Avanesova, Liliya --- "Deception In Negotiations And The Influence Of The Deceptive Techniques Employed By A Party For Future Negotiaotions With The Party Or Related Parties" [2021] UNSWLawJlStuS 25; (2021) UNSWLJ Student Series No 21-25

---

DECEPTION IN NEGOTIATIONS AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE DECEPTIVE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY A PARTY FOR FUTURE NEGOTIAOTIONS WITH THE PARTY OR RELATED PARTIES

LILIYA AVANESOVA

I INTRODUCTION

In the fast-paced environment of commercial transactions, litigation and international relationships, negotiations play significant role for the public. Negotiations take place at every aspect of the society from negotiating concerning family matters to solving issues of the contractual obligations of the parties. In one of the most significant work on principled negotiations “Getting to Yes”, Roger Fisher described negotiation as ‘a basic means of getting what you want from others’ by implementing ‘back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others are opposed’.^[1] Finding the way to achieve the desired outcome and solve problems may depend on the motive of each party: both parties would want to fulfil their own interests while they are required to engage in cooperation.^[2] In this sense, negotiations can often become a competitive field for the negotiators: uncertainty of the position and intention of the other party and personal goals can lead to misrepresentation of the facts or non-disclosure of the essential information. Therefore, negotiators may become involved in choosing whether to be honest and follow ethical approach or conduct negotiations by using tactics and techniques which are intended to gain advantage in the process by engaging in deceptive behaviour.^[3] Thus, by presenting the incorrect and misleading information, the deceiving negotiator increases chances of the other party to act relying on the erroneous perception of the data.^[4] Deception allows the deceiving party to increase bargaining power and achieve their desired personal result.^[5]

Unfortunately, deception occurs frequently during the negotiations; and there is two ways for the deceived party to react in cases when the misleading tactic is recognised by this negotiator: either to ignore and accept such behaviour or to start playing the same game and implement the same deceptive techniques.^[6] Regardless of the preferred approach, the deceived party most likely to never engage in any form of relationships with the unethical negotiator in the future. The reputation of the lying counterparty may be damaged and all future dealings with the deceived might be cancelled or prejudiced. Good reputation is considered to be advantageous for the negotiators because of its ability to influence negotiation process and can affect the end results of such activities.^[7] The likelihood of reputational damage is high due to the encouragement of the deceptive tactics by the party and, in the future negotiations; this dishonest reputation may affect relationships also with related parties. Related parties usually seek information concerning the negotiators prior the negotiations in order to gain certainty and knowledge of the counterpart’s tactics in negotiations.^[8]

This essay will outline what deception is and deceptive techniques used in negotiations; the way of how these techniques can be spotted and identified; what circumstances allow deception and justify negotiators from being dishonest; how cultures perceive unethical behaviour and whether it is normal to lie in some situations depending on the cultural background; and how reputation and trust are interconnected with the way how a party performs during the negotiations. The essay will answer the question whether deceptive techniques employed by a party in a negotiation impact on future negotiations involving the same or related parties.

II DECEPTION AS UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR: WHAT IS IT AND WHEN DOES IT TAKE PLACE?

In business negotiations ethics play an important role in identification of what is right or wrong in the society as the whole, rather than on the personal level.^[9] The scholars have proposed four principles, which identify strategies in negotiations used by the parties:^[10]

1. Ethics oriented at the end-result are those, when a negotiator evaluates whether their actions are right depending on the advantages or disadvantages of the consequences, and they usually tend to do anything possible to achieve the most profitable outcome;

2. Duty ethics take place when negotiator’s measurement of what is right or wrong identified according to certain principles, laws and socially accepted standards; thus, a negotiator usually does not participate in tactics which involve using of an absolute falsification;

3. Social contract ethics depend on one’s perception of what is considered to be appropriate or inappropriate according to the customs and norms within a certain community; therefore, a negotiator may choose to deceive if it is socially acceptable behaviour in the community they are from;

4. Personalistic ethics are based on the moral standards of a negotiator and their personal sense of right and wrong.

Therefore, negotiators are given a range of tactics to choose from, whether ethical or unethical depends on the negotiators’ believes of what is appropriate or not. However, the preference of a negotiator to follow one of the ‘dirty’ tactics to achieve what they wish regardless of the legitimacy of their acts or omissions may leave them in a selfish position; negotiators tend to use these techniques merely for their own benefit, rather than engage in collaborative activity with the counterparty and use principled negotiations.^[11] As a consequence, temptation to participate in unethical way is high in circumstances when a party is simply aimed at reaching far better results, which are not likely to be achieved by agreeing on the terms of the counterparty.^[12] Such engagement in unethical behaviour could depend on what negotiator faces – it might be due to the desperation because they are afraid to loose something or due to the opportunistic motive justified by aiming at gaining a profit.^[13] That being the case, they consciously find themselves engaging in unethical conduct by deceiving their counterparty.

