







































Running head: FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE  35 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Abstract to Concrete: 

Decision Making, Cultural Understanding, and the Global Partners Program  

John H. P. Williams 

East Carolina University, USA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Note 

 John H. P. Williams, Department of Political Science, East Carolina University.  

 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John H. P. Williams, 

Brewster A131, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. 

Contact: williamsjoh@ecu.edu  

mailto:williamsjoh@ecu.edu


FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    36 
 

 

 

Abstract 

Teaching decision analysis helps countries improve national processes, yet successful application 

requires managing cultural differences. To help ensure student success, the Global Partners in 

Education’s Global Understanding courses improve the ability of students to manage varying 

cultural contexts, encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas. Having said that, how does the GPE 

alter instruction in cross-cultural understanding and in decision-making to provide this success?  

To answer this question, I evaluate concepts of three areas of instruction: decision analysis, 

cross-cultural analysis, and the GPE. First, how does each of the three approach their subject? 

Second, what insights do they provide about each other? Finally, how does interaction among the 

three areas affect student performance?  Combining decision and cultural models with the Global 

Understanding approach allows students to address these issues both directly and indirectly, 

ensuring ecological validity, that is, ensuring that they provide ‘real world’ insights. As with any 

models, repeated application of core principles allows students to move from the abstract to the 

concrete more readily. The Global Understanding approach addresses this challenge by 

repeatedly taking students in and out of their experiential and substantive backgrounds, making 

contact with the rich complexity of human understanding more routine. 

  



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    37 
 

 

From Abstract to Concrete: 

Decision Making, Cultural Understanding, and the Global Partners Program 

A few years ago, a Russian public administration professor described managing decision-

making in his country to my seminar on cross-cultural decision making. My students were 

surprised at the similarities, despite the different cultural contexts of our two countries.  I resisted 

the urge to say, “See, I’m not making this stuff up.”  Digging deeper, important cultural 

differences emerged and it was not so much in how to structure alternatives, but in the roles and 

objectives of participants.  

Sharing decision techniques internationally improves processes, yet managing cultural 

differences remains critical to successful application. The similarities and constraints we 

encountered appear in virtually all fields of study.  How can faculty ensure student success? 

A refined knowledge of a culture is a beginning, but students may interact with many cultures 

during their careers. Understanding cross-cultural interactions is typically addressed through one 

or more cultural models. However, until students place the cross-cultural and decision models 

into the real-world context, thus moving from the abstract to the concrete, the models are only 

academic exercises.  

The Global Partners in Education (GPE) program, managed through East Carolina 

University’s Global Academic Initiatives office, uses Global Understanding (GU) courses to 

enhance cultural awareness and adaptation as one solution. Just as medical students practice by 

seeing patients with similar symptoms arising from different causes, students learn to operate in 

a cross-cultural environment by actively applying the models in a wide range of cultural 

contexts.  



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    38 
 

 

Students at approximatly 60 universities world-wide engage in video conference 

discussions and prepare joint projects. How does the GPE enhance conventional decision-making 

and cultural awareness instruction? To answer this question, this study evaluates the conceptual 

underpinnings and interrelatedness of the decision analysis, cultural modeling, and GPE 

approaches. Specific models represent each form of instruction. The ‘Smart Choices’ approach 

of Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa (2015) represents the decision-analysis section. Two models 

present the complexity of cultural analysis: Grid-Group Theory (Wildavsky, 1985, 1987; 

Douglas, 1992a, 1992b; Spalding, 2000), and the Developmental Model of Intercultural 

Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986, 1993). Discussion on the GPE approach follows. Review of each 

approach addresses several questions. First, how does it see its subject, and how does it work? 

Second, what refinements do the specific versions described here bring to understanding the 

subject? Third, what qualities and challenges emerge?   

Modeling Decision-Making 

The structure for successful decision-making which is based on evaluating the 

relationship between objectives and alternatives is used world-wide (See Hammond, Keeney, & 

Raiffa, 2015; Brusman, n.d ). The approach supports negotiation skills, as each side prepares by 

evaluating its own circumstances and those of the other side. It thereby establishes the overlap 

between mutually acceptable outcomes and the chance of success. 

