Summary This study compares negotiation strategy and outcomes in countries illustrating dignity, face, and honor cultures. Hypotheses predict cultural differences in negotiators' aspirations, use of strategy, and outcomes based on the implications of differences in self‐worth and social structures in dignity, face, and honor cultures. Data were from a face‐to‐face negotiation simulation; participants were intra‐cultural samples from the USA (dignity), China (face), and Qatar (honor). The empirical results provide strong evidence for the predictions concerning the reliance on more competitive negotiation strategies in honor and face cultures relative to dignity cultures in this context of negotiating a new business relationship. The study makes two important theoretical contributions. First, it proposes how and why people in a previously understudied part of the world, that is, the Middle East, use negotiation strategy. Second, it addresses a conundrum in the East Asian literature on negotiation: the theory and research that emphasize the norms of harmony and cooperation in social interaction versus empirical evidence that negotiations in East Asia are highly competitive. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

In this work we develop and validate a model measuring norms that distinguish three types of culture: dignity, face, and honor (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Our motivation is to produce empirical evidence for this new cultural framework and use the framework to explain cultural differences in interdependent social interactions such as negotiation. In two studies, we establish the content validity, construct validity, predictive validity, and measurement invariance of this measurement model. In Study 1, we present the model's three-factor structure and situate the constructs of dignity, face, and honor in a nomological network of cultural constructs. In Study 2, which uses a sample of participants from 26 cultures, we show that the measurement model discriminates among people from the three cultural regions corresponding to the dignity, face, and honor framework. In particular, we report differences between face and honor cultures, which are not distinguished in other cultural frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). We also show that the measurement model accounts for cultural differences in norms for use of negotiation strategy.

Research on gender disparities in negotiation often does not address the intersectional influence of other demographic categories. We tested the hypothesis that race intersects with gender to play a role in constraining assertive behavior in negotiations. In two studies, we examined White non-Latinx and Asian/Asian American women and men’s phrasing of requests for higher salaries (Study 1) and the amounts they requested (Study 2) in hypothetical salary negotiation scenarios. White women reported less confidence and less assertiveness in their salary requests and proposed lower first offers than did White men; Asian and Asian American participants did not show gender differences in these measures. Negotiation backlash, measured by the amount that participants felt they could request without being punished for being too demanding, mediated the relation between demographic factors and first offers. We explored outcomes in light of intersectionality theories and the status incongruity hypothesis of backlash. These results indicate that differences in negotiation are shaped not only by gender but also by racial category membership.

Abstract. Trust is conceived as an attitude leading to intentions resulting in user actions involving automation. It is generally believed that trust is dynamic and that a user's prior experience with automation affects future behavior indirectly through causing changes in trust. Additionally, individual differences and cultural factors have been frequently cited as the contributors to influencing trust beliefs about using and monitoring automation. The presented research focuses on modeling human's trust when interacting with automated systems across cultures. The initial trust assessment instrument, comprising 110 items along with 2 perceptions (general vs. specific use of automation), has been empirically validated. Detailed results comparing items and dimensionality with our new pooled measure will be presented.