Gelfand M J, Nishii L H, Holcombe K M, Dyer N, Ohbuchi K I, Fukuno M
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park 20742, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 2001 Dec;86(6):1059-74. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1059.
This article integrates theory from the cognitive tradition in negotiation with theory on culture and examines cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict. The authors predicted that although there may be universal (etic) dimensions of conflict construals, there also may be culture-specific (emic) representations of conflict in the United States and Japan. Results of multidimensional scaling analyses of U.S. and Japanese conflict episodes supported this view. Japanese and Americans construed conflicts through a compromise versus win frame (R. L. Pinkley, 1990), providing evidence of a universal dimension of conflict construal. As the authors predicted, Japanese perceived conflicts to be more compromise-focused, as compared with Americans. There were also unique dimensions of construal among Americans and Japanese (infringements to self and giri violations, respectively), suggesting that identical conflict episodes are perceived differently across cultures.
本文将谈判认知传统中的理论与文化理论相结合，考察文化对冲突认知表征的影响。作者预测，尽管冲突解释可能存在普遍（etic）维度，但在美国和日本也可能存在特定文化（emic）的冲突表征。对美国和日本冲突事件的多维尺度分析结果支持了这一观点。日本人和美国人通过妥协与获胜框架来解释冲突（R.L.平克利，1990），这为冲突解释的普遍维度提供了证据。正如作者所预测的，与美国人相比，日本人认为冲突更注重妥协。美国人和日本人之间也存在独特的解释维度（分别是对自我的侵犯和对义理的违背），这表明相同的冲突事件在不同文化中会有不同的认知。
