Based on role congruity theory, this preregistered meta-analysis examines whether women negotiate less unethically than men. We predicted that moderators related to the person (negotiation experience) and the negotiation context (e.g., advocacy, cultural gender-role inequality) influence the proposed gender difference. We conducted a Bayesian three-level meta-analysis to test our predictions on a sample of 116 effect sizes from 70 samples (overall N = 14,028, including employees, MBA students, undergraduate students). As predicted, women negotiated less unethically than men (Hedges’ g = 0.25). The gender difference held for unethical judgements (Hedges’ g = 0.29), unethical intentions (Hedges’ g = 0.21), and unethical behaviors (Hedges’ g = 0.17). The gender difference decreased when parties negotiated for others as compared to for themselves, when parties strategically used positive affect, and tended to decrease when parties were experienced as compared to inexperienced negotiators. We discuss implications for theory and research.

基于角色一致性理论，这项预先注册的荟萃分析检验了女性在谈判中是否比男性更不道德。我们预测与人（谈判经验）和谈判背景（例如，倡导、文化性别角色不平等）相关的主持人会影响所提出的性别差异。我们进行了贝叶斯三级元分析，以测试我们对来自 70 个样本（总体N  = 14,028，包括员工、MBA 学生、本科生）的 116 个效应大小的样本的预测。正如预测的那样，女性谈判不道德的程度低于男性（Hedges' g  = 0.25）。不道德判断 (Hedges' g  = 0.29)、不道德意图 (Hedges' g = 0.21)，以及不道德的行为 (Hedges' g  = 0.17)。当当事方为他人谈判时，性别差异比为自己谈判时减少，当当事方战略性地使用积极情感时，性别差异趋于减小，当当事方有经验时，与没有经验的谈判者相比。我们讨论对理论和研究的影响。