conflict styles and high–low context cultures: a cross-cultural extension

This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]On: 05 October 2014, At: 07:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

Conflict Styles and High–Low ContextCultures: A Cross-Cultural ExtensionStephen M. Croucher a , Ann Bruno b , Paul McGrath b , CarolineAdams b , Cassandra McGahan b , Angela Suits b & Ashleigh Huckins ba School of Communication , Arts at Marist Collegeb Marist CollegePublished online: 13 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Stephen M. Croucher , Ann Bruno , Paul McGrath , Caroline Adams ,Cassandra McGahan , Angela Suits & Ashleigh Huckins (2012) Conflict Styles and High–LowContext Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension, Communication Research Reports, 29:1, 64-73, DOI:10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

BRIEF REPORT

Conflict Styles and High–Low ContextCultures: A Cross-Cultural ExtensionStephen M. Croucher, Ann Bruno, Paul McGrath,Caroline Adams, Cassandra McGahan, Angela Suits,& Ashleigh Huckins

This study examines the assertion that culture influences conflict style preference. Data

were gathered in India (n¼ 657), Ireland (n¼ 311), Thailand (n¼ 232), and the United

States (n¼ 592). Conflict was measured using Oetzel’s Conflict Style Measure. Results

confirm that high-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging

conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas

low-context nations prefer the dominating conflict style more than high-context nations.

However, results of this study are contrary to previous research in that high-context

nations prefer the compromising style more than do low-context nations, and the nations

are mixed in their level of preference for the integrating style.

Keywords: Conflict Styles; Culture; Hall; Nation

Conflict is a significant aspect of communication. Hocker and Wilmot (1991) defined

conflict as an ‘‘expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who

perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party

in achieving their goals’’ (p. 12). Individuals manage conflict in multiple ways.

Approaches to conflict management are manifested in various conflict styles (Blake

& Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983). Scholars have tested the relationship between

Stephen M. Croucher (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2006) is an Associate Professor in the School of

Communication and the Arts at Marist College. Ann Bruno, Paul McGrath, Caroline Adams, Cassandra

McGahan, Angela Suits, and Ashleigh Huckins received their MA in Communication from Marist College

in 2011. All student authors are randomly listed to indicate their equal participation in this endeavor.

Correspondence: Stephen M. Croucher, School of Communication and the Arts, Marist College, LT211b,

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601; E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Research Reports

Vol. 29, No. 1, January–March 2012, pp. 64–73

ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) # 2012 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

conflict styles and cultural, relational, and situational variables (Conrad, 1991;

Croucher, DeMaris, Holody, Hicks, & Oommen, 2011; Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey

& Kurogi, 1998; Zhang, 2007) and specifically pointed out the significance of studying

the relationship between conflict and culture (Cai & Fink, 2002; Chau & Gudykunst,

1987; Kim & Leung, 2000; Tafoya, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1985; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, &

Yee-Jung, 2001).

Studies have explored how cultural variables such as individualism–collectivism

(Hofstede, 1980, 2001), self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and context (Hall,

1976) influence approaches to conflict. Cai and Fink (2002) found the avoiding style

is more preferred by individualists, whereas collectivists prefer the compromising and

integrating style. Oetzel (1998) found self-construal to be a greater predictor of con-

flict style preference than either ethnic or cultural background. Chau and Gudykunst

(1987) and Ting-Toomey (1985) suggested context explains conflict style preference.

Context is the environment in which the communication takes place (Hall, 1976).

