A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of assertiveness in determining negotiation outcomes in two different cultures and thus to help understand the cultural differences in the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes in the West and East, where assertiveness is often viewed quite differently. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from four simulated negotiations of varying degrees of complexity ranging from the most distributive to the most integrative. Over 400 business students were recruited as subjects from a Western culture and an Eastern culture, namely Canada and China, to participate in the simulations in order to test the cultural differences in the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes. Findings The results provide support for the effects of assertiveness on both economic outcome and affective outcome, and thus confirm the importance of assertiveness as a negotiator trait; the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes is found to be culture dependent whereby assertiveness is associated with economic outcome and affective outcome for Canadians, but only with affective outcome for the Chinese. Practical implications This study provides important guidelines for negotiation practitioners. Relevant training and development programs could be designed for international managers to improve their effectiveness when they negotiate with the Chinese who often place more emphasis on affective outcome and on negotiation process. Originality/value Negotiation skills become more important in the increasingly globalized world market and research on negotiation needs to provide more knowledge for scholars and negotiation practitioners. This paper attempts to enrich our understanding of negotiation in two different cultures and to provide insights on cross‐cultural differences in negotiation process.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".