
the social curiosity,

03:23.105 --> 03:24.485
and that's a very specific type

03:24.485 --> 03:26.005
of curiosity in the workplace

03:26.005 --> 03:28.565
that is directed towards the wellbeing, no, I'm sorry,

03:28.565 --> 03:31.005
not the wellbeing to understanding the other person.

03:31.385 --> 03:33.485
So social curiosity in the workplace.

03:34.065 --> 03:35.485
Um, one of the constructs

03:35.485 --> 03:39.725
or dimensions of that is, this idea of being open

03:39.785 --> 03:40.965
to understanding the

03:41.125 --> 03:42.285
interests and needs of the other person.

03:42.905 --> 03:45.045
So our prediction, we had two predictions.

03:45.145 --> 03:47.205
Our first prediction was to,

03:47.705 --> 03:52.325
if a person is engaging in a negotiation by asking

03:52.475 --> 03:56.285
with curiosity, rather than simply asking directly

03:56.675 --> 04:01.125
that this could lead to, more positive perceptions,

04:01.785 --> 04:05.645
which would have a more positive impact on the outcome,

04:06.105 --> 04:09.125
the negotiation outcome in terms of the social perceptions,

04:09.425 --> 04:11.885
are they seen as someone I prefer to work with?

04:11.985 --> 04:14.085
Do I have a more positive relationship with them?

04:14.505 --> 04:17.125
But also the negotiation outcome.

04:17.185 --> 04:20.925
So without having a negative effect on the outcome,

04:21.105 --> 04:23.325
the sort of the economic gains you might think

04:23.325 --> 04:24.325
of in a negotiation.

04:24.665 --> 04:26.485
So that was sort of our main hypothesis,

04:26.485 --> 04:28.605
and we designed two studies to test that.

04:29.065 --> 04:32.285
Um, and I'll come right back to how those were designed.

04:32.345 --> 04:35.005
But our second main hypothesis was then also

04:35.025 --> 04:38.125
to examine whether or not women might be more comfortable

04:38.615 --> 04:42.845
using this, approach compared to men,

04:43.105 --> 04:44.645
or just in general,

04:44.645 --> 04:46.965
because it gives them sort of an alternative way

04:46.965 --> 04:48.365
to engage in a negotiation.

04:48.945 --> 04:52.525
Um, sometimes women have been shown

04:52.625 --> 04:55.325
to be a little bit more anxious engaging in these

04:55.375 --> 04:56.685
types of negotiations.

04:56.685 --> 04:58.045
And again, I wanna be specific.

04:58.545 --> 05:01.685
The research has shown that women can be,

05:02.145 --> 05:05.605
better at advocating for themselves with regards to sort

05:05.605 --> 05:07.085
of making special work arrangements

05:07.105 --> 05:09.565
and other types of negotiation situations.

05:10.075 --> 05:13.005
It's just when it comes to this type of negotiations

05:13.005 --> 05:17.765
that are more, sort of more masculine, associated

05:17.765 --> 05:19.925
with more masculine traits like assertiveness

05:19.985 --> 05:23.325
and asking for more for oneself, those are the situations

05:23.325 --> 05:27.065
where women have been seen to do less well.

05:27.325 --> 05:31.385
So then as a result, sometimes women can have been observed

05:31.405 --> 05:35.265
to be more anxious, when engaging in such a negotiation

05:35.265 --> 05:37.065
because they anticipate backlash.

05:37.565 --> 05:39.705
And so we wanted to test also whether

05:39.705 --> 05:42.145
or not this alternative potential strategy could alleviate

05:42.445 --> 05:46.025
any potential concerns or anxiety, for women.

05:46.285 --> 05:48.265
And that matters because they might be more likely

05:48.285 --> 05:50.705
to engage, in a negotiation.

05:50.805 --> 05:52.385
And if they are more likely to engage,

05:52.385 --> 05:54.785
then they are maybe more likely to succeed.

05:55.125 --> 05:57.405
So our first hypothesis tested the effect

05:57.405 --> 05:58.925
of curiosity on the outcomes.

05:58.945 --> 06:02.605
And the second hypothesis, was to test the effect

06:02.705 --> 06:06.765
of the strategy on the negotiator's, own perceptions

06:06.765 --> 06:08.645
and willingness to engage in the negotiation.

06:09.545 --> 06:11.285
So we had three studies to test that.

06:13.095 --> 06:14.915
Um, and I'll go through the study.

