A comparative study of negotiation styles: Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.

INTRODUCTION

Culture and it's role in international negotiations have been the focus of many studies. The absence of cultural awareness can slow down or stop communication between a group of negotiators from different cultures and could result in failing to reach agreements. Culture includes many elements, among them nationality and religion. Previous studies have shown that people with different religious affiliations employ different negotiation styles. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of national culture on negotiation styles of people with the same religious affiliation. The negotiation styles of three groups of Muslim university students from Afghanistan, Iran and Syria have been compared. Exploratory comparative and explanatory correlational designs have been employed.

LITERATUE REVIEW

Global economic integration in the 21st century has necessitated dialogue among public officials and private citizens of the world. However, objectives, attitudes, approaches, beliefs, values, norms and customs of negotiators vary around the negotiation table at the global level. Differences in a set of values and beliefs that characterize the behavior of negotiators from different nationality and ethnicity reflect their cultural differences (Faure & Sjostedt, 1993; Craig & Douglas, 2006; Adapa, 2008). Culture has been defined as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learns as it successfully resolves its problem of external adaptation and internal integration, and is therefore taught to new members as the appropriate means to perceive, think, feel and behave in relation to those problems (Schein, 1997; Simintiras & Thomas, 1998). Barbash and Taylor (1997) indicate that culture includes religion, gender, language, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Lack of cross cultural knowledge and understanding could be obstacle to successful inter country negotiations. Negotiation is the iterative process of communication among two or more parties that have different objectives or interests in order to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to all the parties involved (Gulbro & Herbig, 1994; Foroughi, 1998; Fraser & Zarkada-Fraser, 2002; Manning & Robertson, 2003; Wheeler, 2004a). However, the cultural background influences the way of thinking and communication of each party, as well as their values, norms, behaviors and negotiation styles (Simintiras & Thomas, 1998; Hung, 1998; Woo & Pru'homme, 1999; Chang, 2003).

Gulbro and Herbig (1994) stated that different cultures are associated with different styles of negotiation. These differences in style are the product of differences in means of communication, protocols, strategies of persuasion, and personal characteristics including accommodation, determination, flexibility and adaptation (Hung, 1998). Those who specialize in negotiation must learn to understand the styles of negotiation of foreigners by studying their cultural beliefs and norms (Chang, 2003). In order to succeed in any process of negotiation, it is therefore necessary to fully comprehend the cultural values and assumptions of all the parties involved. In addition, negotiators must view the process from the perspective of the other party in order to understand their goals as fully as possible (Fisher, 1980). Wheeler (2004b) suggested that negotiation can be fruitless if the parties have no shared notion of the objectives of the process. Janosik (1987) added that an approach informed by shared values is the method most frequently used in the process of negotiation.

Cross-cultural negotiations are made more complicated as a result of a range of factors involved, such as those relating to environment, language, ideology and customs (Mintu-Wimsatt & Gassenheimer, 2000; Hoffmann, 2001). Gulbro and Herbig (1995) stated that "when negotiating internationally, this translates into anticipating culturally related ideas that are most likely to be understood by a person of a given culture" (p.3). A number of authors have demonstrated that culture is one of the most important factors involved in cross-cultural negotiation (Gulbro & Hrbig, 1994; Schein, 1997; Hofstede, 1980; Salacuse, 2005). However, when conducting business in a cross-cultural setting, negotiation is a great deal more complex. Because of the level of sophistication of the knowledge that is required to conduct these exchanges, many negotiators are unsuccessful in reaching agreements as a result of the challenges involved in overcoming cultural differences, as opposed to any economic or legal problems (Gulbro & Herbig, 1995).

With the goal of helping individuals to distinguish between the cultures of different countries, Hofstede (1980, 1994) formulated the theory of cultural dimensions. This theory identifies the major variables of cultural difference, which consist of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, characteristics of individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Hofstede proposes that cultural differences influence conduct, decision making and communication in business, and that collectivist and individualist values play a prominent role in the important areas of cross-cultural psychology, international management and religion (Hofstede, 1993; Kim et al., 1994; Triandis, 1995). Of Hofstede's four cultural dimensions, it is the individualism/collectivism contrast that is most often employed in cross-cultural studies of negotiation (Bazerman et al., 2000).

