A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcomes and Their Moderators Jens Mazei University of Münster Joachim Hüffmeier Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Philipp Alexander Freund Leuphana University at Lüneburg Alice F. Stuhlmacher DePaul University Lena Bilke and Guido Hertel University of Münster This meta-analysis investigates gender differences in economic negotiation outcomes. As suggested by role congruity theory, we assume that the behaviors that increase economic negotiation outcomes are more congruent with the male as compared with the female gender role, thereby presenting challenges for women’s negotiation performance and reducing their outcomes. Importantly, this main effect is predicted to be moderated by person-based, situation-based, and task-based influences that make effective negotiation behavior more congruent with the female gender role, which should in turn reduce or even reverse gender differences in negotiation outcomes. Using a multilevel modeling approach, this meta-analysis includes 123 effect sizes (overall N  10,888, including undergraduate and graduate students as well as businesspeople). Studies were included when they enabled the calculation of an effect size reflecting gender differences in achieved economic negotiation outcomes. As predicted, men achieved better economic outcomes than women on average, but gender differences strongly depended on the context: Moderator analysis revealed that gender differences favoring men were reduced when negotiators had negotiation experience, when they received information about the bargaining range, and when they negotiated on behalf of another individual. Moreover, gender differences were reversed under conditions of the lowest predicted role incongruity for women. In conclusion, gender differences in negotiations are contextually bound and can be subject to change. Future research is needed that investigates the underlying mechanisms of new moderators revealed in the current research (e.g., experience). Implications for theoretical explanations of gender differences in negotiation outcomes, for gender inequalities in the workplace, and for future research are discussed. Keywords: gender, sex, negotiation, economic outcomes, meta-analysis Negotiation is a consequential social endeavor, affecting people’s salaries, career advancements, and relationships (Thompson, 2009). But does everyone have equal outcomes in negotiations? Tangible negotiation outcomes indicate that women may be placed at a systematic disadvantage vis-á-vis men in negotiation, which may contribute to persistent outcome differences such as the gender pay gap where men’s salaries typically surpass those received by women (Institute for Wom- en’s Policy Research, 2012; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012). In this meta-analysis, we explore whether there are systematic gender differences in negotiation outcomes and how these differences can be explained. Of importance, we focus on the role of context in this meta-analysis and analyze various conditions that might attenuate or reverse gender differences in negotiation outcomes, thereby illuminating what influences gender differ- ences. Gender differences are among the most enduring issues in negotiation research (Kray & Thompson, 2005; Walters, Stuhlm- This article was published Online First November 24, 2014. Jens Mazei, Department of Psychology, University of Münster; Joachim Hüffmeier, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dort- mund, Germany; Philipp Alexander Freund, Department of Psychology, Leuphana University at Lüneburg; Alice F. Stuhlmacher, Department of Psychology, DePaul University; Lena Bilke and Guido Hertel, Department of Psychology, University of Münster. Jens Mazei and Joachim Hüffmeier contributed equally to this article. Their authorship order was determined by a coin flip. This research was supported in part by a grant from the German Research Foundation to Joachim Hüffmeier and Guido Hertel (HU 1772/2-1), and by the research training group 1712/1, funded by the German Research Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jens Mazei, Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149 Münster, Germany, or Joachim Hüffmeier, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1-25, 44149 Dortmund, Germany. E-mail: jens.mazei@wwu.de or hueffmeier@uni- muenster.de This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Psychological Bulletin © 2014 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 141, No. 1, 85–104 0033-2909/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038184 85