If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

B r u c e B a r r y a n d R a y m o n d A. F r i e d m a n Vanderbilt University Negotiation researchers theorize that individual differences are determinants of bargaining processes and outcomes but have yet to establish empirically the role of individual differences. In 2 studies the authors used bargaining simulations to examine the roles of personality and cognitive ability in distributive (Study 1) and integrative (Study 2) negotiation. The authors hypothesized and found evidence that Extraversion and Agreeableness are liabilities in distributive bargaining encounters. For both Extraversion and Agreeableness there were interactions between personality and negotiator aspirations such that personality effects were more pronounced in the absence of high aspirations. Contrary to predictions, Conscientiousness was generally unrelated to bargaining success. Cognitive ability played no role in distributive bargaining but was markedly related to the attainment of joint outcomes in a situation with integrative potential.

We develop a three‐dimensional concept of supervisor–subordinate guanxi. This concept includes affective attachment, personal‐life inclusion, and deference to supervisor. Based on this concept, we conducted three studies to develop and validate a three‐dimensional supervisor–subordinate guanxi measure and to examine its relationship with related constructs, such as leader–member exchange. Results from Study 1 and Study 2 provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, while Study 3 demonstrates the scale's incremental validity and replicates results from Study 2. Furthermore, in Study 3, we found that the three dimensions of supervisor–subordinate guanxi had different significant effects on commitment, turnover intention, and procedural justice, providing further evidence of criterion‐related validity. Overall, these empirical results provide support for our three‐dimensional model of supervisor–subordinate guanxi.

Recent research has suggested that employees are highly affected by perceptions of their managers' pattern of word-action consistency, which T. Simons (2002) called behavioral integrity (BI). The authors of the present study suggest that some employee racial groups may be more attentive to BI than others. They tested this notion using data from 1,944 employees working at 107 different hotels and found that Black employees rated their managers as demonstrating lower BI than did non-Black employees. Mediation analyses were consistent with the notion that these differences in perceived BI in turn account for cross-race differences in trust in management, interpersonal justice, commitment, satisfaction, and intent to stay. Results of hierarchical linear modeling were consistent with the idea that middle managers' perceptions of their senior managers' BI "trickle down" to affect line employee perceptions of the middle managers and that this trickle-down effect is stronger for Black employees. The authors interpret these results as indicative of heightened sensitivity to managers' BI on the part of Black employees. They also found a reverse in-group effect, in that Black employees were substantially more critical of Black managers than were non-Black employees.

Scholars have argued that anger expressed by participants in mediation is counterproductive; yet, there is also reason to believe that expressions of anger can be productive. The authors tested these competing theories of emotion by using data from online mediation. Results show that expression of anger lowers the resolution rate in mediation and that this effect occurs in part because expressing anger generates an angry response by the other party. However, when respondents are especially vulnerable, expressions of anger by the filer do not hinder settlement. The authors also examined precursors to anger, such as value of dispute and reputation, and the degree to which a focus on dispute resolution is reciprocated.

No abstract

This paper develops an expectancy model for Chinese-American differences in conflict-avoiding, and tests this model using a scenario study with respondents from Taiwan and the US. Our results show that a higher Chinese tendency to avoid conflict is explained by higher Chinese expectations that direct conflict will hurt the relationship with the other party, and by greater concern for the other party among Chinese. It is not, however, explained by differences in the expected career costs/benefits of good/bad relations with others. Also, Chinese are more sensitive to hierarchy than Americans, so that avoiding is heightened more for Chinese than for Americans when the other party is of higher status. Qualitative results suggest that Chinese-American differences in time frames may also explain differences in avoiding. Implications for businesses and management are suggested.

SquareTrade Dispute Resolution Services Hypotheses derived from face theory predict that the words people use in online dispute resolution affect the likelihood of settlement. In an event history model, text data from 386 disputes between eBay buyers and sellers indicated a higher likelihood of settlement when face was affirmed by provision of a causal account and a lower likelihood of settlement when face was attacked by expression of negative emotions or making commands. These aspects of language and emotion accounted for settlement likelihood even when we controlled for structural aspects of disputes, such as negative feedback filings and the filer's role as buyer or seller.