Kopelmann, Rosette - Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions.pdf - Psychologia - koni86

Group Decis Negot (2008) 17:65–77

DOI 10.1007/s10726-007-9087-5

Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions

in negotiations

Shirli Kopelman

Ashleigh Shelby Rosette

Published online: 27 July 2007

Abstract This research examined how culture inﬂuences the effectiveness of the strategic

displays of emotions in negotiations. We predicted that in cross-cultural negotiation settings,

East Asian negotiators who highly regarded cultural values that are consistent with com-

municating respect as humility and deference would be more likely to accept an offer from

an opposing party who displayed positive as opposed to negative emotion. With a sample

of East Asian MBA students, the results of Study 1 conﬁrmed this prediction. Study 2 re-

sults replicated this ﬁnding with a sample of Hong Kong executive managers and also found

they were less likely to accept an offer from a negotiator displaying negative emotion than

Israeli executive managers who did not hold humility and deference in such high regard.

Implications for strategic display of emotions in cross-cultural settings are discussed.

Keywords Emotion

Affect

Culture

Negotiation

Strategy

Decision making

Ultimatum bargaining

Distributive gains

Saving face

1 Introduction

Displayed emotions signiﬁcantly inﬂuence negotiation tactics, negotiation processes, and,

perhaps most important, negotiated outcomes. In recent years, the study of emotions in

interdependent decision-making settings has garnered increased attention from negotiation

researchers (see Barry et al. 2006 for a review). In our previous research ( Kopelman et al.

2006 ), we focused on the display of emotions as a deliberate negotiation strategy and showed

that, in an ultimatum setting, negotiators who intentionally displayed positive emotions were

)

Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street,

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234, USA

e-mail: shirli@bus.umich.edu

A. S. Rosette

Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, One Towerview Rd., Box 90120, Durham,

NC 27708-0120, USA

e-mail: arosette@duke.edu

123

S. Kopelman (

Shirli Kopelman, Ashleigh Shelby Rosette

more likely to reach an agreement than were negotiators who purposely displayed negative

emotions. Consistent with much of the existing research on emotions and negotiations, our

theory and hypotheses centered on the norms, values, and behaviors that are most common

to negotiators from the United States. While it is important to understand how U.S. negoti-

ators interpret emotion-laden behaviors of other U.S. negotiators, it is equally important to

understand how cultural backgrounds and interpretation of displayed emotion may impact

negotiated outcomes. Thus, the purpose of the current research was to build on our previous

ﬁndings and to investigate how negotiators from different cultures interpret the emotions

displayed by U.S. negotiators and to examine how these interpretations may inﬂuence the

negotiated outcomes.

We hypothesize that when displayed emotions are used as a deliberate negotiation tactic,

there must be a good ﬁt between the emotions displayed by the focal negotiator and the

cultural values held by the opposing party. If an emotional display violates cultural norms,

it may damage the social relationship and decrease the likelihood of a negotiated agreement

because cultural values and norms provide a context for interpreting emotional display during

negotiations. Whereas a positive display of emotion may lead to effective outcomes when

communicating with negotiators who value accord and harmony, negative displayed emo-

tion may be more important when communicating with negotiators who expect to engage in

arduous haggling. In this paper, we examine the impact of strategic displays of both positive

and negative emotion in cross-cultural negotiation contexts.

2 Strategic display of emotion in negotiations

We conceptualize strategic display of emotion as emotion intentionally expressed by the

focal negotiator to attain a desired outcome. Whether the strategic display of emotion rep-

resents emotion psychologically experienced at the moment (i.e., the negotiator strategi-

cally “harnesses felt emotions,” perhaps exaggerating them) or whether it represents delib-

erately feigned emotion (i.e., the negotiator “wears an emotional mask” hiding experienced

emotions), skilled negotiators may intentionally adjust their emotional display in a desired

direction by either amplifying or suppressing their expressed emotion ( Hochschild 1983 ;

Levenson 1994 ). Although the display of emotion may be more difﬁcult ( DePaulo et al.

2003 ) in some situations (e.g., when a negotiator displaying emotion believes he is being

unethically deceptive), recent research has demonstrated that negotiators can convincingly

display both positive and negative emotion, and that these emotions inﬂuence negotiation

outcomes ( Kopelman et al. 2006 ; Sinaceur and Tiedens 2006 ).

Consistent with the social psychology literature that suggests that positive affect leads

to better decisions and improved consequences for social actors (see Isen 1987 for a re-

view), positive affect during negotiations has been shown to increase cooperative tactics

( Forgas 1998 ) and generate higher individual and joint gains ( Baron 1990 ; Carnevale and Isen

1986 ). 1 Furthermore, strategically displayed positive emotion has been shown to increase the

likelihood of a future business relationship between parties subsequent to a dispute

( Kopelman et al. 2006 ). Possible explanations for why negotiators in a positive mood are

more effective include higher creativity ( Carnevale and Isen 1986 ), setting higher goals

( Baron 1990 ), and focusing on the interests of both parties ( Kopelman et al. 2005 ). Interest-

ingly, positive affect of powerful negotiators predicts negotiators’ trust for each other and

whether they reach integrative outcomes ( Anderon and Thompson 2005 ). With respect to

distributive tactics, negotiators displaying positive emotion are both more likely to close a

Affect is considered a superordinate category that includes both emotion and mood ( Barry and Oliver 1996 ).