In the decision analysis literature, scholars focus on one or more of three areas: structure 

– arenas, voting rules, etc.; process – the analysis of interactions; and issue definition – norms 

and values that color actor goals and strategies (Steiner, in Williams, 1988). Modeling decisions 

as presented below falls under ‘process.’ Refining the model typically focuses on technical 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    39 
 

 

issues, such as assessing consequences or calculating risk (Starkey, Boyer, and Wilkenfeld, 

2015; Zeager, Ericson, & Williams, 2013).  

Organizing Improved Decisions 

Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa (2015) provide the following steps for making more effective 

choices with the core principle being to first decide what you hope to achieve based on its 

constituent desiderata. For example, objectives surrounding technical equipment might include 

price, performance, reliability, etc., to establish what you actually would like and for rating 

alternative solutions: 

• Identify Objectives. 

• Develop an array of Alternatives which can achieve some or all of the objectives given 

the constraints of the environment. Note that value of alternatives will vary with their 

ability to fulfill the various objectives. Further, it is critical to avoid confusing 

alternatives and objectives: the path should not be turned into the goal. 

• Consequences and risks: Assess individual alternatives based on which objectives they 

fulfill – some being more important than others - and the likelihood of success. 

• Decide which alternative best fulfills the set of objectives. This step is complex as some 

alternatives may fulfill different concerns among the objectives. 

As an example of this process, Table 1 presents a concern which originated within a Global 

Understanding class. Faculty must choose a collaborative project for students from the partner 

institutions to work on together. 

  



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    40 
 

 

Table 1  

Choosing Collaborative Project Topics 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Objectives Arts/Literature Family/ 

Relationships 

Regional 

Development 

    

Training in 

general English 

conversation 

Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate 

Training in 

cultural 

awareness 

High High High 

Training in 

professional 

language 

application 

Moderate Moderate High 

Training in 

pedagogy 

Moderate Moderate Moderate 

General 

knowledge 

exchange 

High High Moderate 

Technical 

expertise 

exchange* 

Low Low High 

    

Risks    

Impact of 

mismatched 

specialties 

Low Low Moderate 

Risk of 

mismatched 

specialties** 

High High High 

Chance of special 

request topic 

Low Low Low 

Chance of special 

request students 

High High Moderate 

 

*ECU’s Construction Management Program currently has such projects with a Dutch 

university. 

**As an example, a program specializing in English might link with one in political 

science. The course structures and cultural questions are the same, but the field content 

may differ significantly. 

  

Objectives in the chart reflect various goals that university programs might achieve 

through participation, with some programs pursing language acquisition and others focused on 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    41 
 

 

improving substantive expertise. The weight of an objective reflects its role in a class or field 

(e.g., English language students gain more from general conversation while students preparing 

for professional practice as with law, business, or science, might gain more from professional 

language applications).  

The three alternatives pursue different expertise though all are grounded in expanded 

cultural awareness. An arts topic, for example, considers humanistic aspects of culture while a 

family topic may reflect more social-science considerations. Regional development issues 

involve STEM fields. Thus, the consequences of each alternative vary according to university 

program goals. 

In this example, risk reflects whether students can collaborate by operating from different 

subject expertise. Partners are typically assigned randomly, so there is a chance of topic 

mismatch. However, the consequences of a mismatch are usually modest except with STEM 

fields where differences in expertise can hamper higher-order cooperation. STEM classes have 

been successfully matched online as with courses in construction management and cardiac 

medicine. However, these require careful organization. 

Refinements 

In assessing alternatives, people can make errors because of their personal psychological 

predispositions. Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa (2015, pp.189-215) identify eight such errors or 

‘traps’ associated with decision making and how to avoid them. Avoiding the traps is essential in 

developing a useful list of alternatives and also ensuring a fair assessment of them. 

Psychological traps. 

• Anchoring: The mind gives excess weight to the first information it receives. 

• Status-quo:  Preferring ‘the way things are’ makes many people risk-averse. 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    42 
 

 

• Sunk costs: Making choices based on existing patterns from past decisions. 

• Confirming evidence: Seek evidence that supports our views and ignore others. 

• Framing: How you frame the issue affects the choices that you will consider. 

Estimation and forecasting traps. 

• Overconfidence: Memory of past successes causes us to ignore risks. 

