Nonverbal Intercultural Communication during Negotiation

Culture, Nonverbal Display, and Negotiation “Style”

1

Nonverbal Cues Associated With Negotiation “Styles” Across Cultures Zhaleh Semnani-Azad University of Waterloo [email protected] Wendi L. Adair University of Waterloo [email protected]

Paper Presented at the 24th Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference Istanbul, Turkey July 3-6, 2011 Abstract: The current study examines possible miscommunications in cross-cultural negotiation, from a nonverbal communication perspective. We examined cultural variation in nonverbal cues connoting four negotiation styles, associated with the cooperative/competitive dichotomy (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993; Raiffa, 1982). Canadian and Chinese negotiators were primed with positive or negative evaluation (liking or disliking partner), and dominant or submissive negotiation styles. We found main effects of negotiation approach, where negotiators with a negative and dominant stance, tend to display negative emotion, gesture, occupy space, and engage in high visual dominance. In contrast, negotiators primed with liking or a more submissive negotiation stance were more likely to lean forward, smile, gesture, and exhibit silence. Significant interactions illustrate that Canadian negotiators communicate liking with eye contact, while this same behaviour is associated with dislike for Chinese negotiators. Interestingly, an erect and straight back posture was associated with dominance for Canadian negotiators, while this posture was affiliated with submissiveness amongst Chinese negotiators. Theoretical and practical implications for cross-cultural negotiation and communication are discussed.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1872173


2

The globalization and integration of world businesses and economies has immensely increased international trade, multinational mergers, foreign investments, and multicultural workforces. For example, international trade encompasses more than 25 percent of all economic activity in most Western European and industrialized countries (Limaye & Victor, 1991). Domestic workforces are becoming more diverse, ethnically and culturally, particularly in countries such as Canada and United States. Worldwide business organizations have come to realize the importance of intercultural business negotiation and cross-cultural communication, and thus scholarly research in these domains has risen dramatically (Limaye & Victor, 1991). Negotiation is a process of social interaction where parties make decisions about how to allocate resources and/or resolve conflicts (Thompson & Hastie, 1990). Compared to domestic negotiations, cross-cultural negotiations are more complex, due to cultural differences in goals (e.g. Gelfand & Realo, 1999), communication styles (e.g. Hall, 1987), cognitive schemas (e.g. Adair, Taylor, & Tinsley, 2009), and normative behaviours (e.g. Tayeb, 1988). These complexities increase the probability of miscommunication and conflict, thereby lowering chances of successful agreement. For example, when comparing negotiation behaviours of Japanese and U.S. managers in intra and intercultural settings, Adair, Okumura, & Brett (2001) found that intercultural negotiations tend to be significantly less successful than intracultural negotiations, and that culturally normative behaviours partially accounted for the low joint gains. The purpose of this research is to investigate sources of miscommunication in intercultural negotiation. Unlike prior negotiation research that focused on verbal channels (e.g. Taylor & Thomas, 2008), this study examines nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication is the expression and perception of non-linguistic signals or messages between people without the use of words (Afifi, 2007). People use nonverbal cues to express messages



3

that verbal communication cannot (Ting-Toomy, 1999), and as much as 65% of social meanings in communication are derived from nonverbal channels (Guerrero, Hecht, & DeVito, 2008). Nonverbal behaviour is thought to be unconscious and automatic, and is often trusted over verbal messages (Afifi, 2007). Even subtle nonverbal cues can greatly influence how a message is being interpreted (Guerrero et al., 2008). Since Nonverbal behaviour encompass a significant portion of face-to-face communication, it is important for researchers to examine these cues in crosscultural negotiation, to better understand possible areas of miscommunication and conflict. The display and interpretation of nonverbal cues have been shown to vary across cultures (Ekman & Friesen, 1975). Cultural differences exist in the use and interpretation of silence, where Japanese negotiators use silence as a persuasive tactic or as an indirect way of rejecting an offer, while North American negotiators tend to be more garrulous and uncomfortable with silence (e.g. Graham, 1985; Ueda, 1974). There are also cultural differences in negotiators’ facial expressions. Russian negotiators for instance, tend to display grim faces at an early stage of the negotiation, but later smile and appear more relaxed, which may be associated with relationship development (Richmond, 1996). Americans in contrast, are taught to start negotiations in a friendly manner with open smiles (Ting-Toomy, 1999), something a Russian counterpart may interpret as ingenuine. The display and interpretation of eye contact also varies across cultures. For instance, gazing at partner’s face is less frequent amongst Japanese negotiators than American negotiators (Graham, 1985). Japanese managers tend to make less eye contact than American managers (Hawrysh & Zaichkowsky, 1990). Among Western negotiators, lack of eye contact may be interpreted as lack of knowledge and/or deceit (McCarthy, Lee, Itakura, & Muir, 2006). While for East Asian negotiators, too much eye contact may be interpreted as dominating and competitive, fostering a distributive negotiation (Hawrysh & Zaichkowsky, 1990).



4

According to Motley (1990), a successful communication occurs when a person intends to send a message and the receiver attends to, and understands that message. A successful nonverbal communication occurs when people exchange messages nonverbally that have common social meanings (Burgoon 1980). People belonging to similar cultural groups tend to have shared meanings attached to nonverbal cues. However, a successful communication may not always occur in a cross-cultural interaction, especially given the cultural differences in display rules, cognitive schemas, and normative behaviours (Ekman & Friesen, 1975). Intercultural negotiators tend to experience miscommunication, in which a person intends to send a message but the receiver interprets the message incorrectly (Guerrero et al., 2008). For example, in a study by Graham & Sano (1984), American managers assumed that silence from their Japanese counterparts signalled consent, when it actually did not. To better understand the social meanings attached to nonverbal cues across cultures, we designed an experiment to elicit nonverbal cues communicating different negotiation styles by Canadian and Chinese negotiators. To interpret the nonverbal messages more accurately, we focused on clusters or packages of behaviours rather than relying too heavily on a few nonverbal cues (Guerrero & Hecht, 2008). Based on existing literature on nonverbal communication and display rules, we posit cultural differences in displays of nonverbal behaviour. We also postulate differences in nonverbal cues communicating the negotiation stances. The current study contributes to literature on cross-cultural communication and international negotiation, by developing a typology of nonverbal behaviours communicating different negotiation styles amongst Chinese and Canadian negotiators. We discuss theoretical and practical implications, as well as future directions on nonverbal communication research in cross-cultural negotiation. Nonverbal Communication and Negotiation Styles


