Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences

This research examines cultural differences in negotiators' responses to rational persuasion in crisis negotiations over time. Using a new method of examining cue-response patterns, we examined 25 crisis negotiations in which police negotiators interacted with perpetrators from low- or high-context cultures. As predicted, low-context more than high-context perpetrators were found to use persuasive arguments, to reciprocate persuasive arguments, and to respond to persuasive arguments in a compromising way. These effects were partly mediated by time period, with the more normative, later period of interaction associated with larger cultural effects than the early crisis-dominated period of interaction. Further analyses found that low-context perpetrators were more likely to communicate threats, but that high-context negotiators were more likely to reciprocate them. The implications of these findings for our understanding of inter-cultural interaction are discussed.