Casse and Deol (1985) discuss four styles of negotiation as Factual, Intuitive, Normative and Analytical Styles. They define each negotiation style as follows:

FA or Factual Style: people using the factual style are cool, collected, patient, down-to-earth, present-oriented, precise, realistic, able to document their statement, sticking to the facts that speak for themselves. IN or Intuitive style: this style is characterized by a charismatic tone, a holistic approach a strong imagination, a tendency to jump from one subject to another, a lot of ups and downs, a fast pace, a deductive way to approach problems as well as a future orientation. NR or Normative Style: For those who use this style negotiating is basically bargaining. They judge, assess and evaluate the facts according to a set of personal values. They appeal to feelings, offer bargains, propose rewards and incentives. They look for compromises. AN or Analytical Style: The basic assumption that underlies this style is that "logic leads to the right conclusions". These people from reasons, analyze each situation in terms of cause and effect, put things into a logic order weight pros and cons, and use a sort of linear reasoning. They are unemotional and focus upon the relationship of parts (Casse & Deol, 1985, p. 77-78).

Farazmand, Tu and Danaeefard (2010) discuss the impact of religion on negotiation styles of Iranians, Taiwanese and Americans. They use a sample of university students from Iran, Taiwan and the United States of America and compare the negotiation styles of Muslim, Buddhist and Christian students. Their findings reflect significant relationship between the negotiation styles and religious beliefs of Muslim, Buddhist and Christian students. However, the study does not discuss the impact of national culture on negotiation styles of people with the same religious affiliation. The current study attempts to examine the impact of national culture on negotiation styles of Muslims. A sample of undergraduate and graduate Muslim students from Iran, Syria and Afghanistan has been surveyed and the impact of nationality on negotiation styles has been investigated.

SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY

The present study was conducted with a sample of 150 undergraduate and graduate university students studying in Iran. The sample consisted of 50 Iranian, 50 Syrian and 50 Afghan students. The Afghan and Syrian students had a residency of 2-8 years In Iran. The students were enrolled in Tehran University, Ghazvin University, Tarbiat Modares University, Ferdosi University and Shahid Beheshti University. All the participants could read and write in Farsi (Persian) and survey was conducted in Farsi.

This research is a comparative exploratory and correlational explanatory study, and intended to examine, the impact of national culture on negotiation styles of Iranians, Syrians and Afghans. The objective of this study is to explore and compare the negotiation styles of the three groups of Muslim students from three different national backgrounds. Farazmand et al. (2010) show the impact of religion on negotiation styles of Muslim Iranians, Buddhist Taiwanese and Christian Americans. However, as the authors point out the results of their study does not necessarily apply to all Muslims, Buddhist or Christians. As a matter of fact the negotiation styles might vary among people with the same religious affiliation but different national or ethnicity culture. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of national culture represented by nationality and collectivist attitude on negotiation styles of Muslim students.

A three-part questionnaire was adopted from Farazmand, Tu and Danaeefard (2010) to measure variables related to socio-demographic characteristics, collectivist attitude and negotiation styles. The first part of the questionnaire is the Socio-Demographic Profile. The second part addresses Collectivism and the third part addresses negotiation styles. The sociodemographic characteristic part included nationality, religion, educational level, gender, age and work experience, as additional explanatory predictors. For the data collection of demographic variables, the participants provided self-reported responses. These socio-demographic questions and the coding schemes included Religion: 1= Muslim, 2=Non-Muslim; Nationality: Syrian=1, Afghan=2, Iranian=3; education level: 1= Associate's degree, 2= bachelor degree, 3: Graduate degree program; Gender: 1=Males, 2=Females; Age: 1= under 18, 2= 18-28, 3= over 28; Work experience: 1= 0, 2= 1-3, 3= more than 3.

The second part of the questionnaire has been based on Hofstede's model. Hofstede (1980) noted that one unique negotiation style is to share disparate cultural values, such as Collectivism-Individualism characteristics. Among Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Collectivism-Individualism characteristics are most frequently applied in the study of cross-cultural negotiation (Bazerman et al., 2000).