5

Models of conflict management and negotiation styles consist of a cooperative/ competitive dichotomy (Pruitt, 1981) that is associated with integrative/ distributive negotiation outcomes (Raiffa, 1982). Different levels and combinations of cooperative/competitive tactics result in one of the five strategic approaches of negotiation including accommodating, avoiding, competing, compromising, and integrating (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Given that different levels of cooperativeness and competitiveness give rise to various negotiation styles, we focus on how East Asian and North American negotiators communicate these approaches nonverbally. We are interested in how negotiators of these cultures communicate dominance or submissiveness, and what behaviours these negotiators display, when they hold positive or negative views of their opponent. In this study, we manipulate participants’ negotiation styles to investigate nonverbal behaviours associated with these four components. The categorization and grouping of nonverbal cues associated with dominance-submissiveness, and positive-negative perception, has been adapted from the nonverbal factors developed by Gitin (1970). In her study of hand gestures, Gitin created 40 semantic differential scales, categorized into three different factors. These factors were developed to categorize the semantic meaning of different nonverbal cues. The current study employs Gitin’s second factor of the evaluation dimension (characterized by pleasant-unpleasant, friendly-unfriendly displays of nonverbal behaviour), and third factor of status dimension (nonverbal behaviours interpreted as submissive-dominant, weak-strong). Global Positive-Negative Evaluation Dimension We conceptualized Gitin’s evaluation factor as global positive-negative dimension. This domain consists of nonverbal cues that contribute to the overall evaluation of a person during a face to face interaction. Global positive represents the general, positive impression conveyed by a negotiator. If a negotiator holds positive views of his or her opponent, he or she will display


6

nonverbal cues that may communicate liking and positive affect. Global negative on the other hand, represents the overall negative evaluation. If a negotiator holds negative perceptions of his or her counterpart, that negotiator may display nonverbal behaviours that communicate dislike and negative affect. To develop our hypotheses of nonverbal behaviours associated with global positive and global negative evaluation, we reviewed prior nonverbal research on global evaluations and affective behaviour in interpersonal interactions (Noller & Gallois, 1986, 88). For example, to examine nonverbal behaviours in marital communication, Noller & Gallois (1986) developed a coding scheme to measure affective behaviour, nonverbal cues communicating positive and negative affect. Visual behaviours such as smiles, eyebrow raises, and eyebrow flashes as well as paralinguistic cues such as speaking tempo and vocal pitch, were coded. Positive messages were communicated by open and closed smile, eyebrow raise, and forward lean while negative messages were conveyed by behaviours such as frown and eyebrow furrow. Noller & Gallois (1988) included verbal channels in terms of content, vocal channel or tone of voice, and visual channel. Positive messages were relayed by head move to the partner and open smile, and the negative messages were expressed by head shake and eyes widen. Mehrabian (1972) indicated that facial and vocal cues to express variations in liking. Postures and positions have also been associated with the assessment of a person. A closer position, forward lean, eye contact, and direct orientation help form a positive impression of someone (Mehrabian, 1972). Positive affect cues such as gaze, smiling, forward lean, head nod, and vocal warmth have been shown to create and sustain immediacy (Burgoon & Newton, 1991). Liking is communicated through eye contact, smiling, facial and gestural animation, head nodding, and increased eye contact (e.g. Floyd & Ray, 2003). Forward lean is also thought to connote liking since leaning decreases the vertical and horizontal distance between people.


7

Newton & Burgoon (1990) for instance, observed that couples who supported each other during disagreements were more likely to use direct body orientation and close distancing (leaning). Prior studies also illustrate nonverbal clusters communicating negative affect and dislike during interactions (e.g. Mehrabian, 1972). In a study by Burgoon & Newton (1991), it was observed that negative affect was communicated with scowling and angry voice. When a person dislikes his or her interacting partner, that person displays further distancing, fewer eye contact, and negative behaviour (e.g. frowning, head shake) (Mehrabian, 1972). Based on prior research on affective behaviour and global evaluations, we expect that negotiators will communicate overall positive evaluation, by displaying open and closed smile, forward lean, and head move toward the partner. Negotiators will communicate dislike by displaying frown, non-smiling mouth, distant posture, and head shake, hence exhibiting negative emotion on face. Hypothesis 1: Negotiators communicating global positive stance will smile, lean forward, face partner, and gesture when speaking (H1a); negotiators communicating global negative stance will display negative emotion on face (H1b). Dominant-Submissive Status Dimension Gitin’s status dimension has been characterized as dominant-submissive domain. This component contains nonverbal cues that communicate dominance, status, and power of a person during negotiation. We examine nonverbal cues that signal dominance or submissiveness. Nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, eye gaze, and body postures have been associated with perceptions of dominance and status (e.g. Aguinis, Simonsen, Pierce, 1998). Dominance is generally associated with being forceful, assertive, and expressive (e.g. Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000), the nonverbal display of which includes the use of space; relaxed posture, gesturing, and emotion expressiveness, especially negative emotions such as anger (e.g. Remland, 2009).