Thus, the question arises: what is deception? According to Gaspar and Schweitzer deception can be defined as “the use of statements and/or behaviours, including acts of omission, that intentionally mislead a counterpart”.^[14] Negotiation represents itself as a field full of opportunity and stimulus for the negotiators to deceive, thus, making deceptive tactics attractive and influential.^[15] Participating in negotiation process is often compared to the feeling of stepping into the unknown due to the absence of information about the counterparty, especially, concerning the uncertainty of the best alternatives, which might be more convenient for the other party.^[16] Deception can take form of either being informational or emotional: informational deception takes place when the party intentionally provides misrepresentation of the information; and emotional deception occurs when a negotiator deliberately shows emotions which do not actually represent their feelings, but they are rather purposed to influence the counterparty’s perception of the actual situation.^[17]

In the recent research conducted by Schweitzer, Gaspar and Methasani it was found that negotiators tend to lie when negotiation stakes are high, when information available to the deceiving negotiators is elastic, when negotiators have engaged in the external alternatives, when they are emotional and angry, when they are questioned by the counterparty by using direct or generalised questions, or when the parties have established a close relationship.^[18] Another interesting experiment, which was done by Steven Hartwell, Clinic Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, illustrates how lack of knowledge in regard to the information of the counterparty that can not be disclosed influence negotiation process.^[19] Professor Hartwell taught Legal Negotiation at the University to the lawyers-to-be and found that negotiations undertaken by his students were showing great results in collaborative and honest approaches, which left the Professor amused by the environment of truthfulness created by the students; however, when it was told to him that this was solely the result of the students’ sharing the secret information, which was attributed only to their side of the negotiation, and it was done in order to decrease amount of stress and disparity, Hartwell decided to change the method of teaching.^[20] In his next class, the Professor encouraged students to compete among each other by recording all their negotiations’ success individually; therefore, he created the atmosphere, where the students started deceiving each other in order to achieve success in the competition and get the top-ranking position on the scoreboard.^[21] As a result, it is worth noting that the competitive environment and self-oriented motivation are the ideal consequence of the reason why negotiators might choose deception in their negotiation techniques.

Furthermore, negotiators face conflicting situations of reaching fruitful results for them and defence from exploitation of the other party; in other words, the party is reluctant to share the correct information concerning party’s position, interests and alternatives due to the probability of exploitation of this information by the other negotiator.^[22] By using these strategies, the party involves in hiding the accurate information and engages in deceptive activities.

For example, it is believed that lawyers tend to lie more often and on multiple occasions, what makes them having a deceptive reputation in the eyes of the society.^[23] Experience shows that deception is prevalent in the negotiation process among the lawyers, and they have a tendency to deceive referring to the prices, interests, priorities and values.^[24] The grounds for the unethical behaviour usually lie in the position of the lawyers to their clients that they represent: lawyers rationalise deception in negotiations purely on the basis of their clients’ interests.^[25] In their opinion it might be justified that the best end result, which would meet clients’ expectations, could only be possible in case of deception in negotiations.^[26] The surprising outcome of such behaviour is that lawyers would rather lie when representing the client, rather than ending up in a situation when they deceive in their own interests.^[27]

What is more, some scholars argue that the cultural differences among the nations can influence the measurement of the behaviour to be considered as ethical or non-ethical. What is believed to be acceptable in one culture can be deemed as inappropriate in another. Hence, it is significant for the negotiators to be mindful of the different cultural aspects; this would assist in reducing the unexpected conduct of the counterparty and negative effects such as emotionally inappropriate reactions.^[28] For example, in the negotiations with the Chinese party absence of emotions of distress and negativity is a usual practice due to their determination to establish harmonious and effective relationship with the other party; if the counterparty wishes to rely on emotionally deceptive strategy, it would contribute to the damage of the trustworthy relationship.^[29] Such behaviour is remarkably unusual and traditionally and culturally unacceptable, thus, this would be obvious that the party has an intention to deceive.^[30]

