arbiter
JournalsAccount

An Experimental Inquiry of Gender Differences in Negotiation Strategy and Outcomes: Agricultural Market Implications

Chian Jones Ritten et al.

Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics2020https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.302458article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.38

Abstract

The number of women in agricultural management positions and as business owners is increasing. A critical part of agricultural managers' success is negotiating profitable sales, which depends on negotiation strategy. We use laboratory market experiments to measure gender differences in negotiation strategy and related outcomes in three market contexts common to agricultural product sales. Results show that women tend to choose a negotiation strategy that focuses on trading a higher quantity but at a lower per trade profit than men. Our results further show that women will be disproportionately hurt as agricultural markets move away from traditional market environments toward privately negotiated contracts.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.302458

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{chian2020,
  title        = {{An Experimental Inquiry of Gender Differences in Negotiation Strategy and Outcomes: Agricultural Market Implications}},
  author       = {Chian Jones Ritten et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics},
  year         = {2020},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.302458},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

An Experimental Inquiry of Gender Differences in Negotiation Strategy and Outcomes: Agricultural Market Implications

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.38

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.08 × 0.4 = 0.03
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.