Consider, by way of broad illustration, the following situation. You are seated across from a male negotiator from a culture very different from your own. In the course of the negotiations, he makes an unexpectedly large concession. While you are pleased by this behavior, you probably also wish to explain and understand it. There are several distinct possibilities.

First, the other negotiator may have made his concession because of the kind of person he is. That is, something about his personality led him to do what he did, in which case he might be expected to behave this way under many other circumstances. Second, it may be something about the particular conflict that the two of you are engaged in; this, the problem over which you are negotiating, may be one that invites or tolerates large concessions. Third, the explanation may have to do with the unique interaction created by the two of you working together; thus, had your opposite number been seated across from someone else, perhaps his negotiating behavior would have been very different. Finally, in this listing of explanations for the other side’s negotiation behavior is the possibility of culture. Perhaps people from his culture tend to be rather conciliatory in negotiation.

Each of these possible reasons – and others no doubt – could explain why another negotiator behaves in particular ways. We suspect, however, that culture is far more likely than other possibilities (at least in international settings) to be invoked as the dominant explanation. When in doubt we tend to begin with the assumption that culture or nationality is the source of the behavior, when, in reality, all of the above sources may be implicated.