Running head: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
1
Expectations and Emotions: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity in Intercultural
Negotiation.
Jimena Y. Ramirez-Marin
Universidad de Sevilla
Jeanne M. Brett
Northwestern University
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
Kellogg School of Management
2001 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208 USA
Tel: (847) 491-8075
Email: [email protected]
Catherine Tinsley
Georgetown University
Soroush Aslani
Northwestern University
Kellogg School of Management
Lourdes Munduate
Universidad de Sevilla1
1
We would like to thank the support of the Dispute Resolution Research Center and the valuable
comments of Wendi Adair and Zhaleh Semnani. The first author would like to thank Jesús Pérez García
and Jaime Ramírez Fernández for their help with the data collection and the INDRHO research group at
the University of Seville. This research received support of CONACyT - Mexico (196626 ) and MICINNSpain (PSI 2011-29256).
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
2
Expectations and Emotions: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity in Intercultural
Negotiation.
Abstract
Spain is an honor culture and US is a dignity culture, the negotiation interaction within
and between this two cultures has not been addressed, in this paper we develop
empirical research on intra and inter-cultural negotiations between Spain and the U.S.
Results are consistent with the theory on cultures of honor and cultures of dignity and
show that negotiator’s from honor cultures (Spain) in an inter-cultural negotiation claim
more value as a result of high expectations and an emotion-based tactical approach
while negotiator’s from dignity cultures (U.S.) in an intra-cultural negotiation create
more value as a result of moderate expectations and an information-based approach to
the negotiation table. In intercultural negotiation, the emotional tactics dominated and
insight couldn’t be transformed into joint gains. In fact U.S. participants negotiating
inter-culturally used emotions and Spanish participants negotiating interculturally had
insight about preferences and priorities but were not able to transform that insight into
economic gains. Hypotheses were tested at the individual level (expectations) and at the
dyad level (outcomes, information sharing, and emotional tactics). Implications for
global negotiations are discussed.
Keywords: Hispanic, Culture, Negotiation.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
3
Expectations and Emotion: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity in Intercultural
Negotiation.
“Más vale buena esperanza que ruin posesión”
“A good expectation is better that a miserly possession”
Don Quijote de la Mancha
This quotation from Don Quijote de la Mancha (Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra,
1605), the Spanish knight who tilted at windmills, reflects values deeply embedded in
the Spanish character that expectations and passion are more important than actual
achievement. In this paper, we argue that the values espoused by Don Quijote de la
Mancha are manifestations of the Spanish culture of honor. We introduce theory and
research from cultural psychology that distinguishes honor and dignity cultures (Kim &
Cohen, 2010; Leung & Cohen, 2011; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996) and describes Spain and
other Latin cultures as honor cultures (Fischer, Manstead & Rodriguez Mosquera 1999,
Rodriguez Mosquera Fischer, & Manstead, 2000). We develop hypotheses from this
theory predicting how and why people from honor cultures use negotiation strategy.
We test these hypotheses by contrasting negotiation strategy and outcomes in three data
sets: Spanish intra-cultural negotiations (in Spain in Spanish), U.S. intra-cultural
negotiations (in the U.S. in English) and Spanish-U.S. inter-cultural negotiations (in
Spain in Spanish).
Spanish is the second most widely spoken native language globally
(Britannica.com) and accounts for eight percent of the world GDP
(siteresources.worldbank.org/). Latin American financial reserves grew threefold
between 2004 and 2013, and now substantially outstrip public debt
(http://www.economist.com/news/21566478-latin-america). Latin America is an
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
4
important segment of the world economy; yet, there is a dearth of theorizing and
research in the management literature in general and the negotiation literature in
particular that champions the unique character of Latin culture. This study addresses
that void in several important ways. First, it develops the implications of the cultural
theory of honor and dignity for negotiation. Second, by testing hypotheses in both
intra- and inter-cultural negotiations, and analyzing both actor and partner effects, the
study advances our knowledge by addressing two key theoretical questions: when
negotiators from honor and dignity cultures are at the table, which culture’s strategic
approach to negotiation prevails and why? Contributing to that insight is the fact that
this may be the first study of its kind in which inter-cultural negotiators are not speaking
English.
Cultures of honor and cultures of dignity
The theory of dignity, face, and honor culture is consistent with the definition of
culture as a “pattern of characteristics of a group”. (Lytle et al., 1995). The
conceptualization of dignity, face, and honor cultures builds on the familiar distinction
in cultural psychology between independent and interdependent or individualistic and
collective culture (Markus & Kityama, 1991). However, it makes the further distinction
between two types of interdependent cultures, face and honor, which allows us to make
specific hypotheses about negotiations in Latin culture.
Honor is an individual’s estimate of his own worth based on outcomes of social
interactions (Pitt-Rivers, 1968). Social interactions in honor culture are contests that
can be won or lost. As a result, self-worth is unstable and reflects a fixed-sum logic: one
person may take another’s honor away and appropriate it to enhance his or her own
honor (Leung &Cohen, 2011). Consistent with this logic is evidence that social
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
5
hierarchies are also unstable in honor cultures (Gilmore, 1991). Research showing that
people in honor cultures act assertively and emotionally in the face of conflict (Beersma
et al., 2003; Bourdieu, 1977; Cohen et al., 1996; Ijzerman et al., 2007; Rodriguez
Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002a, b) is consistent with theory.
