Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale

Using a questionnaire derived from previous research, MBA students in a sem ester-long negotiation course rated 30 deceptive negotiation tactics on a 7 -point appropriate-inappropriate scale. Factor analysis of these ratings yi elded five primary factors (replicating previous findings) representing a l ay model of unethical tactics in negotiation contexts. The emergent factors are: I, traditional competitive bargaining; II, attacking an opponent's ne twork. III, misrepresentation/lying; IV, misuse of information; and V, fals e promises. The five factors may be reliably measured using a 16-item quest ionnaire, introduced here, called the 'Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiat ion Strategies Scale', (or SINS scale). Analyses of scale ratings by partic ipant demographics yielded some interesting results including: a tendency f or women to be more averse to questionable tactics than men; a greater will ingness for self-rated 'competitive' individuals to endorse such tactics; a nd differences in willingness to endorse tactics according to variables suc h as undergraduate major, years of work experience, and nationality. Willin gness to endorse less ethical tactics did not directly relate to actual neg otiation performance. Directions for future research, and further uses of t he SINS scale, are discussed. Copyright (C) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.