preferences for styles of negotiation

Pergamon

hr. J. hercultural Rd. Vol. 22, No. I, pp. 67-83, 1998 ,i’ 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain 0147-1767198 $19.00+0.00

PII: SO14771767(97)0003f%9

PREFERENCES FOR STYLES OF NEGOTIATION: A COMPARISON OF BRAZIL AND THE U.S.

VIRGINIA M. S. PEARSON” and WALTER G. STEPHAN

New Mesico State Uniuersitl

ABSTRACT. This study exumined d@rences between Brazilians and Americuns in prejtirences Jar the styles qf negotiation outlined in the dual concern model (Pruitt, 1982; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Consistent with theories of individualism-collec- tb;ism, it was found that Brazilians, who are more collec&istic thun Americans, pwfc,r styles ojnegotiation that express a concern ,for the outcomes of others more than Americans do, whereas Americuns pwfer styles qf negotiation that reflect a concern for their own outcomes more than Brazilians do. Also consistent with pre- dictions deritled,fiom theories of irzdicidualism--collectil~isnl, it was ,found that Bru- zilians made a greater distinction between ingroup and outgroup members than did Americans. Brazilians muke accommodations or acoid conflicts more when the con- jict is with an ingroup member than an outgroup member. Americans treat ingroup und outgroup members similarly,. C~I 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights resewed

A host of factors including the globalization of the world economy, immi- gration, increased diplomatic and educational contacts, the diffusion of science and technology, the mass media, and travel are transforming relations among the countries of the world (Naisbitt, 1994). As a result, intercultural interactions are becoming a critical part of our changing world (Sheth & Eshghi, 1990; Kremenyuk, 1991). Conflicts and mis- understandings are an inevitable consequence of increasing intercultural interactions. Thus, the need to understand differences in how the peoples of the world approach resolving these conflicts is greater than ever before.

Successful conflict resolution in cross-cultural settings requires a knowledge of the similarities and differences between the cultures involved in the negotiation process. In addition to a knowledge of differences in basic

*This article is based on a Ph.D. dissertation by the first author.

The authors wish to thank Brenda Wenzel and Lisa Coates-Shrider for their assistance in

analyzing the data and Sonia Chebel Mercado for her assistance in gathering the data in

Brazil.

Address correspondence to: Walter G. Stephan, Department of Psychology, Box 30001, Dept. 3452, New Mexico State University. NM 88003, U.S.A.

67

68 V. M. S. Pearson anti W. G. Stqhun

values, norms, and beliefs. a knowledge of preferred strategies of conflict resolution may also be valuable (Salacuse, 1991). IJnfortunately. the empirical literature on intercultural negotiations is very limited (Fisher, 1990; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). In addition. few of these intercultural studies are based on clear conceptualizations of cultural differences and fewer still employ systematic theories of negotiation behavior (Kennedy. 1985; Daggatt, 1990; Hendon & Hendon, 1990). However, there is now a growing number of studies that employ more systematic empirical approaches to understanding negotiation styles (e.g. Bond ~1 al., 1982; Mannetal., 1985; Rossi &Todd-Mantillas, 1985, 1987; Leung 1987, 1988; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988: Kim et al., 1990; Trubisky ct al., 1991).

The majority of the empirical studies of intercultural negotiations have consisted of comparisons between North Americans and Asians (e.g. Bond et a/., 1982; Graham & Andrews, 1987; Leung, 1987, 1988; Wheeler et al., 1989; Kim et al., 1990; Trubisky et al.. 1991). although a small number of studies have been done in other regions of the world, such as Latin America (e.g., Wey, 1987; Marcondes & Amado. 1989; Amado & Brasil, 1991: Gabrielides et ul.. 1997). Most of this research has conceptualized the differences among these cultures in terms of individualism-collectivism.