In contrast, dignity is an intrinsic estimate of self-worth; it is not won in social
contests for status as in honor cultures (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Because dignity is not
dependent on social status, it cannot easily be affected by social interaction – and so is
relatively stable. Research on dignity culture identifies achieving self-interest (Miller,
1999; Tocqueville, 2010/1840) via rational social interaction that maintains
independence as a major goal in situations of social conflict (Kim & Cohen, 2010).
We propose that cultural differences embedded in the nature of self-worth, and
manifested in Latin culture by Don Quijote’s tilting at windmills, will lead to
differences in negotiation strategy and outcomes and be thrown into sharp relief by
comparisons of Latin and Anglo intra and inter-cultural negotiations.
Intra and Inter-cultural negotiation
Culture has important implications for negotiation strategy – the goal-driven
behaviors used, consciously or unconsciously, by negotiators (Weingart, Thompson,
Bazerman, & Carroll, 1990). Culture affects negotiators’ expectations before interacting
(Friedman, Chi, & Liu. 2006). Culture affects the way they use offers (Adair & Brett,
2005; Natlandysmir & Rognes, 1989; Rossette, Brett, Barsness & Lytle, 2011). Culture
affects whether and how they share information (Adair & Brett, 2005; Adair, Okumura
& Brett, 2001; Adair, Weingart & Brett, 2007, Imai & Gelfand, 2010, Kern, Lee,
Aytung, & Brett, 2012; Lituchy, 1997; Liu, Chua, Stahl, 2010).
Inter-cultural negotiators not only have to overcome different interests and
priorities, they also have to overcome different approaches to negotiation. Consensus
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
6
building is more difficult in inter than intra-cultural negotiation. (Liu et al., 2012).
Quality of communication is lower in inter than intra-cultural negotiations (Liu, Chua &
Stahl, 2010). However, to reach a negotiated agreement, inter-cultural negotiators like
intra-cultural negotiators must overcome communication barriers and build consensus.
A major question is how do they do this? Do negotiators from one culture adjust their
normative strategy to the normative strategy of the other culture? If so, which culture’s
strategic approach prevails and why? In the next section we develop the implications of
psychological differences between honor and dignity cultures for negotiation strategy.
This theorizing leads to a set of predictions about whether honor or dignity culture
strategy is likely to prevail at the inter-cultural negotiation table and why.
Negotiations in honor and dignity cultures
The theorizing about the basis of self-worth and the nature of social interaction
in honor and dignity cultures suggest very different orientations toward negotiations.
People from honor cultures are likely to primarily be concerned with dominating their
counterparts in negotiation in order to achieve the high status position in the ensuing
relationship. These competitive goals lead to negotiations that are emotional contests.
In contrast, people in dignity cultures are likely to be primarily concerned with
achieving self-interest (Miller, 1999; Tocqueville, 2010/1840). Self-interest goals lead
to a very different mode of social interaction than competitive goals. People in a
dignity culture treat negotiation as an opportunity for rational problem solving, that
maintains independence rather than as an emotional contest to determine social
interdependence (Bazerman & Neale, 1994).
The research contrasting the way people from honor and dignity cultures
respond to insult provides a further basis for theorizing about cultural differences in use
of negotiation strategy. People in honor cultures respond to insult aggressively,
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
7
defensively, and directly (Beersma, Harinck, & Gerts, 2003; Bourdieu, 1977; Cohen,
Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996; Ijzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci, 2007; Rodriguez
Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002a, b). Upon perceiving insult, people from honor
cultures experience more intense negative emotions (Beersma et al., 2003), more anger
and shame (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b), become more upset and more
physiologically primed for aggression (Cohen et al., 1996) than people from non-honor
cultures.
Of course a deal making negotiation is not the same social interaction as an
insult. An insult is a social abuse, an incivility that attacks a person’s status in a social
hierarchy. A deal making negotiation is an opportunity to assert status in an evolving or
new social hierarchy. Although, we would not expect honor culture negotiators to be as
aggressive in deal making negotiation as research shows they are when responding to
insult, unless of course the negotiation turned insulting, theory suggests that they should
be trying to assert social status in negotiation. Therefore, we expect that honor culture
negotiators will be highly motivated to perform well in the negotiation and will set
higher goals for claiming value vis-à-vis the counterpart than negotiators in dignity
culture. Further, we expect this difference to be particularly true for negotiators from
honor cultures in an inter-cultural negotiation, given that the cultural difference on
relationality may be salient in this context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Negotiators
from honor cultures facing a dignity culture counterpart will to expect to claim more
value as a result of the competitive dynamics of the out-group perceptions. On the other
hand, dignity culture negotiators are more individualistic than relational and in the
intercultural setting their expectations for value claiming might be similar to those in the
intra-cultural negotiation.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
8
H1: Expectations will be higher for honor than dignity culture negotiators particularly
in inter-cultural negotiations.
We expect honor and dignity culture negotiators’ different goals to manifest
during the negotiation in the form of different strategic behaviors. In the next sections
we explain why we expect negotiators from honor cultures to rely heavily on the use of
emotional tactics in intra- and inter-cultural negotiations and negotiators from dignity
cultures to rely on information sharing, in intra but not in inter-cultural negotiations.
Emotional tactics
Emotional tactics are a form of substantiation which is a persuasion and
influence strategy (Gunia, et al., 2011; Pruitt, 1981; Weingart et al., 1990).
Substantiation refers to all forms of justification, rational as well as emotional appeals,
arguments, and threats to support a party’s own position and reject the other party’s
position (Olekalns & Smith, 2005). The purpose of substantiation is to motivate the
counterpart to make concessions.