High-context communication or messages are ones ‘‘in which most of the infor-

mation is either in the physical context or internalized in the person while very little

is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message’’ (p. 79). In low-context mes-

sages, most of the information is ‘‘vested in the explicit code’’ (p. 79). In high-context

cultures, publicly disagreeing with someone may cause embarrassment or a loss of

‘‘face’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1985), whereas in low-context cultures, people are likely to

separate the issue from the person in a conflict. Ting-Toomey argued that individuals

from low-context cultures are more prone to use ‘‘explicit communication codes,

time-logic style, rational-factual rhetoric, and open, direct strategies’’ (p. 82), and

individuals from high-context cultures use more ‘‘implicit communication codes,

point-logic style, intuitive-affective rhetoric, and ambiguous, indirect strategies’’ in

conflict (p. 82). In a later test of Ting-Toomey’s theory, Chau and Gudykunst

(1987) found individuals from low-context cultures used solution-oriented conflict

styles more than individuals from high-context cultures, and individuals from

high-context cultures preferred non-confrontation.

The purpose of this study is to further Ting-Toomey’s (1985) theory that culture

influences conflict style preference and the results of Chau and Gudykunst (1987).

Specifically, this study explores conflict styles in four nations that differ in levels of con-

text (Hall, 1976). The United States and Ireland are low-context nations, whereas

Thailand and India are high-context nations (Hall, 1976). Along with this difference,

approaches to conflict in Ireland, Thailand, and India are vastly understudied and in

need of further clarification (Croucher et al., 2011; Iamsudha &Hale, 2003; Polkinghorn

& Byrne, 2001). Furthermore, each of these nations has vastly different histories, polit-

ical systems, economies, and religious communities. Such differences among nations are

likely to influence communicative behaviors, such as conflict (Croucher, 2011).

Conflict Styles

There are various ways to handle conflicts. People can manage conflict situations

through a number of styles or ‘‘patterned responses to conflict in a variety of situations’’

Communication Research Reports 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

(Ting-Toomey et al., 1999, p. 48). Although many models of conflict styles have been

studied and created, most borrow from the original conceptualizations developed by

Blake and Mouton (1964). The five generally accepted conflict styles include avoiding,

compromising, dominating, integrating, and obliging (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993;

Oetzel, 1998; Rahim, 1983). The avoiding style ignores=withdraws from a conflict,

the compromising style attempts to find middle ground to rapidly resolve a conflict,

dominating involves putting individual interests ahead of others, integrating is when

individuals try to appease the interest of all parties, and obliging is when an individual

sacrifices his or her own needs for the needs of others (Croucher, 2011; Rahim, 1983).

National Culture and Conflict Styles

Conflict studies have not directly compared these four nations. Research has examined

conflict in Ireland, Thailand, and India. Additional studies have compared the United

States to various other nations. In Thailand, most people use the avoiding style (a

high-context culture) and follow the ‘‘wait and see’’ approach in conflict situations.

They often believe conflict ‘‘will eventually fade away’’ and ‘‘can=should be over-

looked’’ (Iamsudha & Hale, 2003, pp. 4–5). Protestants in Northern Ireland (a

low-context culture) prefer to use an accommodating (compromising) conflict style

(Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001). In India (predominantly a high-context culture),

Hindus prefer the integrating and dominating styles, and least prefer the avoiding

and obliging styles. Muslims use the integrating and compromising styles, and least

prefer the dominating and avoiding styles (Croucher et al., 2011). Ting-Toomey

et al. (1991) found groups with a stronger cultural identity with the United States

(i.e., European Americans—a low-context culture) used integrating, compromising,

and emotionally expressive styles the most, whereas Asian Americans (a high-context

culture) tended to use the avoiding conflict style more. In other studies, U.S. parti-

cipants were found to use a dominating style more than many Asian cultures=nations(Ohbuchi, Fukushima, & Tedeschi, 1999; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Chau and

Gudykunst (1987) found most Americans (a low-context culture) prefer active forms

of conflict resolution, whereas Mexicans (a high-context culture) prefer to deny the

existence of conflict. Research has clearly demonstrated that conflict styles differ in

high- and low-context cultures, as individuals in these different settings approach

the situations in different ways. Therefore, based on the research revealing differences

in conflict styles across national cultures, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: High-context cultures prefer to use indirect (avoiding and obliging) andsolution-oriented (compromising and integrating) conflict styles more, whereaslow-context cultures prefer to use the direct conflict strategy (dominating) more.