The collectivist characteristic reflecting cultural differences is one of the independent variables of our research model. Second part of the questionnaire with eight questions is designed to measure the Collectivist attitude of the participants. For the second part of the questionnaire also a five-point Likert scale was utilized with 5 = "Always" (100% of the time); 4 = "Often" (75% of the time); 3 = "Occasionally" (50% of the time); 2. ="Seldom" (25% of the time); and 1 = "Never" (0% of the time).

The third part of the questionnaire consists of twenty four questions and based on Casse and Deol (1985) model. Each of the four different negotiation styles (factual, intuitive, normative, and analytical) were measure with six questions on the five-point Likert scale. There were five options for each question: 5 "Always" (around 100% of the time); 4 "Often" (around 75% of the time); 3 "Occasionally" (around 50% of the time); 2 "Seldom" (around 25% of the time); and 1 "Never" (around 0% of the time). In total, there were 24 questions for the four negotiation styles.

The internal consistency reliability of the collectivist characteristics and four negotiation styles questionnaires have been reported as: 1) collectivist characteristics (8 items); Cranach's alpha =0.81; 2) analytical negotiation styles (6 items): Cronbach's alpha =0.87; 3) normative negotiation styles (6 items): Cronbach's alpha =0.83; 4) factual negotiation styles (6 items): Cranach's alpha =0.85; and 5) intuitive negotiation styles (6 items): Cronbach's alpha =0.82 (Farazmand et al., 2010).

The negotiation styles for three groups of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan students were measured and compared. The differences between negotiation styles of the three groups analyzed with p [less than or equal to] 0.05 as indicating statistical significance. Further, regression analysis with p [less than or equal to] 0.05 significant level was also employed to test the correlation between negotiation styles and cultural backgrounds measured by nationalities and collectivism among the Muslim students.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Farazmand et al. (2010) examined the impact of religious beliefs, collectivist characteristics, and socio-demographic characteristics on the negotiation styles between people from Iran, Taiwan and the United States. The authors show that the negotiation styles of Muslim students were significantly different from Buddhist Taiwanese and Christian American and found religion significantly affecting the negotiation styles. However, the authors address the need for further investigation to examine the differences in negotiation styles of Muslims from different cultural backgrounds. The current research focuses on the impact of national culture on negotiation styles of Muslims from three different countries. The research aims to provide an answer to the following questions: Are there differences in negotiation styles of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims? Do cultural characteristics represented by nationality and individualistic-collectivist attitude of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims affect their negotiation styles? Therefore, the current research hypothesizes that the negotiation styles employed by Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims are significantly different. Second, nationality and collectivist characteristics of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslim have significant effects on negotiation styles employed. Third, demographic characteristics, level of education, age, gender and years of work experience of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims have significant effects on their negotiation styles.

RESULTS

Hundred fifty university students completed the anonymous three part questionnaire. Of the 150 students 50 (33.33%) were Syrian, 50 (33.33%) Afghan and 50 (33.33%) were Iranian. Of the 50 Syrian students 78% were Muslim, 52% graduate students and all were male, of 50 Afghan students all 50 were Muslim, 52% graduate students and 90% male, and of 50 Iranian students 96% were Muslim, 64% graduate students and 94% were male. Of 150 participants 91.3% were Muslim, 56% graduate students and94.67% were male as shown in Table 1.

Looking at how nationality affected the Muslim participants' collectivist attitudes, responses of the Muslim Syrian, Afghan and Iranian students for the six items of collectivism questionnaire reveal no significant differences (p< 0.05). As it is shown in Table 2, for Collectivism (IC) the mean difference of the three countries are not significantly different. This might indicate the cultural similarities regarding individualism/collectivism characteristic of Muslim students in this sample. Regarding the religious nature of Iranian Islamic Republic government and the possibility of religious Syrian, Afghan and Iranian students of this sample, culture is not a significant factor in affecting the collectivist attitudes of the participants. However, this result might be generalized to religious and devoted Muslims, but not to all Muslims or Muslim countries.

