In two comparative studies, both conducted in China and in the Netherlands, we investigated the effect of an asymmetric relationship on lay third parties' side-taking preference in an interpersonal dispute. The first study shows that a perceived close relationship with one of the disputants motivates both Chinese and Dutch lay third parties to side with that disputant. The second study complicates the interpersonal relationship and side-taking link by taking account of contrasting information (either legitimacy or negative sanctions) about the other disputant and cultural dimensions (horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism). The results suggest that contrasting legitimacy information has a decisive effect on lay third parties' side-taking preference, especially among Dutch lay third parties who highly value vertical individualism. In addition to legitimacy criteria, Chinese lay third parties, whether individualistic or collectivistic oriented, seem to also consider interpersonal relationship and sanction information when making their side-taking decision.
Adair, W., & Brett, J.M. (2004). Culture and negotiation process. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 158-176). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Black, D. (1993). The social structure of right or wrong. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. (2000). Assessment extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
5.
Emans, B., Laskewitz, P., & Van de Vliert, E. (1994). The Netherlands. In M.A. Rahim & A. A. Blum (Eds.), Global perspectives on organizational conflict (pp. 53-66). Westport, CT: Praeger .
6.
Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 35, 263-282.
7.
Gelfand, J.M., & Cai, D.A. (2004). Cultural structuring of the social context of negotiation. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 238-257). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Gross, N., Mason, W.S., & McEachern, A.W. (1958). Explorations in role analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
10.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind . Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Kolb, M., & Sheppard, B.H. (1985). Do managers mediate or even arbitrate?Negotiation Journal, 1, 379-388.
12.
Leung, K. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49.
13.
Nisbett, R.E. (2004). The geography of thought: Why we think the way we do. New York: Free Press.
14.
Ohbuchi, K.I., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27, 2177-2199.
15.
Pruitt, D.G., & Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole .
16.
Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Smith, P.B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 35, 50-61.
18.
Soh, S., & Leong, F. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism in Singapore. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 33, 3-15.
19.
Tinsley, C.H. (2001). How we get to yes: Predicting the constellation of strategies used across cultures to negotiate conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 583-593.
20.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
21.
Triandis, H.C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes . American Psychologist, 51, 407-415.
22.
Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.
23.
Triandis, H.C., & Suh, E.M. (2002). Cultural influence on personality. Annual Review ofPsychology, 53, 133-160.
24.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economic.
25.
Tyler, T., Lind, E.A., Ohbuchi, K.I., Sugawara, I., & Huo, Y.J. (1998). Conflict with outsiders: Disputing within and across cultural boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 137-146.
26.
Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the cross of conflict. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
27.
Van deVliert, E. (1981). Siding and other reactions to a conflict: A theory of escalation toward outsiders. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 25, 495-520.
28.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Enhancing performance by conflict-stimulating intervention. In C. K. W. de Dreu & E. van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 208-222). London: Sage.
29.
Van de Vliert, E., Ohbuchi, K.I., Van Rossum, B., Hayashi, Y., & Van der Vegt, G. (2004). Conglomerated contending by Japanese subordinates. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 192-207.
30.
Yan, J., & Sorenson, R.L. (2004). The influence of Confucian ideology on conflict in Chinese family business. International Journal of Cross CulturalManagement, 4, 5-17.
31.
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., & Shi, K. (2005). Siding in a workplace dispute in China: The impact of legitimacy, sanction, and guanxi. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 5, 329-347.
32.
Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 93-106.