06:14.935 --> 06:17.395
So the first two studies were trans, were,

06:17.395 --> 06:22.115
they were hypothetical, situations where,

06:22.835 --> 06:26.955
participants were imagining themselves in a negotiation,

06:27.335 --> 06:29.155
and they read through transcripts

06:29.155 --> 06:30.755
of a hypothetical negotiation,

06:31.335 --> 06:33.595
and then they were asked to reflect

06:33.655 --> 06:37.395
and react to those, negotiation transcripts.

06:37.895 --> 06:39.235
Uh, the third negotiate.

06:39.255 --> 06:43.915
The third study was a, more of a,

06:44.715 --> 06:48.315
a where we, in study three, we asked

06:48.855 --> 06:51.155
our participants to,

06:52.615 --> 06:54.275
try different negotiation strategies.

06:54.275 --> 06:56.675
And then we observed how they felt as a result of those.

06:57.835 --> 06:59.295
So going back to studies one

06:59.295 --> 07:00.695
and two, I'll start with study one.

07:01.195 --> 07:04.095
Um, in study one, we had,

07:04.825 --> 07:08.455
those participants were crowdsourcing, participants.

07:08.475 --> 07:11.735
We had 240 from prolific. These are working adults.

07:12.635 --> 07:16.895
Um, and we ask them to imagine themselves negotiating

07:17.475 --> 07:21.855
in this particular setting as a, coffee purchaser.

07:22.115 --> 07:25.695
Um, so it's a business to business, negotiation.

07:25.915 --> 07:28.495
And they were purchasing coffee from a vendor,

07:28.775 --> 07:29.895
a sales representative.

07:30.155 --> 07:32.935
So the transcript they read,

07:33.235 --> 07:36.015
put themselves into the buyer's role

07:36.435 --> 07:39.775
and read, the, the transcript from a seller.

07:39.805 --> 07:42.655
This was an actual transcript that we had,

07:42.655 --> 07:45.615
from a different negotiation where parties were either asked

07:45.615 --> 07:49.815
to behave in, behave with curiosity, engage

07:49.835 --> 07:51.255
and negotiate with curiosity

07:51.795 --> 07:55.095
or negotiate, simply directly.

07:55.435 --> 07:57.175
Uh, so those were the two contexts.

07:57.235 --> 08:02.015
And then the, the person that, was the representative

08:02.165 --> 08:04.015
that was being read in the transcript was either

08:04.135 --> 08:05.175
a male or a female.

08:06.115 --> 08:09.415
And so the participant read these transcripts

08:09.715 --> 08:12.975
and then reacted afterwards to the transcripts

08:13.235 --> 08:16.055
by answering questions that allowed us

08:16.055 --> 08:20.255
to capture information about, social outcomes

08:20.515 --> 08:21.735
and negotiation outcomes.

08:22.315 --> 08:27.095
We found that, first of all, we did not replicate

08:27.565 --> 08:29.695
what prior research had found in terms

08:29.835 --> 08:32.895
of the gender difference in our studies.

08:33.325 --> 08:37.855
Both studies, we did not necessarily find that women were

08:38.455 --> 08:40.375
experiencing a backlash effect.

08:40.375 --> 08:43.695
They were not treated more negatively,

08:43.875 --> 08:46.655
for engaging in the negotiation in the first place than men.

08:46.845 --> 08:51.375
However, we did find that, when negotiators engaged

08:51.405 --> 08:55.205
with curiosity, then that led

08:55.265 --> 08:57.605
to more positive social perceptions.

08:57.605 --> 09:00.085
People were more willing and interested to work with them.

09:00.545 --> 09:03.685
Um, people had more positive, perceptions

09:03.685 --> 09:05.325
of the relationship,

09:05.325 --> 09:07.165
when negotiators engaged with curiosity.

09:07.745 --> 09:11.445
And also, in this study one, we found that,

09:12.755 --> 09:15.725
they did not necessarily, they did receive a high,

09:15.835 --> 09:17.845
they were, sorry, let's see.

09:18.105 --> 09:21.845
In study one, in terms of outcomes, we also found that,

09:22.505 --> 09:24.765
the negotiator was able

09:24.785 --> 09:29.045
to achieve a better negotiation outcome, when in terms

09:29.045 --> 09:32.525
of the economic outcome, when they engage with curiosity.

09:34.645 --> 09:37.265
In study two, we found very similar results.