Theory and prior empirical research suggest that emotional tactics will be widely
used in negotiations in honor cultures. Emotional tactics do not just express negative
affect but importantly imply threats to social status (e.g. anger, frustration, sadness,
hatred, disapproval, contempt, ridicule, and accusations) (See Barry, Fulmer, & Van
Kleef, 2004; Brett et al., 2007; Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010; Van Kleef, De Dreu,
& Manstead, 2004b). Thus, people who are intent on gaining social status in
negotiation are likely to use tactics that threaten the counterpart’s social standing.
Empirical research supports this prediction. Emotional expression at the negotiation
table is higher in honor than in dignity cultures (IJzerman, van Dijk & Gallucci, 2007).
Honor culture members (Latinos) are more comfortable interacting emotionally in
professional settings than people from dignity (Anglo) cultures (Sanchez-Burks, 2002).
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
9
In a study contrasting Norwegian (dignity culture) and Mexican (honor culture) intracultural negotiations, coded transcripts showed that the Mexicans used substantiation
throughout the negotiation, while the Norwegians, who also negotiated higher joint
gains, had an initial phase of substantiation, followed by an information sharing phase,
and a final adjustment phase (Natlandsmyr & Rognes, 1995). The authors attributed the
Mexican negotiators’ behavior to masculinity values (Hofstede & Bond, 1980) which
are consistent with the honor culture profile.
Finally, we turn to the question: when negotiators from honor and dignity
cultures are at the table, which culture’s strategic approach to negotiation prevails and
why? We have predicted that honor culture negotiators will use more emotional tactics
than dignity culture negotiators. When these two negotiators meet who will adjust from
their normative strategy? What happens to those dignity inter-cultural negotiators who
abandon their culturally normative approach and take up the dominant strategy of their
honor culture negotiation counterpart?
Negotiators who abandon their culturally normative strategy seem likely to lose
out to their strategically comfortable counterparts. One study of U.S. and Japanese
inter-cultural negotiations addresses this issue to some extent. In both studies intercultural negotiations were conducted in English. In one study Japanese negotiators selfreported adapting to their U.S. counterparts but the Japanese reached lower individual
and joint outcomes inter-culturally than intra-culturally. We predict that US dignity
culture negotiators speaking Spanish language in Spain are likely to adapt to the honor
culture negotiation strategy using emotional tactics.
H2: Negotiators from honor cultures will report using more emotional tactics than
negotiators from dignity cultures except in inter-cultural negotiation.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
10
Information sharing
Information sharing in negotiation is a process of asking questions and providing
answers (Gunia et al., 2001; Kimmel, Pruitt, Magenau, Konar-Goldband, & Carnevale,
1980; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Weingart, Thompson, Bazerman, & Carroll, 1990).
Questions are interrogative statements to elicit answers primarily information about
priorities and interests (Weingart et al., 2007). The purpose of information sharing is to
acquire insight into relative differences in negotiators’ priorites and interests that can be
used to construct offers that trade off those differences and capture joint gains (Olekalns
& Smith, 2003; Olekalns & Smith, 2005; Weingart et al., 1990). Negotiators are
interested in joint gains because they can turn impasses into agreements, increase the
overall value of the agreement, thereby providing greater value to both parties and
increase parties’ satisfaction and willingness to implement the agreement (Teucher, et
al., 2012).
Theory and research suggests that negotiators from dignity cultures will use
more information sharing than negotiators from honor cultures, because they are likely
to be more focused on the rational pursuit of self-interest (Miller, 1999; Tocqueville,
2010/1840) – the higher the joint gains the more individual gains available for the selfinterested negotiator.
There are many studies documenting the affinity of dignity culture negotiators
for information sharing (Adair & Brett, 2005; Graham 1983; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975;
Weingart et al, 1990). In a recent study contrasting U.S. (dignity) and Indian (honor)
culture intra-cultural negotiations, U.S. negotiators engaged in significantly more
information sharing and had higher joint gains than Indian negotiators, but Indian
negotiators who used more information sharing had higher joint gains than their cultural
counterparts who used less information sharing (Gunia et al., 2011).
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
11
We predict that negotiators from dignity cultures will engage in more
information sharing than negotiators from honor cultures; however, we do not expect
dignity culture negotiators to report sharing information as much in inter as in intracultural negotiations. Our reasoning is that information sharing makes negotiators
vulnerable to being exploited by the recipient of that information (ref). If as predicted
honor culture negotiators are intent on dominating the negotiation, they should use
emotional tactics, and they should not reciprocate information sharing – concerned
themselves with being exploited in inter-cultural negotiations. A dignity culture
negotiator facing such a counterpart is likely to quickly reduce information sharing or to
reciprocate emotional tactics to protect his own positions. There is limited inter-cultural
research on which to base this prediction. Research in dignity culture on strategy in
prisoner’s dilema games shows that the rational cooperative player quickly turns
competitive to protect self -interests when confronted with a competitive counterpart
(Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a; 1970b; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988; Van Lange, 1992).
In another study, coded negotiation transcripts showed that Japanese negotiators
adapted their strategy to the normative U.S. information sharing strategy (Adair,
Okumura & Brett, 2001). We predict that in the intercultural negotiation US dignity
culture negotiators will share information and this will result in insight, while the honor
culture negotiators may reciprocate information sharing and report insight as a results of
their partners (US negotiators) sharing information.
H3: Negotiators from dignity cultures will report using more information sharing and
insight than negotiators from honor cultures except in inter-cultural negotiation.
