Is the Meaning of Conflict and the Variables Representing the Conflict Process Comparable Across the Cultures Being Investigated?
Consider the example of conflict styles for this question. The etic approach seeks to determine theoretical factors based on a scientific (here, transcultural or universal) analysis of variables (see Pike, 1967).
An imposed etic approach involves taking theories or hypotheses applicable to one culture and imposing them on other cultures without knowing if the theory or the related measures are appropriate for the other cultures studied. In the area of conflict research, an imposed etic (Berry, 1989) is often relied on, assuming that the meaning of conflict is similar across cultures.Based on the etic research of Blake and Mouton (1964), Pruitt and Rubin (1987), and Thomas (1976), five basic conflict styles have been generated. That the ROCI-II and OCCI measures were derived from Western theories and imposed on Eastern cultures exemplifies the typical approach to cross-cultural conflict research, which depends on imposed rather than derived etic analysis (Berry, 1989; see below). As a result, we do not know from this approach to studying conflict styles whether other (non-Western) styles exist for managing and resolving conflict. For example, Wall and Blum’s (1991) idea of third parties having a role in dealing with conflict is not reflected in these measures, yet these researchers found the use of third parties to be a socially appropriate means for managing some conflicts among Chinese.
A derived etic approach reflects careful observation and analysis of a variety of cultures to determine all the relevant variables that should be considered when studying a phenomenon across a variety of cultures. A derived etic approach is needed to determine the meaning of conflict and conflict situations within each culture so that comparable situations within the cultures—ones that have similar meaning to the participants, involve similar relationships, and evoke the same kinds of cognitive and emotional responses—can be employed in testing theory.
In studies that ask participants to recall a conflict situation, the participants from different cultures are rarely asked to describe the recalled situation in sufficient depth so that comparability across the cultures can be determined; the participants are also not asked about the relevant state variables that define the situation, such as the level of emotion among the participants. As a result, conflict may involve qualities of anger and confrontation in one culture, whereas, in another culture, conflict may involve a rift in the relationships such that participants avoid rather than confront or communicate with each other; in these cultures, emotion may not be salient because of the lack of contact between the parties. Cai et al. (2012) used the derived etic approach for developing a measure of intimacy by assessing the meaning of intimacy for Chinese and Americans separately and then deriving an instrument for measuring intimacy that is useful within both cultures.
To determine whether the meaning of conflict and the variables representing the conflict process are comparable across the cultures, we need to do more than back-translate scales measuring the constructs (see van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). The process of back-translation often involves having one party translate versions of a questionnaire from the language in which the original study was prepared into the language of the target culture and then having a second person retranslate the new version back into the original language. Even careful translation and back-translation can result in distortion of meaning (see Barnett, Palmer, & Al-Deen, 1984). Under the rubrics of bias and equivalency, van de Vijver and Leung (1997) discussed the issues involved in reducing distortion in translation. To do this task well requires more effort, more resources, and more time than most scholars anticipate.
An alternative way of considering the problem of comparability in meaning is to use variables of sufficient abstraction so that they conceivably may apply cross-culturally. Then and only then can we examine whether there are cross-cultural process differences. In other words, the research task requires cycling from theory couched in abstract variables, to in-depth interviews with cultural informants, to creation of measures that may involve culturally specific operationalizations, to statistical analyses, and finally to revamping theory.