Method

Participants and Procedures

A total of 1,792 people participated in the study: India (n¼ 657), Ireland (n¼ 311),

Thailand (n¼ 232), and the United States (n¼ 592). Indian participants ranged in

66 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

age from 18 to 69 (M¼ 30.52, SD¼ 9.88), Irish participants from 18 to 57

(M¼ 31.17, SD¼ 9.81), Thai participants from 21 to 45 (M¼ 30.94, SD¼ 6.21),

and U.S. participants from 18 to 57 (M¼ 30.55, SD¼ 9.59). In India, men made

up 54.8% (360) of the sample, and women made up 45.2% (297) of the sample.

In Ireland, men made up 53.1% (165) of the sample, and women made up 46.9%

(146) of the sample. In Thailand, men made up 59.1% (137) of the sample, and

women made up 40.9% (95) of the sample. In the United States, men accounted

for 53.5% (317) of the sample, and women accounted for 46.5% (275) of the sample.

As for the self-identified religious makeup of the sample, the Indian sample contained

three religious groups: Hindu (62.1%; n¼ 408), Sunni Muslim (31.4%; n¼ 206), and

Christian (6.6%; n¼ 43). The Irish sample contained four religious groups: Protes-

tants (56.3%; n¼ 175), Catholics (40.5%; n¼ 126), Fundamental Christians (2.3%;

n¼ 7), and Jews (1%; n¼ 3). The Thai sample was entirely Buddhist. The U.S. sam-

ple contained six religious groups: Catholics (41.2%; n¼ 244), Protestants (40.2%;

n¼ 238), Hindus (7.6%; n¼ 45), Sunni=Shia Muslims (6.4%; n¼ 38), Fundamental

Christians (3.5%; n¼ 21), and Jews (1%; n¼ 6). The Indian sample contained 75

(11.41%) college students, the Irish sample had 34 (10.93%), Thailand had 40

(17.24%), and the U.S. sample had 78 (13.18%).

After receiving institutional review board approval, data for this study were col-

lected through self-administered paper and online questionnaires in 2009 and 2010.

The principal investigator elicited participants from each nation through numerous

social networks and through the assistance of various religious organizations in India,

Ireland, and Thailand. In the United States, data were collected through the

same means, as well as at universities in the Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest.

Participants received no financial incentive for participation.

Instrument

All surveys included demographic questions and the Conflict Style Instrument

(Oetzel, 1998). Surveys were prepared in English, Hindi, and Thai. After the instru-

ment was written in English, a native speaker of Hindi and Thai translated it. A

bilingual speaker then back-translated it. All translations were then compared to

ensure accuracy.

Conflict Style Instrument. Oetzel’s (1998) 38-item Conflict Style Instrument was

used to measure conflict styles. The measure is a combination of Rahim’s (1983)

28-item Conflict Inventory II (ROCI–II) and 10 items on identity=construal that sup-plement the 28 ROCI–II items. Combined, the items measure an individual’s propen-

sity for avoiding (9 items), compromising (7 items), dominating (6 items), integrating

(9 items), and obliging (7 items) in conflict situations. The measure, a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), asked individuals how

they would react in conflict situations. A sample conflict style question is, ‘‘I would

avoid open discussion of my differences.’’ A sample identity=construal question is,

‘‘I would hope that the situation would resolve itself.’’ Cronbach’s alphas in the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

1998 study for the five conflict styles ranged from .75 to .90. See Table 1 for the means,

standard deviations, correlations, and alphas associated with the study variables by

nation.

Results

To test H1, five one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted. The

hypothesis stated culture influences conflict style preference. There was a main effect

for national culture on the avoiding conflict style: Welch’s F(3, 1,747)¼ 66.14,

p< .0001 (g2¼ .10). High-context nations (India and Thailand) preferred the avoid-

ing conflict style more than the low-context nations (Ireland and the United States).