A review of this research suggests that people in individualistic cultures

generally prefer confrontational strategies to handle conflict situations, whereas people in collectivistic cultures generally prefer more passive strategies, such as avoiding conflicts (Leung & Lind, 1986; Chua & Gudy-

kunst, 1987; Leung, 1987; Ting-Toomey. 1988). If people in collectivistic cultures cannot avoid conflict they tend to use more accommodative strategies in handling conflict than do people in individualistic cultures (Ting- Toomey, 1988; Gabrielides ct al.. 1997). According to Ting-Toomey (1988), collectivists are concerned with approval. being obliging and smooth, and saving face for the other or for both parties. By contrast, individualists are more concerned with autonomy. domination, control. problem-solving, and saving their own faces. This research suggests that there are basic differences in the preferred styles of negotiation of people from collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

In this study we focus on comparing preferences for different styles of negotiation in a Latin American country (Brazil) and a North American country (the U.S.). Comparative research on Latin American and North American countries is assuming greater importance as transactions and interchanges between these countries increase. Negotiations between the Anglo-dominated countries of North America and the Latin countries of North, Central, and South America will be increasingly required as trade among these countries gains momentum. Research on cultural differences and similarities between Latin America and the non-Latin countries of North America is greatly needed, especially concerning the impact of cultural differences upon negotiation behaviors.

Styles qj’ Negotiation 69

Research on cultural differences comparing Latin American countries with the Anglo-dominated North American countries is still in its embry- onic stages, although there is a growing body of research concerning Mexicans and Americans (e.g. Knight et al., 1982; Condon, 1985; Gab- rielides et al., 1997). Published cross-cultural studies concerning other Latin American countries are few in number, and even smaller still when considering just South American countries. For example, cross-cultural research on Brazil is rare, even though Brazil is the largest Latin American country and has the tenth largest economy in the world (United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, 1992).

The few studies that have investigated Brazilian negotiation behavior have yielded contradictory results. Graham (1983) in his study of the negotiation behaviors of Americans, Japanese, and Brazilians, described Brazilians and Americans as “hard bargainers”, while the Japanese were described as more concerned with a long-term perspective in negotiations. He claimed that both Brazilians and Americans prefer direct negotiations, heated debates, and confrontation (Graham, 1983, 1985). Rossi and his colleagues found that Brazilians tend to be more authoritarian in their

approaches to conflict resolution than Americans (Rossi & Todd-Mancil- las, 1985, 1987). Results that seem to conflict with those obtained by Graham and Rossi come from studies by Amado and Brasil (1991) and Wey (1987). According to Amado and Brasil (1991), Brazilians try to avoid direct confrontation and emphasize establishing personal relationships. Wey (1987) argues that Brazilians display a clear preference for “receptive” styles of resolving conflict, rather than “active” styles.

These contradictory conclusions may be a product of the different con- texts in which negotiations were studied by these investigators. Graham (1985) observed Brazilian businessmen in negotiation games and simulated business transactions. The studies by Rossi asked Brazilian managers to respond to hypothetical manager-employee scenarios (Rossi & Todd- Mantillas, 1985, 1987). Amado and Brasil (1991) and Wey (1987) studied Brazilian managers’ actual behaviors in organizational settings. Brazilians may have behaved differently in these studies because they were interacting with strangers in the Graham and Rossi studies, whereas they were interacting with friends or business acquaintances in the Amado and Brasil and Wey studies.

Research on other collectivistic cultures indicates that people in these types of cultures make a sharp distinction between ingroup members and outgroup members (Leung & Bond, 1984; Triandis et al., 1988; Triandis, 1990, 1994). In collectivistic cultures, relationships with ingroup members are intense and interdependence is high. In these relationships conflict is avoided in the interests of maintaining group harmony. However, in collectivist cultures when conflict concerns outgroup members, conflict

70 V. M. S. Peurson mu’ W. G. Stephan

may not be avoided. For instance, Espinoza and Garza (1985) found that when competing with outgroup members, collectivists are often more competitive than individualists. Leung (1987) showed that collectivists were less likely than individualists to pursue a conflict with a ingroup member and more likely than individualists to pursue one with an outgroup member. Thus, in collectivistic cultures conflicts with outgroup members may be resolved with confrontational strategies, while conflicts

with ingroup members may be resolved with more accommodative strategies. This ingroup-outgroup distinction could explain why Brazilians were described in Graham’s (1985) study as hard bargainers and confrontational, whereas they were described as conflict avoiders by Amado and Brasil (1991).

In the present study we sought to test these suggestions concerning the impact of the ingroup-outgroup distinction on negotiations by invest- igating the influence of context on preferences for different styles of negotiation. Specifically, we examined preferences for different negotiation styles in conflicts involving a close friend (ingroup member) or a stranger

(outgroup member). The dual concern model of negotiation styles (Pruitt. 1982; Pruitt &

Carnevale, 1993) was employed in this study because the two dimensions on which it is based, concern for self and concern for others, are conceptually parallel to the concepts of individualism and collectivism. That is, concern for one’s own outcomes is similar to individualism and concern for the outcomes of others is similar to collectivism. The dual concern model is used to categorize styles of negotiation that are high or low in concern for the self and high or low in concern for the other (Figure 1).

