Results

Study Results: Cross-Cultural vs. Intra-Cultural Negotiation

About this section. These results come from a negotiation simulation comparing how four cultural groups behaved when bargaining with members of their own culture (intra-cultural) versus a different culture (cross-cultural). The first table reports the reliability and correlations of each measure; the second reports the group-by-group outcomes. Both tables scroll sideways on small screens — swipe to see every column.

Key to variable abbreviations

PSA5 / PSA3: Problem-Solving Approach — cooperativeness of negotiation strategy (5-item and 3-item scales).
ATT: Interpersonal attraction toward the negotiating partner.
TIME: Time spent negotiating, in minutes.
SAT4 / SAT1: Reported satisfaction with the negotiation (4-item and 1-item scales).
IP: Individual profits from the final agreement.
JP: Joint profits — the sum of both negotiators' individual profits.

Qualities of measures

As can be seen from the Cronbach α coefficients in Table 3.2, the reliability of each measure used in the study is adequate (α > 0.65). Also, the high correlations between the longer and the shorter scales (the latter used by some of the Japanese) suggest convergence.

Hypotheses tests

Analysis of variance was used to test for statistically significant differences between groups. As indicated in Table 3.3, in the majority of cases, no differences were found between intra-cultural and crosscultural situations. However, a few key differences are also evident, particularly supporting H1. Americans reported higher satisfaction (p < .05) in cross-cultural negotiations than in intra-cultural negotiations. Japanese reported higher levels of interpersonal attraction (p <.05) and achieved lower individual (p < .05) and joint (p < .10) profits in crosscultural negotiations. The Francophone Canadians used more cooperative (PSA) strategies (p < .05) in cross-cultural negotiations. The Anglophone Canadians spent more time (p < .05) and achieved lower joint profits (p < .05) in cross-cultural negotiations.

Recall that Hla stated that less effective processes and worse outcomes would be associated with cross-cultural negotiations than with intra-cultural negotiations (i.e., XY ≠ XX, XY < XX). This hypothesis is supported in that the Japanese achieved lower profits (both individual and joint) and the Anglophone Canadians took more time and achieved lower joint profits in cross-cultural negotiations.

Similarities in processes and outcomes within cross-cultural dyads were predicted in Hlb (i.e., XY ≠ XX, XY = YX). With Canadian negotiators, the hypothesis is partially supported no statistically significant difference was found between Francophone and Anglophone PSA strategies in cross-cultural situations. Likewise, no statistically significant difference was found between satisfaction levels of Japanese and Americans in cross-cultural interactions (using the 4-item measure of satisfaction, the mean for Japanese in cross-cultural negotiations = 15.7).

Each row is a measure used in the study, showing its mean with standard deviation in parentheses and the Pearson correlations among all variables (groups pooled). The matrix is lower-triangular, so each pair appears once and blank cells are intentional; ** marks correlations significant at p < .05.

**Table 3.2 Measures and descriptive statistics**
Variable	Description and Measure	Mean (standard deviation)	Intercorrelations among Variables (Pearson Correlation Coefficients, All Groups Pooled)
Variable	Description and Measure	Mean (standard deviation)	PSSA5	PSA3	ATT	TIME	SAT4	SAT1	IP	JP
Problem-Solving Approach (cooperativeness) (PSA5)	Self-rating of negotiation strategies along problem-solving/individualistic continuum 5 items, range = 5 to 25, Cronbach α = .75	15.8 (3.7)	1
PSA3	3 items, range 3 to 15, Cronbach α = .71	9.8 (2.6)	.935**	1
Interpersonal attraction (ATT)	Negotiator’s rating of attractiveness of partner 3 items, range = 3 to 15, Cronbach α = .73	12.3 (2.3)	.071	.126**	1
Time (TIME)	Time spent negotiating, range = 10 to 60 minutes	26.5 (13.5)	-.195**	-.154**	.056	1
Satisfaction (SAT4)	Negotiator’s reported level of satisfaction with the negotiation 4 items, range = 4 to 20, Cronbach α = .79	14.9 (2.8)	.126**	.109**	.212**	-.200**	1
(SAT1)	1 item, range 1 to 5	3.9 (0.9)	.140**	.136**	.216**	-.204**	.848**	1
Individual profits (IP)	Negotiator’s individual profits associated with final agreement in Kelley’s (1966) negotiation simulation, range = 0 to 80	45.0 (10.1)	-.034	-.055	.010	-.162**	.414**	.367**	1
Joint Profits (JP)	The sum of a negotiator’s and his/her partner’s individual profits, range = 56 to 104	89.7 (10.8)	.256**	.193**	.018	-.282**	.374**	.360**	.462**	1
**p < .05.

Analysis-of-variance results comparing intra-cultural and cross-cultural negotiations for four groups (United States, Japan, Francophone Canadians, Anglophone Canadians). Each cell shows the group mean with its standard deviation in parentheses; superscript markers indicate statistical significance and scale notes, explained beneath the table.

**Table 3.3 Results (ANOVA)**
Variables	United States		Japan		Francophone		Anglophone
Variables	Intra-cultural (N = 160)	Cross-cultural (N = 30)	Intra-cultural (N = 42)	Cross-cultural (N = 30)	Intra-cultural (N = 74)	Cross-cultural (N = 26)	Intra-cultural (N = 74)	Cross-cultural (N = 26)
Problem-solving approach^a	16.5 (3.4)	16.3 (4.6)	10.3 (2.2)^a	10.7 (1.7)^a	14.7 (4.0)	16.7 (3.6)^**	15.7 (3.5)	15.6 (3.3)
Interpersonal attraction	12.0 (2.3)	12.5 (2.2)	12.0 (2.0)	13.2 (1.6)^**	12.2 (2.5)	12.4 (2.5)	12.5 (2.2)	12.6 (2.2)
Time	27.7 (14.3)	32.0 (18.0)	28.9 (11.4)	32.0 (18.0)	25.8 (11.5)	28.3 (10.4)	18.1 (7.2)	28.3 (10.4)^**
Satisfaction^a	14.7 (3.1)	16.6 (2.1)^**	3.8 (0.9)^a	3.9 (1.0)^a	14.6 (2.7)	14.3 (2.1)	14.9 (2.7)	15.3 (2.6)
Individual profits	44.9 (11.1)	48.2 (8.9)	47.9 (7.7)	43.5 (10.2)^**	43.2 (9.3)	40.8 (9.0)	45.2 (10.0)	46.2 (9.8)
Joint profits	89.1 (13.3)	91.7 (13.2)	95.9 (6.6)	91.7 (13.2)^*	86.6 (6.6)	86.5 (7.6)	90.5 (7.7)	86.5 (7.6)^**
^p < .10 ^*p < .05 ^aShorter scales were used for Japanese (see Table 3.2 and Appendix 3C), thus the reported means are concomitantly lower.