8

According to Remland (1981), powerful and dominant individuals tend to have more access to space and larger territories. Previous studies illustrate that when people expand themselves by occupying space, they are perceived as dominant, and postural expansion is more likely to occur amongst high status individuals (e.g. Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Interestingly, another indicator of dominance is the ability to be relaxed (Manusov & Patterson, 2006). Dominant personality dispositions have been shown to correlate with relaxed behaviour, and dominant communicators tend to exhibit a relaxed, yet confident guise (Manusov, 2005). According to Mehrabian (1972), superiors tend to lean back in the chair, use an open-arms position, stretch out, and place their arms and legs in relaxed positions. Another nonverbal indicator of dominance is the expression of emotion, particularly negative emotion such as anger. Individuals with power and status have a tendency to disregard display rules and so, they may be more visibly expressive than those of lower status (Remland, 2009). They may exhibit dominance by yelling, frowning, staring angrily, not joining in laughter (Remland, 2009). A high level of gesturing is also associated with dominance (e.g. Carney et al., 2005). For instance, steepling, the gesture of touching the fingertips together in a raised position has been associated with confidence and status (Henley, 1977). Furthermore, it has been stated that high status is communicated by a high visual dominance behaviour, where a person looks more (direct eye gaze) when speaking and looks less when listening (e.g. Aguinis et al., 1998). Behaviours such as posture constriction, fewer eye gazes, low visual dominance, frequent pauses (silence), and low speaking energy are thought to characterize submissiveness (Manusov & Patterson, 2006). Signals of subordination and submissiveness include stooped and constrictive posture, crouching, and drawing the head into shoulders, (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). People of low power and status have been shown to be less expressive, speak less and listen


9

more, look at interactional partner when listening and engage in fewer eye contacts when speaking (low visual dominance), be more attentive, and sit in an erect, and sideways position (e.g. Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). These behaviours are displayed as a sign of respect, especially when interacting with a high status person. Accordingly, we posit that a dominant individual will most likely display high visual dominance by engaging in high levels of eye contact when speaking, be more expressive and gesture when speaking, display negative emotion on face, take up space, and engage in a relaxed posture. An individual conveying submissiveness will engage in low visual dominance, silence, and fewer eye gazes. Hypothesis 2: Dominant negotiators will exhibit high levels of visual dominance, gesturing, negative emotion on face, space, and relaxed postures (H2a). Submissive negotiators will display low levels of visual dominance and high levels of silence (H2b). Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Even though we posit different clusters of nonverbal behaviour associated with the negotiation stance, culture also influences the displays and social meanings attached to nonverbal cues (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Thus, we also predict cultural differences in nonverbal communication in negotiation amongst the different negotiation styles. Culture can be defined as an exclusive and unique nature of a social group with regards to values, norms, schemas, and institutions that is different and distinguishable from other social groups (Lytle, Brett, Barness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995). Culture is thought to influence individual behaviours as well as the mental models of how things work (Hofstede, 1980). While this study examines Chinese and Canadian negotiators’ nonverbals, we develop our hypotheses based on past nonverbal research using East Asian and North American samples. Based on cultural variation in norms for respect, modesty, and restraint, prior research has illustrated differences in nonverbal communication amongst East Asians and North Americans.


10

Most research on culture and nonverbal communication examines emotion expression (Ekman, 1972; Motsumoto, 2001). Western European cultural values, such as independence and self-assertion, promote open emotion expression (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007). East Asian cultural values, such as interdependence and relationship harmony, tend to promote emotion suppression, especially the suppression of negative emotions (Gross & Levenson, 1997). Prior research shows that compared to North Americans, East Asians are less likely to display negative emotions (Gross and John, 1998). In a study by Friesen (1972) where American and Japanese participants viewed a highly stressful film, Japanese participants were least likely to express negative emotions (e.g. disgust, sadness, fear, and anger). Instead, they masked these emotions with smiles. In another study by Matsumoto & Kupperbusch (2001), collectivists were more likely to mask negative emotions compared to individualists. Thus, we predict that Canadian negotiators display more negative emotions on face compared to Chinese negotiators. Hypothesis 3a: Canadian negotiators will display more negative emotion on their face than Chinese negotiators. Posture is a type of communication expressing emotions such as likes or dislikes (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). A change in body posture is thought to reflect change in a person’s emotional state, and that a person can express friendliness, unfriendliness, superiority, and inferiority via body posture (Mehrabian & Friar, 1969). To the extent that one’s level of emotion expression and suppression is influenced by one’s cultural values, it is reasonable to presume that culture will also affect body posture and gesture, especially when communicating emotions. In fact, prior research suggests that people’s body posture and gestures are influenced by their culture (e.g. Kudoh & Matsumoto, 1985). For instance, compared to North Americans, Japanese individuals tend to display more restrained gestures in emotional situations. In communicating interpersonal positiveness (i.e. liking), Kudoh and Matsumoto (1985) found that Japanese


11

displayed more restrained postures by straightening their backs as well as leaning forward. Moreover, Bond and Shiraishi (1974) reported that compared to Westerners, Japanese display far less gestures and use simple postures. Thus, we expect that, compared to Chinese negotiators, Canadians will exhibit higher levels of body movement and varying posture. Hypothesis 3b: Canadian negotiators will display more variation in body posture and hand movement (i.e. gesturing) than Chinese negotiators. Another dimension of cultural variation in nonverbal display is eye gaze. Eye contact refers to looking at another person’s eyes, while gaze avoidance refers to intentionally avoiding eye contact (Cranach, 1971). The frequency and duration of eye contact has been shown to vary by culture, as does the meaning (e.g. Knapp & Hall, 2002). For instance, gazing at partner’s face is less frequent amongst Japanese negotiators than American negotiators (Graham, 1985). In Western cultures, an individual looking down is associated with lacking knowledge, confidence, or being deceitful. In Eastern culture, looking down is a sign of respect while excessive eye contact is a sign of disrespect (Collett, 1971). McCarthy, Lee, Itakura, & Muir (2006) examined eye contact duration and gaze aversion direction of three cultures, and found that Canadians engaged in more eye contact than Japanese. Japanese participants scored highest on downward gaze aversion while Canadians had low scores on gaze aversion. Hypothesis 3c: Compared to Canadian negotiators, Chinese negotiators will more likely face down and avoid eye contact when negotiating. Method Participants Forty-eight Chinese male and fifty-seven Canadian male, undergraduate students from a Canadian University participated in this study, in exchange for 1 participation credit. All Chinese students were Mandarin speaking born in Mainland China, identified primarily with the Chinese