According to the dual concern model, high concern for both one’s own and the other party’s interests encourages problem-solving strategies (collaboration), high concern for one’s own interests and low concern for the other’s interests encourages contentious strategies (competition). high concern for the other’s interests and low concern for one’s own interests encourages yielding (accommodation) and low concern for both partys’ interests encourages inaction (withdrawal). The dual concern model was used to test three hypotheses in this study.

Hj’p~thesis 1. If Americans are higher in individualism than Brazilians, they should prefer styles of negotiation reflecting a high concern for self more than Brazilians do.

Hypothesis 2. If Brazilians are higher in collectivism than Americans, they should prefer styles of negotiation reflecting a high concern for others more than Americans do.

Hypothc>si.s 3. The differences between Brazilians and Americans should

High

Concern

for

Others’

Outcomes

Low

Dual Concern Model of Negotiation

Accommodation Collaboration

Withdrawal Competition

71

b q

Low High

Concern for Own Outcomes

FIGURE 1. Dual Concern Model of Negotiation.

not be as pronounced in conflicts involving business transactions with a stranger as they are in conflicts with close friends. In particular. Brazilians may be as concerned with their own interests in business transactions as

Americans are.

METHOD

The subjects consisted of 41 Y undergraduate students from Psychology and Management courses at moderate sized universities in the Southeast of Brazil (100 females and 100 males) and the Southwest of the U.S. (100 females and 1 I Y males). The majority of the students were from 17 to 25 years old (75% of the sample). Most of these students were studying and working at the time of the study (65% in the Brazilian sample and 56% in the American sample). In addition, the majority were single: 67% in the Brazilian sample and 83% in the American sample.

The students were randomly assigned to read either Scenario A (concerning a conflict involving a business transaction with a stranger) or Scenario B (concerning a similar conflict with a close friend) and. after that, asked to answer a questionnaire measuring preferred styles of negotiation. Next, they were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured individualism~collectivism.

72 V. M. S. Pearson and W. G. Stephun

The study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. The first factor was country (Brazil vs U.S.), the second factor was Concern for Self (high vs low), the third factor was Concern for Other (high vs low), and the fourth factor was Type of Conflict (friend vs stranger).

Both American and Brazilian subjects were told they were participating in a study concerning styles of negotiation, but neither group of subjects knew they were being compared to the other. The subjects were randomly assigned to read one of two scenarios describing a conflict about a broken stereo. One scenario described a conflict in a business transaction context and the other scenario described a similar conflict in an interpersonal relationship involving a close friend. In the first scenario (adapted from Leung, 1988) the injured party bought a very expensive CD player from a store manager who promised the buyer that if the CD player broke within one week of the purchase, the buyer could get all of his/her money back. The stereo broke down two days after the purchase and the seller declined to refund the money. The explanation the manager gave was that the problem was caused by the buyer’s mishandling of the merchandise.

The second scenario described an interpersonal conflict with a close friend who borrowed one’s new expensive CD player but returned it broken. The injured party figured out what had happened one day later when the stereo would not play CDs. The friend said it was not his/her fault as the owner could have mishandled the CD player and broken it. The relationship in this scenario was described as a long-term friendship between the injured party and the borrower. Furthermore, it was said that because they had common friends, they expected to see each other in future informal gatherings, parties, and at other social events.

After reading one of the scenarios, the subjects were asked to answer a 46 item questionnaire that was used to classify styles of negotiation (an adaptation of the Negotiation Style Profile, Glaser & Glaser, 1991). Sam- ple items include: “In this situation, I would try to reach a solution based on our mutual desires, rather than just on my desires” (collaboration) and “In this situation, I would behave as if I were dealing with and adversary” (competition). Twenty-four of the original statements from the Nego- tiating Style Profile were modified to apply to the conflict considered in this study, and 22 new statements were added concerning the four styles of negotiation (accommodation, withdrawal, competition, and collaboration). After the subject read the scenario describing the conflict, he/she was asked to relate the conflict resolution statements to the situation where the conflict occurred. The questions employed an 8 point response format running from “Doesn’t describe me at all” to “Describes me very well”. The scores for each negotiation style were obtained by adding across the items in each scale and dividing by the number of items in the scale.

