Primary Orientation Factors

The primary orientation factors provide a general pattern for understanding how peo­ple from different cultures prefer and tend to manage conflict. The original CBSCM primarily focused on the micro- or macro- (cultural values) levels.

Micro. Recent research provides continued support for the inclusion of self-construals and face concerns as factors explaining dif­ferences in conflict styles. Cheng and Tardy (2009) surveyed 146 people from Taiwan and the United States to determine if there are differences in the use of silence during marital conflict. They found that high interdependent self-construal was positively associated with using silence to protect the other and nega­tively associated with using silence to protect the self. Peng and Tjosvold (2011) asked 132 Chinese employees to complete a survey about avoiding a work conflict with a man­ager. They found that other-face concern was positively associated with yielding and delay, while self-face was positively associated with

passive aggression. We do not explore this recent research in depth as the findings tend to lend support for the original CBSCM.

Meso: Family Communication Patterns. There are a variety of mesofactors that can influ­ence our conflict behaviors. However, Chen, Fletcher, and Oetzel (2010) explained that family is the primary unit from which indi­viduals acquire cultural norms and learn to communicate about conflict. Family is a group of intimates “who generate a sense of home and group identity, complete with strong ties of loyalty and emotion, who experience a shared history and shared future” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p.

Family communication patterns and self­construals interact to create impacts on fam­ily conflict. Liu and Goto (2007) surveyed 153 Asian American high school students about their family experiences. The authors found that interdependence in these ado­lescents is positively associated with family cohesion when independence is high and negatively correlated with family cohesion when interdependence is low. Furthermore, mental distress was positively associated with interdependence for those low on inde­pendence. Thus, families that have a high level of interdependence/conformity orien­tation without fostering an equally high level of independence/conversation orienta­tion appear to have high levels of conflict resulting in mental distress for adolescents. Of course, it is important to note that this study was conducted in the United States and involved adolescents negotiating multiple cultural identities. Thus, this study demon­strates the complexity of macro-, meso-, and microfactors that influence conflict processes and outcomes.

Exo: Religion. A significant factor, and one that is growing in research on conflict in recent years is religion and religious institution. Religion and religious institutions involve both macrolevel (worldview and value framework) and exolevel (how institutions and member­ship shape members and their perspectives). For example, at the macrolevel, Croucher (this volume) identifies religious principles/ teachings toward conflict in three major world religions: Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity. These principles/teachings shape understand­ing of, and behavior toward, conflict.

Beyond providing teachings and worldview about conflict, religion also serves as an aspect of identity that navigates between macro- and local levels. Parker Gumucio (2008) noted that, on the one hand, religion is study of power and regional/international geopolitical imbalance.

Finally, the strength of religion, or religios­ity, is another factor in shaping conflict behav­ior. Religiosity often is created and reinforced in exolevel institutions. On the one hand, religiosity and religious fundamentalism serve as a buffer to globalization. Salzman (2008) explained that globalization is a stressor that creates anxiety for people and that religious fundamentalism serves as a buffer to that anxiety. On the other hand, religiosity is a factor that connects with particular conflict practice. For example, Croucher, Braziunaite, and Oommen (2012) found Christians in the United States with high religiosity are more likely to dissent than those with low religios­ity. In contrast, Hindus and Muslims in India with high religiosity are less likely to dissent than those with low religiosity. The authors argued that in the United States, Christianity is the dominant religion, and thus, highly reli­gious Christians feel comfortable in express­ing their conflict views and dissents explicitly. However, in India, there is a taboo of express­ing controversial views that overrides the strength of religion. Thus, some of these examples illustrate the interdependent and reciprocal interactive nature of the exo- and macrolevels of the newly developed CBSECM in conjunction with the microlevel conflict behavioral responses and reactions.

Macro: Globalization. Globalization is fre­quently used to describe the intersection of the world and is commonly referred to as “the compression of the world into ‘a single place’” (Robertson, 1992, p.

There are several perspectives about the impacts of globalization, particularly on the importance of cultural values and identities. The hyperglobal perspective presumes that globalization will lead to the end or minimi­zation of the nation-state/culture (Friedman, 2006; Ladegaard, 2007). Kramsch (2002) argued that “‘Culture’ has become less and less a national consensus, but a consen­sus built on common ethnic, generational, regional, ideological, occupation- or gender- related interests, within and across national boundaries” (p. 276). Essentially, the influ­ence of this global culture and the media that carriers its message is so strong as to “force” the world to converge. On the other hand, some dispute the hyperglobal perspective by illustrating that the strong effects of the global culture have not occurred (Ladegaard, 2007). Ladegaard (2007) studied a multinational Danish business to see if there was evidence of convergence in work behavior. He found that participants were quite aware of national culture differences and used national culture to explain communication difficulties.

A third perspective appears to better explain how globalization and national cul­ture influence conflict communication behav­ior. Friedman (2006) explained that there is a vertical polarization occurring around the world. Specifically, the elites and upwardly mobile citizens of the world are emphasizing a cosmopolitan or global identity. In contrast, the members of lower socioeconomic classes resist globalization efforts and those perceived as supporting a global agenda. In reality, there is an increased xenophobia tendency and resistance at the local level to global economic changes as it is perceived to hurt the local economy and indigenous cultural identity preservation.

Summary. In summary, the updated CBSECM integrates multilevel factors of globaliza­tion and cultural values (macro), religious institutional membership (exo), family social- ization/communication (meso), and personal­ity and interpersonal face concerns (micro). The combination of these four levels cre­ates the various primary orientation factors that shape culture-based conflict attitudes and outlooks. Examining the multilevel fac­tors has the advantage of considering larger global and structural factors to identify how those factors shape conflict behavior. These “top-down” effects (macro to micro) illus­trate how the macro influences the micro. We can also illustrate how micro and local factors change and shape the exo and macro factors. These “bottom-up” effects (micro to macro) are illustrated, for example, in cases of local adaptation of religion (Parker Gumucio, 2008) and student protests and social activism movements from the ground up. The multilevel modeling of primary orien­tation factors helps provide a more complete and intricate picture of the reasons why we prefer to manage conflict as we do in diverse intercultural conflict situations.