Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:21:32.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gender Stereotyping and Chivalry in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2019

Get access

Abstract

Gender stereotypes—stylized expectations of individuals’ traits and capabilities based on their gender—may affect the behavior of diplomats and the processes of international negotiations. In a survey experiment in the Council of the European Union, we find that female representatives behaving stereotypically weak and vulnerable may trigger a chivalry reaction among male representatives, increasing the likelihood that the men will agree to support a bargaining proposal from the women. The effect is conditional on the negotiators’ cultural background—the chivalry reaction is displayed mainly by diplomats from countries with relatively low levels of gender equality. Our study contributes to the research on nonstandard behavior in international relations, and in particular the expression and reception of emotions in diplomacy. We argue that gender stereotypes may have a moderating impact on decision making based on such intuitive cognitive processes. We also add to the broader negotiation literature, both by showing the pervasiveness of gender stereotyping, and by testing at the elite level the generalizability of claims regarding gender effects derived from laboratory experiments. Overall, our findings demonstrate the importance of bringing gender into the study of international negotiations, where it has been largely and surprisingly ignored.

Type
Research Note
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Financial support was provided by the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (Riksbankens Jubileumsfond). We thank the editor and reviewers of IO for their very helpful comments and suggestions, Karin Aggestam for a stimulating and fruitful project collaboration, and Markus Johansson for excellent research assistance.