The conflict resolution questions were followed by a 29 item questionnaire measuring individualism-collectivism (developed by Triandis et

Styles of Negotiution 73

al., 1988). To adapt the questionnaire for use in Brazil some modifications

were made in the items. For instance, for the Brazilians the type of group was specified, because referring to “the group” in a collectivist culture such as Brazil can have an ambiguous meaning. For example the item: “If the group is slowing me down, it is better to leave it and work alone”, was modified to “If I am working in a group with co-workers and the group is slowing me down, it is better to leave it and work alone”. The items employed a Likert scale with 7 response options.

The questionnaire and the scenarios were presented to the subjects in their native languages. Double translation from English into Portuguese and back to English was used. Portuguese versions were used for some expressions in English such as “what happens to me is my own thing” or “winning is everything”. The items were discussed between an American and a Brazilian to find meanings that are shared by the two cultures.

RESULTS

The Cronbach alpha for the individualism-collectivism scale for the U.S. was 0.71 and for Brazil it was 0.76. The Cronbach alphas for the Brazilian and U.S. samples concerning each of the four styles of negotiation studied were as follows: Competition (Brazil = 0.83, U.S. = 0.85), Accommodation (Brazil = 0.83, U.S. = 0.84), Withdrawal (Brazil = 0.73, U.S. = 0.8 l), Collaboration (Brazil = 0.83, U.S. = 0.88).

It was anticipated that the Americans would be more individualistic than the Brazilians. The results confirmed this prediction. A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that North American sample scored higher on individualism than did the Brazilian sample, F(1,388) = 3.84,~ < 0.01 (Brazilian A4 = 3.52, U.S. A4 = 3.93).

The basic differences between Brazilians and Americans in preferences for negotiation styles can be seen by comparing the two countries using one way ANOVAs. There were significant differences between Brazil and the U.S. on all four negotiation styles (Table 1). Brazilians preferred accommodation, collaboration, and withdrawal more than Americans did,F(1,395) = 5.50,~ < O.O3,F(1,396) = 3.55,~ < O.O7,F(1,392 = 16.06, p < 0.0001, respectively. Americans preferred competition more than Bra- zilians did F( 1,398) = 25.81, p < 0.0001. It should be noted that the majority (63%) of the means for these measures were lower than the mid- point on the scale (3.5) indicating that the students felt some reluctance to strongly endorse a number of the negotiation styles.

The hypotheses based on the dual concern model were tested with a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The first factor was country (Brazil vs U.S.), the second factor was Concern for Self (high vs low), the third factor was Concern for Other (high vs low), and the fourth factor was Type of Conflict (friend vs stranger).

74 V. M. S. Pearson und W. G. Stephnn

TABLE 1

Comparison Between North Americans and Brazilians in Nego- tiation Styles

U.S. Brazil

Accommodation 2.17 2.45

Collaboration 3.60 3.86

Competition 3.64 2.96 Withdrawal 1.66 2.10

Note: High numbers indicate greater agreement with the items

measuring that construct.

Hypothesis 1 stated that if the U.S. is higher in individualism than Brazil, Americans should prefer negotiation styles reflecting a high concern

for self more than the Brazilians do. This hypothesis can be tested by the Country x Concern for Self interaction from the four-way ANOVA.

The two-way interaction between Country and Concern for Self was found to be highly significant F’(1,361) = 19.90, p < 0.0001. The Amer- icans did prefer styles reflecting a high concern for the self more than Brazilians did, while Brazilians preferred to use the styles reflecting a low concern for the self more than the Americans did (Table 2).

Hypothesis 2 stated that if Brazilians are higher in collectivism than Americans, they should prefer styles of negotiation reflecting a concern for others more than Americans do. This hypothesis can be tested with the interaction between Country and Concern for Others from the four- way ANOVA. This two-way interaction was also found to be significant F(1,361) = 9.12, p < 0.002. This interaction indicated that the Brazilians preferred to use the styles reflecting a high concern for others more than the

TABLE 2

Concern for the Self in Brazil and in the U.S.

Brazil U.S.

Concern for the Self

High 3.33 3.66 Low 2.27 1.87

Note: High scores indicate greater preference for particular types of negotiation styles.