09:37.525 --> 09:39.945
So, we took a slightly different context

09:39.945 --> 09:43.745
because a lot of the past research has shown that,

09:45.095 --> 09:48.505
this, this backlash effect is more pronounced in situations

09:48.505 --> 09:51.505
where women are negotiating, to gain more

09:51.625 --> 09:53.585
for themselves in a self-interested way.

09:53.925 --> 09:57.265
So in this context, we shifted it so women were negotiating,

09:57.685 --> 10:01.305
the to target negotiator was negotiating

10:01.645 --> 10:03.825
for themselves in a performance review setting.

10:04.135 --> 10:08.505
They were asking for, a higher sort of salary increase

10:08.505 --> 10:10.425
after a positive performance review.

10:11.245 --> 10:14.745
And our conditions, either had sort of one

10:14.745 --> 10:17.825
of six different transcripts that target the supervisor

10:18.165 --> 10:20.625
who was conducting the performance review was

10:20.625 --> 10:21.665
either male or female.

10:22.205 --> 10:25.225
The participants in the research were all the,

10:25.525 --> 10:26.625
I, I'm sorry.

10:26.625 --> 10:30.065
They were all the supervisor. I, so let me say that again.

10:30.285 --> 10:33.105
So in the performance in this transcript,

10:33.365 --> 10:36.785
all the participants were a supervisor reading a transcript

10:36.805 --> 10:37.865
of a performance review

10:37.865 --> 10:40.505
that they had given their employee was doing well.

10:40.805 --> 10:43.305
The employee, is either male or female

10:43.685 --> 10:46.865
and is either engaging in the negotiation with curiosity,

10:47.605 --> 10:49.585
asking directly,

10:49.645 --> 10:51.585
or not asking at all for a salary increase.

10:51.605 --> 10:53.385
We wanted to compare even sort of the,

10:53.685 --> 10:57.025
to see if there's a real cost to asking, socially.

10:57.765 --> 10:59.105
Um, and really interestingly,

10:59.175 --> 11:02.745
what we found in this research is that when people engaged

11:02.745 --> 11:06.505
with curiosity, this did lead to,

11:08.545 --> 11:12.035
evaluations of the relationship that were as good

11:12.135 --> 11:14.595
as when people didn't ask at all for anything.

11:15.135 --> 11:18.915
Um, there was a social cost to asking directly,

11:19.415 --> 11:21.315
so they were evaluated more negatively.

11:21.695 --> 11:24.675
At the same time, when people engaged with curiosity,

11:24.865 --> 11:26.395
this had a positive sort

11:26.395 --> 11:30.475
of relationship effect on the relationship, similar to,

11:30.745 --> 11:33.755
when they didn't engage, in a negotiation.

11:34.655 --> 11:38.555
And, we also found that people were less likely

11:38.975 --> 11:42.395
to have a, sorry for that, all

11:42.395 --> 11:43.795
that beeping that's happening with it.

11:44.095 --> 11:47.275
Um, we also found that people were less likely to

11:48.065 --> 11:50.755
receive a salary increase if they did not ask.

11:51.095 --> 11:52.235
Of course, they were more likely

11:52.255 --> 11:54.965
to receive a salary increase if they asked directly

11:55.105 --> 11:56.285
or with curiosity.

11:57.065 --> 12:00.525
So the bottom line here in this second study is

12:00.525 --> 12:04.085
that when people asked whether with curiosity

12:04.225 --> 12:05.805
or directly, they were more likely

12:05.865 --> 12:07.645
to get a salary increase than if they didn't.

12:08.225 --> 12:10.205
But if they asked with curiosity,

12:10.875 --> 12:13.885
they didn't suffer social consequences for asking.

12:14.395 --> 12:17.445
Yeah. And the third study, we wanted to know if engaging

12:17.475 --> 12:19.165
with curiosity would be something

12:19.165 --> 12:21.765
that would be more comfortable for women,

12:21.795 --> 12:23.245
just if the approach would be

12:23.245 --> 12:24.445
something that's more appealing.

12:24.825 --> 12:29.445
And so we conducted a study where we asked women, we to,

12:30.285 --> 12:32.045
actually this was with university students,

12:32.425 --> 12:34.565
and we asked student, we told them again,

12:34.565 --> 12:37.525
a hypothetical situation where they're informed

12:37.555 --> 12:40.645
that they have received an internship offer for the summer.

12:40.645 --> 12:42.485
They're about to go meet with their supervisor,

12:42.785 --> 12:44.445
but they have no information about whether

12:44.465 --> 12:48.245
or not they will be paid for this, they, they and or,

12:48.245 --> 12:50.045
and if so, how much they will be paid.