Table 3 shows the comparison results regarding Muslim students' responses to 24 questions of the negotiation styles questionnaire. The results indicate no significant differences between the Analytical, Normative and Factual negotiation styles Syrian, Afghan and Iranian students. The results for the Intuitive negotiation style show significant differences between the three groups of students. However, the Post Hoc analysis for intuitive negotiation styles of Syrian, Afghan and Iranian students (Table 2) shows that only Syrian and Afghan students Intuitive negotiation style are significantly different at p < .05.

This last result might indicate that Syrian are slightly more flexible than Afghan in negotiations. But, the overall results regarding the three groups of Muslim students from Syria, Afghanistan and Iran did not show significant differences between their negotiation styles. In other words, the results of this study reject the hypotheses that:1) the negotiation styles employed by Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims are significantly different, 2) nationality and collectivist characteristics of Iranian, Syrian and Afghan Muslims have significant effects on their negotiation styles employed.

Farazmand et al. (2010) found a significant relationship between negotiation styles and religious belief and significance differences between negotiation styles of Christian Americans, Buddhist Taiwanese and Muslim Iranians. The results of the current study show that there are no significance differences between negotiation styles of Muslim students with three different national cultural backgrounds. One might conclude that the strong religious or ideological beliefs of negotiators might be a determining factor in forming their negotiation styles.

Regarding gender, age, education level and experience of the participants, the mean scores of the 139 Muslim students' responses to the 24 negotiation styles questionnaires were significantly different only for the gender. In Table 4 and 5, the results of comparing the mean scores of male and female responses to the negotiation styles questionnaire shows that male Muslim students' means for the normative, factual and intuitive negotiation styles are significantly different from females' Muslim students. The higher mean scores for the male students might indicate that male Muslim students employ normative, factual and intuitive negotiation styles more than Muslim female students. However, considering the unequal proportion of 8 females to 131 males in this sample lowers the validity of the gender effects on negotiation styles for this sample and requires a more equally gender oriented sample. The comparison of mean scores of the analytical negotiation styles of the two groups did not show a significant difference.

The regression analysis was also conducted to test the affects of nationality orientation, collectivism attitude, gender, age, education and experience on four negotiation styles of 139 Muslim students of this sample. The results of the regression analysis did not show a significant relationship between the nationality and the negotiation styles of the Muslim students as shown in Table 6. This supports the prior research results (Farazmand et al., 2010) that religious belief is a significant variable affecting the negotiation styles. This research found that the negotiation styles of graduate and undergraduate Muslim students are not significantly affected by their different nationalities.

The regression results in Table 6 also found collectivism as a significant variable affecting normative and intuitive negotiation styles of Muslim students. The results also showed gender variables significantly affecting the normative and factual negotiation styles of Muslim students. Finally, the regression results showed a significant relationship between the educational level measured by undergraduate and graduate level and Intuitive negotiation style of Muslim students.

CONCLUSION

The impact of culture on negotiation styles have been supported by different studies. However culture includes many factors such as environment, language, ideology, beliefs, customs, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, characteristics of individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Farazmand et al. (2010) found that religious beliefs of negotiators affect their negotiation styles. This paper examined the negotiation styles of a sample of university students with the same religion but from three different countries and different national cultural background. The study found no significant difference between negotiation styles of 139 Muslim university students from Syria, Afghanistan and Iran. Furthermore, the study found that the nationality factor has no significant affect on negotiation styles of Muslim students.

The findings were limited to Muslim university students from Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, and it adopted only a quantitative research method and employed a self-reporting questionnaire. Furthermore, although Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions has been widely used to examine cultural issues, only one factor was examined here. The sampling plan could be expanded to a broader population and cultural dimensions in the future.

REFERENCES

Adapa, S. (2008). Adoption of internet shopping: Cultural considerations in India and Australia. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 13 (2), 1-17.

Barbash, I. & L. Taylor (1997). Cross-cultural filmmaking. Berkeley and Los Angels, California: University of California Press.

Bazerman, M. H., R. J. Curhan, D. A. Moore, & L. K. Valley (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279-314.

Casse, P. and S. Deol (1985). Managing intercultural negotiations: Guidelines for trainers and negotiators. International Society for Intercultural Educa.