There was also a main effect for national culture on the compromising conflict

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, Alphas, and Mean Differences

Associated With the Study Variables

Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4 5

India

1. Dominatinga,b,c 4.19 1.62 .78 —

2. Integratingf,g,h 5.79 0.73 .84 �.08� —

3. Avoidingk,l,m 6.41 1.48 .92 �.43�� .76�� —

4. Obligingq,r 5.02 1.08 .91 �.45�� .68�� .94�� —

5. Compromisingu,v,w 5.23 0.93 .87 .47�� .80�� .93�� .96�� —

Ireland

1. Dominatingc,e 4.89 1.32 .91 —

2. Integratingh,i 5.45 0.99 .90 .32�� —

3. Avoidingm,n,o 5.72 1.56 .87 .22�� .38�� —

4. Obligingr,s 4.80 0.98 .86 .12� .69�� .70�� —

5. Compromisingw,x 4.63 1.36 .85 .13�� .77�� .58�� .84�� —

Thailand

1. Dominatingb,d 3.92 1.05 .80 —

2. Integratingg,j 5.32 0.95 .91 �.06 —

3. Avoidingl,o,p 6.09 1.43 .87 �.02 .68�� —

4. Obligingt 4.97 0.76 .79 �.22�� .80�� .89�� —

5. Compromisingv,x,y 4.98 1.09 .92 �.13�� .89�� .83�� .89�� —

United States

1. Dominatinga,d,e 5.08 1.39 .83 —

2. Integratingf,I,j 4.99 1.07 .91 .30�� —

3. Avoidingk,n,p 5.25 1.41 .84 .32�� .22�� —

4. Obligingq,s,t 4.49 1.05 .77 .29�� .62�� .55�� —

5. Compromisingu,y 4.66 1.03 .88 .32�� .83�� .38�� .72�� —

Note. Superscripts represent significant mean differences in each conflict style using the Games–Howell

procedure. ps< .05.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ��p< .0001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

style: Welch’s F(3, 1,760)¼ 36.58, p< .0001 (g2¼ .06). High-context cultures preferred

the compromising style more than the low-context nations. National culture also had a

significant effect on the dominating conflict style: Welch’s F(3, 1,775)¼ 62.14,

p< .0001 (g2¼ .10). The low-context nations preferred the dominating style more than

the high-context nations. The integrating style was also affected by national culture:

Welch’s F(3, 1,744)¼ 76.79, p< .0001 (g2¼ .12). Regarding the integrating style, the

differences were not dichotomous (high vs. low context). Indians (a high-context

nation) had the highest preference for integration, with Americans (a low-context

nation) scoring the lowest. The Irish (a low-context nation) were the second highest

in favor of integration, with Thais (a high-context nation) scoring the second lowest.

Finally, there was a significant main effect for national culture on the obliging style:

Welch’s F(3, 1,759)¼ 30.01, p< .0001 (g2¼ .05). For the obliging style, members of

high-context nations (India and Thailand) scored highest in preference, and members

Table 2 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National

Culture and the Avoiding Conflict Style

Source df SS MS F

Between groups 3 425.82 141.94 66.14�

Within groups 1,747 3,748.94 21.46

Total 1,750 4,174.76

Note. SS¼ sum of square; MS¼mean square.�p< .0001.


Culture and the Compromising Conflict Style

Source df SS MS F

Between groups 3 125.31 41.77 36.58�

Within groups 1,760 2,009.47 1.14

Total 1,763 2,134.78



Culture and the Dominating Conflict Style

Source df SS MS F

Between groups 3 380.85 126.95 62.14�

Within groups 1,775 3,626.05 2.04

Total 1,778 4,006.89



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

of low-context nations (Ireland and the United States) scored the lowest. Because

Levene’s test showed significant differences in each conflict style’s variance between

the nations and as the sample sizes were not equal, Games–Howell post hoc tests were

conducted. The results of these post hoc tests are in Table 1, and ANOVA summaries

are in Tables 2 through 6.

