Though anger as an emotion is an important determinant of negotiation outcomes, the extant literature presents mixed and contradictory findings. We propose that the effect of anger in intercultural negotiations depends on the power and personality orientation of the counterpart negotiators.
Based on data from 429 working professionals in the USA, we conducted two experimental studies in which they responded to an angry Chinese counterpart.
We find that the intercultural negotiation outcomes depend on the three-way interaction between anger, power and personality orientation. Our findings suggest that US action-oriented negotiators conceded more in a high-power condition than in a low-power condition while responding to an angry Chinese counterpart, while US state-oriented negotiators showed no difference in concession size regardless of their power and counterpart’s anger.
Our work is unique in establishing three-way interactive effects of power, personality and emotions in intercultural negotiation outcome relationships. Our findings are specific to an intercultural negotiation context consisting of negotiators from low-status, low-power-distance countries (e.g. the USA) with their counterparts from high-status, high-power-distance countries (e.g. China).