12:50.345 --> 12:54.325
So they're encouraged to ask during that, negotiation.

12:55.065 --> 12:58.685
And we encourage them to ask either through curiosity

12:58.825 --> 13:01.205
and explain the potential benefits of using that approach,

13:01.425 --> 13:04.165
or we encourage them to ask quite directly and show

13:04.185 --> 13:05.685
and explain the benefits of that approach.

13:06.145 --> 13:10.205
And here we find that women are less anxious when encouraged

13:10.205 --> 13:13.925
to ask with curiosity rather than directly, which leads us

13:13.925 --> 13:16.365
to think they would be a bit more comfortable engaging

13:16.465 --> 13:19.805
and actually following through, with that intention,

13:19.985 --> 13:21.005
in a negotiation.

13:21.065 --> 13:24.005
So that was definitely, very promising.

13:24.005 --> 13:27.685
We also found that, there was no difference

13:27.685 --> 13:30.525
between men and women in terms of, whether

13:30.545 --> 13:35.285
or not they, they did both prefer using curiosity,

13:35.345 --> 13:36.885
as an approach in their negotiations.

13:36.985 --> 13:41.005
So that last, study definitely showed us that women

13:41.345 --> 13:42.605
and men,

13:42.785 --> 13:45.445
but were more comfortable using the approach

13:46.025 --> 13:48.285
of curiosity in their negotiations.

13:48.985 --> 13:50.965
And we think that that's particularly relevant

13:50.965 --> 13:55.605
because men seem to have more, strategies available

13:55.745 --> 13:59.245
to them for supporting, negotiations

13:59.245 --> 14:01.765
that don't necessarily lead to a backlash.

14:02.145 --> 14:05.725
Um, whereas women don't have as many strategies that,

14:06.225 --> 14:07.405
you know, prevent backlash.

14:07.425 --> 14:09.285
And this is one that really can do that.

14:09.545 --> 14:13.125
So even though our research doesn't replicate necessarily

14:13.315 --> 14:17.045
some of the prior work that shows a backlash,

14:17.265 --> 14:19.885
we still find that and believe that engaging

14:19.885 --> 14:22.685
with curiosity is something that may be beneficial

14:23.185 --> 14:25.405
to women in our research shows that it's beneficial

14:25.585 --> 14:26.845
to both men and women.

14:27.115 --> 14:28.805
Well, I think one of the important questions

14:28.805 --> 14:30.605
for future research is, is whether

14:30.605 --> 14:33.405
or not times are changing, in terms of just

14:34.195 --> 14:36.765
whether there is the backlash for women

14:36.905 --> 14:39.405
for engaging in a more assertive way.

14:39.635 --> 14:42.245
There's been a lot of research over the last two decades

14:42.665 --> 14:44.125
and, there's been a lot

14:44.235 --> 14:46.725
that people have learned in terms of consequences

14:46.785 --> 14:47.965
of behaving in certain ways.

14:48.025 --> 14:50.765
And, and it, and, we, we don't

14:50.765 --> 14:51.765
Know. That's an open

14:51.765 --> 14:51.885
question.

14:52.385 --> 14:54.405
Um, but certainly in this research,

14:54.525 --> 14:57.805
I haven't specifically replicated a backlash in the sense

14:57.805 --> 14:59.525
that women have a negative consequence

14:59.525 --> 15:02.125
for engaging in a negotiation,

15:02.315 --> 15:03.805
like a salary negotiation.

15:04.265 --> 15:07.285
But what other research has shown is sometimes we are a

15:07.285 --> 15:10.405
little less inclined to negotiate because we fear backlash.

15:10.785 --> 15:13.445
And that's where I think strategies like engaging

15:13.515 --> 15:14.525
with curiosity,

15:14.915 --> 15:17.925
just having a slightly different mindset when approaching

15:17.925 --> 15:20.125
this conversation, this complex conversation,

15:20.685 --> 15:24.885
I think could be more, again, potentially beneficial

15:25.145 --> 15:26.205
to women.

15:26.545 --> 15:29.205
Um, although our and our work has shown it's beneficial

15:29.505 --> 15:30.765
for all parties potentially.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

University at Buffalo Kyla Wazana Tompkins

Civil Engineering

Optimum numbering and sizing of infiltration-based water sensitive urban design ..

University of South Australia Faisal Ahammed

Faculti