Individualism-collectivism has a direct effect on communication styles and an indirect effect that is mediuted through self construals and values. It was hypothesized that cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and values would haw separate effects on individuals' use of low-and high-context communication styles. As predicted, the results ofthis study suggest that independent self construals and individualistic values mediate the influence of cultural individualism-collectivism on the use of low-context communication, and interdependent self construals and collectivistic values mediate the influence of cultural individualism-collectivism on the use of high-context communication. The patterns for cultural individualism-collectivism were not as clear-cut. Thefindings suggest that individual level factors (i.e., self construuls and values) are better predictors of low-and high-context communication styles across cultures than cultural individualism-collectivism.hen individuals are socialized, they learn various patterns of interaction that are based on the norms, rules, and values of their culture. These patterns of interaction form the basis for individuals' communication styles. More specifically, communication styles

No abstract

The objective of this study was to test Ting‐Toomey's (1988a) theory on conflict face‐negotiation. More specifically, the study examined the relationship between face maintenance dimensions and conflict styles in Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. The results were summarized as follows: (1) Cultural variability of individualism‐collectivism influences two face maintenance dimensions—self‐face concern and other‐face concern; (2) Cultural variability influences conflict styles, with U.S. members using a higher degree of dominating conflict style than their Japanese and Korean cohorts, and the Chinese and Taiwanese members using a higher degree of obliging and avoiding conflict management styles than their U.S. counterparts; (3) Overall, face maintenance dimensions served as better predictors to conflict styles rather than conflict styles to face dimensions; (4) Self‐face maintenance was associated strongly with dominating conflict style, and other‐face maintenance was associated strongly with avoiding, integrating, and compromising styles of conflict management. Directions for future testing of the conflict face‐negotiation theory were proffered.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study sought to test the underlying assumption of the face-negotiation theory that face is an explanatory mechanism for culture’s influence on conflict behavior. A questionnaire was administered to 768 participants in 4 national cultures (China, Germany, Japan, and the United States) asking them to describe interpersonal conflict. The major findings of this study are as follows: (a) cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and indirect effects on conflict styles, (b) independent self-construal related positively with self-face and interdependent self-construal related positively with other-face, (c) self-face related positively with dominating conflict styles and other-face related positively with avoiding and integrating styles, and (d) face accounted for all of the total variance explained (100% of 19% total explained) in dominating, most of the total variance explained in integrating (70% of 20% total explained), and some of the total variance explained in avoiding (38% of 21% total explained) when considering face concerns, cultural individualismcollectivism, and self-construals.

No abstract