Styles of’ Negotiation 75

TABLE 3

Concern for Others in Brazil and in the U.S.

Brazil U.S.

Concern for

Others High 3.17 2.93

Low 2.50 2.60


Americans did, while the Americans preferred to use the styles reflecting a low concern for others more than the Brazilians did (Table 3).

Hypothesis 3 stated that the differences between the U.S. and Brazil should not be as pronounced in conflicts involving business transactions with a stranger as they are in conflicts with close friends. In particular, it

was anticipated that Brazilians would be as concerned with their own outcomes in business transactions as Americans are. This hypothesis can be tested by the three-way interaction involving Country, Type of Conflict, and Concern for Self.

This three way interaction was highly significant F(l.361) = 16.71, p < 0.0001. As predicted, in the business transaction conflict both the Brazilians and the Americans preferred styles of conflict resolution reflecting a high concern for self more than those reflecting a low concern for self. However, in a conflict with a friend the Brazilians preferred styles of conflict resolution reflecting a low concern for the self (withdrawal, accommodation) more than Americans did (Table 4).

The four-way ANOVA revealed one other significant interaction involving differences between Brazilians and Americans. There was a significant three-way interaction between Country, Concern for Self, and Concern

TABLE 4

Concern for the Self in Conflicts with lngroup and Outgroup Members

Low Brazil

Concern for the Self

High Low U.S.

High

lngroup 2.78 3.16 1.93 3.45 Outgroup 1.73 3.66 1.80 3.87


76 V. M. S. Pearson und W. G. Stephan

for Others F(1,361) = 26.04,~ < 0.0001. The interaction was due primarily to the fact that among the strategies reflecting a low concern for others, Brazilians preferred withdrawal more than Americans did, whereas Amer- icans preferred competition more than the Brazilians did (Table 5).

The only other effects of interest from this analysis were two significant main effects. The main effect for Concern for Self, F(1,361) = 532.66, p < 0.0001 indicated that Brazilians and Americans preferred to use the styles of negotiation reflecting a high concern for the self more than the styles reflecting a low concern for the self. The main effect for Concern for Others, F(1,361) = 35.24, p < 0.0001, indicated that Brazilians and Americans preferred to use styles of negotiation reflecting a high concern for others more than styles reflecting a low concern for others.

In order to determine whether or not individualismxollectivism influ- enced preferences for different styles of conflict resolution, the U.S. and Brazilian samples were combined and the Individualism-Collectivism measure was split at the median. This median split was then used as one factor in a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA. The second factor in this analysis was Type of Conflict, the third factor was Concern for Others, and the fourth factor was Concern for the Self.

The results of interest from this analysis are the interactions of Indi- vidualism-Collectivism with the other variables. Three of these interactions were significant. First, the three way interaction involving Individualism-Collectivism, Concern for the Self, and Concern for Others was significant F( 1,361) = 15.88, p < 0.0003 (Table 6). This interaction is very similar to the parallel interaction from the analysis comparing Brazil (representing a collectivistic culture) and the U.S. (representing an individualistic culture). Again, the interaction was due to the fact that among the strategies reflecting a low concern for others, Collectivists preferred withdrawal more than Individualists did, whereas Individualists preferred competition more than the Collectivists did.

TABLE 5

North Americans and Brazilians: Concern for Self x Concern for Others

Concern for the Self Brazil U.S.

Low High Low High

Concern for High 2.31 3.90 2.17 3.69 Others Low 2.10 2.92 1.56 3.64


77

TABLE 6

Individualism-Collectivism: Concern for the Self and Concern for Others

Concern for the Self Individualists Collectivists

Low High Low High

Concern for High 2.27 3.66 2.32 3.81

Others Low 1.76 3.60 1.87 3.05


Second, the interaction of Individualism-Collectivism and Concern for Self was significant F(1,361) = 6.38, p < 0.02 (Table 7). This interaction also parallels the results for America and Brazil, indicating that Tndi- vidualists preferred strategies that are high in concern for the self more than Collectivists did. The Individualists also preferred strategies that are low in concern for the self less than Collectivists did, but this difference was relatively small.

Third, the interaction between individualism-ColIectivism and Concern for Others was marginally significant F( 1,361) = 3.60, p < 0.06 (Table 8). Here, too, there was a parallel to the America-Brazil colnparison. This interaction indicated that Individualists preferred strategies that are low in concern for others more than Collectivists did, but they preferred strategies that are high in concern for others somewhat less than Col- lectivists did.

All three interactions suggest that individualism-collectivism has effects that parallel those obtained when comparing the U.S. to Brazil. This pattern of results makes it likely that the differences between the U.S. and

TABLE 7

indiv~dualis~oilectivism and Concern for the Self

Concern for the Self Low High

Individualists 2.01 3.63 Collectivists 2.09 3.43


78 V. M. S. Pearson and W. G. Stephan

TABLE 8

Individualism-Collectivism and Concern for Others

Concern for Others

Low High

Individualists 2.63 2.97

Collectivists 2.46 3.06

Note: High scores indicate greater preference

for particular types of negotiation styles.

Brazil in preferences for different styles of negotiation are due to differences between the two countries in individualism-collectivism.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study show that there are cultural differences between Brazil and the U.S. in preferences for styles of negotiation. As predicted, Americans prefer styles of negotiation that reflect a high concern for the self over styles that reflect a low concern for the self. Also as predicted. Brazilians prefer styles of negotiation that reflect a high concern for the other over styles that reflect a low concern for the other, although these preferences are more apparent in conflicts involving a friend than in conflicts dealing with a stranger.

The predicted differences in preferences for negotiation styles between Americans and Brazilians were based on the premise that these two cultures differ on individualism-collectivism. The finding that the two cultures did differ significantly on individualism-collectivism supports this conten- tion. More compelling support for this idea comes from the analysis in

which a median split of the scores of the entire subject population on individualism-collectivism was employed in place of the country factor. This analysis yielded results which were conceptually parallel to the differences between the U.S. and Brazil, further reinforcing the idea that indi- vidualismPcollectivism is associated with systematic differences in preferences for styles of negotiation.

The pattern of results is generally supportive of theories of indi- vidualismcollectivism (Triandis, 1990, 1994). Individualistic cultures, such as the U.S., emphasize the interests of the self over an interest in harmonious relationships, whereas collectivistic cultures, such as Brazil, emphasize group harmony over self interests. In addition, these findings

Styles c$Negotiation 79

are consistent with previous research suggesting that Americans prefer

direct means of resolving conflicts over nonconfrontation strategies of resolving conflicts (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Leung, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1988). The results are also conceptually similar to some of the results obtained in a study by Gabrielidis et ul. (1997). The Gabrielidis et al. (1997) study examined preferences for conflict resolution styles for interpersonal conflicts in Mexico and the U.S. In that study it was found that Mexicans, like Brazilians, preferred negotiation styles that are high in concern for others more than Americans did. However, unlike the present study, subjects from the Latin culture did not differ from Americans in preferences for styles of negotiation that are high vs low in concern for self.

One of the most important findings of the present study was that Bra- zilians made a distinction between types of conflict situations that Amer- icans did not make. Brazilians were willing to act on their own self interests if the conflict involved a business transaction with a stranger, but a concern for the outcomes of others was more important in a conflict with a friend. According to Triandis (1990, 1994) collectivists see members of their ingroup as a unit, and draw a sharp distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup. When there is a conflict with an ingroup member, collective goals are placed ahead of personal goals and conflict is avoided in the interests of maintaining harmony. In addition, when the other person is an ingroup member, people in collectivist cultures are concerned about saving face for the other or for both parties (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Not confronting the other party or making accommodations when the conflict involves a friend may reflect this concern for saving face in collectivist cultures such as Brazil. However, in Brazil when there is a conflict with an

outgroup member, self interest may be allowed to prevail over an interest in the outcomes of the other or a concern for the other’s face.

It should be noted that the dual concern model conceives of withdrawal as a negotiation style that reflects a low concern for the self and a low concern for others. However, it appears that collectivists withdraw more than individualists in conflicts with a close friend. One explanation for this behavior is that withdrawal in collectivistic cultures expresses a high concern for others rather than a low concern for others, as the model suggests. Because the dual concern model was originally developed within an individualistic culture, it may reflect the meaning of withdrawal in such cultures, but it may not reflect the meaning of withdrawal in collectivist cultures, such as Brazil. In Brazil, withdrawing from conflicts with close friends or other members of the ingroup means placing the relationship above one’s own interests. Thus, the strategy of withdrawing appears to reflect a high concern for others and a low concern for the self in collectivistic cultures. If this is the case, withdrawal may be misplaced in the dual concern model when it is applied to collectivist cultures.