Furthermore, researches conducted by number of scholars illustrate how differently cultures react to “ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics”^[31]: negotiators from Australia and the United Kingdom gravitate towards the limitations of the usage of deceptive methods because they consider that deception is not appropriate and contradicts codes of ethics, which is also supported by the Japanese negotiators, for whom it is important to maintain honest reputation; whereas, negotiators form Brazil, Russia and Greece tend to perceive the ambiguous negotiation tactics as more appropriate and are highly likely to use misrepresentation of the information in the negotiations.^[32] However, it is crucial for the negotiator to understand that regardless the cultural differences and ethical values it is not recommended to engage in deceptive behaviour – it is not always useful and helpful to adopt one’s cultural approach to negotiate and get stuck in prejudice towards a culture; therefore, maintenance of one’s beliefs and ethical standards is essential.^[33]

In addition, gender differences in negotiations have also gained an interest in the modern studies due to the current trends in the world on the subject of gender equality and feminism. It is argued that men are found to be more prone to engage in unethical behaviour in the negotiations with the women counterparties: females are perceived to be easier to deceive, which results in exposure to the misleading deals.^[34] On the other hand, it was discovered that women are as deceptive as men to the counterparties; they gravitate towards unethical behaviour when they represent clients in the negotiations, therefore, justifying their deceptive conduct as being beneficial for the interests of their clients.^[35]

Taking everything into account, deception in negotiations has long been a subject of discussion depending on various reasons. Unethical behaviour can be linked to a number of backgrounds: cultural, social, professional and gender differences.

III TYPES OF INFORMATIONAL DECEPTION

The diversity of tactics, which are aimed at deceiving the party in the negotiations, is extensive. As it was mentioned in the previous chapters, deception can take two forms: either verbal or non-verbal, either omission or commission.^[36] It is believed that lying by commission is more frequent and crucial compared to the omission: when negotiators are engaged in question and answer activities, and one of the parties is asked direct questions and, thus, the party employ deceptive techniques by commission.^[37]

With regard to verbal (informational) deception, negotiators can be inventive. When one’s interest is in gaining benefit in the unethical way, they usually rely on the following deceptive methods:^[38]

1. Misrepresentation is a lie used by the deceiving party in the negotiation that affirms the incorrect information about facts, interests and authority that the party acknowledges to be untrue in order to make the counterparty to believe that the information is true.^[39] Therefore, the understanding of the misleading character of the information by the lying negotiator is what defines it as a fraud, and, hence, can cause liability of the speaker.^[40] Illegality of the misrepresentation of the fact is strict and can be critical for the deceiving party in view of the fact that there is a thin line from unethical behaviour to illegal behaviour.^[41] However, if negotiator engages in misrepresentation of opinion, such as expression of personal views on the matter and possible progression of the deal, may not be considered as fraudulent and may not cause liability.^[42] In terms of authority, misrepresentation occurs when the party uses the trick to interfere negotiations with the statement that someone else’s approval is required to reach an agreement in order to make the other party feel undermined in the negotiation process.^[43]

2. Puffing is a frequent tool in negotiators’ hands and is sometimes called “sales talk”, which mean that a reasonable person would not perceive them as facts due to their general nature or claim for potential future outcomes.^[44] The speaker usually personally believes that his claims are true and they do not hold ambiguous or false statements, consequently, using puffs is not recognised as illegal behaviour.^[45] Furthermore, puffs fail to meet the requirement of a deception to be acknowledged by the negotiator as an actual lie; on that account the negotiator does not have an intention to misrepresent the facts and lie to the counterparty.

3. Reservation of price and BATNA is another common technique, which is used in the negotiations.^[46] It involves lies with regard to the client’s budget or bottom line and alternatives to the negotiation and is intentionally inaccurate.^[47] Negotiators rely on these tactics to persuade the other party that the agreement is either beneficial for them and there is nothing better available for the same price in terms of the reservation of price; and there is more potential alternatives for the deceiving negotiator to consider in terms of BATNA.

