No abstract

This research examines cultural differences in negotiators' responses to persuasive arguments in crisis (hostage) negotiations over time. Using a new method of examining cue-response patterns, the authors examined 25 crisis negotiations in which police negotiators interacted with perpetrators from low-context (LC) or high-context (HC) cultures. Compared with HC perpetrators, LC perpetrators were found to use more persuasive arguments, to reciprocate persuasive arguments in the second half of negotiations, and to respond to persuasive arguments in a compromising way. Further analyses found that LC perpetrators were more likely to communicate threats, especially in the first half of the negotiations, but that HC perpetrators were more likely to reciprocate them. The implications of these findings for our understanding of intercultural interaction are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Two studies tested the effects of negotiators' social motive (cooperative vs. individualistic) and punitive capability (high vs. low) on trust, negotiation behavior, and joint outcomes. On the basis of structural goal-expectation theory (T. Yamagishi, 1986), it was predicted that in the case of a cooperative motive higher levels of punitive capability lead to less trust, less exchange of information about preferences and priorities, and agreements of lower joint outcome. Study 1 (N = 41) supported this prediction: Cooperative negotiators had lower trust, exchanged less information, and attained lower joint outcomes under high rather than low punitive capability; individualistic negotiators were not influenced by punitive capability, presumably because they have low levels of trust to start with. Study 2 (yV = 21) showed that these effects happened because higher levels of punitive capability increase conflict avoidance in negotiators with a cooperative motive.The social climate within groups and organizations is crucial to their performance and survival. Theory and research traditionally paid attention to social support, cohesion, achievement orientation, risk taking, innovation (Denison, 1996), and, more recently, the role of trust and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup interaction (Blount, Bazerman, & Neale, 1995;Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). In addition, there is increasing interest in the various motives that guide the development of trust and fair behavior (Kramer & Tyler, 1996;Valley, Neale, & Mannix, 1995). Accordingly, the current research was concerned with the role of social motives and trust in negotiation-the joint decision making between parties aimed at reaching agreement about their perceived divergence of interests (Pruitt, 1981). We compared cooperative with individualistic motives and examined the ne-

This study extends past research on the impact of alternatives in dyadic negotiation by (a) providing negotiators with the mere possibility to negotiate with an outside party and (b) examining the moderating role of the negotiators' social motive. Business students engaged in face‐to‐face negotiations, which were audio‐taped and transcribed. None, one, or both dyad members were provided with an exit option—the possibility to leave the current negotiation and start new negotiations with someone else. Dyads were also given instructions to maximize own outcomes (egoistic motive) or to consider both own and the other's outcomes (prosocial motive). Results showed that, as expected, dyads with a one‐sided exit option engaged in more distributive and less integrative behavior, and obtained lower joint outcomes than dyads having either two‐sided or no exit options. However, this effect occurred only under an egoistic rather than a prosocial motive. No differences were found for negotiations with two‐sided exit options compared to negotiations without exit options, suggesting one's own exit option is counterbalanced by the other's escape possibility. Our results indicate that negotiators who wish to maximize personal as well as joint outcomes should try to combine a power advantage in terms of exit options with a shared prosocial orientation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We examine why and when proactive personality is beneficial for innovative behavior at work. Based on a survey among 166 employees working in 35 departments of a large municipality in the Netherlands we show that an increase in task conflicts explains the positive relation between a proactive personality and innovative employee behavior. This process is moderated by job autonomy in such a way that the relationship between proactive personality and task conflict is particularly strong under low compared with high autonomy. The present research contributes to the discussion on the potential benefits of task conflict for change processes and highlights the importance of examining the interplay between personality and work context for understanding innovation practices.

Based on 27 authentic, videotaped police interviews, we examine how use of different influencing behaviors by police officers impacts on suspects' information provision. Our analysis focuses on variations in cue-response patterns across suspects from cultures that tend to utilize more direct and content-oriented communication (i.e., low-context cultures) and cultures whose communication is typically more indirect and context orientated (i.e., high-context cultures). As expected, rational arguments were more effective in eliciting case-related personal information from low-context suspects compared to high-context suspects. Contrary to our expectations, high-context rather than low-context suspects seemed to respond negatively in terms of explicitly refusing to give information to being kind. Additional analysis considered the effects of two types of intimidating behavior (intimidating the individual versus the context) across the low-/ high-context suspects. Results showed that intimidating the individual was more effective at eliciting case-related personal information from low-context suspects, while intimidating the context appeared to be more effective in eliciting case-related contextual information for high-context suspects.

This study examines the relationship between two types of influencing behaviour in police interviews (being kind and rational persuasion) and three types of interview effectiveness, i.e. the suspects' willingness to give a statement, their estimation of the quality of the relationship with the detective, and suspects' admission. We expected that being kind and rational persuasion (arguments referring to logic and rationality) would have a different effect on suspects from cultures that tend to be direct and content-oriented (low-context cultures) versus cultures in which communication is more indirect and context orientated (highcontext cultures). To examine this, experienced police detectives interviewed mock theft suspects from low-context (n025) and high-context (n 027) cultures. As predicted, and particularly for high-context suspects, being kind in terms of rewarding and offering was positively related to the perceived quality of the relationship of the suspect, while being kind in terms of active listening behaviour was positively related to admissions. Furthermore, and as expected, there was a positive relationship between rational persuasion of the police detective and admissions for low-context suspects, but also a negative relationship between rational persuasion and admissions for high-context suspects.

No abstract