Ethics refers to the moral principles or values that govern a group of people (Volkema, 2004 [
4]). These principles and values distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and thereby guide individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in their personal and professional decisions (Alas, 2006 [
24]; Ma, 2007 [
25], 2010 [
1]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]; Volkema & Fleury, 2002 [
10]). The past decades have shown increased interest in understanding various ethical standards and relevant factors that may affect these principles (Rivers & Lytle, 2007 [
2]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]; Volkema & Fleury, 2002 [
10]). The majority of the research focuses on certain factors including personality/demographic factors, economic factors, situational/context factors, and cultural factors (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005 [
11]; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008 [
26]; Volkema, 1999 [
9], 2004 [
4]). Much of the early research on business ethics focused on demographic factors such as age, gender, work experience, education, nationality, and religion (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005 [
11]; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008 [
26]). For example, a considerable amount of literature has shown that personal factors such as age and gender affect ethical attitudes and behaviors in negotiations. Women often maintain higher ethical standards than men, and older individuals maintain higher ethical standards than younger ones (Ma, 2010 [
1]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]). Other studies have found that cultural factors are also very important in understanding ethical decision making (Ma, 2010 [
1]; Rivers & Lytle, 2007 [
2]; Volkema & Fleury, 2002 [
10]). In his nine-country empirical study, Volkema proved that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, as well as the GDP per capita, predicted variance in perceived appropriateness or likely use of one or more of the five categories of negotiation strategies (Volkema, 2004 [
4]).
Personality factors including locus of control, risk propensity, ethical ideology, Machiavellianism, and competitiveness have also been investigated for their impact on negotiation ethics (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005 [
11]; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008 [
26]). For instance, ethical ideology (idealism vs. relativism) has been found to affect decisions in ethically questionable situations. Idealism is negatively related to the use of unethical strategies, while relativism is positively related to such use (Al-Khatib et al., 2005 [
27]; Banas & Parks, 2002 [
28]). However, while previous studies have generated impressive negotiation literature on the relationship between individual dispositional factors and ethical attitudes and behaviors, current negotiation ethics research remains fragmented on whether overall personality affects individuals’ ethical attitudes and behavior in negotiations. The inconsistency in previous research is due to the fact that past research has largely relied on isolated personality traits with convenience samples from North American populations (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008 [
26]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]).
2.1. Big Five Personality Traits and EQNS
The Big Five Personality Model describes the most salient aspects of personality and enjoys increasing acceptance and popularity among personality psychologists. According to Barrick and colleagues (1991 [
29], 2003 [
30]), the five factors of the Big Five Model include emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The first factor, emotional stability, is often associated with being calm, even-tempered, emotionally stable, and less reactive to stress. The second factor, extraversion, is associated with being sociable, assertive, talkative, and gregarious. The third factor, agreeableness, is associated with being courteous, flexible, trusting, cooperative, and tolerant. The fourth factor, conscientiousness, is often associated with being careful, responsible, and organized. The final factor, openness to experience, is associated with being imaginative, curious, original, and openminded.
The Big Five factors of personality are recovered from various personality measures in wide use, and they account for the shared variance in the trait adjectives of many languages (Digman & Shmelyov, 1996 [
31]; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004 [
32]). Evidence shows that the Big Five model of personality captures individual characteristics that are affective, experiential, and motivational (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). Studies also indicate that the Big Five traits are inheritable (Costa & McCrae, 1995 [
34]). Moreover, a considerable body of research has accumulated with compelling evidence for the robustness of the Big Five across different research designs (Goldberg, 1990 [
35]), using different instruments (Conley, 1985 [
36]; McCrae, 1989 [
37]), in different cultures (Noller et al., 1987 [
38]), and using ratings from different sources (Digman & Inouye, 1986 [
39]; Waston, 1989 [
40]). However, despite the Big Five’s popularity in various studies related to dispositional factors, few negotiation studies have used the Big Five to investigate personality and ethical attitudes and behaviors in the field of negotiations (Aslam & Mian, 2011 [
41]; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011 [
42]; Mober, 1999 [
43]), leading to inconclusive findings on the impact of dispositional factors on negotiation ethics. To help bridge the gap in negotiation ethics research, we will use the Big Five model in this study to examine the general relationship between personality and negotiation ethics in two cultures. One culture is from the West and one culture is from the East. The objective is to test personality effects in different contexts for a better understanding of ethical standards in negotiations and their variations across cultures. The general expectation is that the Big Five personality traits will have a significant impact on the perceived appropriateness and endorsement of EQNS in both cultures, with detailed hypotheses presented as follows.