12

culture, and had been in Canada for less than ten years. All Canadian participants were Canadian-Caucasians born in Canada, who identified primarily with the Canadian culture. Design This study employed a 2 (Culture: Chinese, Canadian) x 4 (Negotiation Style: Global Positive, Global Negative, Dominant, Submissive) factorial design. Six categories of nonverbal behaviours: Posture, head movement, hand movement, eye gaze, vocal speech, and facial expression, served as dependent variables. The frequency of occurrence of these behaviours were coded and recorded by independent coders. Materials Negotiation Simulation. We adapted the Towers Market negotiation simulation developed by Weingart, Bennett, & Brett (1993), used two out of the four negotiating parties, and embedded additional information on negotiation styles (manipulation). We shortened the negotiation roles and included two issues. The negotiation involves a baker and liquor store owner negotiating about sharing space in the Towers Market. The parties must reach agreement on two issues, staff (hiring and training costs) and advertising (whether to promote two stores together, and advertising costs). Chinese and Canadian participants were randomly assigned the role of either baker or liquor seller. Participants engaged in an intracultural negotiation with a male confederate of their own cultural background. The negotiation roles were in English; however the information on negotiation style as well as the manipulation materials were translated in Mandarin for Chinese participants. We employed the translation-back translation method where a Chinese research assistant translated the materials from English to Mandarin and another Chinese research assistant translated the materials from Mandarin back to English


13

(Brislin, 1970). All participants negotiated in their native language, where Canadians negotiated in English, and Chinese participants negotiated in Mandarin. Manipulation of Negotiation Styles. Concepts and ideas that have a shared meaning across several cultures are considered to be etic, while concepts that are unique to a specific culture, and vary considerably in meaning across other cultures, are categorized as emic (Triandis, 1972). Hence, not all concepts are universally understood and emic concepts implemented in cross-cultural studies can result in category fallacy, the assumption that survey questions are being comprehended and interpreted in an equivalent manner by all respondents, irrespective of cultural values, norms, and experiences (Triandis, 1972). In order to eliminate category fallacy, we developed a pilot study employing the Q-Sort procedure (Hurd & Brown, 2005) to determine emic and etic concepts. Thirty participants from North American and East Asians cultures, fifteen from each culture, were presented with thirty-five items (adjectives and expressions) in which they had to categorize into four components associated with the negotiation styles (positive, negative, dominant, and submissive). Participants were also presented with an “undecided category” to place adjectives that did not associate with the four components. Participants were provided with a brief description of what each component conceptualized. For example, “the global negative component communicates a general, negative impression”. Chi-square tests were conducted to determine the percentage of distribution of the items into the four groups. We were only interested in etic concepts, the expressions and adjectives understood similarly across North American and East Asian sample. Thus, we rejected any item with below 60% agreement across cultures, and rejected all items that had been placed in the “undecided category”. The overall


14

agreement across all four components was 75% (for both cultures). These adjectives and expressions are thus etic, and hold similar social meanings across both cultures. The items from the Q-sort were used for our manipulation of negotiation styles, where we embedded information in the roles explaining what type of negotiation style the negotiator holds and providing a reason for this approach (see Appendix A). For example, with the “dominant” manipulation, negotiator’s were told to adopt an style described as “determined,” “authoritative,” “controlling,” and “assertive,” and they were provided with information about the negotiator’s status and standing within the community. During preparation, we asked participants to reflect on their role and negotiation approach, and record the behaviours they can exhibit to communicate their negotiation style. As a manipulation check (given after negotiation interaction), participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (e.g. 1= not at all dominant; 7=extremely dominant), to what extent they employed their negotiation style. Also, participants were asked to recall the behaviours they engaged in, and what those behaviours communicated. Confederates. Because we did not want negotiators’ manipulated styles to influence one another, we hired and trained confederates, blind to the hypothesis, to act as participants. To reduce the influence of confederate nonverbal behaviours on participants (e.g. mirroring or complementary behaviours) (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), all confederates were trained to behave in a neutral manner (Mehrabian, 1972). They were told to display neutral nonverbal cues, e.g. neutral emotion, neutral facial expression, and neutral posture. Confederates were instructed to remain non-committal with regards to their preferences during the negotiation, by lowering their target points and increasing their reservations points. Thus, confederates would not readily agree (compromise), and yet would not be competitive either. We had four male confederates, two Chinese and two Canadian students. All confederates


15

were normally sized for their gender, and were directed to act as typical undergraduate students participating in a psychology experiment. The Chinese confederates were all Mandarin speaking. Procedure Upon arrival to the experiment, the participant and the confederate were placed in separate rooms. Participants were provided with their negotiation roles, which contained the manipulation (negotiation style), and included background information on their character, their experience, budget, and interests. A pay-off matrix, attached to their role instructions, provided participants with an overview of the two negotiation issues, the options within each issue, and their preferences via a point-system. Participants were instructed to think about how to replay their negotiation style and what behaviours they would display to communicate that. Confederates were also presented with a negotiation role, and were instructed to act in a neutral manner during the interaction. A maximum of twenty minutes was allotted for preparation After the preparation phase, participants were brought into the same room as the confederate. Participants were seated by the negotiation table, across the confederate. Dyads were not provided with a negotiation deadline; however dyads that spent more than 10 minutes were instructed to end the negotiation within 5 minutes. Once an agreement was reached, both parties completed the “contract form”, recorded the options they agreed on, and were asked to calculate and record their overall score. After the negotiation task, participants completed a demographic questionnaire about their gender, age, and cultural background. The negotiation sessions were videotaped without the awareness of participants. Participants were not informed of this, because their knowledge of the video cameras might have affected their behaviour during the interaction. Participants were also not informed that their opponent was in fact a research assistant, due to possible influences on their nonverbal