4. Non-disclosure of the sensitive information known to the negotiator and their client has an ambiguous position in the classification since it is located in some measure in the “grey” area. During the negotiations, client might withhold the information significant to them; however, attribution of the non-disclosure to the deceptive tactics is possible. For example, if the information is relevant and important in the negotiation and might affect the outcome, then, the non-disclosure might cause detrimental consequences to the trust or reputation of the deceiving party. The negotiators use deceptive non-disclosure method in order to conceal the truth by the employment of half-truths or disclosure of the information, which is beneficial for the deceiving party, and present false information.^[48] Therefore, non-disclosure is a subjective test for the negotiator to assess whether it is unethical to withhold the information in terms of moral or legal point of view and what consequences and damages the non-disclosed data can cause.^[49] In contrast, the negotiators tend to rely on the principle of non-obligation of the full disclosure of the sensitive information in order to justify their actions and blur the unethical character of the negotiation technique.^[50] Harvard Negotiations Project created a great example when negotiators are faced with the ambiguous position in the negotiations with regard to non-disclosure of the information.^[51] In the imaginary scenario, the parties to the negotiation are the seller, who is interested in selling the heritage listed Bullard Houses for a particular purpose and is keen to know the buyer’s intention of the property usage, and the buyer, who is the owner of the luxury hotel chain and does not want to disclose the information that might affect the deal. During the negotiation practice, the temptation to deceive in order to reach the agreement prevails: if the buyer reveals their intention, there will not be any deal at all. Therefore, selective disclosure comes into play – it becomes more convenient to release some information, which may sound appropriate for the deal but at the same time be only advantageous for the buyer. When the negotiation reaches the point when nothing else can be disclosed, the buyer faces the dilemma: whether to lie to get the deal or walk away from the deal. If one chooses to mislead, the detriment to the future relationship between the parties may be high; moreover, the reputation of the buyer may be damaged, especially, on such scale, when the negotiators are well known and powerful in the public eye. All things considered, the Bullard Houses exercise makes the participants doubt of what would be a better outcome in the end. For instance, would not it be a good illustration of the impossibility of the agreement in situations when one can only rely on deceptive tools to reach the deal?

By and large, the utility of such tactics is not uncommon in the negotiations and, as suggested by Roger Fisher, it could be helpful for the parties to discuss the rules prior the negotiation and define whether it would be a hard bargaining or a wise and effective conversation.^[52] When one of the parties decides to rely on the ethically ambiguous tactics and disregard the honesty and truthfulness, it could harm the relationship on various levels: form the established trust to future reputation.

IV CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECEPTION: REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE

There are two ways for the consequences of the employment of the deceptive technique for the lying party: whether the counterpart will detect the deception or leave it undetected. In terms of undetected deception, it is quite common for the other party to be easily misled and let the unethical negotiator to use unnoticed deceptive tactics, both in short-term and long-term consequences.^[53] The outcomes of undetected deception for the unethical party will be as follows: in case of short-term effect, the deceiver would gain the benefit they were aiming for in the negotiation; in case of long-term effect, the dishonest party would take advantage of not being caught red-handed, and this experience of unethical behaviour may influence future negotiations with the usage of the deceptive methods.^[54]

In contrast, when the deceptive techniques have been spotted by the counterparty, the reaction to the actions could cause destructive outcomes for the deceiver. The probability of the counterparty to react negatively is high. It has been studied that the deceived negotiators have a tendency to reply emotionally to the actions due to the feeling of being fooled or manipulated; moreover, since they might feel embarrassed and lost in the negotiation, they could employ strategies of revenge by perceiving themselves as victims.^[55] Therefore, the long-term effect of the deceptive behaviour is the reputational damage and may question the ability of the dealing in the future with the deceived party and related parties.^[56] The negotiator would gain a reputation for the employment of unethical techniques, which most of the times results in the trust violation and the development of the untrustworthiness in the future dealings.^[57] As a consequence, it is distinctly possible for the cheated negotiator not to trust the lying party anymore and use this as a defence in the later negotiations with the deceiver.^[58] In addition, the counterparty might start perceiving the future dealings with other parties as potentially fraudulent and provoke suspicion of potential deception against them.^[59] However, it has been argued that the future cooperation is unlikely to take place on account of unwillingness of the honest party to interact with the unethical negotiator, as they are less open to have any ways of communication with the deceivers.^[60] In other words, one’s reputation provides the parties to the negotiations with the information about the negotiators, and it is usually is derived from the previous experience of interaction between them or on the basis of the information supplied by the members of the same social group.^[61]