The results of this study should be helpful to both Americans and

80 V. M. S. Peurson and W. G. Stqhm

Brazilians in their relationships with one another. The use of competitive styles of dealing with conflicts, which is characteristic of Americans’ negotiation behavior, may trigger antagonistic feelings in Brazilians. Because Brazilians consider competition a strategy that should not be used toward friends, they may perceive competitive behaviors directed toward them as an indirect message communicating the idea that, “you consider me to be an outgroup member”. Brazilians can be competitive if the context is viewed as a business transaction, but Brazilians would prefer to deal with business transactions as they do with other interpersonal relations. Brazilians are most comfortable when business transactions can be brought into the realm of ingroup relations. However, if the Brazilians are successful in creating such a climate, they will prefer to avoid conflicts rather than confront them, as Americans would be likely to do.

When negotiating with Brazilians, Americans might be more effective if they placed a greater emphasis on establishing good social relationships and put off getting down to business. However, Americans should also recognize that if they are successful in being treated as a friend, their Brazilian counterparts may avoid conflicts which the Americans feel should be dealt with more directly. On the other hand, the Americans may also find that their Brazilian counterparts are more accommodating if they have expended the effort to establish friendly relations with the Brazilians. For their part, the Brazilians should be aware that Americans may be competitive even toward their friends, so establishing close relations with Americans does not immunize the Brazilians against competitive negotiation behavior.

We should also note that intercultural negotiations between Brazilians and Americans are likely to be affected by a host of other factors. Differ- ences in power distance, for example, cannot be overlooked. In cultures such as Brazil, with a higher power distance than the U.S. (Hofstede, 1980), power and status within the social hierarchy are likely to have an impact on preferences for negotiation styles (Rossi & Todd-Mantillas, 1987). Latin American cultures also appear to value respect and dignity more than Americans do (Triandis et al., 1989) and this could affect their negotiation behavior. In addition, Brazilians and Americans may differ in communication styles. Americans come from a low context culture (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987) whereas Brazil appears to be a high context culture. Thus, Americans are likely to be more direct, assertive, and time-urgent in their negotiation behavior than Brazilians are. Furthermore, Brazilians have a characteristic that is not shared by most Asian collectivist cultures- they are often passionate and emotional. These behaviors can be easily misinterpreted not only by people from individualistic cultures, but also by people from different collectivist cultures (i.e. Asian cultures).

In summary, this study indicates that there are substantial differences between a Latin, collectivistic culture (Brazil) and a North American,

Styles of’ Negotiation 81

individualistic culture (the U.S.) in preferences for styles of negotiation. Consistent with theories of individualism-collectivism, people in the collectivistic culture preferred styles of negotiation that express a concern for the outcomes of others, whereas people in the individualistic culture preferred styles of negotiation oriented toward maximizing their own outcomes. Also consistent with theories of individualism-collectivism, people in the collectivistic culture made distinctions in the treatment of ingroup and outgroup members that people in the individualistic culture did not make.

REFERENCES

Amado, G., & Brasil, H. V. (1991). Organizational behaviors and cultural context: The Brazilian “jeitinho”. International Studies ofManagement and Organization,

21, 38-61. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism

operate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 186-200. Chua, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and

high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32-31.

Condon, J. C. (1985). Good neighbors: Communicating bvith the Mexicans. Yarm- outh, ME: Intercultural Press.

Daggatt, W. R., & Griffin, T. J. (1990). The global negotiator: Building strong

business relationships any&there in the naorld. New York: Harper. Espinoza, J. A., & Garza, R. T. (1985). Social group salience and interethnic

cooperation. Journal of’E.uperimental Social PsyhologJ, 21, 6977115.

Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social ps~cholo~yy of‘ intergroup and international conflict

resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag. Frechette, M. R. (1992). The enterprise ,for the Americas initiatice. The Border

Development Committee of the Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce. October, l-20.

Gabrielidis. C., Stephan. W. G., Ybarra, O., Pearson, V. M. S., & Villareal, L. (1997). Cultural variables and preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 661-677.

Glaser, R., & Glaser, C. (1991). Negotiating Style Profile. King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development Inc.

Graham, J. L. (1983). Brazilian, Japanese, and American business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 47-61.