Insight and Joint Gains
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
12
In negotiation, the parties assign different priorities to the issues; opportunities
for joint gains arise when negotiators realize they have different priorities and trade
more important issues for less important issues (Raiffa, 1982). Therefore, incorporating
those insights into agreements and making tradeoffs increases joint gains (Pruitt, 1981;
Raiffa, 1982; Thompson, 1991; Thompson & Hastie, 1990;). Negotiators with more
insight reach higher joint gain agreements than negotiators with less insight regardless
of culture (Brett & Okumura, 1998; Gunia et al., 2011; Kimmel et al., 1980; Olekalns &
Smith, 2003; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Weingart et al., 1990).
H4. Insight will predict joint gain.
Given these cultural differences, it should be no surprise that joint gains which
require insight into the counterpart’s priorities and interests (Thompson 1991;
Thompson & Hastie, 1990) tend to be lower in inter than intra-cultural negotiations
(Adler & Graham 1989; Brett & Okumura, 1998; Graham, 1985; Natlandsmyr &
Rognes, 1995; see Kern, et al., 2012 for an exception).
H5: Joint outcomes will be higher in dignity intra than honor intra and inter-cultural
negotiations.
We also predict that dignity culture negotiators will have difficulty claiming
individual gains when moving to the honor culture’s competitive strategy of emotional
tactics. As we predicted earlier honor culture negotiators will use emotional tactics and
there are several studies showing that anger expressions generate counterpart ‘s
concessions in distributive negotiation (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006; van Kleef, De Dreu
& Manstead, 2006). This strategic shift may engage dignity culture negotiators
emotions which may overwhelm their usual rational focus on self-interest or even
change that focus to defend self-interest.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
13
H6: In inter-cultural negotiations, individual outcomes will be higher for honor culture
negotiators than for dignity culture negotiators.
Overall, we predict that expectations, emotional tactics, information sharing and insight
will mediate cultural the relationship between culture and joint gains.
H7: The indirect effects of culture on joint outcomes will be mediated by expectations,
emotional tactics, information sharing and insight.
Insert Figure 1 about here
METHODS
We used a new deal making negotiation simulation, The Sweet Shop, to test
hypotheses regarding how people from Latin and Anglo cultures negotiate inter and
intra-culturally. We designed The Sweet Shop to simulate the situation in which two
parties are negotiating to enter into a close business relationship.
The negotiation is
between the owner of a bakery and the owner of an ice-cream store. Both owners
currently have successful stores and both would like to move to a larger space in a more
upscale area. Their negotiation is over the opportunity to share space in a new location.
They must resolve four issues: staff, temperature, maintenance, and design to reach
agreement.
Participants
A total of 262 undergraduate students from one university in Spain and another
in the U.S. participated in the study. The American intra-cultural sample consisted of 37
dyads; their mean age was 21.2 years (SD = 1.1) and 72% were female. The Spanish
intra-cultural sample consisted of 45 dyads; their mean age was 21.6 years (SD = .69)
and 63% were female. The American- Spanish inter-cultural sample contained 49
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
14
dyads; their mean age was 25.2 years (SD = 5.2) and 60% were female. The American
intra-cultural sample negotiated in the U.S. in English, the Spanish intra-cultural sample
negotiated in Spain in Spanish, and the American-Spanish inter-cultural sample
negotiated in Spanish in Spain.
The Sweet Shop negotiation
Each negotiator received confidential information about the point value of
options associated with each issue. Each was told that they had to negotiate at least
4000 points for themselves or declare an impasse. Participants were told that if they
could not reach agreement on the four core issues, they would stay at their current
locations and keep looking for other affordable space. Each negotiator was told to
negotiate as many points as possible.
Two of the four core issues (staff and design) had different weights for the two
parties, and thus could be traded to create integrative value. One issue (maintenance)
was completely distributive, and one issue (temperature) was compatible in that both
parties preferred hotter store temperatures. The points associated with each option for
each issue can be obtained from the authors.
Procedures
Procedures were carefully calibrated between the U.S. and Spanish data
collections. After signing a consent form, participants, had 10 minutes to complete a
short questionnaire about demographic characteristics and culture fit. Next they had 30
minutes to prepare for the negotiation by reading about the role of bakery or ice-cream
store owner to which they had been randomly assigned. Then, they answered some
questions about their aspirations and attitudes prior to negotiation. After that, they had
30 minutes to negotiate. (Pretesting indicated that 30 minutes was sufficient time to
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
15
discuss these issues and reach agreement.) Finally, after the negotiation, participants
completed a questionnaire about their attitudes and experiences during the negotiation.
Independent Variables
Culture. Participants were located in the U.S. and Spain in the intra-cultural
setting and in Spain in the inter-cultural setting. All participants were attending
university either in the U.S. or Spain, the U.S. inter-cultural sample consisted of
participants studying abroad (in Spain) for one semester. The American participants
were American citizens and defined themselves as culturally American. The Spanish
participants were Spanish citizens and defined themselves as culturally Spanish.
Type of negotiation. Participants engaged in either an intra or an inter-cultural
negotiation. Participants negotiated with counterpart from their own culture (U.S.-U.S.
or. Spain-Spain), or from the other culture (U.S.-Spain).
Dependent variables
Negotiation outcomes. Individual gain was the total number of points obtained
by a negotiator. Joint outcomes is the aggregation (sum) of the two parties’ points.
Expectation of value claiming. Participants indicated the percentage (from 1 to
100) of the total value in the negotiated agreement that they expected to claim for
themselves.
Information sharing. Eight items measured this construct (e.g., The other party
shared information about priorities) (Cronbach’s α = .62 in the U.S. and .74 in Spain).