16

behaviour. Upon the completion of the study, all participants were thanked, rewarded, and debriefed about the purpose of the study and were informed of the video recording and the confederate. Participants were then asked to read and sign a second consent form that would allow the researchers to examine the negotiation videos for research purposes. Measures Coding of Behaviours. Participants’ negotiation interaction was videotaped and their behaviours were coded on: Posture (lean Sideways, lean back, lean forward), head movement (face sideways, head down, face partner, head shake), hand movement (move hand when speaking, hands on table, rest head on arm), eye gaze (eye contact, gaze avoidance), vocal speech (silence, verbal speech, response latencies), and facial expression (non-smiling mouth, open smile, closed smile, frown), served as dependent variables. All behaviours were coded with The Observer, a computer-based coding system that captures the frequency and duration of nonverbal cues (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen, & Jansen, 2000). Prior to video-coding, coders were trained on one category at a time to reliably identify all the behaviours examined in this study. For example, all coders were first trained on the posture category where they had to distinguish whether the participants were leaning sideways, leaning back, and leaning forward. After coding all sessions on posture, the coders were trained on another behavioural category. Coders only recorded and observed the nonverbal behaviours of participants and not All coders were asked to code three practice sessions, and for each session, inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa (Cohen, 1960): Posture (.81), head movement (.72), hand movement (.78), eye gaze (.83), vocal speech (.89), and facial expression (.72). The mean kappa was 0.79, which characterizes a substantial agreement amongst coders (Landis & Koch, 1977). As soon as a reliability of over .7 kappa was


17

established amongst coders, the video sessions was distributed among them. Each coder watched each session two times and recorded the behaviours using the Noldus software. The recorded behaviours from the second session were used in our analysis. Results Nonverbal Cues Conveying Negotiation Styles. All nonverbal cues were calculated as percentage data, the amount with which a nonverbal behaviour was exhibited throughout the entire negotiation. For example, during 90% of an interaction, a person exhibited forward lean. Thus, we did not need to control for time in our analyses. We carried out two sets of analyses, first comparing nonverbal behaviours in the positive, negative conditions, second comparing nonverbal behaviours in the dominant, submissive conditions. In these multivariate general linear model analyses, the conditions were the independent variables, the nonverbal cues were the depended measures (see Table 1). ________________ Table 1 about here ________________ Hypothesis 1. We predicted that negotiators communicating a positive stance will engage in behaviours related to positive affect and liking (Manusov, 2005). Compared to participants in the negative condition (M =58.4, SE=6.21), participants with a positive negotiation approach were marginally more likely to lean forward (M =75.8, SE=6.82), F (1, 50) = 3.54, p = .06. Participants in the positive condition (M =40.46, SE=4.53), were also more likely to gesture when speaking than those in the negative condition (M =23.67, SE=4.2), F (1, 50) = 7.38, p ≤ .01. We recorded the percentage in which a negotiator smiled (with mouth open and closed), and this behaviour was marginally more common in the positive condition (M =5.82, SE=1.63), than the negative condition (M =2.19, SE=1.48), F (1, 50) = 2.7, p=.10. However, we did not find any


18

significant differences on facing partner. We predicted that negotiators communicating a negative stance will display behaviours relaying negative affect and dislike. Overall, negotiators with a negative stance (M =32.1, SE=1.16) were more likely to display negative emotion than negotiators with a positive stance (M =28.46, SE=1.28), F (1, 50) = 4.4, p ≤ .05. Hypothesis 2. We predicted that negotiators with a dominant negotiation approach would engage in high visual dominance, display negative emotion on face, occupy space, and exhibit relaxed postures (Remland, 2009). We also postulated that negotiators communicating a more submissive style would display low levels of visual dominance and high levels of silence. We examined and averaged scores on non-verbal cues associated with displays of negative facial expression: frown, non-smiling mouth, and head shake (Manusov, 2005). The results indicate that dominant individuals were more likely to display negative emotion on face (M =31.57, SE=1.54) compared to submissive negotiators (M =21.5, SE=1.5), F (1, 47) = 8.7, p ≤ .01. To examine the extent to which negotiators displayed relaxed postures, we examined two indicators of relaxed postures, leaning back and leaning sideways (Mehrabian, 1972). Overall, we did not find significant differences for leaning back, or leaning sideways. To determine the extent to which negotiators occupied space, we averaged four nonverbal behaviours: hands on table, rest head on arm, hand in air, and palms up. We found a marginally significant difference between the conditions, where negotiators communicating a dominant approach occupied more space (M =5.33, SE=.8) than negotiators with a submissive approach (M =3.41, SE=.8), F (1, 47) = 2.89, p = .09. We also found that dominant negotiators tend to gesture more when speaking (M =43.62, SE=4.66) in contrast to negotiators communicating a submissive stance (M =28.67, SE=4.55) F (1, 5047= 5.28, p ≤ .05. A marginally significant difference on visual dominance was observed, where dominant negotiators engaged in high level


19

of eye contact when speaking (M =19, SE=3.19) than submissive negotiators (M =11.29, SE=3) (F (1, 47) = 3.13, p = .08. Also, we found that negotiators who were submissive, were more likely to exhibit silence (M =53.7, SE=3.85) than the dominant negotiators (M =42.8, SE=3.85) F (1, 47) =4, p ≤ .05. Thus, we found partial support for hypotheses 1 & 2, with regards to differences in nonverbal cues associated with negotiation styles. Cultural Comparison of Nonverbal Behaviours Hypothesis 3. We predicted that in general Canadian negotiators will display higher level of negative emotion on face (H3a), display more variation in posture and hand movements (i.e. gesturing) (H3b), and Chinese negotiators will more likely engage in gaze avoidance, and will tend to look down (face down) when negotiating (H3c) (see Figures 1 & 2). ____________________ Figures 1 & 2 about here ____________________

Positive-Negative Domain. We examined the averaged scores on three non-verbal cues associated with displays of negative facial expression: frown, non-smiling mouth, and head shake. However, we did not find any cultural differences in this category. To investigate variation in posture and hand movements, we looked at a cluster of nonverbal cues: lean forward, lead sideways, lean back, straight back, and gesturing when speaking. Significant interactions emerged for forward lean F (1, 50) =4.84, p ≤ .05, and lean back F (1, 50) =3.74, p ≤ .05, and we found a marginally significant main effect of culture for lean sideways F (1, 50) =3, p = .09, but not the other behaviours. Overall, Canadians were more likely to lean to the side (M =25.66, SE=5.02) compared to Chinese participants (M =12.53, SE=5.7), regardless of whether they were in the positive or negative stance. Also regardless of condition, Canadians leaned forward equally. However, Chinese negotiators leaned forward the most, particularly when conveying a