Graham. J. L. (1985). The influence of culture on business negotiations. Journal

of‘ International Business Studies, 16, 8 l-96.

Graham, J. L., & Andrews, J. D. (1987). A holistic analyses of Japanese and American business negotiators. Journal of Business Communications, 24, 63-77.

Hendon, D. W., & Hendon, R. A. (1990). World-class negotiutions. New York: John Wiley, & Sons.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in M’ork- rrluted calues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism. A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of’cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 2255248.

82 V. M. S. Peurson und W. G. Stephun

Kennedy, G. (1985). Doing husinrss abroad. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kim, K. I., Park, H. J., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United

States, Japan and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Acudmzy of’Munugemmt Journul, 33, 188-I 98.

Knight, C., Kagan, S.. & Martinez-Romero, S. (1982). Culture and development of conflict resolution style. Journul of Cross-Cultural Ps~~cholog_v, 13, 43-59.

Kremenyuk, V. (199 1). Internutionul mgotiution: Analysis. upprouc,hcs, issues. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leung, K. (I 987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict

resolution: A cross-national study. Jourrlul of’Prr.vonrrlit~ and Social Psyc~holog.v,

53, 898-908.

Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Jourrztrl of’ Cross-

Culturul P.sycholog~. 19. 125-l 36. Leung, K.. & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward

allocation. Journal of’Per.sonulity and Sociul P.yholog~~, 47, 793-804.

Leung, K.. & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journtrl of Cross-Cultural Psych&g?>, 19. 3549.

Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedure and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of’ Personulit_v und

Social Pq~cholo~y>~. SO, 1 134-l 140.

Mann. L., Radford, M.. & Kanagawa, C. (1985). Cross-cultural differences in children’s of decision rules: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Journal

of’ Per.sonulit_v und Social P.sj~chology, 49, 155771564.

Marcondes, C.. & Amado, G. (1989). Estudo sobre OS comportamentos na neg- ociacao. Tmdmciu.s do Truhulho, December 12-I 6; January 23-27.

Naisbitt. J. (1994). Glohu1purado.u. New York: William Morrow and Company. Pruitt. D. G. (1982). Nqotiution hrhuz?or. New York: Academic Press. Pruitt. D. G.. & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Nqotiution in .sociul conflict. Pacific

Grove, CA: BrookslCole. Rossi. A. M.. & Todd-Mantillas, W. R. (1985). A comparison of managerial

communication strategies between Brazilian and American women. Con?- r~lunicution Resrurch Report.v, 2, 128-l 34.

Rossi. A. M., & Todd-Mantillas. W. R. (1987). Machismo as a factor affecting the use of power and communication in the managing of personnel disputes: Brazilian versus American managers. Journal ofSocial Behavior ur7d Pcrxonulit),,

2,93-104.

Salacuse. J. W. (1991). Making deals in strange places. In J. W. Breslin, and J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Ncgotiuting theor?, und practic~c (pp. 25 l-259). Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Sheth, J., & Eshghi, G. (1990). Glohul orgunizntionul tl~ror~~l~rrsprctic~e. Cincinnati OH: Southwestern Publishing Co.

Ting-Toomey. S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A f’xe-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim and W. Gudykunst (Eds). Thmriccs in intcrculturul mnmunicution

(pp. 213-235). Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In

J. Berman (Ed.). C’ros.c-c,ultu~rl prr.spectices (pp. 41-l 33). Lincoln. NE: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press.

Triandis. H. C. (1994). C’ulturt~ and .sociul hrhuc;ior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Styles of Nqotiution 83

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journul qf’Personaiity and So&l Psycholog_y, 54, 323-338.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker. C., & Hui, H. C. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of’ Personality und Social P.ywhologr. SY, 100&-1020.

Trubisky. P., Toomey, T.. & Sung. L. (1991). The influence of individualism- collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles. lnternutional JournuI of’tntrr-

culturcrl R&tions, IS. 65GM. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy

Analysis: Statistical Division (I 992). Statistical Jxvu+ook. New York: United Nations.

Wey, V. L. (1987). Pesquisa revela quem e o negociador brasileiro. T~ndmcins do

TrahaNu). July, 991 I. Wheeler, L., Reis. H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in

everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journul of’ Pcr-

.ronalit!~ md So&l P~s~~cholo,y~. 57. 79-86.

preferences for styles of negotiation

Documents