Emotional tactics Six items measured use of (e.g., I faked anger to put pressure
in the other party) (Cronbach’s α = .72 in the U.S. and .76 in Spain). These measures
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
16
were developed in independent research and have been shown to correlate strongly with
negotiation behavior independently coded from transcripts (Aslani et al., 2012).
Insight. We asked participants how important each issue was to them and to
their counterpart (Brett & Okumura, 1998). Other insight was computed depending on
the role by subtracting the most important issue for the counterpart from the least
important issue for the counterpart (e.g.. for the Baker other’s Design- other’s Staff, as
design was the most important issue for the Ice Cream) a high score indicates that a
negotiator could correctly identify the counterpart’s priorities.
Sampling Check
Brett and colleagues (1997) recommend that researchers provide evidence that
their samples are representative of the respective cultural groups about which they are
theorizing. Although we have no hypotheses per se concerning cultural descriptive
norms, we measured individualistic, collective, and relational descriptive norms for the
purpose of showing that our samples were normatively consistent with the profiles of
honor and dignity cultures.
Descriptive norms are social perceptions, cultural members’ beliefs about what
is widely endorsed in their society, community and group (Cialdini & Trost, 1998).
Descriptive norms have been shown to explain cultural differences in the domains of
blame attribution and harm perception (Shteynberg et al., 2010) as well as attributional
foci, compliance, and counterfactual thinking (Zou et al, 2009). Our measures of
collective, individualistic, and relational descriptive norms were based on measures
developed and shared with us by Gelfand (Gelfand, 2010). We refined Gelfand’s
measures and determined their convergent and discriminant validity in a separate online
studyi. The individualistic items focused on self-interest and self-direction e.g.,
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
17
Americans/Spanish like to choose their own goals; Americans like to decide their future
for themselves (US α=0.73, SP α=0.82). The collective items focused on harmony in
groups, e.g., “Americans/Spanish like to maintain harmony in any group they belong
to” (US α=0.82, SP α=0.79). The relational items focused on emotions in social
interaction, “Americans /Spanish are frustrated when they fail at building a relationship
with others” (US α=0.78, SP α=0.82). Figure 2 shows the cultural profiles of our
Spanish and U.S. samples.
Insert Figure 2 about here
Analysis
We hypothesized cultural effects occur at the individual and the dyadic level of analysis.
Analyzing dyadic data at the individual level could result in biased significance tests
(Kenny, 1995). Additionally, because our hypotheses proposed specific culture by actor
and culture by partner effects in the inter- and intra-cultural negotiation setting, we
tested a series of hypotheses using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM)
(Kenny & Cook, 1999) which suggests that when individuals are involved in an
interdependent relationship, their outcomes depend not only on their own perceptions
and behaviors but also on their partners’ perceptions and behaviors (Kashy & Kenny,
2000; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Estimating APIM models allowed us to predict a
negotiator’s response by means of both the focal negotiator and the counterpart’s
variables. To estimate these effects we used the MIXED procedure in SPSS (Kashy,
Kenny & Cook, 2008) with syntax available from West, Popp & Kenny (2008). The
estimations of the MIXED procedure are essentially the same as in any other multilevel
software such as HLM or MLwiN (Campbell & Kashy, 2002, Kenny, 2006). We tested
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
18
the indirect effects models (expectations on strategies, strategies on outcomes and
insight on outcomes) according to procedures suggested by Hayes (2012).
Assessing non-independence. The first step in conducting an analysis of dyadic data is
to examine the degree of non-independence, because non-independence of dyadic data
may lead to biased estimates of standard errors, increasing the likelihood of Type I and
II errors (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995; Kenny & Judd, 1986; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger,
1998), inaccurate effect sizes, and incorrect degrees of freedom. We computed the
dyadic intra-class correlation (ICC) for each of our dependent variables. ICC scores
range from -1 to +1, and can be interpreted as the correlation between negotiators’
scores on a variable. All our dependent variables showed non-independence with ICC
values ranging from .23 to .37. Table 1 shows the dyad level inter-correlations of our
dependent variables with the ICC scores on the diagonal. As anticipated, expectations
were independent within the dyad (r= .067 n.s.), and we analyzed those at the individual
level.
Distinguishability. Dyadic analysis allows for distinct error variance for each member
of the dyad when roles make dyad members distinguishable. Thus, although we did not
expect role differences because of structural symmetry built into the exercise, we also
tested whether role influenced our dependent variables: emotional tactics, information
sharing, insight and individual outcome (points). Our analysis contrasted two models for
each of these variables, one model with role as a predictor variable and one model
without role as predictor variable. Then, we compared the deviance scores of the two
models and obtained a X 2 statistic for each comparison. Results showed that when the
role variable was introduced the model fit did not significantly improve. For each of
our dependent variables, all chi square deviance statistics were not significant,
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
19
indicating that the dyad members were indistinguishable in terms or role. Therefore, we
excluded role variable from all our subsequent analyses.
RESULTS
H1 predicted that expectations would be higher for negotiators from honor than dignity
cultures, especially in inter-cultural negotiations. Expectations were measured before
the interaction therefore to test this hypothesis we performed an individual level
regression. Results show a main effect of culture on aspirations showing that Spanish
negotiators expected to claim more value than U.S. negotiators β = .16 t(252) = 2.13 p =
.03. This main effect was qualified by type of negotiation β = .19 t(252) = 1.94 p = .05.
Figure 3 illustrates this interaction. Simple slopes tests showed differences between
those who knew they were going to negotiate inter-culturally compared to those who
knew they were going to negotiate intra-culturally. The Spanish negotiators in the intercultural situation aspired to claim more value than the U.S. negotiators in the intercultural negotiation t(252) = 4.10 p < .001. Hypothesis 1 was supported.