20

positive stance (M =90, SE=10.56), compared to Canadian negotiators (M =61.7, SE=8.6). Interestingly, Chinese negotiators also leaned back against their chair more than Canadian negotiators, but this was only true for the negative condition. Thus, when conveying a negative stance, Chinese negotiators leaned back the most (M =21.9, SE=5.53), while Canadian negotiators leaned back the least (M =7.5, SE=5.34). We expected Chinese participants to display less eye contact, and so we examined three behaviours of head down (facing down), eye contact, and no eye contact. We did not find any differences for head down. A marginally significant interaction emerged for eye contact, F (1, 50) =3.7, p = .06, where in the negative condition Canadians engaged in the fewest eye contact (M =7.7, SE=3.03), and Chinese participants engaged in higher levels of eye contact (M =16.4, SE=3.03). Canadians on the other hand, engaged in more eye contact when communicating a positive stance (M =15.5, SE=2.84), than Chinese negotiators (M =12.1, SE=3.6). We also observed a significant interaction for no eye contact (gaze avoidance), F (1, 50) =5.6, p ≤ .05. Interestingly, Canadians exhibited higher gaze avoidance (M =46.1, SE=4.4) compared to Chinese participants (M =28.1, SE=4.42), but this was only the case for the negative condition. Dominant-Submissive Domain. Again, we did not find any cultural differences in display of negative emotion. When examining variations in posture and hand movements, we only observed significant interaction for straight back F (1, 47) =4.4, p ≤ .05. The findings illustrate that Canadians were more likely to exhibit a straight back (M =12.1, SE=4.88) than Chinese participants (M =1.97, SE=5.06) when connoting dominance, while Chinese participants tended to have straight back postures in the submissive condition (M =11.4, SE=4.43) compared to Canadians (M =.9, SE=5.27). To investigate differences in gaze avoidance, we examined head down, eye contact and no eye contact behaviours separately. Overall, we observed a main effect


21

of culture for head down, F (1, 47) =4.55, p ≤ .05, where in general Chinese negotiators had a tendency to not face their opponent (M =57.19, SE=5.19), than Canadian negotiators (M =41.59, SE=5.15), regardless of whether they were conveying dominance or submissiveness stance. We did not find any differences on culture for eye contact or gaze avoidance. Discussion We investigated nonverbal cues communicating four negotiation styles (positive/ negative evaluation, dominant/submissive stance), relevant to the two negotiation approaches of competitive/cooperative dichotomy. We examined how Canadian and Chinese negotiators connote these approaches. Our findings illustrate nonverbal cues with universal, shared meanings from both cultures, as well as nonverbal cues with different social meanings and interpretations. Our results illustrated that regardless of culture, negotiators conveying a positive stance (with positive views of their opponent) were more likely smile, lean forward, and gesture when speaking, while participants connoting a negative stance (with negative perceptions of opponent) were more likely to display negative emotion on face, such as frowning or head shake. Negotiators communicating dominance were also more likely to display negative emotion. But they also had a tendency to occupy space, gesture when speaking, and exhibit high visual dominance (engage in eye contact when speaking). Negotiators with a more submissive stance engaged in low visual dominance, and tended to be silent. Thus, a negotiator with a competitive approach (with a distributive mindset) may display nonverbal behaviours associated with dominance and negative evaluation: display of negative emotion on face, gesturing, high visual dominance, and occupying space. On the other hand, a negotiator with a cooperative approach (integrative mindset) may exhibit nonverbal cues associated with positive evaluation and lower level of dominance such as leaning forward and gesturing. These findings are consistent with our


22

predictions, and prior literature on nonverbal cues associated with positive and negative affect, and dominant, submissive stance (Manusov, 2005; Remland, 2009). Aside from universal nonverbal cues associated with the negotiation styles, we also found some interesting cultural differences. Overall, Canadians were more likely to lean to the side (a nonverbal behaviour associated with relaxed demeanour, Mehrabian, 1972), regardless of whether negotiators held positive or negative evaluations of their partner. When holding positive views of their opponent, Chinese participants were more likely to lean forward, while Canadians were more likely to engage in eye contact. When holding negative views of their counterpart, Chinese negotiators were more likely to lean back and engage in high level of eye contact, while Canadian negotiators were more likely to avoid eye contact. When examining nonverbal cues communicating dominance/submissiveness, we found that overall, Chinese participants had a tendency to look down and not face their partner. This is consistent with our prediction of gaze avoidance amongst East Asians, and previous research (Graham, 1985). Interestingly, to communicate dominance, Canadians were more likely to sit in an erect, straight back posture, while Chinese negotiators displayed that posture when conveying submissiveness. Prior research on nonverbal communication has associated eye contact with positive affect, liking, and engagement (Manusov, 2005), and leaning back as a relaxed, dominant stance (Remland, 2009). However in these studies, the social meanings attached to nonverbal cues were based on Western European population and not East Asian cultures. Thus, we can easily see a possible misinterpretation in intercultural negotiation, where if a Chinese negotiator displays high level of eye contact and leans back, this may be interpreted as liking and positive affect by a Canadian negotiator, when it actually signals dislike. Furthermore, although prior research indicates that East Asians are more likely to look down and avoid eye contact, as a sign of


23

respect and modesty (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004), we found that members of these cultures engage in eye contact when they are communicating negative affect or when they dislike their interaction partner. So, in intercultural negotiation, an East Asian negotiator may interpret a Western European negotiator’s eye contact as dislike and negative affect, when it actually means the opposite. Similarly, past research show that East Asians tend to sit in a more erect, and restricted posture, however this seems to be true when they are conveying a lower position/status when interacting with a counterpart. This may be easily misinterpreted as dominance or unfriendly persona by a North American negotiator. Future Directions and Conclusion Cultures can communicate the same message in different ways. One cultural dimension affecting communication is low/high context, which refers to the amount of information contained in an explicit message versus implicit contextual cues (Hall, 1987). Low context cultures, typically found in the West, engage in explicit, direct information exchange, and tend to say things in words and express emotion. High context cultures, typically found in the East, engage in implicit information exchange such as storytelling and inference making. Members of these cultures tend to rely on indirect communication and suppress the display of emotion (Hall, 1987). It is interesting that although East Asians are less likely than North Americans to display obvious nonverbal cues, due to cultural norms for restraint, modesty, and emotion suppression, their high context communication patterns should make them more attentive and sensitive to nonverbal communication conveyed by their partner. In future research, we would like to examine cultural variations in sensitivity and attention to displays of nonverbal cues. We plan on collecting self-report data from Chinese and Canadian negotiators about their own nonverbal behaviour as well as the nonverbal behaviours displayed by their negotiating partner.


