cultural differences in approaches to arbitration peter b. smith university of sussex brunel...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Cultural Differences in Approaches to Arbitration
Peter B. Smith
University of Sussex
Brunel University
May 24, 2013
In Search of ‘Culture’
Behaviors have different meanings in different contexts
Values are context free, but not all cultures endorse value-behavior consistency
Beliefs are also context free and may account for additional variance in behavior
Roles determine behaviors more in some cultures
Figure 2-5: Schwartz’s Mapping of 67 Nations in Relation to Seven Value-Types
Conceptions of Justice
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice
Some evidence for generality across cultures
Motives Related to Negotiation
Individualistic Cultures: Thomas – Concern for Self
- Concern for Other Collectivistic Cultures: Leung - Animosity Reduction
- Disintegration Avoidance
Levels of Analysis
Interpersonal conflicts Intergroup conflicts International conflicts
Gelfand and Realo (1999): Accountability accentuates normative behaviours
Persons from individualistic cultures become more competitive
Persons from collectivistic cultures become more relational
Wu et al. (2012) In China, this effect is stronger when negotiating with other Chinese. In the US, the effect is the same whoever is the other party
Handling Interpersonal and Intergroup
Conflicts: Canadians and Nigerians
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Canadians
Nigerians
Reasons for Preferences?
Nigerians perceived threats and accepting situation as is as more fair
Canadians perceived negotiation as more fairNigerians perceived arbitration as giving more
control of the process than CanadiansCanadians perceived threats, accepting the
situation-as-is and arbitration as less likely to reduce animosity
Gire & Carment, Journal of Social Psychology, 1993
Handling an Interpersonal Conflict:
Israelis and Hong Kong Chinese
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Israelis
HKChinese
Reasons for Preferences?
Making threats was perceived as likely to increase control over the process and also to increase animosity
Arbitration was perceived as likely to reduce animosity
These effects were significantly stronger for the Israelis and can therefore be said to explain the differences in preference between the more individualistic Israeli culture and the more collectivist Hong Kong culture.
Bond, Leung & Schwartz, International Journal of Psychology, 1992
Handling Interpersonal and Intergroup
Conflicts: Canadians and Dutch
-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.81
Canadians
Dutch
Reasons for Preferences?
The Dutch perceived greater process control than Canadians from mediation, negotiation and arbitration
The Dutch perceived greater animosity reduction than Canadians from mediation and negotiation
Thus, process control and animosity reduction can explain the difference between the confrontational procedures favoured in a masculine culture over those more favoured in a feminine culture
Leung et al., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1990
Handling Interpersonal and Intergroup
Conflicts: Spanish and Japanese
-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.811.21.41.6
Spanish
Japanese
Reasons for Preferences?
Process control and animosity reduction can again explain the difference between preferred procedures
However, the comparable data from this study and the preceding one suggests that preferences for mediation and for arbitration cannot be predicted from either the dimension of individualism/ collectivism or that of masculinity/ femininity
We may need to investigate how terms such as ‘mediation’ and ‘arbitration’ are interpreted by respondents in different cultural contexts
Leung et al., International Journal of Psychology, 1992
Accountability and Arbitration (1)
Gelfand and Realo (1999): Accountability accentuates normative behaviours
Persons from individualistic cultures become more competitive
Persons from collectivistic cultures become more relational
Wu, Friedman et al. (2012): In China, this effect is stronger when negotiating with other
Chinese. In the US, the effect is the same whoever is the other party
Accountability and Arbitration (2)
Friedman et al. (2007): 68 Chinese and 68 US arbitrators evaluated
scenarios that gave different types of reasons for a contract violation
Most other companies also failed to deliver Mixed information Most other companies did not fail to deliver
Chinese arbitrators made higher awards, especially in
the mixed condition
Hypothesis: Chinese arbitrators hold violators more accountable because they attribute causality to groups
Psychological Mediation
If the association between A and B disappears when C is controlled, there is evidence for psychological mediation
National samples who respond to arbitration in different ways will differ from one another in numerous ways. Psychological mediation studies enable us to test whether our theories as to why these differences occur are supported.
Attribution of internal causality partially mediated the magnitude of arbitrator awards.
Mediation in Friedman’s study
Conclusions (1)
National cultures differ in both beliefs and values
In situations of conflict, negotiating partners favour process control and animosity reduction
Nations differ in their beliefs as to whether arbitration, mediation and negotiation will yield optimal process control and animosity reduction.
Conclusions (2)
Members of individualistic and collectivistic cultures take differing views of individual and collective accountability
Studies of intergroup conflict have greater relevance to real world arbitration
These differences will affect arbitrators’ decisions and the reactions of parties to these decisions
These conclusions are preliminary because of incomplete sampling and the use of imaginary scenarios
top related