Individualistic versus Collectivistic Cultural Differences in Conflict
For years, researchers reported that individualism-collectivism affects interpersonal conflict in predictable ways. The general hypothesis is that people in individualistic societies prefer confrontational procedures, whereas people in collectivistic cultures prefer harmony-enhancing procedures for managing conflict.
So, for example, one would expect cultural differences in communication directness. Indeed, Ohbuchi and Takahashi (1994) found that participants from Japan (ostensibly a collectivistic culture) used avoidance and indirect bilateral strategies (such as suggesting, appeasing and impression management) more often than did participants from the United States; whereas Americans preferred negotiation and direct fighting (e.g., threat, coercion) strategies more often in interpersonal conflict situations (p. 1357).Yet (as mentioned), comparisons between nations provide only an indirect measure of underlying cultural dimensions. In fact, several findings based on national differences do not support the hypothesis that individualistic people are more direct, clear, and competitive than collectivistic people. Trubinsky, Ting- Toomey, and Lin (1991) found that, as they predicted, Taiwanese used obliging and avoiding styles more than did Americans. However, Taiwanese also used integrative and compromising styles more than Americans, contrary to expectations. And contrary to expectations, Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Matsumoto, and Takaki (2000) found that Americans preferred integrative facework behaviors more than did Japanese, and Japanese participants viewed dominance as more effective than did Americans.
Importantly as well, comparing people from one nation to those from another, regarding particular conflict strategies, does not test people’s overall preferences for one strategy (e.g., cooperative tactics) over another strategy (e.g., competitive tactics). Gabrieldis, Stephan, Ybarra, Pearson, and Villareal (1997) found that Mexican (vs.
American) participants preferred collaboration and accommodation, as one might anticipate based on the individualism—collectivism dimension. However, participants from both cultures preferred cooperative tactics over competitive ones, and participants from both cultures were similar in direct fighting tactics.Cai and Fink (2002) tested the hypothesis that people across cultures prefer cooperative to competitive conflict against the hypothesis based on individualism-collectivism (i.e., individualistic people are more direct, assertive, and confrontive). Cai and Fink did not find evidence for the influence of individualism-collectivism on conflict behavior. Instead, they found that, regardless of individualism-collectivism, respondents preferred negotiation, then obliging and avoiding, and finally compromising and dominating conflicts styles. Moreover, Cai and Fink’s findings indicate that individualists preferred avoiding more than collectivists did, but no cultural difference was found regarding direct fighting (see Ishida et al., 2005, for similar findings). So individual preferences for conflict strategies across nations are similar, although cultural differences in conflict behaviors due to individualism-collectivism might occur. That is, people across cultures appear to first rely on cooperative conflict tactics, then avoidance, and then competitive tactics (Cai & Fink, 2002; Ishida et al., 2005). This leads to the next principle regarding cultural variability and conflict management.
Conclusion 10.2: People across cultures tend to use cooperative conflict tactics, then avoidant tactics, and finally competitive conflict tactics.
Suggestion 10.2: Rely on negotiation and nonconfrontation when in conflict with people across cultures.