24

In this study, we examined how Chinese and Canadian negotiators communicate different negotiation styles associated with a competitive/cooperative negotiation approach. Based on the findings we can construct a topology of nonverbal elements by members of these cultures in a negotiation interaction. Also, we can identify culture specific as well as universal nonverbal cues. Given that communication problems in international negotiation contribute to poor outcomes (Adair et al., 2001), and that 80% of communication is conveyed nonverbally (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001), by understanding cultural differences in nonverbal communication, we can develop a clearer picture of why and how communication problems arise. Moreover, information on nonverbal communication can later be used to train negotiators when interacting with members of different cultures in order to enhance effective communication and maximize integrative outcomes in intercultural negotiations.


25

References Adair, W.L., Taylor, M.S., & Tinsley, C.H. (2009). Starting Out on the Right Foot: Negotiation Schemas When Cultures Collide. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2 (2), 138-163. Adair, W.L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J.M. (2001). Negotiation behaviours when cultures collide: The U.S. and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371-385. Afifi, W. A. (2007). Nonverbal communication. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Aguinis, H., Simonsen, MM, & Pierce, CA (1998). Effects of nonverbal behaviour on perceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 455-469. Bond, M.H., & Shiraishi, D. (1974). The effect of body lean and status of an interviewer on the non-verbal behaviour of Japanese interviewees. International Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 117-128. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. Burgoon, J.K. (1980). Nonverbal communication in the 1970s: An overview. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 179-197). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Burgoon, J.K., & Newton, D.A. (1991). Applying a social meaning model to relational messages of conversational involvement: Comparing participant and observer perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 96-113. Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L, & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7, 30-48. Cohen, Jacob (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behaviour link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910. Cranach, M., & EIIgring, J. H. (1973). Problems in the recognition of gaze direction. In M. von Cranach and 1. Vine (Eds.), Social communication and movement. London: Academic Press. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1971, (Vol. 19, pp. 207-283). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facia clues. Engkewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49- 98. Floyd, K., & Ray, G.B. (2003). Human affection exchange: IV. Vocalic predictors of perceived affection in initial interactions. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 56-73. Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An experimental test of the concept of display rules. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Francisco. Gelfand, M. J., & Realo, A. (1999). Individualism-collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 721-736. Gitin, S.R. (1970). A dimensional analysis of manual expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 15, 271-277.


26

Graham, J.L., & Sano, Y. (1984). Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Graham, J.L. (1985). Influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: An exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 16, 81-96. Gross, J.J. & John, O.P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74, 170-191. Gross, J.J., & Levenson, R.W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106, 95-103. Guerrero, L.K., Hecht, M.L., & DeVito, J.A. (2008). Perspectives in defining and understanding nonverbal communication, in L.K. Guerrero & M. L. Hecht, editor, Nonverbal Communication Reader. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. Hall, E. T. (1987). Hidden differences-doing business with the Japanese. New York: Anchor Books. Hawrysh, B.M., & Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1990). Cultural approaches to negotiations: understanding the Japanese Source. International Marketing Review, 7 (2), 28-42. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hurd, R., & Brown, S.R. (2005). The future of the Q methodology movement. Operant Subjectivity, 28, 58-75. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychologial Review, 110(2), 265-284. Kudoh, T. & Matsumoto, D. (1985). Cross-cultural examination of the semantic dimensions of body postures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1440-1446. Landis, J.R.; & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159–174. Limaye, M. R., & Victor, D. a. (1991). Cross-Cultural Business Communication Research: State of the Art and Hypotheses for the 1990s. Journal of Business Communication, 28(3), 277-299. Lytle, A.L., Brett, J.M., Barness, Z.I., Tinsley, C.H., & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behaviour, in L.L Cummings and B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Manusov, V. (2005). The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: going beyond words. New Jersey, London: Laurence Erlbaum associates. Manusov, V.L. & Patterson, M.L. (2006). The sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc. Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology. Belmont: Thomson. Wadsworth. Matsumoto, D., & Kupperbusch, C. (2001). Idiocentric and allocentric differences in emotional expression and experience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 113–131. McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D.W. (2006). Cultural display rules drive eye gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 37(6), 717-722. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Mehrabian, A., & Friar, J. T. (1969). Encoding of attitude by a seated communicator via posture and position cues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 330-336. Motley, M.T. (1990). On whether one can(not) communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1-20.


27

Noldus, L.P.J.J.; Trienes, R.J.H.; Hendriksen, A.H.M.; Jansen, H.; Jansen, R.G. (2000), The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 197-206. Noller, P., & Gallois, C. (1986). Sending emotional messages in marriage: Nonverbal behaviour, sex, and communication clarity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 287-297. Noller, P., & Gallois, C. (1988). Understanding and misunderstanding in marriage: Sex and marital adjustment differences in structure and free interaction (pp. 53-77). Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Newton, D. A. & Burgoon, J. K. (1990). Nonverbal conflict behaviors: Functions, strategies, and tactics. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 77104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiating Behaviour. New York: Academic Press. Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Remland, M.S. (2009). Nonverbal communication in everyday life. (3rd. Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Remland, M.S. (1981). “Developing leadership skills in nonverbal communication: A situational perspective.” Journal of Business Communication 18: 18-31. Richmond, Y. (1996). From nyet to da: Understanding the Russians. (2nd Ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Taylor, P.J, & Thomas, S. (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(3), 263-281. Tayeb, M. H. (1988). Organizations and national culture: A comparative analysis. London: Sage. Taylor, P.J, & Thomas, S. (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1 (3), 263-281. Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 47, 98-123. Tiedens, L. Z. & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in submissive and dominant nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558568. Ting-Toomey, S (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guiford Press. Triandis, HC (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. NewYork: Wiley-Interscience. Ueda, K. (1974). Sixteen ways to avoid saying No in Japan, in J.C. Condon and M. Saito (Ed.), Intercultural Encounters in Japan. Tokyo: Simul Press. Walton, R.E., & McKersie, R.B. (1965). A Behavioural Theory of Labour Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Weingart, L.R., Bennett, R.J., & Brett, J.M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 504-517.