For example, in the Chinese culture, as it was stated previously, the importance of controlling emotional reaction and response is crucial – the inability of the negotiators to reserve their negative emotions could lead to detection of unethical conduct by the counterparty and could damage the relationship and reputation among the social networks, such as guanxi network, in the business dealings.^[62] What is more, maintenance of an honest and trustworthy reputation for the lawyers is important for their negotiation capabilities; it would be problematic for the lawyer if they put their reputation at risk and, eventually, this would cause inability to represent their future clients’ interests if they are perceived as liars and unethical negotiators.^[63] As a result, using deceptive techniques covering them as for the best interest of their clients would only cause the reputational damage of the actual lawyer, rather than their clients’.^[64] Additionally, in regard to the deception probability within the gender category, the researchers have found that females involve in the usage of deceptive methods less often than males, because women tend to evaluate the risks to their reputations due to engagement in dishonest behaviour.^[65] Women, who have more authority, power and recognition in the negotiations, avoid ambiguous tactics more often due to their more apparent visibility in the society and potential judgement of their behaviour.^[66]

The consequences of the unethical behaviour sometimes also rely on the importance of the misrepresented information and its significance.^[67] If the deceived negotiator has a fundamental interest in the negotiated subject and by the detection of the deception they express strong emotional response, they may perceive the unethical conduct as intolerable and potentially terminate any relationship and further interaction with the deceiving party.^[68] Findings in the researches illustrate that in the situations when the parties eventually detected the deception, the deceived negotiators could rely on revenge tactics: acknowledgement of the deception urged the counterparties to demand more and, as the result, they succeeded in obtaining more power in the negotiation process.^[69] Furthermore, it has been found that the negotiators, who are in a lower power situation, involve unethical tactics more often than those, who have a higher power situation; high power negotiators tend to achieve the desired results without the need to engage in deceptive behaviour, whereas the less fortunate negotiators assess their possibility to gain the beneficial outcome only by using unethical methods.^[70] As a result, the reaction of the counterparties to the deceit in the negotiations with the parties high and low power position differs significantly. The negotiators with the high power position, who employ the deception as their negotiation tactic, could bear more detrimental reputational consequences such as rejection of further interaction by the deceived counterparties.^[71] However, the negotiators, who have less powerful position and practise deceit, can be pardoned by the other parties for their behaviour due to the understanding of their less favourable position in the negotiations.^[72] What is more, the severity of the reputational damage can also depend on the type of the deceptive method chosen by the dishonest party: whether it is informational or emotional deception. As it has been outlined in the essay, informative deception is regarded as the most intolerable due to its ability to cause questionable illegal consequences. Thus, emotionally unethical behaviour would be more acceptable by the counterparty; however, it would be still less morally and ethically appropriate.^[73] On the other hand, from the experience done towards the study of reputational importance in different countries, usage of emotionally manipulative tricks could result in harmful outcomes for the negotiators. Damaging effect on one’s reputation also depends on the timing of the deception reveal by the deceived: the severity may be contingent on whether the deception is found immediately during the negotiation or immediately after, or shortly after the negotiation or after a long time.^[74] Immediate realisation and lie detection is more costly for the unethical negotiators due to the emotional reaction of the counterparty; and any steps towards the restoration of the relationship between the parties do not carry much success in terms of recovery of reputation, even if the deceiver decides to cooperate in order to change the situation.^[75]

By and large, it is apparent that for the reputational risk to arise the evaluation of all the circumstances is essential and can be crucial – from the stakes in the negotiations and the importance of the misrepresented information to the power positioning of the unethical negotiators and the type of the deceptive tactics used in the process of negotiations. In addition, the time of the reveal of the deception would increase the reputational damage, which may worsen the situation the deceiver is.

While studying on the deception and promotion of honest relationships, Cramton and Dees introduced the world of Metopia, where honesty and reputation meant a great significance in the negotiations.^[76] They argued that reputation of the counterparty would have an effect on future interactions and, thus, Metopians would rely on “reputational effects to induce honesty”.^[77] The negotiator known for being deceitful would cause inability to succeed in the future negotiations and struggle in “finding negotiating partners and when she finds them, they will be on their guard”.^[78] Hence, the importance of thorough consideration of all the disadvantages of the dishonest tactics can not be ignored – when all the negotiators have a trustworthy reputation, they gravitate towards better and equal relationship and prosperity of future negotiations with the maintenance of a good reputation.^[79]

