Self-assertive interdependence in Arab culture.

Arabs represent a major cultural group, yet one that is relatively neglected in cultural psychology. We hypothesized that Arab culture is characterized by a unique form of interdependence that is self-assertive. Arab cultural identity emerged historically in regions with harsh ecological and climatic environments, in which it was necessary to protect the survival of tribal groups. Individuals in Arabian cultures were honour-bound to be respectable and trustworthy group members. Supporting this hypothesis, study 1 found that Arabs were interdependent and holistic (like East Asians), but also self-assertive (like Westerners). This psychological profile was observed equally for both Muslim and Christian Arabs, thus ruling out Islamic religion as an alternative explanation for our findings. Studies 2 and 3 showed that the self-assertive tendency of Arabs is in service of interdependence, whereas that of Westerners is in service of independence. Our work contributes to the current effort by cultural psychologists to go beyond the prevailing East versus West, interdependence versus independence paradigm. It also speaks to the emerging socioecological perspective in cultural research.

Weep and get more: When and why sadness expression is effective in negotiations.

Although recently some research has been accumulated on emotional expressions in negotiations, there is little research on whether expressing sadness could have any effect in negotiations. We propose that sadness expressions can increase the expressers' ability to claim value in negotiations because they make recipients experience greater other-concern for the expresser. However, only when the social situation provides recipients with reasons to experience concern for the expresser in the first place, will recipients act on their other-concern and, eventually, concede more to a sad expresser. Three experiments tested this proposition by examining face-to-face, actual negotiations (in which participants interacted with each other). In all 3 experiments, recipients conceded more to a sad expresser when, but only when, features of the social situation provided reasons to experience other-concern for the expresser, namely (a) when recipients perceived the expresser as low power (Experiment 1), (b) when recipients anticipated a future interaction (Experiment 1), (c) when recipients construed the relationship as collaborative in nature (Experiment 2), or (d) when recipients believed that it was inappropriate to blame others (Experiment 3). All 3 experiments showed that the positive effect of sadness expression was mediated by the recipients' greater other-concern. These findings extend previous research on emotional expressions in negotiations by emphasizing a distinct psychological mechanism. Implications for our understanding of sadness, negotiations, and emotions are discussed.

Good things come to those who wait: late first offers facilitate creative agreements in negotiation.

Although previous research has shown that making the first offer leads to a distributive advantage in negotiations, the current research explored how the timing of first offers affects the creativity of negotiation agreements. We hypothesized that making the first offer later rather than earlier in the negotiation would facilitate the discovery of creative agreements that better meet the parties' underlying interests. Experiment 1 demonstrated that compared with early first offers, late first offers facilitated creative agreements that better met the parties' underlying interests. Experiments 2a and 2b controlled for the duration of the negotiation and conceptually replicated this effect. The last two studies also demonstrated that the beneficial effect of late first offers was mediated by greater information exchange. Thus, negotiators need to consider the timing of first offers to fully capitalize on the first offer advantage. Implications for our understanding of creativity, motivated information exchange, and timing in negotiations are discussed.

Hot or cold: is communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation?

Is communicating anger or threats more effective in eliciting concessions in negotiation? Recent research has emphasized the effectiveness of anger communication, an emotional strategy. In this article, we argue that anger communication conveys an implied threat, and we document that issuing threats is a more effective negotiation strategy than communicating anger. In 3 computer-mediated negotiation experiments, participants received either angry or threatening messages from a simulated counterpart. Experiment 1 showed that perceptions of threat mediated the effect of anger (vs. a control) on concessions. Experiment 2 showed that (a) threat communication elicited greater concessions than anger communication and (b) poise (being confident and in control of one's own feelings and decisions) ascribed to the counterpart mediated the positive effect of threat compared to anger on concessions. Experiment 3 replicated this positive effect of threat over anger when recipients had an attractive alternative to a negotiated agreement. These findings qualify previous research on anger communication in negotiation. Implications for the understanding of emotion and negotiation are discussed.

Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: when minority members make majority members more accurate privately.

We examined how the minority's perceived (i.e., not real) expertise affects group discussion and performance. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to interacting groups in which the minority faction was perceived as either expert or not. Groups performed a decision task that involved solving a murder mystery. Both experiments showed that minorities perceived as expert (vs. not perceived as expert) made majority individuals acquire more accurate private judgments after group discussion, although the public group decision was not more accurate. In parallel, perceived expertise made minority members change their own judgments less. Experiment 1 also showed that minorities' questioning behaviors mediated the effect of minorities' perceived expertise on majority members' private accuracy. Experiment 2 further showed that majority members' deeper processing was also a mediator. Thus, minorities with perceived expertise serve as a catalyst, increasing the quality of majority members' cognitions, but not their own.

Emotional and deliberative reactions to a public crisis: Mad Cow disease in France.

Although most theories of choice are cognitive, recent research has emphasized the role of emotions. We used a novel context--the Mad Cow crisis in France--to investigate how emotions alter choice even when consequences are held constant. A field study showed that individuals reduced beef consumption in months after many newspaper articles featured the emotional label "Mad Cow," but beef consumption was unaffected after articles featured scientific labels for the same disease. The reverse pattern held for the disease-related actions of a government bureaucracy. A lab study showed that the Mad Cow label induces people to make choices based solely on emotional reactions, whereas scientific labels induce people to consider their own probability judgments. Although the Mad Cow label produces less rational behavior than scientific labels, it is two to four times more common in the environment.