123

Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions in negotiations

deal in an ultimatum setting and gain concessions on price from the other party ( Kopelman

et al. 2006 ).

Display of negative emotion also can be an effective negotiation strategy. Sinaceur and

Tiedens (2006) found that the strategic display of anger was effective in extracting value in

face-to-face negotiations, but only when the other party perceived his own alternatives to be

weak. Likewise, in an experimental design where a negotiator received a computer mediated

text message from the opponent, negotiators who had low power made larger concessions

when they believed they faced an angry versus happy negotiator (Van Kleef et al. 2004a). Thus,

a relatively powerful negotiator who convincingly displays anger may be able to position the

distributive negotiation outcomes in his favor.

Although display of negative emotion can be advantageous during negotiations, there are

risks to displaying negative emotion as a negotiation tactic. Given that emotions are con-

tagious ( Hatﬁeld et al. 1993 ), convincing displays of anger could, for example, generate a

retaliatory response from the other party that leads to a conﬂict spiral ( Ury et al. 1988 ), as

well as lower joint gains ( Allred et al. 1997 ). For instance, insulting offers that generate

negative affect are rejected in certain ultimatum bargaining settings ( Pillutla and Murnighan

1996 ). Interestingly, although due to emotional contagion, expression of anger often lowers

the resolution rate in mediation, it has been shown not to hinder settlements when respondents

are especially vulnerable ( Friedman et al. 2004 ).

There are several mechanisms by which strategically displayed emotion, whether positive

or negative, may impact the social interaction between negotiators. First, displayed emo-

tion may convey information and inﬂuence strategic information gathering and processing

( Van Kleef et al. 2004b ). Second, displayed emotions may serve as a means of persuasion

(e.g. Forgas 2001 ) and thus may constitute a manipulative negotiation tactic that leads the

other party to respond in a manner that otherwise would not have been a ﬁrst choice. Either

as a form of information exchange or as a manipulative tactic, if emotional display violates

cultural values and norms, the strategy may not only be ineffective, but if it damages the social

relationship, it may also be counter-productive to the negotiation process and outcomes.

3 Culture and strategic display of emotions

Culture consists of interrelated patterns or dimensions which come together to form a unique

social identity shared by a minimum of two or more people ( Deutsch 1973 ). It is the unique

conﬁguration of a social groups’ values and norms that set it apart from other social groups

and impacts negotiation processes and outcomes ( Brett 2001 ; Lytle et al. 1995 ). Values refer

to what a person considers important, whereas norms refer to what is considered appropriate

behavior ( Katz and Kahn 1978 ). Values and norms provide insight into the choices made by

cultural group members ( Abelson 1981 ; Fiske and Taylor 1991 ) and inﬂuence negotiators’

cognitions, emotions, motivations ( Markus and Kitayama 1991 ), and strategy (Barry 1999).

Speciﬁcally, because of values and norms, people from different cultures negotiate differ-

ently ( Brett 2001 ; Leung and Tjosfold 1998 ; Morrison et al. 1994 ). As such, cultural values

and norms shape implicit theories invoked in negotiations ( Gelfand and Dyer 2000 )andmay

inﬂuence a negotiator’s response to strategically displayed emotions.

Face is one cultural dimension that is likely to be important when evaluating displayed

emotions during negotiations. Face is a multi-faceted term, and its meaning is inextricably

linked to culture and social relationships. Ting-Toomey (1988) deﬁned face as the interac-

tion between the consideration one party offers to another party and the sense of self-respect

made known by both parties. In its simplest form, face involves how people think others see

123

Shirli Kopelman, Ashleigh Shelby Rosette

them in social situations and is an inherent communication of respect. Perhaps one of the

most familiar terms when considering face in cross-cultural contexts is the idea of “saving

face,” which means to be respectful in public. Across different cultures, face is associated

with concerns such as respect, honor, and reputation ( Oetzel et al. 2001 ). The concept of

face includes the aspect of social image presented to others, such that people who value

face or want to “save face” want the respect of others because others’ respect validates their

own self-worth; whereas disrespect or losing face invalidates it. Understanding the cultural

concept of face is central to self-presentation and evaluation of individual-level behavior in

social exchanges ( Earley 2001 ).

Saving face or losing face has different levels of importance depending on the culture.

