Conflict Styles

Styles themselves can be regarded as a source of conflict (Ting-Toomey, 1988). However, to review the wealth of existing literature in this area, we treat it as a separate area of research.

Racial/Ethnic Conflict Styles. As alluded to earlier, intercultural conflict researchers have primarily focused on the conflict styles of U.S. and non-U.S. cultures (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). This significant body of research has largely utilized traditional conflict frameworks and measures of individualism/collectivism as a means to identify patterns of conflict strate­gies (M. -S. Kim & Leung, 2000). In similar ways, interpersonal conflict researchers in the United States have tended to use similar constructs to inform their research on race, ethnicity, and conflict. The result has been research that stems from individualistic and collectivistic value systems regarding commu­nication, generally, and conflict, specifically.

According to Ting-Toomey et al. (2000), the assumption is that European Americans are individualistic, while Latino/Latina, Asian, and African Americans are collectivis- tic. Consequently, research has explored how these cultural values affect the ways in which these racial and ethnic groups regard conflict. Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, and Lin (1991) found evidence that during conflict with acquain­tances, Asians tend to use higher degrees of obliging and avoiding conflict styles than European Americans. Asians also tend to use a third party more often than other racial groups (Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols, & Iwawaki, 1992). Zhang, Harwood, and Hummert (2005) revealed through their research that aspects of Chinese culture, such as filial piety, hierarchy, and the influence of cultural change, affect conflict management and conflict style among intergenerational Chinese.

While this line of research reflects the dominant frame of traditional research on race/ethnicity and conflict, research has begun to advance conceptual assumptions beyond a simple individualistic-collectivistic dichot­omy. As early as the mid-1980s, researchers begun to study intragroup differences, like those related to gender. For example, Ting- Toomey (1986) found that African American women tend to use more emotionally expres­sive conflict styles than African American men, European American men, and European American women. Other research has also utilized self-construals—one’s conception of oneself as either independent or interdepen­dent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)—to explore additional factors predicting conflict style patterns. In a study of Latinos/Latinas and European Americans, self-construals were a better predicator of conflict styles than racial/ ethnic background (Oetzel, 1998). While some have criticized the dichotomous nature of self-construals (M. -S. Kim & Leung,

2000), they represent an advance in research beyond unilateral assumptions between race, ethnicity, and conflict styles.

A smaller, but significant, body of research exists alongside that which is situated within social scientific examinations of cultural vari­ables and conflict behavior. Much of this research has utilized culturally based qualita­tive research designs to uncover conceptu­alizations of conflict that were traditionally difficult to obtain through recall data via written surveys. For example, ethnographic studies involving various Native American nations have pointed to the importance of rec­ognizing varying cultural values and the ways in which they explicitly and implicitly are manifested through communication (Sanchez,

2001). Such research has been invaluable in recognizing that dominant interpretations of other racial and ethnic group behavior often missed the mark in terms of the rationale/ intention of conflict strategies. For example, Basso (1990) reported that, in times of con­flict or negotiation, non-Native Americans often can misinterpret the silence of Native Americans—like that which occurs within the Western Apache culture—as disinterest, a reluctance to speak, or lack of personal warmth. What cultural outsiders fail to recog­nize in this context is that silence itself carries multiple meanings, as is evidenced through the research that examines generative and consumptive silence among American Indian college students (Covarrubias, 2007).

Gaining the perspectives of traditionally marginalized racial and ethnic groups—outside of comparisons with European Americans as the normative group—represents an important advance in existing conflict research. As such, additional research has focused on accessing in-group racial and ethnic normative assump­tions of communication behaviors. Of partic­ular note is the work of Hecht and colleagues on African American (e.g., Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989) and Mexican American (e.g., Hecht, Ribeau, & Sedano, 1990) perspectives on interethnic communication. This research does not focus solely on conflict but instead on what each racial/ethnic group regards as satisfying interaction, a framework that is useful when looking at conflict (Ribeau,

1995). While this line of research appears especially useful in advancing existing under­standing of how different racial and ethnic groups conceptualize conflict, the dominant pattern of research has been that of inter­group comparisons (Houston, 2002; Orbe & Allen, 2008).

Racial/Ethnic Comparisons. From the outset of scholarship in the area of race, ethnicity, and conflict, researchers have compared the conflict styles of different groups (Donahue, 1985). For instance, in his seminal research on Black and White styles in conflict, Kochman (1981) focused on direct comparisons: “Black mode of conflicts is high-keyed, animated, interper­sonal and confrontational; the white mode of conflict is relatively low-keyed, dispassion­ate, impersonal, and non-challenging” (p. 18). Contrasting African American and European American conflict styles were adopted by other interethnic communication researchers (e.g., Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992; Ting- Toomey, 1986) and continues to frame current work (e.g., Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003).

Such research has provided insight into various points of particular comparison. For example, Martin, Hecht, and Larkey (1994) explored the concepts of realism and honesty.

This line of research has generated addi­tional racial comparisons between African Americans and European Americans within particular situational contexts, like organiza­tions. Shuter and Turner (1997), for example, focused on the different perceptions of orga­nizational conflict between African American and European American women. While both groups perceived their own attempts to reduce conflict as most effective, each enacted dif­ferent strategies toward the same objective. African American women, interested in get­ting the conflict out on the table so it could be readily addressed and moved beyond, reported that a direct approach to conflict is most effec­tive (Shuter & Turner, 1997). In comparison, European American women used more of an avoidance strategy and felt fear or anxiety when having to approach conflict directly (Shuter & Turner, 1997).

In a study conducted by Collier (1991), three ethnic groups (Mexican, African, and Anglo American) were examined to ana­lyze conflict differences within friendships. Participants were asked to describe their defi­nitions of friendship and conflict and whether or not they felt that their friends handled conflict effectively or ineffectively in a recalled interaction. Collier found that the different races defined conflict differently. The Anglo American males defined conflict as a differ­ence of opinion, attack on a person’s beliefs and opinions, an unresolved situation, and an inability to compromise; African American men saw conflict as a disagreement, differ­ent views, and misunderstandings; Mexican Americans described conflict in a more rela­tional manner.

The research of Ting-Toomey et al. (2000), which compared the conflict styles of mul­tiple racial and ethnic groups (Latinos/Latinas, African, Asian, and European Americans), is significant for three reasons. First, it studied conflict styles of all racial and ethnic groups without privileging any one as normative. Second, it did not assume that racial/ethnic identity was the strongest predicator of con­flict style. Instead it examined the relationship between ethnic identity salience (how impor­tant is ethnicity to an individual), larger U.S. cultural identity (how important is belonging to the larger culture), and conflict management styles in the four different racial/ethnic groups. Third, the research focused on acquaintance relationships, a relational context where racial/ ethnic conflict styles are largely maintained.

According to Ting-Toomey et al. (2000), strong identification with one’s racial/eth- nic group increases the likelihood of cultur­ally orientated conflict behaviors. African Americans were found to identify strongly with their own racial/ethnic group; Latinos/ Latinas and Asian Americans identified both with their racial/ethnic group and U.S. culture; European Americans identified primarily with the larger U.S. culture. Some of Ting-Toomey et al.’s findings reaffirmed earlier research (e.g., Asian Americans use more avoiding than European Americans, and Latinos/ Latinas use more third-party conflict styles than African Americans). However, the study did make significant contributions to exist­ing research on race, ethnicity, and conflict by providing insight into the complex ways that multiple aspects of a person’s identity influence conflict styles.