• Prudence: Opposite of Overconfidence, as a fear of risks limits possibilities the other 

way. 

• Recallability:  Relying on memory rather than actual information in assessing problems. 

Qualities 

 The Decision Making approach brings a number of valuable characteristics to the 

evaluation process. 

• Provides a systematic organizational structure for identifying and ranking options. 

• Encourages careful review of issues, constraints, and resources. 

• Helps avoid pitfalls of hasty or inadequate preparation. 

• Strengthens awareness of the concerns of others. 

Challenges   

Despite the benefits, success with the Decision-Making approach – as with most academic 

disciplines – requires that students have a sufficiently broad experience base to be able to assess 

the feasibility of the alternatives. The students must develop a clear understanding of constraints: 

Who can make a decision? What is the impact of status? Consider the following:  

• Do students understand the difference between a socio-cultural and an institutional 

hierarchy? 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    43 
 

 

• What constitutes winning? That is, does everyone see objectives the same way? Is any 

agreement better than no agreement?  

• Do parties see consequences the same, e.g. are principles negotiable or fixed? 

• Is uncertainty about the other party’s values creating poor choices, e.g. making 

concessions before negotiations to get people to the table (Cohen, 1997)? 

In summary, the Decision-Making model provides a solid mechanism for evaluation, but 

success requires acclimation to ranges of issues. The challenges to the approach reflect the 

competing directions in the decision literature mentioned above. Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa 

(2015) intend to refine ‘process’ but success also depends on managing structure and issue 

definition. Globalization makes issue definition loom in importance as it changes the way 

conventional structures and processes function. The presumed solution is cultural training but 

given the breadth and depth of culture, we must consider how to make it effective as well. 

Modeling Cultures 

At first glance, moving from evaluating decisions to cultural modeling represents a 

dramatic shift. However, the larger framework of decision research creates a close relation 

between the two. Cultural modeling seeks to manage the rich array of substantive material 

associated with different cultures.1 Models will vary based on which aspects of culture scholars 

choose to focus on (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013).  

In evaluating decisions, we are less interested in why a culture emerged a particular way 

but instead ask how the culture’s traits will affect interactions. To answer this question, we must 

                                                           
1 “Culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective 

understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a 

culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.” CARLA Center for Advanced Research on 

Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. http://carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html The site provides 

numerous other definitions, varying by views on significant aspects of cultural organization, effects, and 

transmission.  

 

http://carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html


FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    44 
 

 

first distinguish and categorize different cultural types based on relevant characteristics. Second, 

we must understand attitudes about cultural differences i.e., how might people feel when 

contacting a different society? These questions pursue the broader pedagogical issue of how to 

make students sufficiently familiar with other cultures that they can reliably distinguish among 

them. The two models presented below, Grid-Group Theory (Douglas, 1992a, 1992b; Spalding, 

2000; Wildavsky, 1985, 1987), and the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity 

(Bennett, 1986, 1993) provide examples of efforts to address these questions and reflect the 

strengths and pitfalls of such efforts. 

Grid-Group Theory 

Cultural typologies usually distinguish communal and individualistic societies and note 

parallel distinctions (Cohen, 1997). For example, a communal society, one with strong social 

awareness, is often also classed as a shame culture where someone violating social norms 

demeans everyone in the group. Alternatively, misbehavior in an individualistic society brings 

opprobrium to the perpetrator alone.  

Grid-Group Theory explores how societies build and sustain moral commitments or 

community. ‘Grid’ (i.e., prescription) refers to social rules that affect choices: high grid indicates 

a numerous binding rules the people follow in managing interpersonal relations (i.e., deference, 

etc.), while low grid indicates greater individual discretion. ‘Group’ reflects how people identify 

with bounded groups with high group actors selecting choices based on a stable group 

association and low group actors having weak social identification, negotiated relationships, etc. 

(Spalding, 2000). 

  



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    45 
 

 

Table 2 

The Grid-Group Matrix. 