Discussion

The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. First, Ting-Toomey

(1985) asserted culture could explain conflict resolution styles. Results from our

study confirm much of Ting-Toomey’s research. Individuals from high-context cul-

tures (India and Thailand) are more likely to use indirect conflict strategies, such as

non-confrontation strategies (avoiding and obliging). These results are consistent

with previous studies that show individuals from predominantly high-context

cultures (which are often collectivistic as well) are more prone to avoid or oblige

in conflicts (Chau & Gudykunst, 1987; Ohbuchi et al., 1999; Ting-Toomey et al.,

1991). As for the dominating conflict style, Americans and Irish significantly pre-

ferred this style more than Indians and Thais did, revealing how individuals from

low-context cultures prefer to control conflict situations. This result mirrors previous

studies showing how members of low-context cultures typically prefer to dominate in

conflict situations (Cai & Fink, 2002; Croucher, 2011; Dsilva & Whyte, 1998; Oetzel,

Arcos, Mabizela, Weinman, & Zhang, 2006; Zhang, 2007).

Second, although the majority of the findings confirmed Ting-Toomey’s (1985)

and Chau and Gudykunst’s (1987) findings, some of the results were contrary. Overall,


Culture and the Integrating Conflict Style

Source df SS MS F

Between groups 3 195.79 65.26 76.79�

Within groups 1,744 1,482.26 0.85

Total 1,747 1,678.05



Culture and the Obliging Conflict Style

Source df SS MS F

Between groups 3 92.94 30.98 30.01�

Within groups 1,759 1,815.97 1.03

Total 1,762 1,908.91



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

the high-context nations scored higher than the low-context nations on the solution-

oriented styles (compromising and integrating). Indians and Thais both scored higher

than Americans and the Irish on compromising, whereas only Indians scored higher

on the integrating style. Overall, the results demonstrate that the high-context nations

in this particular study are more apt to favor a solution orientation than the

low-context nations. This result is counter to those found by Chau and Gudykunst

in which members of low-context cultures preferred solution-oriented styles. There

are multiple explanations for differences in this result. First, it is possible that as the

economies of India and Thailand both grow rapidly, the approaches to conflict in these

cultures must take on a more solution-oriented style. Tharoor (2007) explained how as

Southeast Asian economies expand, approaches to negotiations in this region must

adapt to compete in a global market. Thus, the integration of ideas and collaboration

in nations such as India and Thailand, two of the fastest growing economies, makes

sense. Second, it is plausible that the potential changing nature of individualism in

these nations could be impacting conflict styles. As research has revealed relationships

among context, individualism, and conflict (Cai & Fink, 2002; Chau & Gudykunst,

1987), it is plausible that individualism is in flux in these traditionally high-context

nations. Third, this study sampled individuals in their native nations, whereas Chau

and Gudykunst sampled international students in the United States from 37 nations

(n¼ 366). Chau and Gudykunst stated, ‘‘[I]nternational students in the United States

are not the ‘best’ respondents to test the theory. Ideally, respondents in many different

cultures would be used. There is, however no reason to rule out the use of international

students’’ (p. 35). Perhaps the results of our study reveal further differences between

international students in the United States and individuals in their native nations.

Next, the results of this study expand our intercultural understanding of conflict.

Although there is a depth of research exploring conflict in the United States and parts

of Southeast Asia, Ireland, India, and Thailand have been relatively neglected by con-

flict literature. Croucher et al. (2011) urged scholars to further explore how conflict

manifests itself in India, as India is now the fastest growing nation in the world and

one of the least explored cultures in the field of communication studies. The continued

exploration of conflict in Ireland and Thailand also helps us better understand conflict

in an ever-changing world (Iamsudha & Hale, 2003; Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001).