References

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aggestam, Karin, and Towns, Ann, eds. 2017. Gendering Diplomacy and International Negotiation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Aharoni, Sarai. 2011. Gender and “Peace Work”: An Unofficial History of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations. Politics and Gender 7 (3):391416.Google Scholar
Alexander, Amy C., and Welzel, Christian. 2011. Explaining Women's Empowerment: The Role of Emancipative Beliefs. European Sociological Review 27 (3):364–84.Google Scholar
Babcock, Linda, and Laschever, Sara. 2003. Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, and Wheelwright, Sally. 2004. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34 (2):163–75.Google Scholar
Barron, Lisa A. 2003. Gender Differences in Negotiators’ Beliefs. Human Relations 56 (6):635–62.Google Scholar
Benton, Alan A. 1973. Reactions to Demands to Win from an Opposite Sex Opponent. Journal of Personality 41 (3):430–42.Google Scholar
Benton, Alan A. 1975. Bargaining Visibility and the Attitudes and Negotiation Behavior of Male and Female Group Representatives. Journal of Personality 43 (4):661–67.Google Scholar
Boyer, Mark A., Urlacher, Brian, Hudson, Natalie F., Niv-Solomon, Anat, Janik, Laura L., Butler, Michael J., Brown, Scott W., and Ioannou, Andri. 2009. Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation. International Studies Quarterly 53 (1):2347Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1):6382.Google Scholar
Byrnes, James P., Miller, David C., and Schafer, William D.. 1999. Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125 (3):367–83.Google Scholar
Cantrell, Stephen R., and Butler, John K.. 1997. Male Negotiators: Chivalry or Machismo or Both? Psychological Reports 80 (3):1315–23.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2005. International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework. International Organization 59 (4):801–26.Google Scholar
Croson, Rachel, and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economics Literature 47 (2):448–74.Google Scholar
Davis, Mark H. 1983. Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1):113–26.Google Scholar
Deaux, Kay, and Kite, Mary E.. 1987. Thinking About Gender. In Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, edited by Hess, Beth B. and Ferree, Myra Marx, 92117. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H. 1983. Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis. American Psychologist 38 (9):971–81.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Wood, Wendy. 1991. Explaining Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (3):306–15.Google Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., and Grossman, Philip J.. 2008. Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. In Handbook of Experimental Economic Results, edited by Plott, Charles and Smith, Vernon, 1061–73. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Nancy, and Lennon, Randy. 1983. Sex Differences in Empathy and Related Capacities. Psychological Bulletin 94 (1):100–31.Google Scholar
Enloe, Cynthia. 2004. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in the New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Stevens, Laura E.. 1993. What's So Special About Sex? Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination. In Gender Issues in Contemporary Society, edited by Oskamp, Stuart and Costanzo, Mark, 173–96. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Florea, Natalie B., Boyer, Mark A., Brown, Scott W., Butler, Michael J., Hernandez, Magnolia, Weir, Kimberly, Meng, Lin, Johnson, Paula R., Lima, Clarisse, Mayall, Hayley J.. 2003. Negotiating from Mars to Venus: Gender in Simulated International Negotiations. Simulation Gaming 34 (2):226–48.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Haggard, Stephan, Lake, David A., and Victor, David G.. 2017. The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations. International Organization 71 (S1):S1S31.Google Scholar
Häge, Frank M. 2013. Bureaucrats as Law-Makers: Committee Decision-Making in the EU Council of Ministers. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hagemann, Sara, and Höyland, Bjorn. 2008. Parties in the Council? Journal of European Public Policy 15 (8):1205–21.Google Scholar
Hall, Todd. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Todd, and Yarhi-Milo, Keren. 2012. The Personal Touch: Leaders’ Impressions, Costly Signaling, and Assessments of Sincerity in International Affairs. International Studies Quarterly 56 (3):560–73.Google Scholar
Holmes, Marcus, and Yarhi-Milo, Karen. 2016. The Psychological Logic of Peace Summits: How Empathy Shapes Outcomes of Diplomatic Negotiations. International Studies Quarterly 61 (1):107–22.Google Scholar
Humbert, Anne L., Ivaškaitė-Tamošiūnė, Viginta, Oetke, Nicole S., and Paats, Merle. 2016. Gender Equality Index 2015: Measuring Gender Equality in the European Union 2005–2012. Vilnius, Lithuania: European Institute for Gender Equality.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Emma, and Bleiker, Roland. 2014. Theorizing Emotions in World Politics. International Theory 6 (3):491514.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kantola, Johanna. 2010. Gender and the European Union. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Mendelberg, Tali, and Shaker, Lee. 2012. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review 106 (3):33547.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Reciprocity in International Relations. International Organization 40 (1):127.Google Scholar
Kray, Laura J., and Thompson, Leigh. 2005. Gender Stereotypes and Negotiation Performance: An Examination of Theory and Research. Research in Organizational Behavior 26:103–82.Google Scholar
Kray, Laura J., Thompson, Leigh, and Galinsky, Adam. 2001. Battle of the Sexes: Gender Stereotype Confirmation and Reactance in Negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (6):942–58.Google Scholar
King, Wesley C. Jr., Miles, Edward W., and Kniska, Jane. 1991. Boys Will Be Boys (and Girls Will Be Girls): The Attribution of Gender Roles Stereotypes in a Gaming Situation. Sex Roles 25 (11/12):607–23.Google Scholar
König, Thomas, and Junge, Dirk. 2009. Why Don't Veto Players Use Their Power? European Union Politics 10 (4):507–34.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 1998. Is the “Hard Bargaining” Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Elections Directive. Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (4):479504.Google Scholar
McKibben, Heather. E. 2013. The Effects of Structures and Power on State Bargaining Strategies. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2):411–27.Google Scholar
McKibben, Heather E., and Western, Shaina D.. 2013. Levels of Linkage: Across-Agreement Versus Within-Agreement Explanations of Consensus Formation among States. International Studies Quarterly 58 (1):4454.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, Albert, Young, Andrew L., and Sato, Sharon. Emotional Empathy and Associated Individual Differences. Current Psychology, Research and Reviews 7 (3):221–40.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Naurin, Daniel. 2015. Generosity in Intergovernmental Negotiations: The Impact of State Power, Pooling and Socialisation in the Council of the European Union. European Journal of Political Research 54 (4):726–44.Google Scholar
Odell, John. 2013. Negotiation and Bargaining. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A., 379400. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Orbell, John, Dawes, Robyn, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 1994. Trust, Social Categories and Individuals: The Case of Gender. Motivation and Emotion 18 (2):109–28.Google Scholar
Plantenga, Janneke, Remery, Chantel, Figueiredo, Hugo, and Smit, Mark. 2009. Towards a European Union Gender Equality Index. Journal of European Social Policy 19 (1):1933.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3):427–60.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let's Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1):139.Google Scholar
Rueckert, Linda, and Naybar, Nicolette. 2008. Gender Differences in Empathy: The Role of the Right Hemisphere. Brain and Cognition 67 (2):162–67.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, Diane, eds. 1999. Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steans, Jill. 2013. Gender and International Relations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Claude M., and Aronson, Joshua. 1995. Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Threat Performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5):797811.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. 2002. In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization 56 (2):339–74.Google Scholar
Stone, Randall W. 2011. Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Alice F., and Walters, Amy E.. 1999. Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcome: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology 52 (3):653–77.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2001. Feminist International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert. 2011. Resolving Controversy in the European Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tickner, Ann J., and Laura Sjoberg, , eds. 2011. Feminism and International Relations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Towns, Ann, and Niklasson, Birgitta. 2016. Gender, International Status, and Ambassador Appointments. Foreign Policy Analysis 13 (3):521–40.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2000. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, S/RES/1325 (31 October 2000). Available at <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/#resolution>>Google Scholar
Walters, Amy E., Stuhlmacher, Alice F., and Meyer, Lia L.. 1998. Gender and Negotiator Competitiveness: A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (1):129.Google Scholar
Walton, Richard E., and McKersie, Robert B.. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wang, Zhen, and Lim, John. 2007. The Effect of Gender Composition and Negotiation Support Systems in Dyadic Setting. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07). Hawaii, 36 January 2007. Waikoloa, HI: IEEE.Google Scholar
Welzel, Christian. 2013. Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Naurin et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Naurin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 254.1 KB