H2 predicted that negotiators from honor cultures would report using more emotional
tactics than negotiators from dignity cultures except in intercultural negotiation. This
means that in the intercultural negotiation Dignity culture negotiators will reciprocate
emotional tactics. We tested this hypothesis by means of two analyses. First, we
performed a dyad level analysis of variance on emotional tactics for the three cultural
groups (U.S. intra, Spain intra and inter-cultural), results showed that intra-cultural
honor dyads (M = 2.66 SD =1.11) and inter-cultural dyads (M = 2.66 SD =1.01)
reported higher use of emotional tactics than dignity culture dyads (M =1.95 SD = .79)
F (1, 130) = 6.77, p = .002. Post hoc analysis show that U.S. intra-cultural dyads were
reporting less than Spanish intra-cultural dyads (p =.005) and inter-cultural dyads (p =
.004).
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
20
Second, we examined the within dyad dynamics of culture and emotional tactics using
the APIM. Results showed effects of culture of the actor β = .14 t(257) = 2.34 p = .010,
culture of the partner β = .13 t(257) = 2.14 p = .016 and the interaction between actor
and partner’s cultures β = - .13 t(128) = -1.95 p = .027 on actors’ reports of use of
emotional tactics. This interaction is displayed in Figure 4. Spanish negotiators reported
that they used emotional strategies frequently in both inter- and intra- cultural
negotiations, while US negotiators only reported using emotional tactics frequently
when they faced a Spanish negotiator. This results support H2.
In H3 we hypothesized that dignity culture negotiators in an intra-cultural setting would
use information sharing strategy more than intra cultural honor culture negotiators or
inter cultural negotiation. We expected Dignity culture negotiators to reduce
information sharing and insight in the intercultural negotiation. We tested this
hypothesis by means of four analyses. First, we performed a dyad level analysis of
variance on information sharing for the three cultural groups (US Intra, Spain Intra and
intercultural), results do not support this hypothesis F (2, 130) = 1.75, n.s. The APIM
analysis of the effects of culture on information sharing, the effects were not significant.
Therefore Dignity and Honor as sharing the same amount of information in the
intercultural and in the intra-cultural, this is not consistent with our predictions.
Second, we performed a dyad level analysis of variance on insight for the three cultural
groups F (2, 130) = 7.634, p = .001. Post hoc comparisons showed US intra (M = .667
SD =1.21) p= .002 and the inter-cultural group (M = .667 SD =1.21) p =.004 had higher
insight than Spain intra-cultural negotiators (M = .667 SD =1.21). We expected US intra
to be higher than the other two groups on insight, however the intercultural dyads have
the same level of insight than the US intracultural dyads. This partially supports our
predictions.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
21
Third, we examined the within dyad dynamics of culture on information sharing using
the APIM, the results were not significant. Finally, we examined the within dyad
dynamics of culture on Insight and using the APIM. Results showed effects of culture of
the actor β = -.216 t(256) = -2.78 p = .003, culture of the partner β = -.155 t(257) = 1.99 p = .024 and the interaction between actor and partner’s cultures β = - .13 t(127) =
-1.55 p = .061 on actors’ reports of use of insight. This interaction is displayed in Figure
5. Spanish negotiators reported more insight in the inter-cultural negotiations than in the
Spanish intra-cultural negotiation, while US negotiators reported insight when facing a
US or a Spanish negotiator. Contrary to our expectations US negotiators shared
information in intra and intercultural negotiations. As a result their Spanish counterparts
in intercultural negotiation developed insight. Actually, consistent with our predictions
the Spanish intra-cultural negotiators reached the lowest levels of insight of all three
groups. These results partially support H3.
H4 predicted a positive relationship between insight and joint gains. We performed a
linear regression at the dyad level to test H7, the relationship between insight and joint
gains. Results show a positive relationship between insight and joint gains β = -.463
t(130) = 5.93 p <.001. H4 is supported.
H5 predicted that joint outcomes would be higher in dignity intra than honor intra and
inter-cultural negotiations. We performed a dyad level analysis of variance on joint
gains for the three cultural groups (U.S. intra, Spain intra and inter-cultural), results
showed that US intra cultural negotiation dyads (M =15902.70 SD = 1118.16) reached
lower joint gains compared to Spanish intra-cultural dyads (M = 15346.67 SD =837.09)
and inter-cultural dyads (M = 15191. 83 SD =921.01) F (2, 130) = 6.219, p = .003. Post
hoc analysis show that U.S. intra-cultural dyads achieved higher joint gains than the
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
22
Spanish intra-cultural dyads (p =.029) and inter-cultural dyads (p = .003). H5 is
supported.
H6 predicted an inter-cultural interaction on individual outcomes. Results from the
APIM model, because dv is interdependent, but individual level. showed a main effect
of actor’s culture β = .25 t(151) = 3.90 p <.001, a main effect of partner’s culture β = .35 t(151) = -5.35 p <.001 and the interaction between actor and partner’s cultures β =
.072 t(128) = 2.51 p = .006 on individual points. Spanish negotiators claimed more
value in inter-cultural negotiations than American negotiators t(258) = 6.36, p <.001).
The difference between the individual gains of Spanish and American intra-cultural
negotiators was not significant. H6 is supported.