Chang, L. C. (2003). An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede framework. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2 (2), 567-570.

Craig, C. S. & P. S. Douglas (2006). Beyond national culture: implications of cultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 26 (3), 322-342.

Farazmand, F., T. J. Tu, & H. Danaeefard (2010). Is Religious Culture a Factor in Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Iran, Taiwan and United States. Journal of International Business Research (JIBR), 10 (1), 27-44.

Faure, G. O., & G. Sjostedt (1993). Culture and negotiation: An introduction. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Fisher, G. 1983. International negotiation: Cross-cultural perception. The Humanist, 43 (11), 14-18.

Foroughi, A. (1998). Minimizing negotiation process losses with computerized negotiation support systems. Journal of Applied Business Research, 14 (4), 15-27.

Fraser, C. & A. Zarkada-Fraser (2002). An exploratory investigation into cultural awareness and approach to negotiation of Greek, Russian and British managers. European Business Review, 14 (2), 111-128.

Gulbro, R. D. & P. Herbig (1994). The effect of external influences in the cross-cultural negotiation process. Journal of Strategic Change, 3, 329-340.

Gulbro, R. D. and P. Herbig (1995). International negotiating behavior of small firms. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 7 (2), 85-91.

Hoffmann, G. (2001). When scientists or engineers negotiate. Research Technology Management, 44 (6), 13-16.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hill: CA Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: Harper Collins.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive 7 (1), 81-94.

Hung, C. L. (1998). Canadian business pursuits in the PRC, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and Chinese perception of Canadians as business partners. Multinational Business Review, 6 (1), 73-83.

Janosik, R. J. (1987). Rethinking the culture-negotiation link. Negotiation Journal, 3, 385-395.

Kim, U., C. H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, C. S. Choi, & G. Yoon (eds) (1994). Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Manning, T. & B. Robertson (2003). Influencing and negotiating skills: some research and reflections--Part I: Influencing strategies and styles. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35 (1), 11-16.

Mintu-Wimsatt, A. & B. J. Gassenheimer (2000). The moderating effects of cultural context in buyer-seller negotiation. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20 (1), 1-9.

Salacuse, J. W. (2005). Negotiating: the top ten ways that culture can affect your negotiation. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1-6.

Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Simintiras, A. C. & H. A. Thomas (1998). Cross-cultural sales negotiations: A literature review and research propositions. International Marketing Review, 15 (1), 10-36.

Triandis H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Wheeler, M. (2004a). Anxious moments: openings in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 20 (2), 153-170.

Wheeler, M. (2004b). Awareness and action in critical moments. Negotiation Journal, 20 (2), 349-365.

Woo, H. S. & C. Prud'homme (1999). Cultural characteristics prevalent in the Chinese negotiation process. European Business Review, 99 (5), 313-315.

Farideh A. Farazmand, Lynn University 

Yu-Te Tu, Chungyu Institute of Technology

Hasan Danaeefard, Tarbiat Modares University

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Socio-demographic
Characteristics

                       Syrian     Afghan    Iranian
participants             50         50         50
                      students   students   students

Muslim participants     78%        100%       96%
Graduate students       52%        52%        64%
Male participants       100%       90%        94%

Table 2. Comparison Results between Collectivism
and Negotiation Styles of Syrian, Afghan and
Iranian Muslim Students

                               Sum of    df     Mean    F      Sig.
                               Squares         Square

IC           Between Groups     .102      2     .051    .331   .719
             Within Groups     20.446    133    .154
             Total             20.547    135

Analytical   Between Groups     .305      2     .152    .591   .555
             Within Groups     34.543    134    .258
             Total             34.848    136

Table 2. Comparison Results between Collectivism
and Negotiation Styles of Syrian, Afghan and
Iranian Muslim Students

                              Sum of           Mean
                              Squares   df    Square     F     Sig.

Normative   Between Groups     .588      2     .294    1.239   .293
            Within Groups     31.801    134    .237
            Total             32.389    136

Factual     Between Groups     .419      2     .210    1.109   .333
            Within Groups     25.315    134    .189
            Total             25.734    136

Intuitive   Between Groups     1.751     2     .876    3.698   .027
            Within Groups     31.731    134    .237
            Total             33.482    136

Note: p<0.05 indicate significance differences.

