What terrible science. And terrible science journalism. Link to underlying study: https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/Lamberton-Cait%20PAPER.

What terrible science. And terrible science journalism. Link to underlying study: https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/Lamberton-Cait%20PAPER.pdf https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/Lambert... So many holes in this. First of all, the study construction is contrived and the results are vastly overgeneralized. It's so shoddy it's hardly worth pointing out all the issues. Here's a thought experiment, though: say a study with questionable methodology were published and it's conclusion was that females negotiate less effectively than males (just as this study seems to imply males are less likely to compromise than females). Then let's say that the study speculates that this is because females are attempting to adhere to gender normative stereotypes, eg being meek or some such. Then let's say that some journalist writes up an article saying "Women can't negotiate without men around"... what would the reaction be? This is a gross study and a really poor write-up, which is disappointing to see in the WP.