Emotional stability is associated with being stable, calm, even-tempered, unruffled by frustration, and less reactive to stress (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). Individuals high in emotional stability tend to have a positive self-concept, more self-esteem and self-acceptance, and tend to have less anxiety about how they appear to others. A few studies have related anxiety, low self-esteem, and self-acceptance to competitive negotiation behaviors (Ma & Jaeger, 2005 [
44]; Tedeschi et al., 1969 [
45]; Williams et al., 1969 [
46]), which is consistent with the notion that competitive behaviors are more likely to emerge among individuals who are high in anxiety. Low self-esteem individuals tend to be most anxious to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy by taking high rewards from others (Tedeschi et al., 1969 [
45]). The underlying logic is that individuals who feel negatively towards themselves tend to be more anxious concerning how they behave in negotiations and will feel more of a need to prove themselves using competitive, exploitative tactics (Alexander et al., 1994 [
47]), or ethically questionable negotiation strategies (Robinson et al., 2000 [
3]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]). On the contrary, negotiators who are emotionally stable are expected to exhibit less ethically questionable behaviors and are more ready to resort to appropriate tactics in negotiations (Ma, 2012 [
48];Volkema, 2004 [
4]). Therefore, it is expected in this study that negotiators with high emotional stability will be less likely to endorse EQNS in negotiations, and it is hypothesized that:
Hl. Emotional stability will be negatively related to the endorsement of EQNS.
As an indicator of one’s interpersonal assertiveness, gregariousness, and confidence in getting along with a variety of individuals (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]), extraversion has been found associated with levels of individual impact on group interaction (Barry & Friedman, 1998 [
5]). Individuals high in extraversion are more inclined to develop friendly interpersonal relationships, spend more time with others, and enjoy being around people. The preferences for social interactions will lead extraverted individuals to consider the positive value attached to their situated identities and social image (Ma, 2012 [
48]; McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). Therefore, it is expected that extraverted individuals are less likely to endorse the use of EQNS in negotiations in order to maintain or protect their positive interpersonal relationships. It is thus hypothesized that:
H2. Extraversion will be negatively related to the endorsement of EQNS.
Agreeableness defines the tendencies to be cooperative, considerate, generous, altruistic, trusting, and trying to be liked by others (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). Agreeableness may be the dimension most closely tied to negotiations in the Big Five model (Barry & Friedman, 1998 [
5]). Research findings support that individuals high in agreeableness are linked to perceptions of and preferences for cooperative negotiation behaviors (Barry & Friedman, 1998 [
5]). In situations involving interdependence such as negotiations, agreeableness reflects a stable social value orientation that is trusting and cooperative. Consequently, agreeable negotiators are more likely to have a high trust perception of the other, and thus are less likely to endorse the use of EQNS in negotiations (Ma, 2012 [
48]; McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). The generous nature of agreeableness also has a clear potential to avoid the relentless pursuit of self-interest, which again suggests an inclination to use more ethical tactics and behaviors in negotiations from agreeable individuals. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Agreeableness will be negatively related to the endorsement of EQNS.
Conscientiousness reflects being dutiful, reliable, thorough, responsible, self-disciplined, and aiming for achievement (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). Highly conscientious individuals are careful, self-disciplined, and have a desire for achievement. Past research has related conscientiousness to business negotiations, but the results are inconclusive. Some have claimed that conscientiousness is generally unrelated to the bargaining process (Barry & Friedman, 1998 [
5]), and others have claimed that conscientiousness is positively related to integrative negotiations (Ma & Jaeger, 2005 [
44]). It is reasonable to assume that, within the context of negotiations, organized and dutiful negotiators tend to make thorough preparation and carefully plan for negotiations. They make great effort to accomplish their tasks because they are achievement-oriented (Barrick, et al., 2003 [
30]). As a result, they may be more likely to resort to ethically questionable tactics to help achieve their objectives. Empirical research has previously shown that individuals with strong needs for competitive success are more likely to use EQNS in negotiations (Ma, 2010 [
1]). Thus, the following hypothesis will be tested in this study.
H4. Conscientiousness will be positively related to the endorsement of EQNS.