Table 3. Post Hoc Analysis for Intuitive Negotiation Styles
of Syrian, Afghan and Iranian Muslim Students

Dependent   (I)           (J)           Mean          Std.     Sig.
Variable    nationality   nationality   Difference    Error
                                        (I-J)

Intuitive   Syrian        Afghan        .27718 *      .10396   .031
                          Iranian       .20246        .10490   .159
            Afghan        Syrian        -.27718 *     .10396   .031
                          Iranian       -.07472       .09833   .750
            Iranian       Syrian        -.20246       .10490   .159
                          Afghan        .07472        .09833   .750

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Table 4. Comparison Results between Female
and Male Muslim Students

             Gender    N     Mean      Std.
                                     Deviation

Analytical    Male    129   2.2196    .49695
             Female    8    1.9792    .63269

Normative     Male    129   2.1318    .48711
             Female    8    1.6667    .23570

Factual       Male    129   2.0517    .42635
             Female    8    1.6875    .45806

Intuitive     Male    129   2.3385    .49561
             Female    8    1.9375    .34431

Table 5. Independent Sample T-test for Gender

                          Levene's Test     t-test for Equality
                          for Equality           of Means
                          of Variances

                            F     Sig.     t       df      Sig.
                                                            (2-
                                                          tailed)

Analytical   Equal        .405    .526   1.307    135      .193
             variances
             assumed

             Equal                       1.055   7.545     .324
             variances
             not
             assumed

Normative    Equal        4.454   .037   2.674    135      .008
             variances
             assumed

             Equal                       4.963   11.156    .000
             variances
             not
             assumed

Factual      Equal        .076    .783   2.335    135      .021
             variances
             assumed

             Equal                       2.191   7.771     .061
             variances
             not
             assumed

Intuitive    Equal        1.750   .188   2.251    135      .026
             variances
             assumed

             Equal                       3.101   8.906     .013
             variances
             not
             assumed

Table 6. Multiple Regression Results of Negotiation Styles

Dependent                  [alpha]   [beta]    Std.        Std.
Variable                                        Er.       [beta]

Analytical   (Constant)    2.147
             gender                  -.239     .191       -.111
             education               -.027     .089       -.026
             age                     -.101     .111       -.086
             experience               .009     .061        .014
             nationality              .073     .056        .115
             IC                       .182     .114        .140

Normative    (Constant)    2.101
             gender                  -.421     .176       -.203
             education               -.127     .082       -.129
             age                     -.054     .102       -.048
             experience               .026     .056        .041
             nationality              .063     .052        .103
             IC                       .298     .104        .237
Factual      (Constant)    2.574
             gender                  -.328     .160       -.178
             education               -.135     .075       -.154
             age                      .106     .093        .105
             experience              -.070     .051       -.123
             nationality             -.052     .047       -.095
             IC                       .061     .095        .055
Intuitive    (Constant)    2.108
             gender                  -.261     .174       -.125
             education               -.169     .081       -.169
             age                      .106     .101        .092
             experience               .027     .056        .042
             nationality             -.090     .051       -.145
             IC                       .339     .104        .267

Dependent                  t        Sig.
Variable

Analytical   (Constant)
             gender        -1.254   .212
             education      -.300   .765
             age            -.912   .363
             experience      .148   .882
             nationality    1.297   .197
             IC             1.602   .112

Normative    (Constant)
             gender        -2.398   .018 *
             education     -1.554   .123
             age            -.533   .595
             experience      .462   .645
             nationality    1.222   .224
             IC             2.849   .005 **
Factual      (Constant)
             gender        -2.047   .043 *
             education     -1.809   .073
             age            1.143   .255
             experience    -1.361   .176
             nationality   -1.097   .275
             IC              .642   .522
Intuitive    (Constant)
             gender        -1.498   .137
             education     -2.079   .040 *
             age            1.051   .295
             experience      .483   .630
             nationality   -1.749   .083
             IC             3.268   .001 **

* p = <.05; ** p = < .01; *** p = < .001