National culture, trust, and perceptions about ethical behavior in intra‐ and cross‐cultural negotiations: An analysis of NAFTA countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the role of national culture in the formation of the trust that people are likely to extend to exchange partners in business negotiations and, consequently, how the level of such trust influences the likelihood of using certain questionable tactics in intra‐ and cross‐cultural negotiations. Based on survey data collected from businesspeople from Canada, Mexico, and the United States, this article shows that trust is culturally embedded and has a negative relationship with the likelihood of using certain questionable negotiation tactics. The study found that Mexican negotiators are less likely to use questionable negotiation tactics in intracultural negotiations as compared to cross‐cultural negotiations. On the other hand,the intended negotiation behaviors of Canadian and U.S. negotiators were not found to vary significantly across intra‐ and cross‐cultural negotiations. The findings of the study underscore the importance of building relationship with exchange partners, especially when such exchange partners come from countries that represent collectivistic, high‐context, strong uncertainty‐avoidance,and large power‐distance cultures. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".