Grid-Group Theory  High Group Low Group 

High Grid Hierarchical Fatalistic/Despotic 

Low Grid Egalitarian Individualistic 

 

Combining the grid and group features produces the four categories in Table 2. Hierarchy 

groups involve strong social identity with extensive social rules that people use to make 

judgements. ‘Individualistic’ groups involve weaker family and social ties, and greater likelihood 

that people will challenge or ignore established norms. Egalitarian groups involve strong group 

identity but the importance of the group itself outweighs other norms. Fatalistic/despotic groups 

have norms imposed by whoever is in power and change on a whim.  Some examples of different 

groups include: Hierarchical – Japan, India; Egalitarian – Cuba, Venezuela, Denmark; Fatalistic 

– North Korea, Somalia; Individualistic – Netherlands, Australia 

Refinements 

In relating culture to decision making, the typical approach is to focus on a specific 

culture or national style as with Schechter (1998), Cogan (2003) and Smyser (2003). More 

comparative representations of culture and decision making (e.g., see Cohen, 1997) emphasize a 

dichotomy reflecting high-group (communal/social) and low-group (individualistic) traits. The 

Grid-Group model improves comparisons by adding the second ‘Grid’ axis, refining the set of 

observable categories. Reviewing the conceptual underpinnings identifies the following: 

 

 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    46 
 

 

Qualities 

• Provides students with a systematic basis for differentiation. 

• Adds important categories (egalitarian and fatalistic/despotic) to cultural discussion. 

• Provides foundation for deeper analysis of specific cultural traits. 

• Allows deeper comparisons within and across similar and different cultural categories, 

e.g. Hierarchical-Hierarchical comparison or Hierarchical-Egalitarian comparison. 

Challenges 

• Does not include parallel axes found in dichotomous models, e.g. monochronic-

polychronic time, guilt-shame cultures (Cohen, 1997). 

• Observers must distinguish organizational hierarchy from social hierarchy. 

• Conceptual validity - What are appropriate categories for identifying aspects of culture, 

and what are the boundaries between them?  

• Ecological validity – testing the model’s application to the ‘real world’? 

The Grid-Group model allows refined identification and evaluation of cultural categories. The 

greatest challenges with Grid-Group are first, whether the categories fit the analytical goals of a 

given project, and second, whether students can easily distinguish between organizational and 

social hierarchy. For example, all bureaucracies tend to be hierarchically structured but they exist 

in all four model categories. Students must be able to operationalize the categories successfully if 

the model is to work. 

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity 

This second cultural model asks how people feel about other cultures. Here, researchers can 

assess both how people perceive their own attitudes and how an outside observer would assess 

them. Hammer et al. (2003), Matsumoto and Hwang (2013), and Takai (2015) include it in their 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    47 
 

 

reviews of cultural awareness tests noting both its wide-spread use and some issues associated 

with its application. Takai (2015) notes that there are more than 100 assessment self-report 

instruments available. 

 

Table 3  

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) 

                 Ethnocentric                                             Ethnorelative 

Denial Defense/ Minimization        Acceptance Adaptation  Integration 

 

 

The following terms capture how people feel about different groups: 

• Denial – Other groups are irrelevant. 

• Defense/Reversal – Other groups are a threat (Reversal – view home culture as a threat). 

• Minimization – Differences exist but are trivial. 

• Acceptance – Respect for differences. 

• Adaptation – Can participate in different cultural contexts. 

• Integration – Can apply a wide range of cultural alternatives to a problem. 

As people interact with cultures, researchers can assess how they react to the new context. 

Minimization, for example, expresses openness to other cultures, but actually masks a lack of 

cultural awareness, treating important differences as unimportant. As with the other models, 

conceptual review provides some insights. 

 

 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    48 
 

 

Refinement and quality 

The DMIS divides general attitudes based on important psychological responses to 

cultural differences. Further, it permits distinction between perceived and objective attitudes. 

Challenges 

A number of problems also emerge from the review: Should the categories be seen as 

neutral conditions or as achievements?  Conceptual validity - What are appropriate categories for 

identifying aspects of culture, and what are the boundaries between them? For example,  

• Can we distinguish between integration as synergistic thinking, and integration as masked 

minimization, that is, ‘I will draw on collective wisdom’ vs. ‘I am smarter than everyone 

else, so I can do what I think best.’ 

• Can we distinguish between learned cultural attitudes and personality traits? 

