Conflict Communication Process Factors

Intercultural conflict interaction process features can include the study of the mean­ing construction and the verbal/nonverbal behavioral repertoires of what constitute appropriate versus inappropriate and effec­tive versus ineffective conflict management styles in particular situational domain.

More specifically, for example, in a direct empirical test of the theory (Oetzel et al., 2001; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), the research program tested the underlying assumption of the face negotiation theory that face is an explanatory mechanism for cultural membership’s influence on conflict behavior. A questionnaire was administered to 768 participants in four national cultures (China, Germany, Japan, and the United States) in their respective languages asking them to recall and describe a recent interper­sonal conflict. The major findings of the study are as follows: First, cultural individualism­collectivism had direct effects on conflict styles, as well as mediated effects through self-construal and face concerns. Second, self­face concern was associated positively with dominating style, and other-face concern was associated positively with avoiding and inte­grating styles. Third, German respondents reported the frequent use of direct-confrontive facework strategies and did not care much for avoidance facework tactics; Japanese reported the use of different pretending strategies to act as if the conflict situation does not exist; Chinese engaged in a variety of avoiding, obliging, and also passive aggressive facework tactics; and U.S.

While previous research studies have focused on testing the relationship between the value orientations of culture-based indi­vidualism-collectivism to conflict styles and facework strategies, recent research effort has focused more on unpacking the value spec­trums of small and large power distance value dimensions in an effort to relate these value dimensions to facework expectancies and actual social practices. For example, Merkin (2006) integrated the small-large power dis­tance value dimension to the individualism­collectivism value dimension in explaining face-threatening response messages and con­flict styles in multiple cultures. She found that high-status individuals from large power distance cultures tend to use both direct and indirect facework strategies to deal with face-threatening situations—depending on whether they were delivering positive or negative messages. Furthermore, Kaushal and Kwantes (2006) uncovered that the dominat­ing conflict style of “high concern for self/low concern for others” was positively associated with both vertical individualism and vertical collectivism.

Drawing from this line of research, the interpretation of “positive or negative mes­sages” or the interpretation of the “dominat- ing/controlling” conflict style (i.e., as reflective of “high concern for self/low concern for oth­ers”) carries strong cross-cultural connotative meanings. For some cultural participants, the dominating style is viewed as a culture-based constructive motivational strategy or even positive coaching tactic. For other cultural/eth- nic participants, the dominating conflict style is viewed as an oppressive one-up/one-down demotivational conflict strategy. Likewise, from the Western models of interpreting the avoidance conflict style, avoidance has been consistently viewed as an indifferent or passive “flee the scene” conflict strategy that reflects the “low concern for self/low concern for oth­ers” phenomenon (K. W. Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). The Western, individualistic-oriented conceptualization of “avoidance” has been continuously challenged by cross-cultural con­flict style researchers (Cai & Fink, 2002; M.­S. Kim & Leung, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 1999). From the Asian collectivistic lens, for example, the conflict style of avoidance can be regarded as an intentional “high concern for self/high concern for others” tactic pend­ing on situational and relational factors. The notion of “face” or “claimed communicative identity” is considered one key domain out of the several domains of the larger intercultural or intergroup conflict negotiation process.