Preference for Methods of Conflict Processing in Two Collectivist Cultures

Abstract

Previous research has shown that harmony-enhancing procedures for conflict resolution are endorsed more in collectivist than in individualist societies, whereas the reverse is true for confrontational procedures. However, this result is derived from comparing Western with Eastern societies, leaving the possibility that it may be caused by a variety of East-West differences other than collectivism and individualism. To resolve this ambiguity and to extend the generality of this finding, two collectivist societies, one from Europe (Spain) and the other one from Asia (Japan), were contrasted in the present study. Consistent with the individualismcollectivism framework, results indicated that the procedural preferences of these two cultural groups were quite similar. Results also indicated that expectancies based on process control and animosity reduction were culture-general predictors of procedural preference, and that valences based on these variables yielded little additional variance over and above the expectancy variables. Expectancies based on fairness and favourableness were found to be culture-specific, as were their relationships with procedural preference. Results also implied that cultural femininity was not related to procedural preference. Finally, implications of these results for developing a universal theory of procedural preference are discussed.Les recherches anttrieures ont dtmontrt que les proddures d'augmentation de l'harmonie dans la resolution de conflit reGoivent davantage l'appui de socittts collectivistes qu'individualistes, alors que I'inverse est vrai pour les proctdures de confrontation. Toutefois, ce resultat dkcoule d'une comparaison entre des socittts occidentales et orientales, laissant ouverte la possibilitt qu'il aurait pii Stre caust par une varittt de difftrences Est-Ouest, autres que le collectivisme et l'individualisme. Pour rtsoudre cette ambiguitt et pour augmenter la gtntralisabilitt de ce resultat, deux socittts collectivistes, l'une Requests for reprints and correspondence should be sent to Kwok Leung.

Interdependent Construal of Self and the Endorsement of Conflict Resolution Strategies in Interpersonal, Intergroup, and International Disputes

“…Markus and Kitayama (1991) noted that in mostly collectivistic cultures, there is an emphasis on inhibiting the expression of anger as a way of promoting harmony and solidarity within the in-group. Individualistic cultures, in contrast, do not inhibit the expression of hostility in different social contexts (that is, in interactions between individuals or between groups) because individuals are allowed to pursue their self-interests and "confrontation is OK." This preference for harmony-enhancing strategies may not extend to members of the out-group (e.g., Leung, 1987;Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols, & Iwawaki, 1992;Leung, Bond, Carment, Krishnan, & Liebrand, 1990;Leung & Lind, 1986). Research suggests that the expression of anger may be more likely in confrontations with members of an out-group in collectivist cultures because there is no bonding or sense of solidarity with them.…”

Meaning as inter-connectedness: theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence

“…On the contrary in collectivistic societies, that give priority to social harmony, individuals are encouraged to adjust to group and context features, rather than to affirm their own view (Han 2008;Leung, Fernandez-Dols, & Iwawaki, 1992;Morling et al 2002;Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). This crucial difference in shared values necessarily impacts on meaning definition and construction at both the individual and interpersonal levels.…”

Conflict and Its Management

“…A number of authors have taken up this task, with empirical work (Chiu & Kosinski, 1994;Jones, 1995;Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols, Iwawaki, 1992;Rosenthal, Demetrious & Efklides, 1989;Ting-Toomey et al, 1991;Trubinsky, Ting-Toomey & Lin, 1991) and conceptual pieces (Augsburger, 1992;Berry, 1994;Biesheuvel, 1987;Boss & Mariano, 1987;Ibrahim & Schroeder, 1990;Kimmel, 1994). Researchers have also recently been provided with excellent guidance in this undertaking (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, in press).…”