↓ Skip to main content

Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact.
Published in
Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.1037/apl0000065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shirli Kopelman, Ashley E. Hardin, Christopher G. Myers, Leigh Plunkett Tost

Abstract

This study examined whether the cultures of low- and high-power negotiators interact to influence cooperative behavior of low-power negotiators. Managers from 4 different cultural groups (Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, and the United States) negotiated face-to-face in a simulated power-asymmetric commons dilemma. Results supported an interaction effect in which cooperation of people with lower power was influenced by both their culture and the culture of the person with higher power. In particular, in a multicultural setting, low-power managers from Hong Kong, a vertical-collectivist culture emphasizing power differences and group alignment, adjusted their cooperation depending on the culture of the high-power manager with whom they interacted. This study contributes to understanding how culture shapes behavior of people with relatively low power, illustrates how a logic of appropriateness informs cooperation, and highlights the importance of studying multicultural social interactions in the context of negotiations, work teams, and global leadership. (PsycINFO Database Record

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
China 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 33%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Other 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 28 37%
Psychology 27 36%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Unspecified 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 5 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#10,939,210
of 12,343,316 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Psychology
#2,500
of 2,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,781
of 338,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Psychology
#55
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,343,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.