Religion and Conflict Styles
Grounded in intercultural and international communication, the study of intercul- tural conflict typically focuses on conflicts between individuals from two or more nations. Intercultural conflict research has included topics such as conflict styles (Cai & Fink, 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001), intergroup conflict/dia- logue (Abu-Nimer, 1999; Ellis & Maoz, 2002; Klocek, Novoa, & Moghaddam, 2010; Knox & Hughes, 1996; Maoz & Ellis, 2001), intercultural/cross-cultural conflict resolution (Paige, 2004; Raider, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1994), and media portrayals of conflict (Gilboa, 2002; Said, 1978).
It would seem that religion would be a key aspect of these studies in intercultural conflict, particularly since scholars assert that religion is a fundamental part of culture (Geertz, 1973; Oetzel et al., 2006; Said, 1978); however, most researchers relatively ignore religion.Scholars consider religion as a variable when looking at intergroup conflict in various contexts (see Broome & Jakobsson Hatay, 2006) and styles (see Croucher, 2011a; Croucher, DeMaris, Holody, et al., 2011; Polkinghorne & Byrne, 2001; Wilson & Power, 2004). For the purposes of this chapter, I will review how religion has been studied with regard to conflict styles, as conflict styles cross between various dimensions of communication (interpersonal, intercultural, and organizational).
Oetzel (1998) defines conflict styles as “the general pattern or behavioral orientation an individual takes toward conflict” (p. 133). Scholars generally identify five conflict styles (as previously defined in this chapter): avoiding, compromising, dominating, integrating, and obliging (Cai & Fink, 2002; Conrad, 1991; Kim & Leung, 2000; L. L. Putnam, 1988; Rahim, 1983). When studying conflict styles and religion, results have found differences between religious groups; particularly, results have shown differences between Christians and Muslims and that religiosity influences conflict style preference.
In a study of areas of prolonged conflict, Polkinghorn and Byrne (2001) found differences between religious groups in South Africa, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Northern Ireland.
The results reveal that most religious groups preferred to avoid conflict. Bosnian Muslims, however, preferred a controlling/ dominating conflict style, while Protestants in Northern Ireland preferred the accommodating style. In another study comparing Muslims and Christians, this time in Australia, Wilson and Power (2004) added the dimension of religiosity. Both Christians and Muslims with low religiosity preferred to collaborate/ integrate in conflicts. However, Muslims with high religiosity preferred to compromise. Croucher (2011a) also found that Muslims and Christians differed significantly in conflict style preference. In an analysis of the two groups in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Muslims were found to significantly prefer the compromising and obliging styles and Christians, the dominating style. In each setting, the results indicate a preference for socially desirable behaviors among Muslims (Croucher, 2011a) and that conflict has become a win-at-all-costs form of communication for many Christians (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011).All in all, religious denomination and religiosity affect conflict styles, but not in consistent ways. Using predominantly quantitative methods (cross-sectional survey data), studies reveal that Muslims and Christians differ in conflict style preference and that more religious individuals tend to prefer to collaborate during conflicts (Croucher, 2011a; Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001; Wilson & Power, 2004).