• DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.721
• Corpus ID: 145686326

Individualism-collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations.

@article{Gelfand1999IndividualismcollectivismAA,
  title={Individualism-collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations.},
  author={Michele J. Gelfand and Anu Realo},
  journal={Journal of Applied Psychology},
  year={1999},
  volume={84},
  pages={721-736}
}

• M. Gelfand, A. Realo
• Published 1 October 1999
• Political Science
• Journal of Applied Psychology

This research incorporates the theory of individualism-collectivism into research on accountability in intergroup negotiations. Given that accountability is fundamentally a norm enforcement mechanism and that norms and standards for behavior vary for individualists and collectivists (H. R. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991; H. C. Triandis, 1995) it was predicted that accountability would differentially affect individualists and collectivists in intergroup negotiations. In support of this, results from a laboratory study (with Caucasians and Asian Americans) and from a judgment study (in the United States and Estonia) found that collectivism moderated the effects of accountabilit y on negotiators' psychological states, behaviors, and outcomes. In contrast to previous research, the results illustrate that accountability does not necessarily produce competitive behavior, but rather produces the behavior most normative for individuals in their sociocultural experience. At no time in our history has it been more important to understand how elements of culture affect negotiations. Today, negotiations take place between heads of state, diplomats, and within numerous international organizations in unprecedented numbers. Undoubtedly, negotiation is now regarded as one of the major functions of diplomacy, focusing on issues ranging from disarmament to international hijacking (Druckman & Mahoney, 1977). Furthermore, as world trade and global economic activity have grown exponentially, many organizations have become primarily international in their strategy, structure, markets, and resource bases (Adler, 1991). These transitions have increased the frequency of negotiations between people of different cultures. And, as a result of these trends, the topic of culture and negotiation has become popular in politics (Fisher, 1980) as well as in business (Harris & Moran, 1979). While practical concerns about cultural influences on negotiation have had a long past, systematic theory and research on the subject have a short history (Gelfand & Dyer, in press). The dominant paradigms in behavioral