Cultural Differences in Goal‐directed Interaction Patterns in Negotiation

Abstract

This study examines cultural differences in how negotiators reciprocate, complement, and transform their counterpart’s strategic approach as a result of their and (detection of) their counterparts’ interaction goals and how such strategic sequences predict joint gains. Sixty‐seven negotiation dyads (35 Chinese, 32 US Americans) simulated an employment contract negotiation. In response to counterparts’ competitive goals, Chinese increased distributive complementary sequences, whereas US Americans reduced distributive transformation. In response to counterparts’ cooperative goals, US Americans increased integrative reciprocity, whereas Chinese reduced integrative transformation. In addition, although Chinese used less integrative reciprocity and less integrative transformation, these sequences had a significant effect on their joint profit, whereas such effect was nonsignificant for US Americans. The study provides insights about the impact of culture as domain‐specific knowledge structures on micro‐level communication processes.

How Power Distance Interacts with Culture and Status to Explain Intra‐ and Intercultural Negotiation Behaviors: A Multilevel Analysis

“…However, American employees’ bargaining tactics were not influenced by their counterparts’ PD values. The findings are consistent with research that found Chinese negotiators to exhibit more distributive reciprocity (Liu, ) and to be more susceptible to the influence of their high‐status counterpart than American counterparts (Brew & Cairns, ; Liu & Wilson, ), but provided empirical evidence that power distance served as a useful theoretical mechanism for explaining changes in bargaining tactics: The higher PD values, the more distributive tactics negotiating parties use when their counterpart comes from the same cultural background.…”

“…However, they tend to focus on general approaches to conflict management based on self-reports, rather than specific bargaining tactics used in actual interactions. An increasing body of research has advanced our understanding of the dynamic, interactive communication processes in negotiation by analyzing frequencies and sequences of bargaining tactics in intracultural or intercultural contexts (Adair & Brett, 2005;Adair et al, 2001;Giebels & Taylor, 2009;Liu, 2011Liu, , 2013Liu & Wilson, 2011). However, with few exceptions (Cai, Wilson, & Drake, 2000), this line of research has not directly assessed the individual-level effects of cultural values on negotiation behaviors.…”

A Phasic Analysis of Strategy Sequences and Their Mediating Effects on Interaction Goals and Negotiation Outcomes

“…On arrival at the research laboratory, students were instructed to read and sign a consent form before they completed a series of tasks. Participants were recruited from two nationalities (70 Chinese, 64 Americans); however, due to the complexity of this study, cultural variations in this process are addressed in a separate article (see Liu, 2011). 1…”

The Role of Relational Goals in Explicating Dyadic Emotional Communication Processes in Dispute Resolution: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

“…In the past decade, scholars increasingly recognized the problem of studying relationships or interactions using individual-level analysis (e.g., Krasikova & LeBreton, 2012;Turel, 2010). A growing number of negotiation studies have begun to use advanced dyadic data analysis techniques to account for dyadic interdependence both conceptually and methodologically (e.g., Bear & Segel-Karpas, 2015;Belkin, Kurtzberg, & Naquin, 2013;Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, 2012;Liu, 2009Liu, , 2011Liu, , 2013Liu & Wilson, 2011;Miles & Maurer, 2012;Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham, & Ben-Ari, 2015;Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010).…”

“…Substantial evidence shows that disputants from different cultures enter the negotiation with different cognitive frames (Brett & Okumura, 1998; Putnam & Holmer, 1992; Tinsley, 2001), face concerns (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), interaction goals (Cai, 1998; Liu, 2011; Liu & Wilson, 2011), relational orientations (Chan, 1992), and emotional display protocols (Adam & Shirako, 2013). These trait-based cultural differences are often attributed to the individualistic versus collectivistic value orientations in these cultures (e.g., Tinsley, 2001).…”