The Display of “Dominant” Nonverbal Cues in Negotiation: The Role of Culture and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study extends prior negotiation research on culture and verbal behavior by investigating the display of nonverbal behaviors associated with dominance by male and female Canadian and Chinese negotiators. We draw from existing literature on culture, gender, communication, and display rules to predict both culture and gender variation in negotiators’ display of three nonverbal behaviors typically associated with dominance: relaxed posture, use of space, and facial display of negative emotion. Participants engaged in a dyadic transactional negotiation simulation which we videotaped and coded for nonverbal expression. Our findings indicated that male Canadian negotiators engaged in more relaxed postures and displayed more negative emotion, while male Chinese negotiators occupied more space at the negotiation table. In addition, use of space and negative emotion partially mediated the relationship between culture and joint gains, as well as satisfaction with negotiation process. We discuss contributions to cross-cultural negotiation literature, implications for cross-cultural negotiation challenges, as well as future studies to address cultural variation in the interpretation of nonverbal cues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".