Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale
Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a semester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7-point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yielded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a l...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of organizational behavior 2000-09, Vol.21 (6), p.649-664 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 664 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 649 |
| container_title | Journal of organizational behavior |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Robinson, Robert J. Lewicki, Roy J. Donahue, Eileen M. |
| description | Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a semester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7-point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yielded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a lay model of unethical tactics in negotiation contexts. The emergent factors are: I, traditional competitive bargaining; II, attacking an opponent's network; III, misrepresentation/lying; IV, misuse of information; and V, false promises. The five factors may be reliably measured using a 16-item questionnaire, introduced here, called the 'Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies Scale', (or SINS scale). Analyses of scale ratings by participant demographics yielded some interesting results including: a tendency for women to be more averse to questionable tactics than men; a greater willingness for self-rated 'competitive' individuals to endorse such tactics; and differences in willingness to endorse tactics according to variables such as undergraduate major, years of work experience, and nationality. Willingness to endorse less ethical tactics did not directly relate to actual negotiation performance. Directions for future research, and further uses of the SINS scale, are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-# |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_57757888</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3100394</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3100394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3445-8e47656ce0da6b2672428f1d00bc6dad7b548c1338b1a1f5fddfa90e6ea170423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhH3CwQEJwyOKv2M6CkNql3S5amkOL4DbyOk7rJZu0dtKPf4-zgT3ACV8843nn0XjeJJEETwnG9D3BeZ4SJvO3FMeTv6NkJj4Kns9mh8vP6ZfiiGef2BRP58UHmr5-lEz2HY-TCVY5T2MonibPQthEQMZzMUluju8725SuuUS6KVFnQ7eLUeVuLaq06VqPtm1pa9RWyHZXzuh6J-2bP9la-0vtmqGviw3OhBlyTefbsje7xyuLzpdn5yhEtX2ePKl0HeyL3_dB8u3k-GJ-mq6KxXJ-uEoN4zxLleVSZMJYXGqxpkJSTlVFSozXRpS6lOuMK0MYU2uiSZVVZVnpHFthNZGYU3aQvBm517696eO_YOuCsXWtG9v2ATIpM6mUisJXfwk3be-bOBtQypVQjOMo-jqKjG9D8LaCa--22j8AwTD4A8O2Ydg2jP4AJSAg-gMQ_YGdP8AAw7yAYbpi5N252j78B-xf1phG4suRuAnRsz2RRR7LeSynY9mFzt7vy9r_BCGZzOD72QJ-yNPVxQldwBH7BfCdtxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>224868340</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Robinson, Robert J. ; Lewicki, Roy J. ; Donahue, Eileen M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Robert J. ; Lewicki, Roy J. ; Donahue, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><description>Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a semester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7-point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yielded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a lay model of unethical tactics in negotiation contexts. The emergent factors are: I, traditional competitive bargaining; II, attacking an opponent's network; III, misrepresentation/lying; IV, misuse of information; and V, false promises. The five factors may be reliably measured using a 16-item questionnaire, introduced here, called the 'Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies Scale', (or SINS scale). Analyses of scale ratings by participant demographics yielded some interesting results including: a tendency for women to be more averse to questionable tactics than men; a greater willingness for self-rated 'competitive' individuals to endorse such tactics; and differences in willingness to endorse tactics according to variables such as undergraduate major, years of work experience, and nationality. Willingness to endorse less ethical tactics did not directly relate to actual negotiation performance. Directions for future research, and further uses of the SINS scale, are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-3796</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1379</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-#</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JORBEJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Bargaining ; Business ethics ; Competition ; Constituents ; Deception ; Ethical behavior ; Ethics ; Factor analysis ; Five factor model ; Gender ; Graduate students ; Lying ; Measures ; Men ; Military tactics ; Misrepresentation ; Negotiation ; Negotiations ; Organizational behavior ; Professional ethics ; Questionnaires ; Simulation ; Sin ; Statistical analysis ; Students ; Studies ; Tactics</subject><ispartof>Journal of organizational behavior, 2000-09, Vol.21 (6), p.649-664</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Periodicals Inc. Sep 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3445-8e47656ce0da6b2672428f1d00bc6dad7b548c1338b1a1f5fddfa90e6ea170423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3100394$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3100394$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,12846,27924,27925,30999,31000,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewicki, Roy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donahue, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><title>Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale</title><title>Journal of organizational behavior</title><addtitle>J. Organiz. Behav</addtitle><description>Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a semester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7-point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yielded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a lay model of unethical tactics in negotiation contexts. The emergent factors are: I, traditional competitive bargaining; II, attacking an opponent's network; III, misrepresentation/lying; IV, misuse of information; and V, false promises. The five factors may be reliably measured using a 16-item questionnaire, introduced here, called the 'Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies Scale', (or SINS scale). Analyses of scale ratings by participant demographics yielded some interesting results including: a tendency for women to be more averse to questionable tactics than men; a greater willingness for self-rated 'competitive' individuals to endorse such tactics; and differences in willingness to endorse tactics according to variables such as undergraduate major, years of work experience, and nationality. Willingness to endorse less ethical tactics did not directly relate to actual negotiation performance. Directions for future research, and further uses of the SINS scale, are discussed.