Ecological validity – testing the model’s application to the ‘real world’? (Matsumoto and 

Hwang, 2013); 

 Do these categories merge to create different cultures? That is, do my attitudes about 

culture reflect my interactions with people who share those views?  Does a given category reflect 

a person’s attitudes toward all other cultures, or only specific cultures, or only specific cultural 

traits? 

These problems with DMIS reflect a general problem with teaching about culture. In the 

abstract, many people might agree that toleration and respect are good ideas but that does not 

mean that people understand the implications of dealing with other cultures. Routine actions in 

one country might be considered disrespectful in another. Developing a deeper appreciation for 

other cultures requires an appreciation for the specific and concrete as opposed to the general and 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    49 
 

 

abstract. This change comes from experience rather than instruction alone and hence the need for 

the Global Understanding approach. 

The Global Understanding Approach 

The Global Understanding (GU) approach is a systematic structure for providing students 

with concrete experience dealing with other cultures and countries. By engaging students from 

other countries regarding progressively complex material, course participants gain direct 

experience dealing with an array of cultural differences thereby developing awareness and 

insights about other cultures as well as their own. 

The GU classes provide structured interactions between sets of university students from 

countries involved in the Global Partners in Education Program. Using video-conferencing and 

online chats, students discuss a series of pre-arranged topics intended to introduce cultural 

characteristics and attitudes to participating students. The discussion is supplemented by having 

teams of students from each institution develop collaborative projects where they delve more 

deeply into a specific topic of interest.  

The Course Process 

GU courses present introductory material on one of several major fields with about half 

of the time spent on field content and the other half conferencing with Global Partners in 

Education universities overseas. Typically, each course will link with three universities from 

different countries for 5-6 sessions each although this may vary. Because the students at partner 

schools may not be studying the same major field, interactive topics reflect GU Program 

guidelines: College Life, Family and Cultural Traditions, Meaning of Life and Religion, 

Stereotypes and Prejudices, and a mutually agreed upon Free Topic. These topics gradually 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    50 
 

 

increase in abstraction and cultural sensitivity, allowing students to become accustomed to 

working with people from different backgrounds and to discuss complex issues. 

During linkings, faculty act as facilitators rather than instructors, allowing students to 

take the lead in the interactions. Students will spend time in video or chat, thereby varying the 

intensity of participation as they move through topics. Discussions are supplemented by 

collaborative projects where teams made up of students from each school develop a joint 

presentation on a topic of interest.  Finally, students are required to assess their experience by 

submitting a journal. 

Refinements 

GU classes fulfill key functions of education. Substantively, the program does not impose 

a particular point of view on students but allows students to gain experience explaining their own 

views and comparing them with the experiences and beliefs of others. Analytically, reflective 

journals ask students to assess how they and their partners see issues. Further, if partners have 

not addressed certain topics, students must infer information from group interactions. Thus, they 

derive meaning from integrating ideas. 

Qualities 

GU classes provide a broad range of enhancements to teaching: 

• Direct contact with multiple cross-cultural environments. 

• Changing focal point of analysis – moves in and out of individual expertise. 

• Structured environment. 

• Student-centered interactions. 

• Moves through multiple environments, country by country. 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    51 
 

 

• Variety within the approach supports the different ways students learn: listening, 

discussion, reading. 

Challenges 

As with any educational model, the biggest challenge is usually working with varied student 

backgrounds. This can be subdivided into a number of important issues: 

• Substantive – varying degrees of student preparation, e.g. the importance/role of meaning 

of life questions in various countries. 

• Awareness of and familiarity with the topics. 

• Personality and preparation, e.g., the relative extrovertedness of the students. 

• Language – typically links are in English but language skills vary. 

• Technical: Availability of equipment and facilities; varying technical standards; available 

financial resources. 

The challenges associated with managing GU would be found in any learning environment. It 

falls to the faculty facilitators to prepare and guide students through this challenging 

environment. 

Linking the Approaches: Moving from the Abstract to the Concrete 

The discussion above leaves us with a wide range of questions, each of which is grounded in 

the implications of dealing with cultures. Sorting through each section’s challenges provides 

important insights about the problems. For example, the intent of cultural modeling is to build 

understanding of how to approach other cultures. Blending the cultural model with the traps 

identified by the decision model refines our perspective on the challenges. The following 

questions reflect this refinement. 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    52 
 

 

• Are we really integrated, or do we just think we are? Traps listed with the decision model 

indicate that we must be cautious when assessing a cultural situation. We can easily 

assume that we have some special insights which cause us to overlook the significance of 

some culturally grounded opportunities. Instead of being integrated, we are minimizing 

the value of cultural traits and perspectives. 

