Lietz, M., Mazei, J., Mertes, M., & Hüffmeier, J. (2023). Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes?. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(1), 80-112.

Women perceive specific strategies developed to support their performancein compensation negotiations as ineffective and are unlikely to usethem—suggesting an implementation gap. We examined whether providingtheoretical rationales—explaining how specific strategies are meant towork—attenuates this gap. Furthermore, we explored a novel cause of it:women’s expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using astrategy. In two studies (N = 1,254), we observed that regardless of theprovision of the rationales, women expected all examined specific strategiesto be less economically effective and most of them to perpetuate gender rolesmore than regular assertiveness. Moreover, especially women’s expectationsregarding economic outcomes decreased their intentions to use most specificstrategies. Women also expected most specific strategies to lead to lessfavorable social evaluations than yielding, which again led to their lowerintentions to use them. Altogether, negotiation trainers and educators shouldconsider that explaining how specific strategies are meant to work is notenough to close the implementation gap and to reduce gender inequality innegotiations. To attenuate the implementation gap, they may need to enablewomen to more fully experience how using specific strategies can improvetheir negotiation performance.