</description><subject>Bargaining</subject><subject>Business ethics</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Constituents</subject><subject>Deception</subject><subject>Ethical behavior</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Factor analysis</subject><subject>Five factor model</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Graduate students</subject><subject>Lying</subject><subject>Measures</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>Military tactics</subject><subject>Misrepresentation</subject><subject>Negotiation</subject><subject>Negotiations</subject><subject>Organizational behavior</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Sin</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tactics</subject><issn>0894-3796</issn><issn>1099-1379</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhH3CwQEJwyOKv2M6CkNql3S5amkOL4DbyOk7rJZu0dtKPf4-zgT3ACV8843nn0XjeJJEETwnG9D3BeZ4SJvO3FMeTv6NkJj4Kns9mh8vP6ZfiiGef2BRP58UHmr5-lEz2HY-TCVY5T2MonibPQthEQMZzMUluju8725SuuUS6KVFnQ7eLUeVuLaq06VqPtm1pa9RWyHZXzuh6J-2bP9la-0vtmqGviw3OhBlyTefbsje7xyuLzpdn5yhEtX2ePKl0HeyL3_dB8u3k-GJ-mq6KxXJ-uEoN4zxLleVSZMJYXGqxpkJSTlVFSozXRpS6lOuMK0MYU2uiSZVVZVnpHFthNZGYU3aQvBm517696eO_YOuCsXWtG9v2ATIpM6mUisJXfwk3be-bOBtQypVQjOMo-jqKjG9D8LaCa--22j8AwTD4A8O2Ydg2jP4AJSAg-gMQ_YGdP8AAw7yAYbpi5N252j78B-xf1phG4suRuAnRsz2RRR7LeSynY9mFzt7vy9r_BCGZzOD72QJ-yNPVxQldwBH7BfCdtxg</recordid><startdate>200009</startdate><enddate>200009</enddate><creator>Robinson, Robert J.</creator><creator>Lewicki, Roy J.</creator><creator>Donahue, Eileen M.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>John Wiley & Sons</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200009</creationdate><title>Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale</title><author>Robinson, Robert J. ; Lewicki, Roy J. ; Donahue, Eileen M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3445-8e47656ce0da6b2672428f1d00bc6dad7b548c1338b1a1f5fddfa90e6ea170423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Bargaining</topic><topic>Business ethics</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Constituents</topic><topic>Deception</topic><topic>Ethical behavior</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Factor analysis</topic><topic>Five factor model</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Graduate students</topic><topic>Lying</topic><topic>Measures</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>Military tactics</topic><topic>Misrepresentation</topic><topic>Negotiation</topic><topic>Negotiations</topic><topic>Organizational behavior</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Sin</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tactics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewicki, Roy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donahue, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of organizational behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Robinson, Robert J.</au><au>Lewicki, Roy J.</au><au>Donahue, Eileen M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale</atitle><jtitle>Journal of organizational behavior</jtitle><addtitle>J. Organiz. Behav</addtitle><date>2000-09</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>649</spage><epage>664</epage><pages>649-664</pages><issn>0894-3796</issn><eissn>1099-1379</eissn><coden>JORBEJ</coden><abstract>Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a semester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7-point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yielded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a lay model of unethical tactics in negotiation contexts. The emergent factors are: I, traditional competitive bargaining; II, attacking an opponent's network; III, misrepresentation/lying; IV, misuse of information; and V, false promises. The five factors may be reliably measured using a 16-item questionnaire, introduced here, called the 'Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies Scale', (or SINS scale). Analyses of scale ratings by participant demographics yielded some interesting results including: a tendency for women to be more averse to questionable tactics than men; a greater willingness for self-rated 'competitive' individuals to endorse such tactics; and differences in willingness to endorse tactics according to variables such as undergraduate major, years of work experience, and nationality. Willingness to endorse less ethical tactics did not directly relate to actual negotiation performance. Directions for future research, and further uses of the SINS scale, are discussed.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-#</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0894-3796 |
| ispartof | Journal of organizational behavior, 2000-09, Vol.21 (6), p.649-664 |
| issn | 0894-3796 1099-1379 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_57757888 |
| source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Bargaining Business ethics Competition Constituents Deception Ethical behavior Ethics Factor analysis Five factor model Gender Graduate students Lying Measures Men Military tactics Misrepresentation Negotiation Negotiations Organizational behavior Professional ethics Questionnaires Simulation Sin Statistical analysis Students Studies Tactics |
| title | Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T04%3A53%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extending%20and%20testing%20a%20five%20factor%20model%20of%20ethical%20and%20unethical%20bargaining%20tactics:%20introducing%20the%20SINS%20scale&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20organizational%20behavior&rft.au=Robinson,%20Robert%20J.&rft.date=2000-09&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=649&rft.epage=664&rft.pages=649-664&rft.issn=0894-3796&rft.eissn=1099-1379&rft.coden=JORBEJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6%3C649::AID-JOB45%3E3.0.CO;2-%23&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3100394%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=224868340&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3100394&rfr_iscdi=true |