A limitation of this study is the sampling. Data in India were collected in various

cities and rural areas in and around those cities (Kolkota, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai,

Ahmadabad, Mysore, and Hyderabad). Data in the United States were collected in

rural and urban areas of the Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest. However, data in

Ireland were predominantly collected in and around Dublin, and data in Thailand

were collected in and around Bangkok. Thus, large portions of Ireland and Thailand

were not considered during the data collection. Therefore, generalizing to areas

outside of Dublin and Bangkok should be done with caution.

A first step for future research would be to strive for more representative samples

in each nation. Although the samples for this study in each nation were relatively

diverse in age, educational level, sex, and religious background, future work could

pursue a more diverse geographic sample in Thailand and Ireland. Moreover, as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

scholars such as Oetzel (1998) have questioned the validity of self-report measures,

future research could incorporate other- and self-report measures of conflict into

the same study. Such a design may yield a greater understanding of conflict.

This study analyzed the relationship between conflict styles and national culture in

India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States. The analysis revealed that national

culture significantly affected conflict style preference, confirming Ting-Toomey’s

(1985) theory. Work should continue to explore this relationship in various nations

to expand our understanding of conflict.

References

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.

Communication Monographs, 69, 67–87.

Chau, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and high-context

cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32–37.

Conrad, C. (1991). Communication in conflict: Style–strategy relationships. Communication

Monographs, 58, 135–155.

Croucher, S. M. (2011). Muslim and Christian conflict styles in Western Europe. International

Journal of Conflict Management, 22, 60–74. doi:10.1108=10444061111103625Croucher, S. M., DeMaris, A., Holody, K., Hicks, M., & Oommen, D. (2011). An examination of

conflict style preferences in India: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 22, 10–34. doi:10.1108=10444061111103607Dsilva, M., & Whyte, L. (1998). Cultural differences in conflict styles: Vietnamese refugees and

established residents. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 57–68. doi:10.1080=106461798247113

Folger, J., Poole, M., & Stutman, R. (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships,

groups, and organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Hocker, J., & Wilmot, W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Iamsudha, P. P., & Hale, C. (2003, May). The implications of Thai cultural values for self-reported

conflict tactics, family satisfaction, and communication competence of young adults. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Kim, M., & Leung, T. (2000). A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review and criti-

cal synthesis. In M. Roloff & G. Paulson (Eds.), Communication Yearbook 23 (pp. 227–269).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Oetzel, J. (1998). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles.

Communication Reports, 11, 133–144. doi:10.1080=08934219809367695Oetzel, J., Arcos, B., Mabizela, P., Weinman, A. M., & Zhang, Q. (2006). Historical, political, and

spiritual factors of conflict: Understanding conflict perspectives and communication in the

Muslim world, China, Colombia, and South Africa. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),

The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research and practice

(pp. 549–574). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ohbuchi, K., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management: Goal

orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,

51–71. doi:10.1177=0022022199030001003


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Polkinghorn, B., & Byrne, S. (2001). Between war and peace: An examination of conflict manage-

ment styles in four conflict zones. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 23–46.

doi:10.1108=eb022848Rahim, M. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management

Journal, 26, 368–376.

Tafoya, D. (1983). The roots of conflict: A theory and a typology. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Inter-

cultural communication theory (pp. 205–238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tharoor, S. (2007). The elephant, the tiger, and the cell phone: Reflections on India. The emerging

21st-century power. New York, NY: Arcade.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart

& S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71–86).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S. L., & Nishida, T. (1991).

Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five

cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated

face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.

doi:10.1016=S0147-1767(98)00004-2Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict manage-

ment styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87–104.

Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G. (1999).

Ethnic=cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four ethnic groups. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81. doi:10.1016=S0147-1767(99)00023-1Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parent–child

relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 113–128. doi:10.1080=01463370600998681


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

7:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

conflict styles and high–low context cultures: a cross-cultural extension

Documents