Hong Kong Versus U.S. Negotiations: Effects of Culture, Alternatives, Outcome Scales, and Mediation¹

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of culture, BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), outcome scales, and mediation on negotiation outcomes. Six hundred three subjects from 2 countries (288 from Hong Kong and 315 from the United States) participated in 2‐party negotiations that were either mediated or observed by a third party. In these negotiations, the Hong Kong negotiators obtained higher joint outcomes than did their U.S. counterparts. Also, in both Hong Kong and the United States, negotiators with a high BATNA obtained larger individual outcomes than did those with a low BATNA. Finally, mediation resulted in higher joint outcomes than did no mediation and had a stronger effect in US. (vs. Hong Kong) negotiations.

A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework

“…HK negotiators (who scored significantly higher on COL and lower on IND than US negotiators) obtained higher joint outcomes than those in the US in a two-party negotiation experiment (Arunachalam et al, 1998). Negotiators with a high, rather than a low, best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) obtained larger outcomes in both HK and the US.…”

“…Chen et al, 1998a, b;Earley, 1989Earley, , 1994Brockner et al, 2000Brockner et al, , 2001Lam et al, 2002a). Rather than testing for the mediating effects of cultural values, some studies, after assessing country differences on cultural values, then used a country dummy variable, rather than cultural values, as a predictor variable (e.g., Mann et al, 1985;Tower et al, 1997;Arunachalam et al, 1998). Without mediation tests, researchers cannot attribute country differences to culture, although this has not stopped them from making such claims.…”

Lost in translation? The effect of cultural values on mergers around the world

“…Cross-cultural experimental evidence also shows that participants from collectivist cultures are more likely to work towards group goals than participants from individualistic cultures (Kim, Park, and Suzuki, 1990;Wagner, 1995;Kachelmeier and Shehata, 1997;Buchan, Croson, and Dawes, 2002;Wong and Hong, 2005). Negotiation styles also vary with national cultural values: participants from collectivist cultures are more cooperative in negotiations than participants from individualistic cultures (Parks and Vu, 1994;WadeBenzoni, Brett, Tenbrunsel, Okumura, Moore, and Bazerman, 2002), participants from egalitarian cultures strive for equality, whereas hierarchical participants strive for self-interest (Tinsley and Pillutla, 1998), and participants in collectivist cultures generate greater joint outcomes than do participants in individualistic cultures (Arunachalam, Wall, and Chan, 1998). These results are found in a host of countries, including Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the U.S. 4 Furthermore, prior experimental research that specifically uses the World Values Survey suggests that our measures of culture identify salient differences in values that are related to economic decisions.…”

Comparing American and Chinese negotiating styles: The influence of logic paradigms

“…In contrast, members of the collectivist cultures of Asia will view themselves not as acting autonomously but more as participating within the context of the group (Tinsley & Brett, 2001). In other words, collectivists focus less on their own goals and interests than on those of the group (Arunachalam et al, 1998). These differences affect negotiation practices.…”

“…We conceive of negotiation as a social interaction through which individuals or parties make decisions regarding the allocation of resources or the resolution of seemingly incompatible goals (Brett, 2000;Gelfand & Dyer, 2000). Negotiation serves a number of constructive purposes in a society, dealing with tasks as varied as conflict management, activity coordination, decision-making, and exchanges of goods and services (Arunachalam, Wall, & Chan, 1998). Often this is seen as a process of bargaining to divide a fixed pie of resources, but this is not necessarily the case (Brett, 2001).…”