Openness to experiences has often been defined as having an active imagination, having a preference for variety, and willingness to entertain new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1995 [
34]). Openness reflects the extent to which people are willing to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new situations. Within the context of negotiations, open-minded negotiators are receptive to new ideas and solutions from the other sides and thus are more likely to take into consideration both sides’ interests. They tend to behave in a cooperative manner, resulting in low endorsement of EQNS in negotiations (Ma, 2012 [
48]). In addition, willingness to entertain new ideas and to make quick adjustment also means that open-minded negotiators are more likely to adjust their positions based on their perceptions of how their opponents behave in negotiations (McCrae & Costa, 1989 [
33]). When they perceive the other party has used EQNS, they will be more likely to quickly adjust their strategy and begin to use EQNS as well. Empirical studies have shown that a large percentage of negotiators act unethically and employ ethically questionable negotiation strategies intentionally or unintentionally. For example, Volkema and colleagues found that at least 80% of the participants in their study applied unethical strategies in negotiations (Volkema, 2004 [
4]). Additionally, O’Connor and Carnevale found that over 28% of their respondents provided distorted information to their counterparts in negotiations (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997 [
49]). As a result, it is expected that negotiators high in openness who are flexible and ready to try new approaches will tend to endorse the use of EQNS in response to the frequent use of EQNS in negotiations. Therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested in this study.
H5. Openness to experiences will be positively related to the endorsement of EQNS.
2.2. Cultural Context and EQNS
Culture represents a unique character of a social group, which is a collective programming of the minds that distinguishes members of one group from another (Hofstede, 2001 [
50]). It is widely accepted that cultural context affects ethical attitudes and behaviors (Lam & Shi, 2008 [
17]; Ma, 2010 [
1]; Ma, Liang, & Chen, 2013 [
51]; Volkema, 2004 [
4]). For instance, offering gifts and financial kickback in one culture is a normal practice in negotiations, but it may be viewed as bribery that is unethical or even illegal in another culture (Volkema, 1998 [
8]). However, cultural differences in the relationship between personality traits and the endorsement of EQNS in business negotiations have not been carefully examined. Given that empirical studies have shown that the Big Five personality traits seem to be able to transcend culture (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004 [
32]), it is important to compare the impact of different cultural contexts on EQNS in order to provide more meaningful guidelines for negotiation practitioners in a global context.
The cultural context theory has been used in many cross-cultural studies to explain cultural differences in the communication process (Hall, 1976 [
20]; Kirkbride et al., 1991 [
52]; Ma, 2007 [
25], 2010 [
1]; Volkema, 1998 [
8], 2004 [
4]). In his seminal work Beyond Culture (Hall, 1976 [
20]), Hall suggests that cultures can be characterized according to their communication styles as high-context cultures and low-context cultures. According to this theory, cultures differ in their degree to which cultural context affects the meaning individuals take from communication (Hall, 1976 [
20]; Kittler, Rygl, & Mackinnon, 2011 [
21]). People from low-context cultures, such as Canadian culture, use explicit and direct language (mainly spoken and written words), and those from high-context cultures such as Chinese culture use implicit and indirect language, wherein words and phrases derive their meanings from contextual cues. As a result, negotiators from different cultures differ in their degree of sensitivity to communication contexts (Ma, 2007 [
25], 2010 [
1]), and the sensitivity to contextual cues affects the way negotiators perceive the particulars of a context, which further affects their use of negotiation strategies, even in a way that is incongruent to their dispositional characteristics if certain responses and tactics are more desirable in a particular situation (Banai et al., 2014 [
22]; Stefanidis et al., 2013 [
23]).
Such an interactive process will affect whether the negotiators use EQNS in business negotiations or not: In a low-context culture, individual negotiators tend to pay less attention to contextual cues and are more likely to behave in a way consistent with what is predetermined by their dispositional factors; in a high-context culture, individual negotiators pay closer attention to what is within the context, so their behaviors are less likely to reflect what is predetermined by their dispositional factors and are more related to the particulars of the specific context or situation (Ma, 2007 [
25], 2010 [
1]). For example, if they see that the use of certain unethical strategies will help achieve desirable outcomes in that particular situation based on a closer analysis of contextual cues, they are more likely to use these strategies even if their personality traits would tell them differently. Consequently, the relationship between individual negotiators’ personality traits and negotiators’ bargaining strategies will be stronger in a low-context culture than in a high-context culture. In this study, it is thus expected that, because of the high-context characteristic of Chinese culture, Big Five personality traits will have a weaker relationship with Chinese negotiators’ EQNS in business negotiations. This does not apply to low-context Canadian culture though, for which it is predicted that Canadian negotiators’ dispositional characteristics will have a stronger relationship with their endorsement of EQNS. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H6. The relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the endorsement of EQNS will differ in the two examined cultures: The relationship will be stronger in the low-context Canadian culture but it will be weaker in the high-context Chinese culture.