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.

No abstract

In certain cultures, relationships are the reason for negotiation. In this article, we offer a rationale regarding why relationships have more or less salience across cultures. We present psychological, economic and sociological factors that explain the reasons for negotiating relationally. Propositions are made as to how cultural construal about relationships influences offers, targets and limits, negotiation strategy and, ultimately, economic and relational outcomes. Our major explanatory construct is new: cultural consensus about relationships. This construct is grounded in well developed theory of self construal and new empirical research showing the utility of measures of consensus in explaining cultural differences in behavior. With this theoretical contribution, we join the group of scholars who are advocating that more attention should be paid to negotiators’ subjective evaluations of the social and emotional consequences of negotiation.

No abstract

No abstract

interpersonales en el trabajo (CIT) en sus dos dimensiones (conflicto de tareas vs. conflicto de relaciones). Para ello, realizamos dos tipos de análisis con una muestra de 209 trabajadores provenientes de diferentes organizaciones españolas. El objetivo del primero fue la confirmación de la estructura factorial del cuestionario (AFC) y la demostración de su fiabilidad. El objetivo del segundo fue demostrar la validez predictiva de ambas dimensiones. La versión en español de conflictos interpersonales en el trabajo (CIT) mostró niveles aceptables de consistencia interna. Los resultados mostraron un mejor ajuste del modelo ante la existencia de una estructura bifactorial (conflicto de tareas y conflicto de relaciones) frente a un modelo unifactorial (conflicto interpersonal general) siendo diferente la relación entre ambos tipos de conflictos y las variables consecuentes de bienestar psicológico y clima de apoyo, respectivamente. Estos hallazgos apoyan la validez de constructo y la fiabilidad de la versión en español de conflictos interpersonales en el trabajo (CIT) para evaluar los distintos tipos de conflictos en muestras de habla hispana.