H7 proposed that the indirect effects of culture on joint outcomes will be mediated by
expectations, emotional tactics, information sharing and insight. We are interested in
understanding which process variables explain the relationship between culture and
joint gains. We tested the indirect effects of culture on joint gains though four proposed
mediators: expectations, emotional tactics, information sharing and insight (Hayes,
2012, model 6). Our model tests all the possible combinations of mediators (process
variables), the total number of models tested was 15. Only four models were significant,
the model with all our proposed mediators: expectations, emotional tactics, information
sharing and insight (indirect effect = -.881, bootstrap 95% C.I.= -4.81 to -.07). The
partial model with expectations and insight as mediators (indirect effect = 22.65,
bootstrap 95% C.I.= 5.50 to 65.51), and the partial model with emotional tactics,
information sharing and insight (indirect effect = -6.45, bootstrap 95% C.I.= -25.98 to 1.05) and the partial model with insight as the only mediator (indirect effect = -161.21,
bootstrap 95% C.I.= -318.42 to -73.49). H7 was supported.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
23
DISCUSSION
Just as Don Quijote, the Spanish character portrayed in the introduction, the
Spanish at the negotiation table hold high expectations and execute a passionate
emotional strategy. When the Spanish negotiate with members of their own culture,
their high expectations and emotional tactics do not hurt negotiation outcomes. On the
other hand, when negotiating inter-culturally with a US negotiator, the Spanish
members benefit from their approach and claim more value at the table, at the cost of
hurting collective outcomes. This study developed and tested predictions about context
and culture when context was inter-versus intra cultural negotiations and culture
contrasted cultures of honor and dignity. We found that in inter-cultural negotiations
the honor cultural strategy dominated, and although the dignity culture negotiators had
insight, they could not transform that that insight into economic gains.
The dignity culture negotiators relatively poor economic outcomes in the intercultural setting were not a function of language fluency. Although they were
negotiating in their second language, they had as much accurate insight regarding the
other party’s interests and priorities as their dignity culture counterparts who were
negotiating intra-culturally in their native language. It appears that negotiators from the
dignity culture were unable to advance their economic goals in an inter-cultural
negotiation with a counterpart who set higher value claiming goals and then used
emotional tactics. This study develops the implications of the cultural theory of honor
and dignity for negotiation. Prior research and theorizing in social psychology has been
about differential reactions to insult in honor and dignity cultures. Second, it advances
our knowledge of inter-cultural negotiations by providing evidence on how the Spanish
negotiator’s strategy (actor) influences the American negotiator’s strategy (partner) in
intercultural negotiation setting. We believe this may be the first study in which inter-
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
24
cultural negotiators are not speaking English. The U.S. Spanish inter-cultural
negotiations in our study took place in Spain in Spanish.
The study showed a strong effect of inter versus intra-cultural negotiation in the
honor versus dignity cultural context on negotiators’ goals and their use of emotional
strategy. These findings too are consistent with theorizing regarding honor cultures.
Which suggest that the need to establish domination and protect honor important in all
settings is particularly important when negotiating across cultural boundaries.
The study is also consistent with the Teucher and colleagues theorizing (2010)
that information sharing is unlikely to be the lowest common denominator of strategy in
inter-cultural negotiations. The implications of this study contrasting honor and dignity
cultures are that strategic dominance in inter-cultural is complex, but that while
negotiators try to use their own culturally normative strategies, they succumb to what
the partner is using as strategy. When that partner is being dominant, it is difficult to
promote a more cognitive information sharing strategy. This was shown quite clearly in
the APIM results of this study. This study by using the APIM model provides different
insight into the dynamics between negotiators than most prior research on negotiation
strategy (Curhan & Penland 2007) is an exception which uses APIM, but there focus
there was amount of talk, not the content of the talk. This study shows that the prenegotiation expectations of counterparts set up much of the dynamics of the negotiation.
These pre-negotiation expectations for value claiming affect negotiators’ own
behaviors, but also the counterpart’s behaviors and outcomes. These counterpart effects
were particularly evident when looking at negotiators’ reports of information sharing
and insight. Thus, the study indicates strongly just what is needed from a negotiation
counterpart for a focal negotiator to be able to claim value: a counterpart who has not
set overly aggressive goals, a partner who himself or herself admits to being engaged in
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
25
information sharing during the negotiation. It also indicates the importance of prenegotiation planning and self interest in multi-issue negotiations with integrative
potential.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
26
References
Adam, H., Shirako, A., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Cultural Variance in the
interpersonal Effects of Anger in Negotiations. Psychological Science, 21, 882889.
Adler, N.J. and Graham, J.L. (1989) .Cross-cultural interaction: The international
comparison fallacy Journal of International Business Studies 22, 515-537.
Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and
Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation. Organization Science, 16, 33-51.
Adair, W.L. & Liu, L.A. (2011). Building shared mental models in multicultural
multiparty negotiations: The dynamic process. Research on Managing Groups
and Teams, 14, 57-78.
Ayers, E. (1984). Vengeance and Justice. New York, NY: Oxford.
Barry, B. (1999). The tactical use of emotion in negotiation. In: Bies, R.J., Lewicki, R.J.
and Sheppard, B.H. (Eds) Research on negotiation in organizations vol. 7, pp
93–121: JAI Press, Stanford
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology:An
International Review, 46, 5–68.
Brett, J. M. (2007). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and
make decisions across cultural boundaries (Second ed.): San Francisco, CA,
US: Jossey-Bass.
Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and Intracultural Negotiation: U.S. and
Japanese Negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 495-510.
Brett, J. M., Weingart, L. R., & Olekalns, M. (2004). Baubles, bangle, and beads:
Modeling the evolution of negotiating groups over time. In S. B. Lyons, & B.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
27
Mannix (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 39-64. London:
Elsevier Ltd.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects
for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide.
Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor:
the role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1188-1199.
Curhan, J. R., & Pentland, A. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes
from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 802-811.
Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of
honor-related versus individualistic values in conceptualizing pride, shame and
anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 149179.
Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V. H. (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and
evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology;Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1131-1140.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Graham, J. L., Mintu, A. T., & Rodgers, W. (1994). Explorations of Negotiation
Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures Using a Model Developed in the United
States. Management Science, 40 72-95.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
28
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D.(2011). Paying a price:
Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(4): 774-789.
IJzerman, H., Van Dijk, W. W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A bumpy train ride: A field
experiment on insult, honor, and emotional responses. Emotion, 7, 869 - 875.
Kenny, D. A. (1995). The effect of non-independence on significance testing in dyadic
research. Personal Relationships, 2, 67–75.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research:
Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal
Relationships, 6, 433–448.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kim, Y.-H., & Cohen, D. (2010). Information, Perspective, and Judgments About the
Self in Face and Dignity Cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
36, 537-550.
Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J. M., Konar-Goldband, E., & Carnevale, P. J.
D. (1980). Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 9-22.
Kopelman, S., Rosette, A.S., and Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of eve: Strategic
displays of positive negative and neutral emotions in negotiations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 81-101.
Kroeber, A. & Kluckhohn C. (1952) Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 47.
Lelieveld, G.J., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., Steinel, W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011).
Disappointed in you, angry about your offer: Distinct negative emotions induce
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
29
concessions via different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 635-641.
Leung A.K.Y., & Cohen D (2011) Within-and between-culture variation: individual
differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 507-526.
Liu, L. A., Chua, C. H., & Stahl, G. K. (2010). Quality of communication experience:
Definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 469–487.
Liu, L.A., Friedman, R.A., Barry, B., Gelfand, M.J., & Zhang, Z-X. (2012). The
dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 269-304.
Lytle, A. L, Brett, J.M., Barsness, Z.I., Tinsley, C.H. & Janssens, M. A. (1995).
“Paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior.”
In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior
7, 167-214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98, 224-253
Mesquita, B., Frijda, N. H., & Scherer, K. R. (1997). Culture and emotion. In J. W.
Berry, P. R. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology: Vol. 2. Basic processes and human development. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Natlandsmyr, J. H., & Rognes, J. (1995). Culture, behavior, and negotiation outcomes:
A comparative and cross-cultural study of Mexican and Norwegian negotiators.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 6, 5-29.
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
30
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the
South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Olekalns, M., Brett, J. M., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Phases, transitions and
interruptions: Modeling processes in multi-party negotiations. International
Journal of Conflict Management;International Journal of Conflict
Management, 14, 191-211
Pitt-Rivers, J. (1968). Honor. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social
sciences: 509-510. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior: Academic Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral
negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology;Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621-633.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2000). The role of
honor-related values in the elicitation, experience and communication of pride,
shame and anger: Spain and the Netherlands compared. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 833-844.
Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002). “Protestant Relational Ideology and (in) attention to relational
cues in work settings.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 919929.
Sanchez Burks J., Nisbett R. E. & Ybarra O. (2000). “Cultural Styles, Relational
Schemas, and Prejudice Against Outgroups.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 79, 174-189.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond Individualism/Collectivism. New Cultural Dimensions
of Values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. Charalambos, K. , C., Choi, S. C., and
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
31
Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications, 85-119. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Teucher, B., Brett, J. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2011). Culture and Negotiation: Three
Models. In K. P. Sycara, M. Gelfand, & A. Abbe (Eds.), Modeling
Intercultural Collaboration and Negotiation Springer Publishers.
Tinsley, C. H., & Weldon, E. (2003). Responses to a Normative Conflict among
American and Chinese Managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 3, 183-194.
Van Dijk, E., Van Kleef, G. A., Steinel, W., & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional
approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it
backfires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 600-614.
Running head: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
32
Table 1 . Descriptive statistics of our main dependent variables.
M
SD
1
2
3
4
1. Culture
-
-
-
2. Expectations
58.89
10.51
.286**
(.067)
3. Emotional tactics 2.44
1.03
.240*
.261*
(.265**)
4. Information sh.
5.14
0.71
-.095
.037
-.283**
(.372**)
5. Insight other
.47
1.01
-.182
.022
-.073
.130**
(.231*)
6. Relative insight
.70
1.01
-.172*
-.048
-.068
.217**
.833**
(.258*)
7. Joint outcomes
15445.80
991.83
-.103
.144*
-.105
.231**
.463**
.464**
Note. All statistics are computed at the dyad level. The intra-class correlation is shown on the diagonal.
5
6
7
(-)
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
33
Figure 1. Model of culture and type of negotiation on expectations, negotiation strategy, insight and individual gains.
Information
sharing
Insight
Expectations
of value
Culture
Type
Emotional
tactics
Negotiation
outcomes
Running head: Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
Figure 2. Effects of culture on norms.
Figure 3. Effects of culture and negotiation type on negotiator’s expectations.
34
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
35
Figure 4. Actor partner interaction on emotional strategy
4.0
3.5
Emotional tactics
3.0
Actor US
2.5
Actor
Spanish
2.0
1.5
1.0
US
SP
Partner's culture
Figure 5. Actor partner interaction on insight
2.0
1.5
Insight
1.0
0.5
Actor US
0.0
US
SP
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Partner's culture
Actor
Spanish
Spanish Honor and Anglo Dignity
Figure 6. Effects of culture and type of negotiations on individual gains.
i
More information about the development of the descriptive norms is available from the authors.
36