• If we are having a psychological rather than a cultural shift (e.g. reversal), are we actually 

getting anywhere, or are we just confused?  

• How do we make our own choice without losing respect for others? This is a culturally 

charged question, to put it mildly. How much respect are we talking about? 

• What does knowing about hierarchy tell us to do when working with one?  

There is always more information – all hierarchies have similar qualities under the 

models, yet they do not match. Why is this, and how do we decide what to do next?  

Alternatively, the cultural modeling also informs decision making. 

• How does changing cultures change decision traps? For example, is a hierarchical society 

more likely to encourage a status-quo trap?  

• Does understanding the role of stereotypes reduce the influence of an anchoring trap?  

• What can knowing about a country’s culture tell us about their risk profile?  

• Will different countries weight the consequences of a given alternative the same way? 

Combining decision and cultural models with the Global Understanding approach allows 

students to address these issues both directly and indirectly, ensuring ecological validity for the 

other approaches, that is, ensuring that they provide ‘real world insights. As with any models, 

repeated application of core principles allows students to move from the abstract to the concrete 

more readily. The Global Understanding approach addresses this challenge by repeatedly taking 



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    53 
 

 

students in and out of their experiential and substantive backgrounds and making contact with 

the rich complexity of human understanding become routine. 

  



FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    54 
 

 

References 

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural 

 sensitivity (revised). In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience

 (8-31). Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural Press.  

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training intercultural sensitivity. 

 In J. Martin (Guest Ed.), Special Issue on Intercultural Training, International Journal of 

 Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), 179-186. 

Brusman, M.  (n.d.).  The 8 Traps of decision making                              

 http://www.workingresources.com/professionaleffectivenessarticles/the-8-traps-of-

 decision-making.html 

Douglas, M. (1992a). The normative debate and the origins of culture. In M. Douglas, Risk and 

 blame: Essays in cultural theory (pp. 125-148). London: Routledge.  

Douglas, M. (1992b). Muffled ears. In M. Douglas, Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory 

 (pp. 55-77). London: Routledge. 

Cogan, C. (2003). French Negotiating Behavior. Washington, DC: USIP Press. 

Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating Across Cultures. Washington, DC: USIP Press. 

Hammer, M., Bennett, M., & Wiseman, R.  (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The 

 intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

 27 (4), 421-443.  

Hammond, J. S, Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999/ 2015). Smart Choices. Cambridge, MA: 

 Harvard Business Review Press. 

Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of 

 available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44 (6), 849–873. 

http://www.workingresources.com/professionaleffectivenessarticles/the-8-traps-of-%09decision-making.html
http://www.workingresources.com/professionaleffectivenessarticles/the-8-traps-of-%09decision-making.html


FROM ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE    55 
 

 

Schechter, J. (1998). Russian Negotiating Behavior. Washington, DC: USIP Press. 

Smyser, W. (2003). How Germans Negotiate. Washington, DC: USIP Press. 

Spalding, N. L. (2000). A cultural explanation of collapse into civil war: Escalation of tension in 

Nigeria. Culture & Psychology, 6 (l), 51-87.  

Starkey, B., Boyer, M., & Wilkenfeld, J. (2015). International Negotiation in a Complex World, 

(4th ed.).  NY: Rowman & Littlefield.  

Takai, J. (2015). “Positivist Research Paradigm”, in J. Bennett, (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of 

Intercultural Competence. (vol. 1, pp. 678-681). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Wildavsky, A. (1985). Change in political culture. Politics: The Journal of the Australian 

 Political Studies Association, 20 (2), 95-102.  

Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of 

 preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81 (l), 3-22.  

Williams, J. (1988). British and American Military Procurement: Theories and Cases in 

Decision Making. Unpublished dissertation. 

Zeager, L., Ericson, R., & Williams J. (2013). Strategic Behavior in Refugee Negotiations.                       

 Amsterdam: Republic of Letters Press 

 

 

 

 