Trust in the negotiation is one of the most vital elements for the satisfactory negotiation outcome: trust is considered to be an “intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the counterpart’s behaviour and intentions, allows negotiators to exchange the information necessary for integrative agreements”.^[80] In other words, when one has detected unethical methods in order to gain personal benefit, the sacrifice of trustworthy relationship is usually followed. In cases when the dishonest party continues implementing unethical tactics, trust could be damaged; and the deceived party may become suspicious in the future negotiations, which would lead to inability to trust the other party and they may be reluctant to share important information to assist positive negotiation practise.^[81] In addition, the deceived party may doubt actions of information sharing because of the suspicion that it would be used against them and promote dishonest questions.^[82] Whereas, if mutual trust existed, every detail shared would have had sincere and correct meaning and would have brought the parties to mutually beneficial agreement.^[83] As a consequence, when trust has been violated, it is almost impossible to repair and recover it in the future if it is connected to the deception.^[84] In this circumstance, a mere apology would not be sufficient and deception would almost vanish the possibility of trust repair promise to the zero levels.^[85]

If we refer to the Bullard Houses exercise and assume that the buyer decides to use deceptive techniques in order to succeed in purchasing the property, we can foresee following outcome: the reputational risk is extremely high due to the high profile of the buyer as a well known luxury hotel chain and his high power position; the seller is particularly concerned about the purpose of the purchased development not to be a luxury hotel, and, in case of deception of the purpose, this can lead to informational deception (misrepresentation). Therefore, the buyer will highly likely bear the reputational damage and violation of trust, which might result in the inability of the buyer to repair his reputation in the eyes of the seller and, possibly, the society.

It is worth noting that the engagement of the negotiator in ethically ambiguous behaviour may be prevented prior the negotiations – when the counterpart reminds them of the importance to negotiate honestly and within the ethically accepted norms.^[86] Fisher^[87] and Cramton and Dees^[88] suggest that clarification of the fair rules in the process of negotiation can assist in honest and fruitful process and outcome with the adoption of the reputational strategy of trustworthy and ethical behaviour by express statements of willingness to cooperate in an honest way. For example, Fisher advices to start the negotiation by asking whether negotiation would turn into the hard bargaining or the parties would reach the agreement quickly and effectively; Cramton and Dees suggest introduction to be as follows, “I will be open and honest so long as you reciprocate with honest behaviour, but if you deceive me I will be deceitful forever after”.

V CONCLUSION

In conclusion, involvement in the unethical behaviour could cause crucial consequences for negotiators. Ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics are a fine line in the negotiations - the one, who employ any of them, could cause the damage that is not be easy to fix. Negotiators should take into consideration that engagement in deception does not benefit for their reputations. Apart from being believed to be the party involved in using any means to gain financial and personal benefit, deceptive techniques do not assist in cooperative and trustworthy relationship between the parties. The research, which has been done in this area of the subject, is useful and educational, however, it is suggested that there is more to explore and study in order to understand the consequences of the deception and reputational risks of the deceiving party in the future.

---

^[1] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[2] Al KC Au and Nicholas CQ Wong, 'Perceived Deception in Negotiation: Consequences and the Mediating Role of Trust’ (2019) 159(4) The Journal of Social Psychology 459, 459.

^[3] Roger Volkema, Denise Fleck and Agnes Hofmeister, 'Predicting Competitive-Unethical Negotiating Behavior and Its Consequences' (2010) 26(3) Negotiation Journal 263, 264–5.

^[4] Malia F Mason, Elizabeth A Wiley and Daniel R Ames, 'From Belief to Deceit: How Expectancies about Others' Ethics Shape Deception in Negotiations' (2018) 76 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 239, 239.

^[5] Mara Olekalns and Philip L. Smith, ‘Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation’ (2009) 85(3) Journal of Business Ethics 347, 347.

^[6] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[7] Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli, Liron Har-Vardi and Simone Moran, ‘When Negotiators with Honest Reputations Are Less (and More) Likely To Be Deceived’ (2020) 157, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 68, 68.

^[8] Han-Ying Tng and Al KC Au, 'Strategic Display of Anger and Happiness in Negotiation: The Moderating Role of Perceived Authenticity' (2014) 30(3) Negotiation Journal 301, 303.

^[9] Roy J Lewicki, David M Saunders and Bruce Barry, Negotiation (McGraw-Hill Education, 7th ed, 2015) 147–8.

^[10] Ibid. The authors define these standards relying on the scholar's findings. In particular, they refer to Green (1994), Hitt (1990) and Hosmer (2003).

^[11] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[12] Li Ma and Judi McLean Parks, 'Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics’ (2012) 106(2) Journal of Business Ethics 161, 162–3.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Joseph P Gaspar and Maurice E Schweitzer, 'The Emotion Deception Model: A Review of Deception in Negotiation and the Role of Emotion in Deception’ (2013) 6(3) Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 160, 161.

^[15] Joseph P Gaspar, Redona Methasani and Maurice E Schweitzer, 'Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations' (2019) 33(1) Academy of Managment Perspectives, 1–5.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Jian-Dong Zhang, Leigh Anne Liu and Wu Liu, 'Trust and Deception in Negotiation: Culturally Divergent Effects' (2015) 11(1) Management and Organisation 123, 123.

^[18] Ibid.

^[19] Steven Hartwell, 'Understanding and Dealing with Deception in Legal Negotiation' (1991) 6(2) Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 171, 172-173.

^[20] Ibid.

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] Mara Olekalns and Philip L Smith, 'Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation.’ (2007) 76(2) Journal of Business Ethics 223, 225–6.

^[23] Mark J Rankin, 'Legal Ethics in the Negotiation Environment: A Synopsis' (2016) 18(1) Flinders Law Journal 77.

^[24] Ibid 84.

^[25] Ibid 88.

^[26] Ibid 89.

^[27] Ibid.

^[28] Cheryl Rivers and Anna Louise Lytle, 'Lying, Cheating Foreigners - Negotiation Ethics across Cultures' (2007) 12(1) International Negotiation 1, 1–2.

^[29] Jian-Dong Zhang, Leigh Anne Liu and Wu Liu, 'Trust and Deception in Negotiation: Culturally Divergent Effects' (2015) 11(1) Management and Organisation 123, 123.

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] The word «ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics» has been used in Rivers and Lytle research on cultural differences in negotiations. I suppose that this is a perfect explamantion of such conduct and I decided to use it as it is in the essay. Rivers, C. and Lytle, A.L, 'Lying, Cheating Foreigners - Negotiation Ethics across Cultures' (2007) 12(1) International Negotiation, 4.

^[32] Ibid table 2 at 5–10.

^[33] Roy J Lewicki, David M Saunders and Bruce Barry, Negotiation (McGraw-Hill Education, 7th ed, 2015), 179.

^[34] Laura J Kray, Jessica A Kennedy and Alex B Van Zant, 'Not Competent Enough to Know the Difference? Gender Stereotypes About Women’s Ease of Being Misled Predict Negotiator Deception' (2014) 125 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61–72.

^[35] Ibid 70.

^[36] Joseph P Gaspar, Redona Methasani and Maurice E Schweitzer, 'Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations' (2019) 33(1) Academy of Managment Perspectives 5.

^[37] Todd Rogers et al and Maurice E. Schweitzer, 'Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others' (2017) 112(3) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 456, 456–7.

^[38] Korobkin, R; Fisher, R and Ury, W; Lewicki, RJ, Saunders, DM and Barry, B; Gaspar, JP, Methasani, R, and Schweitzer, ME; Shell, RG.

^[39] Russel Korobkin, 'Behavioral Ethics, Deception, and Legal Negotiation' (2020) 20(3) Nevada Law Journal 1209, 1222; Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[40] G Richard Shell, 'When Is It Legal to Lie in Negotiations?' (1991) 32(3) Sloan Management Review 93, 94.

^[41] Joseph P. Gaspar, Redona Methasani and Maurice E. Schweitzer, 'Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations' (2019) 33(1) Academy of Managment Perspectives 6.

^[42] G. Richard Shell, 'When Is It Legal to Lie in Negotiations?' (1991) 32(3) Sloan Management Review 93, 94.

^[43] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[44] Russel Korobkin, 'Behavioral Ethics, Deception, and Legal Negotiation' (2020) 20(3) Nevada Law Journal 1209, 1223–4.

^[45] Ibid.

^[46] Joseph P Gaspar, Redona Methasani and Maurice E. Schweitzer, 'Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations' (2019) 33(1) Academy of Managment Perspectives 6.

^[47] Russel Korobkin, 'Behavioral Ethics, Deception, and Legal Negotiation' (2020) 20(3) Nevada Law Journal 1209, 1223–4.

^[48] Mark J Rankin, 'Legal Ethics in the Negotiation Environment: A Synopsis' (2016) 18(1) Flinders Law Journal 77, 111–12.

^[49] Russel Korobkin, 'Behavioral Ethics, Deception, and Legal Negotiation' (2020) 20(3) Nevada Law Journal 1209, 1231–2.

^[50] Mark J Rankin, 'Legal Ethics in the Negotiation Environment: A Synopsis' (2016) 18(1) Flinders Law Journal 77, 111–12.

^[51] Karp, R., Gold, D., and Tan, M. 'The Bullard Houses', the Harvard Negotiation Project, 1983.

^[52] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[53] Joseph P Gaspar and Maurice E Schweitzer, ‘The Emotion Deception Model: A Review of Deception in Negotiation and the Role of Emotion in Deception’ (2013) 6(3) Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 160, 167.

^[54] Ibid 166–7.

^[55] Roy J Lewicki, David M Saunders and Bruce Barry, Negotiation (McGraw-Hill Education, 7th ed, 2015) 170.

^[56] Ingrid Smithey Fulmer, Bruce Barry and D. Adam Long, ‘Lying and Smiling: Informational and Emotional Deception in Negotiation’ (2009) 88(4) Journal of Business Ethics 691, 696.

^[57] Kevin Tasa and Chris M Bell, 'Effects of Implicit Negotiation Beliefs and Moral Disengagement on Negotiator Attitudes and Deceptive Behavior’ (2017) 142(1) Journal of Business Ethics 169, 180–1.

^[58] Roy J Lewicki, David M Saunders and Bruce Barry, Negotiation (McGraw-Hill Education, 7th ed, 2015) 170.

^[59] Ibid.

^[60] Joseph P Gaspar, Redona Methasani and Maurice E Schweitzer, 'Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations' (2019) 33(1) Academy of Managment Perspectives 16.

^[61] Catherine H Tinsley, Kathleen M O’Connor and Brandon A Sullivan, 'Tough Guys Finish Last: the Perils of a Distributive Reputation' (2002) 88 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 621, 622.

^[62] Jian-Dong Zhang, Leigh Anne Liu and Wu Liu, 'Trust and Deception in Negotiation: Culturally Divergent Effects' (2015) 11(1) Management and Organisation 123, 126.

^[63] Mark J Rankin, 'Legal Ethics in the Negotiation Environment: A Synopsis' (2016) 18(1) Flinders Law Journal 77, 94.

^[64] Ibid.

^[65] Li Ma and Judi McLean Parks, 'Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics’ (2012) 106(2) Journal of Business Ethics 161, 170.

^[66] Ibid.

^[67] Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders and Bruce Barry, Negotiation (McGraw-Hill Education, 7th ed, 2015) 170–1.

^[68] Ibid.

^[69] Terry L Boles, Rachel TA Croson and J Keith Murnighan, 'Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining' (2000) 83(2) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 235, 255–6.

^[70] Lukas Koning, Eric van Dijk, Ilja van Beest and Wolfgang Steinel, 'An Instrumental Account of Deception and Reactions to Deceit in Bargaining' (2010) 20(1) Business Ethics Quarterly 57, 59–61.

^[71] Ibid 69.

^[72] Ibid.

^[73] Li Ma and Judi McLean Parks, 'Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics’ (2012) 106(2) Journal of Business Ethics 161, 703–5.

^[74] Robert B Lount Jr, Chen-Bo Zhong, Niro Sivanathan and J Keith Murnighan, 'Getting Off on the Wrong Foot: The Timing of a Breach and the Restoration of Trust' (2008) 34(12) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1601, 1601–12.

^[75] Ibid.

^[76] Peter C Cramton and J Gregory Dees, 'Promoting Honesty in Negotiation: An Exercise in Practical Ethics' (1993) 3(4) Business Ethics Quarterly 359, 359–69.

^[77] Ibid 369.

^[78] Ibid.

^[79] Ibid.

^[80] Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang and Brian C Gunia, 'Negotiation' (2010) 61 Annual Review Psychology 491, 501.

^[81] Kevin Tasa and Chris M Bell, 'Effects of Implicit Negotiation Beliefs and Moral Disengagement on Negotiator Attitudes and Deceptive Behavior’ (2017) 142(1) Journal of Business Ethics 169, 181.

^[82] Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang and Brian C Gunia, 'Negotiation' (2010) 61 Annual Review Psychology 491, 501.

^[83] Ibid.

^[84] Maurice E Schweitzer, John C Hershey and Eric T Bradlow, 'Promises and Lies: Restoring Violated Trust' (2006) 101(1) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1, 18–19.

^[85] Ibid.

^[86] Russel Korobkin, 'Behavioral Ethics, Deception, and Legal Negotiation' (2020) 20(3) Nevada Law Journal 1209, 1249–50.

^[87] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. Negotiating on Agreement Without Giving In (Random House Business Books, 3d ed, 2011).

^[88] Peter C Cramton and J Gregory Dees, 'Promoting Honesty in Negotiation: An Exercise in Practical Ethics' (1993) 3(4) Business Ethics Quarterly 359, 370.