Summary To date, the vast majority of the research on aggression has been conducted on Western samples. This research expands the culture‐bound understanding of aggression by examining universal and culture‐specific dimensions that underlie the psychological structure of aggression. Drawing on cultural logics of honor, dignity, and face, we examine the construal of aggression across Pakistan, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Multidimensional scaling analyses revealed potentially universal dimensions of aggression. In all four nations, dimensions of damage to self‐worth and direct versus indirect aggression emerged, and a physical versus verbal aggression emerged in Pakistan, Israel, and Japan. In addition, an infringement to personal resources dimension emerged in the United States and Israel, and a degree of threat dimension emerged in Pakistan. Further, results demonstrated cultural specificity in terms of (i) where aggressive behaviors fell along each dimension and (ii) meanings that defined each dimension across cultures. These findings have implications for the prevention and attenuation of intercultural conflicts as well as the advancement of the cross‐cultural psychology and the aggression literatures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We complement the dominant rational model of negotiation found in the West with a new honor model of negotiation found in many Arabic-speaking populations and illustrate the linguistic processes that facilitate creativity in negotiation agreements in the United States and Egypt. Community samples (N = 136) were recruited in the United States and Egypt and negotiated an integrative bargaining task, Discount Marketplace. Analyses of categories of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and our own newly developed honor dictionary illustrate that the same language that predicts integrative agreements in the United States, namely, that which is rational and logical (cognitive mechanisms, LIWC), actually backfires and hinders agreements in Egypt. Creativity in Egypt, by contrast, reflects an honor model of negotiating with language that promotes honor gain (i.e., moral integrity) and honor protection (i.e., image and strength). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Under the broadest umbrella, emotion includes mood, affect, feelings, and discrete emotions. Generally speaking, emotions and feelings are more transitory and intense than affect and mood (Forgas, 1992), but the exact definitions of these terms vary across studies. Because researchers have used these terms interchangeably (Barry & Oliver, 1996), we review research on emotion that covers all of these conceptualizations.

This article reviews the current thinking about cultural differences in bargaining behavior and outcomes. It also considers the future directions needed in this area. It specifically describes the nature of how unique Americans might be in the domain of negotiation as compared to other samples. There is a clear link between the expectation of competition and self-interest and Americans' own strategies. Negotiation data from American samples generally shows an Individuals Asserting and Maximizing Self-Interest strategy (IAMS) that is rational in the particular ecological niche of these samples. Judgment biases in negotiation should reflect different strategies that negotiators have internalized as adaptations to particular ecological niches. It is shown that cultural differences in negotiation can be seen as ecologically rational default negotiation strategies that are adaptive in particular social niches and that can change dynamically depending on the context.

No abstract