Culture, Nonverbal Display, and Negotiation “Style” Table 1 Hypothesis 1: Mean scores of nonverbal behaviours (Positive, Negative) Nonverbal behaviour

Positive M (S.E.) 75.8 (6.82) 40.46 (4.53) 5.82 (1.6) 38.23 (5.85) 28.46 (1.28)

Lean forward† Gesture when speaking** Smile† Face partner Negative emotion* (frown, nonsmiling mouth, head shake) ** p ≤ .01

* p ≤ .05

Negative M (S.E.) 58.4 (6.21) 23.67 (4.2) 2.19 (1.48) 36.35 (5.32) 32.1 (1.16)

† p ≤ .10

Hypothesis 2: Mean scores of nonverbal behaviours (Dominant, Submissive) Nonverbal behaviour Silence* Lean back Lean Sideways Gesture when speaking* Negative emotion** (frown, non-smiling mouth, head shake) Visual Dominance† Space† (hands on table, rest head on arm, hand in air, and palms up) ** p ≤ .01

* p ≤ .05

Dominant M (S.E.) 42.8 (3.85) 5.42 (3.87) 15.04 (3.96) 43.62 (4.66) 31.57 (1.54)

Submissive M (S.E.) 53.7 (3.85) 7.28 (3.8) 12.49 (3.88) 28.67 (4.55) 21.5 (1.5)

19 (3.19) 5.33 (.8)

11.29 (3) 3.41 (.8)

† p ≤ .10

Figure 1. Culture by Condition Interaction: Positive-Negative Negotiation Style Lean Back: Culture x Condition interaction

100

25

80

20

60 40

Canadian

20

Chinese

0

% Nonverbal

% Nonverbal

Lean Forward: Culture x Condition interaction

15 10

Canadian

5

Chinese

0 Positive Negative Negotiation Style

Positive Negative Negotiation Style

28


29

Eye Contact: Culture x Condition Interaction % Nonverbal

20 15 10

Canadian

5

Chinese

0 Positive Negative Negotiation Style

Figure 2. Culture by Condition Interaction: Dominant-Submissive Negotiation Style Straight Back: Culture x Condition Interaction % Nonverbal

15 10 Canadian

5

Chinese 0 Dominant Submissive Negotiation Style

Appendix A Manipulation Materials: Negotiation Styles Global Positive

Global Negative

You own a highly successful wine business, Domaine Vintage Cellars OR traditional French bakery, Brown’s Bakery. Your negotiating partner also owns a successful business. Other business men, who have engaged in a negotiation with your partner, have had a positive negotiation experience. They reported the negotiation experience to be pleasant, cheerful, nice, and positive.

You own a highly successful wine business, Domaine Vintage Cellars OR traditional French bakery, Brown’s Bakery. Your negotiating partner also owns a successful business. Other business men, who have engaged in a negotiation with your partner, have had a negative negotiation experience. They reported the negotiation experience to be unpleasant, and negative.

During the negotiation you are very optimistic about the upcoming negotiation. You have a positive feeling about this and feel happy and merry for the upcoming negotiation. You are very cheerful and have a positive feeling. During this negotiation, please remember that you are nice, pleasant, favourable, and optimistic.

You are very pessimistic about the upcoming negotiation. You have a negative feeling about this and are unhappy and gloomy for the upcoming negotiation. You are very distrustful and have a bad feeling. During this negotiation, please remember that you are gloomy, unhappy, distrustful, and pessimistic.


30

Dominant

Submissive

You own a highly successful wine business, Domaine Vintage Cellars OR traditional French bakery, Brown’s Bakery. You have been conducting business for a longer time compared to your negotiating partner and you are a more experienced business-man. Your business is well known and you are highly respected within the community. You are considered to possess a higher social status than your partner.

You own a highly successful wine business, Domaine Vintage Cellars OR traditional French bakery, Brown’s Bakery. However, since your negotiating partner has been conducting business for a longer time than you have, your negotiating partner is a more experienced business-man. Compared to your negotiating partner, your business not as well known and you are not as respected within the community. You are considered to possess a lower social status compared to your partner.

During this negotiation you are determined to take control in the upcoming negotiation. You are assertive, authoritative, and controlling. You are a leader and it is very important for you to take charge during this negotiation. You want to get what you want out of this negotiation. During the negotiation, please remember that you are very controlling, assertive, and dominant.

You are compliant and do not plan to take control in the upcoming negotiation. You are inferior, meek, and obeying. You are yielding and it is very important for you to comply and give in during this negotiation. During the negotiation, please remember that you are very submissive, inferior, and compliant.

Appendix B Categories of Nonverbal Behaviours Categories

Nonverbal Behaviours & Descriptions

Posture

Leaned sideways (Posture leaning to left or right), Leaned back (Posture leaning back in chair), Leaned forward (Upper torso tilted forward, with back away from chair), Straight back (Rigid posture, back is not leaned against the chair)

Head movement

Face sideways (Nose and chin pointed away from both partner), Head down (Sagittal tilt forward, head down), Face Partner (Nose and chin pointed in direction of partner’s face), Head Shake (Continuous left-right movement of the head in the transverse plane)

Hand movement

Move hand when speaking (Speech related hand movements), Hands on table (Hands spread on the table), Rest head on arm (Head placed on hand or arm and held)

Eye gaze

Eye contact while speaking (Encoder’s eyes in direction of partner’s face while speaking), Eye contact while listening (Encoder’s eyes in direction of partner’s face while listening), No eye-contact

Vocal speech

Silence (Noticeable points in the conversation when no one is saying anything) Verbal speech (The length and frequency of a person talking)

Facial expression

Non-smiling mouth, Frown (Lips turned downward), Smile (open smile, closed smile)