Although face is not inconsequential to people from individualist societies, it seems to be a

central cultural value to people from collectivist cultures ( Oetzel et al. 2001 ). Whether in col-

lectivist cultures such as Hong Kong or Japan, or individualist cultures such as the U.S. ( Brett

2001 ), respect is the driving mechanism that underlies the face construct. Respect is deﬁned

as the level of esteem for another individual based on one’s own values ( Cronin 2004 ). Just as

saving face and losing face have differing levels of cultural importance, the communication

of respect also varies among cultures. Although there is great heterogeneity in the norms and

values held by individuals residing in East Asian countries, the communication of respect is

largely consistent and occurs through humility in social interactions, deference to authority,

and minimal (if any) disagreement ( Hofstede 1980 ; Schwartz 1994 ). Accordingly, displayed

emotions of arrogance, direct confrontation, and open arguments or quarrels communicate

disrespect. We posit that positive displayed emotion may play a critical role for East Asian

negotiators because positive emotion is consistent with the way in which they typically com-

municate respect. In Study 1, we investigated whether this predicted congruence inﬂuenced

negotiation outcomes.

4 Study 1

East Asian negotiators attune to variation in displayed emotion because they consider emo-

tional control to be an important part of business transactions ( Sanchez-Burks et al. 2000 ;

Sanchez-Burks 2005 ). Previous research has shown that cultural factors inﬂuence ideal

affect more than actual affect ( Tsai et al. 2006 ). Although they may not differ with regard

to how they actually feel, they may idealize positive affect because humility and deference

to authority are more congruent with being kind, friendly, and polite (displays of positive

emotion) than with being angry and rude (displays of negative emotion). Positive displayed

emotion may help facilitate the communication of respect during the negotiation process

which can lead to an enhanced social relationship and a better negotiated outcome ( Drolet

and Morris 2000 ; McGinn and Keros 2002 ; Moore et al. 1999 ). Hence, we hypothesize that

East Asian negotiators who value respect as humility and deference will be more likely to

accept an offer proposed by a U.S. negotiator who strategically displays positive emotion than

a U.S. negotiator who strategically displays negative emotion. This hypothesis was tested in

Study 1.

4.1 Methods

4.1.1 Participants

Twenty-eight East Asian MBA students (22 men, 6 women) enrolled in a global MBA

program in the U.S. participated in a 4-h negotiation workshop. The MBA program

123

Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions in negotiations

began with a three-month introductory session held in Japan, China, and Korea; however, the

remainder of the program was conducted in a business school located in the Midwestern U.S.

The average age of the participants was 31.52 years ( SD = 4.19 years). Eighteen participants

were Japanese, four were Korean, three were Thai, two were Chinese, and one was Taiwan-

ese. Participants were randomly assigned to the two experimental conditions by a web-based

survey through which the entire negotiation task was conducted. The study consisted of a

single factor (emotion: positive, negative) between subject design.

4.1.2 Task, procedure, and measures

Prior to the 4-h negotiation workshop participants were asked to complete an online question-

naire and a simulated negotiation exercise. The questionnaire measured their cultural values

and was completed before the participants took part in the simulated exercise. The simula-

tion involved an ultimatum bargaining situation in which the focal party (proposer) presented

the recipient (target) with a take-it-or-leave-it offer, which the target could either accept or

reject. In the simulation, participants were asked to assume the role of the target negotiator, a

person getting married in a few months. The background information provided details about

a catering service under consideration for their upcoming wedding. The business manager of

the catering company had given them a good faith estimate of $14,000 several months ago

to provide catering service for their wedding reception. The background information also

mentioned an alternative catering company that would be available on their wedding date.

However, participants were told that they had not had direct contact with that company, nor

did they fully trust the person who recommended it. Finally, participants were told that they

would soon meet with the business manager of the preferred catering company to ﬁnalize

the ﬁnancial arrangements. The “meeting” with the business manager was conducted by

randomly presenting participants with one of two videos of a professional actress acting as

the business manager. The actress presented the same informational content in both videos:

positive (Video 1) or negative (Video 2). The actress was a Caucasian American woman in

her early thirties.

The videos served as the experimental manipulation. In Video 1, the business manager

in a friendly tone, smiled often, nodded her head in agreement, and appeared cordial and

inviting. In Video 2, the business manager spoke antagonistically, appeared intimidating and

irritated. Prior research has demonstrated that these videos effectively manipulated positive

and negative emotions ( Kopelman et al. 2006 ).

In both emotional conditions, the business manager explained that the price of the recep-

tion had increased from $14,000 to $16,995 due to market price ﬂuctuations since the estimate

was presented. The business manager ended the meeting by stating that another couple was

interested in the same date, indicating that if the participant did not sign the contract immedi-

ately this option would no longer be available. After viewing the video, participants viewed

a form that looked like the actual business contract in the video. The contract asked them to

either accept or reject the proposed $16,995 invoice. Because all target negotiators received

an objectively equivalent offer that only differed in the strategic emotional approach dis-

played by the business manager, differences in outcomes could be attributed to the strategic

emotional display. After participants made their decision, they were asked to complete a

post-questionnaire labeled as a “Customer Satisfaction” survey. The task was later debriefed

during the 4-hour negotiation workshop.

123

Kopelmann, Rosette - Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: