In contrast to productive conflict, individuals and groups involved in destructive conflict:

Objectives
��Intercultural Conflict
��

��

����Intercultural miscommunication and misattributions often underscore intercultural conflict. Individuals coming from two contrastive cultural communities bring with them different value assumptions; expectations, verbal and nonverbal habits, and interaction scripts that influence the conflict process. Intercultural conflict is defined as the perceived or actual incompatibility of values, norms, processes, or goals between a minimum of two cultural parties over content, identity, relational, and procedural issues. Intercultural conflict often starts off with different expectations concerning appropriate or inappropriate behavior in an interaction episode. Expectation violations, in turn, often influence the effectiveness of how two cultural members negotiate their goals in the conflict process. If the different cultural members continue to engage in inappropriate or ineffective negotiation behavior, the miscommunication can very easily spiral into a complex, polarized conflict situation.
����While everyday intercultural conflicts are often based on cultural ignorance or misunderstanding, it is obvious that not all intercultural conflicts are based on miscommunication or lack of understanding. Some intercultural conflicts are based on deep-seated hatred and centuries-old antagonism often arising from long-standing historical grievances (e.g., as in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or Kosovo ). However, a majority of everyday conflicts that we encounter can be traced to cultural miscommunication or ignorance. As cultural beings, we are socialized or "programmed" by the values and norms of our culture to think and behave in a certain way. Our families, peer groups, educational institutions, mass media, political systems, and religious institutions are some of the forces that shape and mold our cultural and personal values. Our learned values and norms are, in turn, expressed through the way we communicate.
����With immigrants (many of whom are non-English speakers), minority group members, and women representing more than 50% of the present workforce in the United States, the study of constructive conflict management is especially critical in today's society. Managing intercultural conflict constructively means managing cultural-based conflict differences appropriately and effectively.
����This chapter examines some of the cultural background factors that influence face-to-face intercultural conflict. It is developed in four main sections. First, the definitional characteristics of intercultural conflict are presented. Second, some underlying factors that contribute to intercultural conflict processes are identified. Third, a competence-based approach to intercultural conflict management is discussed. Finally, some recommendations are given as to how to deal with such conflict constructively.
1. INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT: DEFINITIONAL CHARACTERISTIC
����Intercultural conflict revolves around diverse cultural approaches people bring with them in expressing their values, norms, rhythms and styles in managing conflict. The perceived or actual differences often rotate around the following goal issues: content, identity, relational, and conflict process or procedure (Wilmot & Hocker, 1998). This section explores conflict goal issues and other conflict-related characteristics.
1.1 Conflict Goal Issues
����People experience conflict in intimate and nonintimate relationships across a diverse range of cultures. Conflict is a well-nigh inevitable part of any relationship. However, how we perceive the conflict, how we choose to engage in or disengage from it, and how we attribute meanings to the different goals in an intercultural clash can vary tremendously across cultural lines.
����By content goals we mean the substantive issues that are external to the individuals involved. For example, an interfaith couple might argue as to whether they should raise their children to be Buddhists or Catholics or whether they should raise their kids as bilinguals or monolinguals . Intercultural business partners might argue about whether they should hold their business meetings in Mexico City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles. Content conflict goals also affect the perceptions of identity and relational goals (Fisher & Ury, 1981).
����By identity-based goals we mean face-saving and face-honoring issues in a conflict episode. They revolve around self-image and other-image issues via the use of respect or disrespect messages. For example, while the above interfaith couple is arguing about which religious faith they should instill in their kids, they are also engaged in evaluating the "worthiness" of their beliefs and the respect quotients they are receiving from their partners. To the extent the couple can engage in a constructive dialogue about this important issue, the conflict can act as a catalyst for their personal and relationship growth; To the extent that the interaction spirals into negative loops (e.g., the more the wife wants to talk about it, the more the husband seeks to avoid the topic), the conflict can be detrimental to both individuals' sense of self-worth.
����Likewise, in the case of deciding where the aforementioned business meeting should take place, the conflicting parties may be arguing over, a concrete topic such as a location site; however, they are also each testing their "self-image" or "face" in front of others. The decision to hold the business meeting in country X may mean enhanced face power or increased status for the business representative of that country. Face images or identity goals are also closely tied to relational conflict goals. By relational conflict goals we refer to how individuals define the particular relationship (e.g., intimate vs. nonintimate, informal vs. informal) or would like to define it in that interactive situation. For example, in Chapter 7, we suggested that individualists generally crave more privacy and collectivists generally desire more connectedness in an intimate relationship. The struggle to define independence and interdependence can cause chronic relationship problems in many intercultural (and also intracultural) couples. In the business setting, while one business partner, say, from the United States might opt to scribble a note and fax it to another international partner, say, from Japan, the latter might well view this hastily prepared communication as a cavalier gesture signaling disregard of the formal business partnership and disrespect for him- or herself. For the Japanese partner, face threat and relationship threat have been perceived and experienced. However, the U.S. business partner may not even realize that he or she has committed a faux pas by sending this offhand message. He or she was actually signaling "friendliness" and "closeness" to minimize the formal relationship distance.
����Identity-based and relational conflict goals undergird content-based conflict goals. On the overt level, people may be arguing or disagreeing over content issues. However, beneath the surface lie relational and identity goal problems. From the collectivistic cultural perspective, relational and identity conflict goals usually supersede content goals. The reasoning from the collectivistic point of view is that if the relationship is in jeopardy and mutual face images have been threatened, there is no use spending time talking about substantive issues. The reasoning from the individualistic point of view is that content goals (especially in a task-oriented conflict) are often separate from relationship goals and that, once business is taken care of people can then attend to their relationship and enjoy each other's company. Identity goals, however, are paramount to both individualists and collectivists.
����Identity goals, or face-saving and face-honoring goals, are related to an individual's personal and collective self-esteem issues. These personal and collective self-esteem issues also drive our focus and locus of face images. While "face" is concerned with how we want others to view our public images, "facework" is concerned with how our public images come across with the use of particular verbal and nonverbal messages, All individuals in all cultures have a need for face respect and face consideration as well as face approval and face competence. However, how we go about conveying our face respect and face approval needs in conflict episode differ from one culture to the next (Ting-Toomey, l988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998): For individualists, face-saving and face-defensive needs may be expressed through a direct mode of conflict. For collectivists, face saving and face protection needs may be signaled through and indirect mode of conflict (see the subsection on "Conflict Styles and Facework Strategies" below).
����By process conflict goals we refer to procedural and stylistic difference in how to manage the conflict problem. For example, individuals prefer to use a step-by-step, linear mode to dissect the problem, generate criteria ,brainstorm some solutions; and select the best one in line with these criteria, Collectivists, on the other hand, prefer to use a spiral mode probing for all the contextual conditions that contribute to the problem, looking at the "big picture", then deciding on how to resolve the issue, Individualists are good at generating solutions, and collectivists are good at analyzing the holistic contexts that contribute to the problem.
����Additionally, individualists and collectivists have different cultural approaches to handling a conflict situation: individualists often prefer to use a direct approach in dealing with the conflict problem, whereas collectivists generally prefer to use an indirect approach. The use of particular conflict styles, however, is contingent on many factors such as the type and severity of the conflict and various resources being contested for. Here resources refer to tangible or intangible rewards and advantages that people strive for in the contest. Tangible rewards might be a salary increase, a promotion, or a good grade in a group project. Intangible advantages might be enhanced, for example, safety, attention; affection, understanding, respect, support, self-esteem, and power.
����Some tangible commodities are indeed limited (e.g., only one can get the promotion),are some intangible commodities(e.g., there is limited time to juggle between schoolwork and family),which can create a highly tense situation. Other perceived scarce resources can be redistributed or managed constructively. A scarce resource situation occurs, for example, when a teacher only directs eye contact at the boys in the elementary classroom and pays more attention to them than to the girls. The situation can be rectified if the teacher is made aware of his or her. " unintentional" nonverbal behavior. In other conflict situations, the scarcity of an intangible (or tangible) reward is really based on the perception of the conflict party concerning the problematic issue (e.g., an individualistic husband feels left out because his wife goes frequently to visit her collectivistic family). By mindfully changing our own perceptions (and also behaviors) or by persuading the other party to combine his or her interest with our own (see the section on "Constructive Conflict Management Skills" below), the conflict parties may move closer to resolving their conflict differences.
1.2 Conflict-Related Characteristics
����Conflict involves both perception and interaction. It is an intense disagreement process between two interdependent parties over incompatible goals and the interference each perceives from the other in her or his effort to achieve those goals (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1997).The major characteristics of intercultural conflict are the following: (1) conflict involves intercultural perceptions-perceptions are filtered through our lenses of ethnocentrism and stereotypes, and perceptions color our conflict attribution process, (2) conflict involves interaction-conflict is sustained and managed via verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and verbal and nonverbal behaviors are culture-bound concepts; (3) conflict involves interdependence-for a conflict to arise, the behavior of one or both parties must have consequences for the other, for otherwise the conflict parties can walk away from each other easily; (4) conflict involves both self-interest and mutual-interest goals-conflict is a mixed-up and incomplete jigsaw puzzle, with both parties needing something from each other in order to complete the entire picture; and,,(5) conflict involves the protection of intergroup images-in an intercultura1 or intergroup conflict situation, conflict parties have no worry about protecting both individual and group-based images (e.g., the sense of group identity as an "African American", as a "Christian," or as a "Democrat")
����Recall that ethnocentrism is defined as our tendency to view our cultural practices as the "correct" ones and to rate all other cultural practices with reference to our standards. Similarly, when members of a culture believe that their own approach is the only "correct" or "natural" way to handle conflict, they tend to see the conflict management behaviors of other cultures as "deviant" from that standard.
����A rigidly held ethnocentric attitude promotes a climate of mistrust in intergroup conflict and serves as a hidden barrier to constructive conflict management. Individuals often practice ethnocentric behaviors and biased attributions without a high degree of awareness. They have internalized the standards of their culture as the "proper" and "right" ways of behaving. They tend to use their own cultural or ethnic expectations to attribute meaning to a conflict scene. A conflict scene is often sustained through particular styles of verbal and nonverbal interaction. We often engage in familiar conflict styles as the "natural way" to handle a conflict. For example, the following dialogue between Ms. Gumb (an African American supervisor) and Mr. Lee (a recent Chinese immigrant) in a U.S.-China joint venture firm illustrates the different conflict styles and attribution processes:
����Scene 1
����Ms. GUMB (in the main office): Lee, where is your project report? You said you'd get it done soon. I need your part of the report so that I can finish my final report by the end of this week. When do you think you can get it done? [Attribution: Lee is very irresponsible . I should never have trusted him. I thought I was giving him a break by putting him in charge of this report.]
����Mr. LEE (hesitantly): Well...Ms. Gumb... I didn't realize the deadline was so soon...I will try my best to get it done as soon as possible. It's just that there are lots of details I need to cross-check...I'm really not sure...[Attribution: Ms didn't she tell me the exact deadline early on? Just last week, she told me take my time on the report .I'm really confused. In China, the supervisor always tells the workers what to do.]
����Ms. GUMB (frustrated): Lee, how soon is soon? I really need to know your plan of action right now. You cannot be so vague in answering my questions all the time. I believe I've given you plenty of time to work on this report already. [Attribution: Lee is trying to sneaky . He does not answer my questions directly at once. I wonder if all Chinese are that sneaky? Or maybe he is not comfortable working for a Black female? Anyway, I have to press him to be more efficient and responsible. He is in America��he has to learn the American way.
����MR. LEE (a long pause): Well... I'm really not sure, Ms. Gumb. I really don't want to do a bad job on the report and disappoint you: I'll try my best to finish it as soon as possible. Maybe I can finish the report next week. [Attribution: Ms. Gumb is sure a pushy boss. She doesn't seem to like me, and she is causing me to lose face in front of my peers. Her voice sounds so harsh and loud. I have heard that American (people are hard to work with; but she is especially rude and overbearing. I'd better start looking for a new job tomorrow]
����In this scene, while Ms. Gumb uses an assertive, emotionally expressive verbal style in dealing with the conflict, Mr. Lee uses a hesitant, indirect verbal style in answering her questions, Ms. Gumb uses a straight talk low-context approach in dealing with the work problem, whereas. Mr. Lee uses a "face talk" high-context approach in dealing with the issue.
����If both had a chance to understand concepts such as low-context and high-context communication styles, they might arrive at a better understanding of each other's behavior. Conflict style differences between cultural or ethnic group members also profoundly influence the meanings we attach to each other's behavior. We typically use our own habitual scripts as a baseline to judge the other's behavior. While Mr. Lee uses his high-context scripts to evaluate Ms. Gumb's behavior as "rude and overbearing"; Ms. Gumb is using her low-context (e.g., "Lee is trying to be sneaky") attribution and historical script (e.g., "Maybe he is not comfortable working for a Black female") to "make sense" of Mr. Lee's high-context approach. If Ms. Gumb and Mr. Lee understood the cultural/historical conditioning process of their own and the others' behavior, they might learn to be more adaptively in achieving a common goal in their interaction.
����Then Ms. Gumb might learn to talk privately to Mr. Lee rather than engage in such direct face threat behavior in public. Mr. Lee might learn to be more direct and open in answering his supervisor's questions and use fewer pauses and hedges in his interaction styles. It appears that on the conflict strategy level, individualists often tend to prefer direct verbal assertions, direct verbal questioning, direct requests for clarifications and answers. In contrast, collectivists prefers to use qualities (e.g., "Perhaps we should meet this deadline together"), tag questions (e.g., "Don't you think you'll feel better if you finish it and get it out of your way?") disclaimers(e.g., "Maybe I don't understand what's going on here..."), and indirect requests (e.g., "If it isn't too much trouble, let's try to finish this report together"), to convey a "softened" approach to working out differences.
����Any intercultural conflict also involves certain degrees of interdependence between the two conflict parties; For example, in scene1, Mr. Gumb is dependent on Mr. Lee to finish his report before she can put her final report together. Ms. Gumb's final report to the senior management can mean a year-end bonus for her. On the other hand, Mr. Lee is dependent on Mr. Gumb to give him a good performance review or, ultimately, a good recommendation.
����They both have persona and mutual interests in resolving the conflict. Unfortunately, oftentimes the cultural-based conflict styles and behaviors lead to cross-purposes and collisions in the interaction process. With their views of the situation distorted by ethnocentric lenses and mindless stereotypes, both parties' conflict may be stuck in their polarized and perceptual views. They need to learn new interactive skills (see the cultural Conflict Management Skills "section below) to get" unstuck and freed from their negative conflict loops.
2. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AFFECTING INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT
����There are many factors that affect the escalation or deescafation of intercultural conflict negotiation, some of which are different conflict norms, styles, and rhythms (see Figure 8.l).
����In order to explain these factors, we need a perspective to organize and relate ideas in a coherent fashion. We use a cultural variability perspective to illustrate how some of the factors stem from our conceptions of cultural, personal, and communication self-images. A cultural variability perspective emphasizes the four dimensions of individualism-collectivism, power .distance, construal of self, and low-or high-context communication. These four dimensions influence the values we hold in approaching or avoiding conflict, the way we attribute meanings to conflict events. This section is organized in two parts: first, we look at conflict from a cultural variability perspective with examples, and then we consider some of the specific factors contributing to intercultural conflicts

����Felipe Cordova is a senior official in the Philippine Ministry of Communication. He is proud of the fact that he has been invited to the United States to attend an international conference and exited at the prospect of his first trip there. Upon entering the United States he has to pass through immigration and customs. The immigration officer subjects him to a long series of questions concerning how long he intends to stay, how much money he has, whether he intends to visit relatives, whether he understands the visa regulations and so on. Felipe grows increasingly irritated and finally refuses to answers any more questions. He suffers all this with repressed indignation, but swears to himself that he will never return to this uncivilized country (pp.137-138).

����How would you explain Felipe's obstinate and uncooperative attitude toward the immigration authorities? (1): He is fatigues and irritable because of the long plane ride. (2) He feels he is being singled out as a suspicious person and is insulted. (3) His expectations as to his status and treatment in the United States have been strongly violated. (4) He feels the officer's questioning is too personal and resents having to disclose such immigration (Cushner & Brislin, 1996, p.138). If your choice was answer 3, congratulations!
����Felipe, as a senior official representing the Philippines, believes that his invitation to the international conference in the United States reflects his high-status position in his country. He expects to be treated as an honored guest upon his arrival. As such, he expects his path through the bureaucracy to be smooth and unhindered, His expectations as to his high status are strongly violated when he is treated like any Filipino immigrant or common visitor. He feels both outraged and humiliated His group-based identity (i.e., as a high-status Ministry of Communication functionary from the Philippines) and "face" identity (i.e., his pride and self-esteem) have experienced a sharp insult and severe degradation.
����The Philippines, together with Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Guatemala,, Panama, Mexico, and many Arab countries, have been identified as large power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1991) whose members give priority treatment and asymmetrical respect to people who are in high-status positions. Subordinates know their "humble" roles, whereas supervisors and managers know their "superior" role scripts. In comparison, in small power distance cultures such as Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and the Unites States (to a moderate degree), members in either high-status or low-status positions strive to foster informal, symmetrical interaction. Subordinates expect to be respected and valued based more on personal attributes than on their position or tides. Supervisors tend to play consultative roles more than authoritarian roles.
����Intercultural expectancy violations and miscommunication are commonplace when a supervisee subscribes to small power distance values and a supervisor subscribes to larger power distance values in an international corporation. The small power distance supervisee wants more personal respect from his or her supervisor and the large power distance supervisor. Moving beyond the general discussion of culture-level difference, we next examine individual-level differences within and across cultures.
2.1.4 Construal of Self
����An alternative way to understand individualism-collectivism and power distance focuses on how individuals within a culture conceptualize the sense of "self". Markus and Kitayama (1991) argue that ourselves-conception within our culture profoundly influences our communication with others: individuals with a strongly independent sense of self tend to see themselves as autonomous, self-reliant, unencumbered, and as rational. Choice makers; individuals with a strongly interdependent, sense of self tend to see themselves as in-group-bound, obligatory agents and as harmony seekers. Both types of self-construal exist within a culture. Overall, however, whereas independent concepts of self are more common in individualistic cultures, interdependent concepts of self are more common in collectivistic cultures, Let us look at the following dialogue between a Japanese American,(with a strongly independent self-concept), Ms. Sueda, and, a Japanese national (with a strongly interdependent self-concept); Mr. Ota. Ms. Sueda is an executive vice-president of the accounting department of a joint-venture U.S.-Japanese firm. Mr. Ota is the head of the marketing department based in Tokyo. The following dialogue takes place there at a staff meeting (with Japanese and American staff members):
����Scene 3
����Ms. SUEDA (enthusiastically): Since we're all here today in the meeting, I would like to discuss with you my opinion on reviewing our contract with the Fuji advertising firm. But before I do that, Ota-san, what do you think of the Fuji firm?
����Mr. OTA (taken by surprise,): Ms. Sueda, what about the Fuji firm?
����Ms. SUEDA: Ota-san, I don't think they are working out for us. I don't think they are being aggressive enough in pushing our spring water products. I seriously think we should switch to a new firm. Their ads did not seem to have any impact on generating new sales for us.
����Mr. OTA (after a long pause): MS. Sueda, Have you discussed this with others in our department.
����Ms. SUEDA (looking around): Not really. That's why I'm sounding you out right now.
����Mr. OTA: Well ... it is a good idea to get as many people's opinions possible on this important decision. Why don't we wait...
����Ms. SUEDSA (impatiently): But I'm really not satisfied with the Fuji's "soft sell" approach to products. If you have any opinion, now is a good time to speak up. So what do you think?
����Mr. OTA: Um... we really have to give this some more thought... After all, we've cultivated a good relationship with the people in the Fuji firm... Maybe I'll check around with other people in the department after the meeting to get their input.
����Ms. SUEDA: Well, .all your department people are here in this room. Why don't we ask them right now? Okabe-san, what do you think?
����Mr. OKABE (taken by surprise): Well... (a long pause)...we should spend more time thinking together...
����Ms. SUEDA (very frustrated): All right, everyone, wasted time is wasted effort. Ota-san back to you. What do you really think?
����Mr. OTA (glancing around the room and sensing tension): Well ... , (a very long pause) ... I couldn't really say right now... It takes time to make such an important decision.
����While Ms. Sueda is direct and forthright in her approach in dealing with a problematic issue, Mr. Ota is cautious and circumspective. For Mr. Ota, from his interdependent self-perspective, he perceives major problems in changing from art old advertising firm to a new one. It takes time to cultivate reliable, reciprocal social and business ties in Japan. It will take a long time for him and his staff to nurture network relations with a new firm. In addition, Mr. Ota also resents the fact that he is being singled out so suddenly by Ms. Sueda for his personal opinion in group setting. It causes him to: "lose face" in front of his colleagues because He is underprepared to respond to the sudden question. He wishes Ms. Sueda had consulted with him before the staff meeting. He does not want to state his opinion in the public setting for fear that his opinion will go against the opinion of his in-group members. Also, in front of other staff members (which include both Americans and Japanese), he does not want to raise all issues openly with Ms. Sueda because that may cause her to "lose face" (e.g., such as that "soft-sell" advertising works better in Japan than "hard-sell" advertising) and appear incompetent (see Imahori & Cupach, 1994)
����Anyway, if Ms. Sueda were listening attentively to both the verbal and nonverbal nuances conveyed by Mr. Ota, she would realize that Mr. Ota's answer to her initial question is a "no-maybe" response. By remaking that "After all, we've cultivated a good relationship with the people in the Fuji firm," Mr. Ota is implicitly saying "No ... but let's talk about this issue later, maybe privately, and maybe we can work something out" Ms. Sueda, on the other hand, perceives herself as being a very consultative colleague. From her independent self-perspective; Ms. Sueda assumes that everyone else in the room will feel free to speak up openly. In soliciting everyone's input in the staff meeting, she views herself as very respectful of staff members working in this joint-venture operation. By asking Mr. Qta's opinion, Ms. Sueda thinks she is being "face sensitive" to the status position of Mr. Ota as head of the marketing department in Tokyo. She is baffled and frustrated by Mr. Ota's hesitant and elusive speech style. She is starting to think that maybe her Japanese colleagues do not like working with a woman executive officer, especially one who is a sansei (third-generation) Japanese American.
����In sum, whereas independent-self people tend to "make sense" of their environment through autonomous self; lenses, interdependent-self people tend to "make sense" of their surrounding through in-group self" lenses. Independent-self individuals tend to worry about whether they present their "individualistic self" credibly and competently in front of others. Interdependent-self individuals tend to be more reflective of what others think of their projected "face image" in the context of in-group/out-group relations.
����Finally, while independent-self individuals tend to practice direct verbal communication in expressing thoughts and feelings, Interdependent-self individuals tend to practice responsive communication in anticipating the thoughts and feelings of the other person. Direct, verbal communication reflects a low-context way of communicating, and responsive communication reflects a high-context way of communicating (Hall, 1976, 1983).
����Parallel to the above self-construal idea, we can examine power distance from a personal variation dimension; Individuals and their behaviors can be conceptualized as either moving toward the "horizontal self" spectrum or the "vertical self" spectrum. Individuals who endorse horizontal self construal prefer informal, symmetrical interactions (i.e., equal treatment) regardless of people's status or the occasion. In comparison, individuals who emphasize vertical self-construal would prefer formal, asymmetrical interactions (i.e.; differential treatment), with due respect to people with high-status positions, titles, and the, special occasion. As Triandis (1995) observes.
����This means that people will seek different kinds of relationships and when possible "convert" a relationship to the kind that they are the most comfortable with. Thus, a professor[with]a horizontal-based [self-construal] may convert a professor-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, which may well confuse a student[with] a vertical-based[self-construal]. Conversely, a friend [with] a vertical-based [self-construal] might convert a friend-friend relationship to a counselor-client relationship and provide all sorts of unrequested and unexpected advice. (p.164)
����While horizontal selves tend to be predominant in small power distance cultures, vertical selves tend to be predominant in large power distance cultures.
2.1.5 Low-Context and High-Context Communication
����Low-context communication emphasizes how intention or meaning can be best expressed through the explicit verbal message. High-context communication emphasizes how intention or meaning can be best conveyed through the context(e.g., social roles, positions) and nonverbal channels(e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice) of the verbal message (Hall,1976).In general, low-context communication refers to communication patterns of direct verbal mode, straight, talk, nonverbal immediacy, and sender-oriented value. In low-context communication, the speaker of the message is expected to be responsible for constructing a clear, persuasive message that the listener can decode easily. In contrast, high-context communication refers to communication patterns of indirect verbal mode, ambiguous talk, nonverbal subtleties, and interpreter-sensitive value (Ting-Toomey, 1985). In high-context communication, the listener or interpreter of the message is expected to read "between the lines," to accurately infer the implicit intent of the verbal message, and to observe the nonverbal nuances and subtleties that encircle or "wrap" the verbal message.
����Low-context communication emphasizes the importance of explicit verbal messages to convey personal thought, opinions, and feeling. High- context communication emphasizes the importance of multilayered contexts (e.g., historical context, social norms, roles, situation and relational contexts) that frame the interaction encounter. As Barglund (1989) observers, in commenting on the communication style difference between Japanese and U. S. Americans.
����Conflict is far less common in Japanese society for a number of reasons. First, the emphasis on the group instead of the individual reduces interpersonal friction. Second, an elaborate set of standards emphasize "obligation" over "rights", what one owes to others' rather than deserves for oneself. Third, the value attached to harmony cultivates skill in the use of ambiguity, circumlocution, euphemism, and silence in blunting incipient disputes. The ability to assimilate differences, to engineer consensus, is valued above a talent for argument. (p. 39)
����Individualism and independent self-construal in the Unites States promotes the need for verbal self-assertion, and verbal self-assertion often promotes individual differences and competition. In contrast, collectivism and interdependent self-construal in Japan promote the need for verbal circumspection and verbal circumspection often promotes face preservation and relational harmony.
����While independent -self individualists engage in low-context styles of conflict managements; interdependent-self collectivists engage in high-context styles of conflict negotiation. Overall, the cultural variability dimensions of individualism versus collectivism large or small power distance, independent or interdependent self, horizontal or verbal self, and low-or high-context communication patterns help to guide us toward a general understanding of conflict process between members of individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
2.2 Cultural-Based Conflict: Different Lenses
����Drawing from the key ideas of a cultural variability perspective, the following subsections identify the different lenses that create intercultural frictions and conflicts between individualists and collectivists, These lenses include different conflict assumptions, conflict rhythms, conflict norms, conflict styles, and ethnocentric lenses, Culture-based lenses can distort our perceptions and interpretations of exchanged messages in conflict episodes like Scenes 1-3 (see Table 8.1)
2.2.1 Different Conflict Assumptions
����The values of individualism versus collectivism and how these are linked to individuals self-construal and low-/high-context communication, affect our assumption about conflict. Cultural assumptions about conflict color our attitudes, expectations, and behaviors in a conflict episode. Different cultural assumption toward conflict serves as the first set of factors that contribute to intercultural miscommunication and antagonism.
����For individualists, interpersonal conflict resolution follows an "out-come-oriented" model. However�� for collectivist, interpersonal conflict management follows a "process-oriented" model. An outcome-oriented model emphasizes the importance of asserting "I"-identity interests in the conflict situation and moving rapidly toward the phase of reaching tangible outcomes or goals. A process-oriented model, in contrast, emphasizes the importance of the management of "mutual or group face" interests in the conflict process before any tangible outcome or goals can be discussed.
TABLE 8.1: Individualistic and Collectivistic Conflict Lenses

As earlier, "face," in this context, refers to the orientation of upholding a claimed sense of positive public image in any social interactive situations (Ting-Toomey, 1994c). From the collectivistic perspective, face is not about what one thinks of oneself but about what others think of one's worth, especially within the context of one's in-group and out-group. For individualists, effective conflict negotiation means settling the conflict problem openly and working out a set of functional conflict solutions conjointly. Effective conflict resolution behavior (e.g., emphasizing the importance of addressing incompatible goals or outcomes) is relatively more important for individualists than is appropriate facework behavior. For collectivists, on the other hand, appropriate conflict management means the subtle negotiation of in-group/out-group face-related issues-pride, honor, dignity, insult, shame, disgrace, humility , trust, mistrust, respect, and prestige-in a given conflict episode. Appropriate facework moves and countermoves are critical for collectivists before tangible conflict outcomes or goals can be addressed.
����In commenting on face issues in the collectivistic cultures, Co hen (1991) observes, "For the representatives of interdependent cultures the experience of international negotiation is fraught with considerations of face. The very structure of the situation, in which competing parties pit their wills and skills against each other, is uncongenial to societies that see social harmony, not confrontation, as the desired state of affairs" (p. 132).
����To summarize, independent-self individualists tend to operate from the following "outcome-oriented" model of conflict assumptions:
1. Conflict is perceived as closely related to the goals or outcomes that are salient to the respective individual conflict parties in a given conflict situation.
2. Communication in the conflict process is viewed as dissatisfying when the conflict parties are not willing to deal with the conflict openly and honestly.
3. Conversely, communication in the conflict process is viewed as satisfying when the conflict parties are willing to confront the conflict issues openly and share their feelings honestly (i.e., assertively but not aggressively).
4. The conflict outcome is perceived as unproductive when no tangible outcomes are reached or no plan of action is developed.
5. The conflict outcome is perceived as productive when tangible solutions are reached and objective criteria are met.
6. Effective and appropriate management of conflict means individual goals are addressed and differences are being dealt with openly, honestly, and properly in relation to timing and the situational context.
Interdependent-self collectivists follow the conflict assumptions of a "process-oriented" model:
1. Conflict is weighed against the face threat incurred in the conflict negotiation process it is also being interpreted in the webs of in-group/out-group relationships.
2. Communication in the conflict process perceived as threatening when the conflict parties push for substantive issue discussion before proper facework management.
3. Communication in the conflict interaction is viewed as satisfying when the. Conflict parties engage in mutual face-saying and face-giving behavior rand attend to both verbal and nonverbal signals.
4. The conflict process or outcome is perceived as unproductive when face issues are not addressed and relational/group feeling are not attended to properly.
5. The conflict process or outcome is defined as productive when both conflict parties can claim win-win results on the facework front in addition to substantive agreement.
Appropriate and effective management of conflict means that the: mutual "faces" of the conflict parties are saved or even upgraded in the interaction and they have dealt with the conflict episode strategically in conjunction with substantive gains or losses.
����Thus, whereas individualists are concerned with conflict problem -solution closure, collectivists; are concerned with in-group/out-group face dynamic issues. These implicit conflict assumptions are, in turn, superimposed on the rhythms and pacing of intercultural conflict resolution.
2.2.2 Different Conflict Rhythms
����The consciousness of conflict management rhythms also varies along the individualism-collectivism divide. This operates as the second set of factors contributing to the intercultural conflict, process between individualists and collectivists. Individualistic value tendencies tend to foster monochronic time (M-time) rhythms and collectivistic value. tendencies tend to cultivate polychronic time (P-time) rhythms .While the "I"-identity individuals tend to subscribe to an M-time orientation, the "we"-identity individuals tend to value a P-time orientation.
����As Hall and Hall (1987) explain: "In monochronic cultures, time is experienced and used in a linear way-comparable to a road .... M-time is divided quite naturally into segments; it is scheduled and compartmentalized , making it possible for a person to concentrate on one thing at a time" (p. 16). Hall and Hall identified Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and the United States as prime M-time examples. In contrast, they note, "[P-time] systems are the antithesis of M-time systems. P-time is characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of many things and by a great involvement with people. There is also more emphasis on completing human transactions than on holding schedules ... . P-time is experienced as much less tangible than M-time, and can better be compared to a single point than to a road" (pp. 17-18). Many African, Asian, Latin American, eastern European, Caribbean, and Mediterranean cultures are prime examples of P-time.
����M-time people prefer to deal with conflict from a linear-sequential approach (either via inductive or deductive means); P-time people prefer to handle conflict from a spiral-holistic viewpoint. For M-time individuals, conflict management time should be filled with problem-solving or decision-making activities. For P-time individuals, time is a "being" idea governed by the smooth implicit rhythms in the interaction between people. When conflict occurs between two P-time individuals, they will be more concerned with restoring the disjunctive rhythms in the interaction than in dealing head on with discussion of substantive issues.
����M-time people tend to emphasize agenda setting, objective criteria, and precise schedules to accomplish certain conflict goals. P-time people, in contrast, tend to work on the relational atmosphere and the contextual setting that frame the conflict episode. For M-time individuals, effective conflict negotiation means reaching and implementing tangible conflict outcomes within a clearly established timetable. For P-time individuals, the arbitrary division of clock time or calendar time holds little meaning for them if the relational rhythms between people are "out of sync." For M-time people, a signed contract or written agreement signals joint explicit agreement to the solution of the conflict. However, for P-time people, once the appropriate level of relational rhythm (or rapport and trust) is established, their pledged words can mean more than a signed contract. Likewise, if they perceive that the relational rhythms are disjunctive, then renewed facework negotiation might well be needed to restore that delicate face-honoring point.
����M-time people tend to define conflict in terms of a short- to medium-term timeline; P-time people tend to view time as a long-term, historical process. For P-time members, a "deadline" is always subject to renegotiation and should be dealt with flexibly and patiently People thus can move with different rhythms in conflict negotiation encounters. Intercultural conflict between individualists and collectivists is magnified when the implicit rhythm of time plays a decisive factor in the encounter process.
����M-time individuals want to move faster to address substantive problem and conflict resolution issues, whereas P-time individuals prefer to deal with relational or contextual issues before concrete, substantive negotiation. M-time people want to establish a clear timetable to achieve specific conflict goals and objectives; P-time people want to spend more time building up trust and commitment between the conflict parties. Different M-time and P-time rhythms thus can further polarize individualists and collectivists in the intercultural misattribution process.
����The use of different norms in conflict interaction serves as a third set of factors compounding intercultural clashes. Norms are standards or guide-lines for behavior. They are reflected via our expectations of what constitute "proper" or "improper" behavior in a given setting.
����According to past research (Leung & Bond, 1984; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988), individualists tend to prefer use of the equity norm (i.e., the self-deservingness norm) in dealing with reward allocation (e.g., in dealing with group project points) in conflict interaction. In comparison, collectivists prefer use of the communal norm (i.e., the equal distribution norm-dividing the group project points evenly) in in-group conflict, thereby preserving in-group harmony. The equity norm emphasizes the importance of individual reward and cost calculations and the importance of obtaining equitable rewards in resolving the problematic issue. The communal norm, in contrast, stresses the importance of taking in-group expectations into the calculation and of determining how to satisfy the face needs of the in-group members involved in the conflict.
����While the equity norm reflects the individualistic, outcome-oriented model of conflict resolution, the communal norm reflects the collectivistic, process-oriented model. In addition, it is critical to remember that in collectivistic cultures, different norms govern conflict interaction with in-group and out-group members. Recall that, according to Triandis (1995), in-groups are groups of individuals "about whose welfare a person is concerned, with whom that person is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable re-turns, and separation from whom leads to anxiety" (p. 9). In-groups are usually characterized by members who perceive a "common fate" or shared attributes among them. Out-groups are groups of individuals "with which one has something to divide, perhaps unequally, or are harmful in some way, groups that disagreed on valued attributes" (Triandis, 1995, p. 9).
����According to research findings (Leung & Iwawaki, 1988), for highly important conflicts collectivists (like individualists) prefer the use of the equity norm when competing with out-group members (e.g., people from another company) for needed resources. However, for less important conflicts collectivists prefer the use of the communal, smoothing norm with either in-group or out-group members. We should also remember that each culture has different rules and meanings for proper or improper conflict behavior in dealing with in-group/out-group members in different situations.
����In regarding norms of emotional expression, conflict is essentially an emotionally distressing experience. In two extensive, detailed reviews (Mesquita & Frijida, 1992; Russell, 1991) of culture and emotions, clear cross-cultural emotional expression and interpretation differences are uncovered. Based on these reviews, we can conclude that cultural norms do exist in conflict which regulate displays of "aggressive" or "negative" emotional reactions such as anger, fear, shame, frustration, resentment, and hostility in different cultures. For example, in many individualistic Western cultures, open expressions of emotions are viewed as honest, engaging signals in dealing with a conflict. However, in many collectivistic Asian cultures, maintaining restrained emotional composure is viewed as the self-disciplined, mature way to handle the conflict. Triandis (l994b) also observes that

����The collectivist concern with the possible disruption of [in-group] harmony will press individuals to avoid the expression of negative emotions and to avoid assigning responsibility for negative events to others. Individualists, on the other hand, are more likely than collectivists to engage in actions that may cause anger in others ....Most cultures (about 85% of known cultures ... ) also specify that some role relationships (e.g., mother-in-law/son-in-law, father-in-law/daughter-in-law] must be marked by avoidance-respect-formality, which has the effect of avoiding disruptions of the [in-group]. (pp. 301-302)

����This does not mean, however, that collectivists deal with each other harmoniously all the time. As Triandis (1994b) concludes,

����In collectivist cultures ... norms are very powerful regulators of behavior .... [Japanese returnees] after spending some time abroad are frequently criticized, teased, and bullied by their peers, and even by authorities such as teachers, for "non-Japanese behaviors" such as having a [suntan] or a permanent-wave hairstyle or for eating Western food. Thus, negative emotions will occur in collectivist culture when minor norms are violated to a greater degree than in individualistic cultures. The threat of ostracism is an especially powerful source of fear in collectivist cultures. (p. 302; emphasis in original)

����We must also remember that within-cultures variations exist in each culture. In individualistic cultures, there are interdependent-self individuals who act just like the collectivists. Likewise, in collectivistic cultures, there are independent-self persons who behave just like individualists. We must also keep in mind that behavior is only a partial indicator of a person's identity. To understand a "full-fledged" independent or interdependent person, we must also examine the thinking and affective pattern of this individual.
����Overall, while basic emotions such as anxiety, shame, and fear can be viewed as pancultural conflict emotions, cultural display rules of when to express what nonverbal emotions (to whom and in what context) differ from one cultural community to the next. For example, for collectivists, the masking of "negative" emotions is critical to maintaining a harmonious front during conflict. As noted earlier, when collectivists feel embarrassed or perceive face threat in a conflict situation, they may sometimes smile to cover up their embarrassment or shame.
����Different norms and rules govern the way individualists and collectivists deal with specific conflict issues. When an individualist prefers to use the equity norm to deal with a conflict issue and when a collectivist prefers to use the equality norm, the hidden factor of normative expectations further splinters the intercultural miscommunication process. In addition, the nonverbal/verbal dimension of emotional expression in conflict can vary along the individualism and collectivism schism, creating further conflict tensions and gaps.
2.2.3 Conflict Styles and Facework Strategies
����Findings in many past studies also indicate that people do exhibit quite consistent cross-situational styles of conflict in different cultures. Each culture assumes the primary role of conditioning certain conflict styles or facework behaviors in preference to others (Ting-Toomey, 1994a, 1994b, 1997a). Different conflict styles serve as a fourth set of factors impinging on intercultural negotiations. Different cross-cultural conflict styles further generate different intergroup attribution errors and biases.
����In fact, research across cultures (e.g., in China, Chinese Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taiwan, Mexico, and the United States) clearly indicates that individualists tend to use more self-defensive controlling/dominating and competitive styles in managing conflict than do collectivists. In comparison, collectivists tend to use more collaborative/integrative and compromising styles in dealing with conflict than do individualists. Further-more, collectivists tend to use more obliging and avoiding styles in task-related conflicts than do individualists (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Ting-Toomey et aI., 1991; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991).
����In addition, the use of silence is also a critical strategy in dealing with both in-group and out-group conflicts in collectivistic cultures. Silence can signal either approval or disapproval in collectivistic conflict interaction. In silence, there is no incurrence of obligations by the parties to the conflict. Silence can also be interpreted as an ambiguous "yes" or "no" response. On the other hand, in individualistic cultures, silence may well be viewed as an admission of guilt or a sign of incompetence.
����In examining facework strategies in saving self-face or giving consideration to the other's face, research by Ting-Toomey and associates (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1994b; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) indicates that while individualists tend to use more self-oriented face-saving strategies in conflicts, collectivists tend to use more other-oriented face-saving strategies in such situations. In addition, individualists (e.g., U.S. respondents) tend to use more direct, face-threatening conflict behaviors, whereas collectivists (i.e., Chinese mainland and Chinese Taiwan respondents) tend to use more indirect, mutual face-saving conflict behaviors.
����In cross-ethnic conflict situations, it has been found that the philosophy of Confucianism strongly influences proper facework management Asian American immigrants (Ting-Toorney et al., in press). For Asian Americans who subscribe to their traditional ethnic values, meeting the vital needs of the other person or avoiding the conflict situation altogether enables both conflict parties to "give face" and also "save face."
����In the context of traditional Latino/ a Americans' conflict practices, tactfulness and consideration of others' feelings are considered to be important norms in interpersonal confrontation situations (Casas & Pytluk, 1995; Garcia, 1996; Padilla, 1981). Tactfulness and consideration of others' feelings are conveyed through the use of accommodating and other-concern facework rituals. In commenting on the cultural values and norms of Mexican Americans, for example, Locke (1992) observes that "Whereas members of the dominant culture of the United States are taught to value openness, frankness , and directness, the traditional Mexican-American approach requires the use of much diplomacy and tact when communicating with another individual. Concern and respect for the feelings of others dictate that a screen be provided behind which an individual may preserve dignity" (p. 140).
����In terms of African Americans' conflict styles, Kochman (1981) notes that in most confrontation situations, African Americans and European Americans are divided not only over the content but also over the engagement process. According to Kochman (1981), the "Black mode" of conflict is "high-keyed: animated, interpersonal, and confrontational" whereas the "White mode" of conflict is relatively "low-keyed: dispassionate, impersonal and non-challenging" (p. 18). African Americans tend to prefer emotionally expressive self-face assertion modes, while European Americans often prefer logically inductive self-face defensive modes.
����The explanation for these African American conflict modes can be explained by many factors, including the importance of oral artistry of traditional African culture and the ethnic socialization experiences of African Americans. Spontaneous affective expressions and rich storytelling are highly prized in many traditional African societies. Additionally, the ethnic socialization experiences of African Americans within the larger U.S. culture may well contribute to their emotionally expressive conflict style. As Locke (1992) comments, from that ethnic lens "future successes for their sons [and daughters] hinges on an ability to be alternatively assertive and acquiescent .... [T]he environment of African-American children is an ambiguous and marginal one in which they live simultaneously in two worlds-the African-American world and the world of the dominant culture" (p. 21).
����In investigating ethnic socialization by parents of ethnic minority adolescents, researchers have found that African American parents reported more frequent discussion of prejudice issues with their children than did Japanese American and Mexican American parents (Phinney & Chavira, 1995). Thus, self-face protection via emotionally expressive facework styles may be one method for African Americans to uphold self-pride and handle interpersonal conflicts.
����Several research studies (e.g., Cohen, 1991; Leung, 1987, 1988; Ting-Toomey, 1985, 1988) indicate that collectivists tend to prefer an informal third-party conflict mediation procedure (such as seeking help from relatives or wise teachers or gurus) more than do individualists. While individualists prefer objective advice and facilitation from an impartial formal (certified) third-party mediator, collectivists prefer to seek help from some-one who already is informed as to the conflict situation and whom they can trust and respect.
����Different cross-cultural conflict styles and facework behaviors create different attribution biases and tensions. In attributing meanings to collectivistic, indirect conflict styles, individualists tend to view collectivists in the conflict as trying to sidestep genuine issue discussions. Conversely, collectivists would tend to perceive individualists as too pushy, rude, and over-bearing because of their confrontative, direct conflict style.
2.2.4 Different Ethnocentric Lenses
����In dealing with intercultural conflict situations mindfully, we must first recognize just what ethnocentric lenses we look through to evaluate a conflict situation. In perceiving unfamiliar conflict behaviors, we use our culture-based scripts to evaluate whether the behavior is "proper" or "improper," "nonthreatening" or "threatening." Ethnocentrism colors our perceptions and attitudes in any intergroup-based conflict situation. As Stewart and Bennett (1991) comment,

Participants in a cross-cultural situation need to consider first the possibility that a negative evaluation might be based on unrecognized cultural difference rather than the result of astute cross-cultural analysis. Each person needs to be aware that he or she is evaluating the other, often on similarly ethnocentric grounds, and [should] seek to suspend these kinds of evaluations until the potential spiraling effects of the action have been considered .... [S]wift evaluation is likely to be ethnocentric and detrimental to effective intercultural communication. (p. 167)

����Acknowledging our own ethnocentric biases and suspending our reactive evaluations are critical in managing the intercultural misattribution process. By withholding our gut-level negative judgments concerning unfamiliar behavior, we are giving ourselves and others a chance to understand the cultural nuances that exist in a problematic situation.
2.2.5 Summary
����Thus, different cultural conflict assumptions, rhythms, norms, styles, and ethnocentric lenses act as the many invisible barriers that often widen the gap of intercultural disputes. Individualists and collectivists typically collide over their use of an "outcome-oriented" model or a "process-oriented" model. They also collide over the rhythms, the norms, and the styles of how to approach conflict appropriately and effectively. Finally, ethnocentric lenses may well be distorting the attribution process and creating further evaluative biases and binary mindsets (i.e., "My way is the right way, and your way is wrong").
3. INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS
����Constructive and destructive intercultural conflict management depends on many factors. One of the key factors is the ability to apply flexible communication skills in managing both culture-based and individual-based differences. Constructive intercultural conflict management is defined as the use of culture-sensitive communication skills to manage the process of conflict productively and reach important conflict goals of all parties amicably. By contrast, destructive conflict means the parties are engaging in inflexible thinking and inflexible conflict patterns that lock them into prolonged cycles of defensiveness and mutual dissatisfaction leading to escalation or total impasse.
����In constructive conflict resolution, the parties are mindful of culture-based factors that contribute to the different approaches to the dispute. They are mindful of the different goals that underlie the issue between them. They are also willing to experiment with different constructive conflict management skills and to draw on cultural resources to reach a synergistic common ground. This section is divided into two parts: first, constructive conflict operational skills, and second, suggestions for how individualists and collectivists can deal with conflicts productively.
3.1 Operational Skills Needed for Constructive Conflict Management
����Skills refer to the actual abilities to perform those behaviors that are considered effective and appropriate in a given situation. Operational skills enable us to put our culture-based knowledge into practice. Such skills also depend heavily on our motivation or commitment to working out the conflict peace-fully and productively together with our opponents.
����A major problem exists, however, when individualists and collectivists hold different notions of what constitute effective and appropriate practices in conflict resolution. For individualists a conflict is effectively resolved when personal opinions are voiced and acknowledged, interests are defined and clarified, each side's goals are either reached or compromised, and action plans are drawn up for avoiding trouble in the future. In addition, individualists perceive themselves to have acted appropriately when they display sensitivity to the background and causes of the conflict. Conversely, for collectivists a conflict is effectively resolved when both parties help to attain mutual face saving while reaching a consensus on substantive issues between them. In addition, a conflict is appropriately managed when both sides acknowledge the expectations of the relevant in-groups and give honor and attention to the in-groups' needs. To collectivists, a conflict solution has group-based and long-term implications. It entails fulfilling mutual face needs during disagreement and repaying any incurred "face" debts and obligations from a long-term, historical perspective.
����Overall, the individualistic, outcome-oriented model promotes the criterion of effectiveness over that of appropriateness. Conversely, the collectivistic, process-oriented model emphasizes the criterion of appropriateness over that of effectiveness. Moreover, achieving one criterion may help achieve the other. For individualists, by effectively resolving the substantive issues in conflict, appropriate and cordial interaction between the parties can follow naturally. However, from a collectivist point of view, acting appropriately (in accordance to one's status and position) in the conflict situation and inducing facework cooperation can ultimately bring about effective outcomes. For collectivists, making strategic face moves and incurring face debts from the other party are often much more important than "winning" or "losing" a conflict. From a collectivist perspective, "losing" a given conflict in the moment can be interpreted as "winning" key advantages in the long-term facework obligatory process. Of course, the facework negotiation sequence would vary according to individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies. To manage intercultural conflict constructively, we must take other people's cultural perspectives and personality factors into consideration. If others are interdependent-self collectivists, we may want to pay extra attention to their "process-oriented" assumptions as to the negotiation. If others are independent-self individualists, we may want to be sensitive to their "outcome-oriented" assumptions as to the negotiation. The following are some skills that both individualists and collectivists can practice during their conflict negotiation process (see Figure 8.2).
3.1.1 Mindful Listening
����Acquiring new information in conflict negotiation means both parties have to learn to listen mindfully to each other even when they are disagreeing. In an intercultural conflict situation, disagreeing parties have to learn to listen attentively to the cultural assumptions that are being expressed in the inter-action. They have to learn to listen responsively (ting, the Chinese word for "listening," means attending closely with our "ears, eyes, and a focused heart") to the sounds, tones, gestures, movements, nonverbal nuances, pauses, and silence in a given situation.

����FIGURE 8.2 Constructive intercultural conflict management skills
����The parties have to learn to mindfully notice the verbal, nonverbal, and meta-nonverbal contexts that are being conveyed in the negotiation process. It is also important to create new categories or contexts in "minding" our listening process. Creating new categories in conflicts means learning to apply culturally sensitive concepts such as low-or high-context communication styles in making sense of conflict variation behaviors. Finally, being aware that multiple perspectives exist means individuals can apply different frameworks (such as both individualistic and collectivistic perspectives) in analyzing and interpreting a conflict situation and come up with a creative, synergistic solution.
3.1.2 Mindful Reframing
����Mindful reframing means that both individualists and collectivists need to learn how to "translate" the other's verbal and nonverbal messages from the context of the other's cultural viewpoint. Reframing also means conflict parties need to reprioritize their goals after mindfully observing and listening to the viewpoints and expectations of their opponents. For example, after listening to the complaint from a collectivist, an individualist may realize that the friction lies not in content goal issues but in identity respect/ disrespect issues. Conversely, after understanding the complaint from an individualist, a collectivist may realize that an individualist really wants solution closure and is in no way trying to "slight" the face image of the collectivist. Both parties should also remember that many of these conflicts are based on out-of-awareness cultural habits and scripts.
3.1.3 Face-Management Skills
����Intercultural conflict parties should learn to cultivate face-management skills in dealing with intergroup negotiations competently. Face-management skills basically address the fundamental core issue of social self-esteem. All human beings like to be respected and be approved of in their daily interactions. However, how they behaviorally show such self-respect needs and concerns as well as how others accord them respect and dignity very likely differ from one culture to the next. Individualists may want to learn to "give face" to the collectivists in the conflict negotiation process. Giving face means not humiliating others, especially one's opponents, in public. Here it also means acknowledging collectivists' in-group concerns and obligations. Collectivists, on the other hand, may want to reorient facework concerns and learn to pay more attention to the substantive issues at stake. Collectivists may also want to recognize that individualists often separate substantive issues from socioemotional issues in conflict. Conversely, individualists may want to pay more attention to the interlink between substantive issues and facework/relational is-sues when negotiating disagreements with collectivists. Thus, although the concern for face maintenance is universal, how we manage face issues is a cultural-specific phenomenon.
3.1.4 Trust-Building Skills
����Another skill that is critical in intercultural negotiation competence is that of trust building. If conflict parties do not trust each other, they tend to move away ( cognitively, affectively, and physically) from each other rather than struggle side by side with each other in the negotiations. Trust is often viewed as the single most important element of a good working relationship (Fisher & Brown, 1988). When we do not trust someone's words or actions, we also tend to automatically turn off our listening devices. We may hear the words, but we are not taking them in. Trust building is both a mindset and a communication skill. Especially in intercultural conflict situations, when we are experiencing high anxieties with unfamiliar behavior (e.g., accents, nonverbal gestures), we may automatically withhold our trust. Well-founded trust is critical in any effective and appropriate management of intercultural conflicts.
3.1.5 Constructive Intercultural Conflict Management
����To develop trust, we have to understand the cultural meaning the words "trust" and "trustworthiness". Trust means to rely on the consistency of someone's credibility, words, behaviors, actions, or network sup-port. Trustworthiness means to make our own behaviors or actions worthy of the trust of others. In small power distance cultures, trust is often based on charismatic personality traits, personal credibility, reliability, persuasive words, and decisive actions. In comparison, in large power distance cultures, trust is usually based on credible roles in a reputable organization, dependable family and kinship networks, and consistency between words and actions from a long-term perspective. For example, Lederach (1997), in working with many peace-building projects in Central America (e.g., El Salvador, Guatemala), observes that the following three key terms are vital to the conflict resolution process in this region: confianza, cuello, and coyuntura. In brief, confianza refers to "trust" or "confidence." It refers to individuals who "inspire my confidence" and in whom "I can deposit my trust." Confianza emphasizes sincerity, reliability, and continuous support across time. Cuello literally means neck, the connection of head and heart, but is one of many vernacular metaphors in Spanish for "connections" that help get things done. In other words, Cuello is the strategic use of my network. When faced with everyday problems and conflicts, Central Americans are more likely to think first of "who" than of "what" in order to get out of the problem. Coyuntura is often translated as "juncture" and/or "timing," but it really represents a metaphor for placing oneself in the stream of time and space and determining at any given moment what things mean and therefore what should be done. Coyuntura is "timing" to the degree that timing contemplates the fluidity and art of [the] possible. In practical conflict resolution terms, it means being present and available on an ongoing basis. (Lederach, 1997, p. 96)
����Thus, the trust, networking, and timing (TNT) approach is essential to foster confidence in the peace-making process in the Central American region.
����Understanding core metaphors, terms, and cultural premises and meanings behind these "linguistic categories" sensitize us so we can glimpse part of the social reality from cultural insiders' standpoint. In fact, "xin ren," the Chinese words for "trust," mean a person keeping his or her word consistently, in a dependable manner, and one who will deliver them properly in a functional context. In many high power distance cultures, the pledged words of high-status individuals are their "face." When the words are spoken, the actions will be carried out and promises will be diligently kept. Thus, people in high power distance cultures tend to be verbally cautious in their conflict negotiations. They tend not to trust people who are too "wordy" or "verbally persuasive." They also shun written contracts and documents. For members of large power distance cultures, a handshake between two high-status individuals, a trustworthy relationship, or a long-term face gain perspective is often much more important than a signed piece of paper.
����Trusting someone, however, entails certain risks. In emphasizing the importance of developing a good working relationship as a base, Fisher and Brown (1988) recommend that we should learn to be "trustworthy" but not necessarily "wholly trusting." Being trustworthy means we need to understand the cultural preferences of the strangers concerning the concepts of trust and trustworthiness. We need to understand the expectations they have of our trust-based behavior. We also need to strive to match their expectations with our behavior on a consistently dependable basis. Engaging in trustworthy behavior can lead to a supportive, trusting climate of interaction (rather than a defensive climate) in the conflict negotiation process. Unfortunately, when we are experiencing fear or threat concerning unfamiliar behavior (e.g., accents, nonverbal gestures), we often automatically with-hold our trust. Well-founded trust is critical in any effective and appropriate management of facework interaction.
3.2 Collaborative Dialogue and Communication Adaptability
����The last two sets of constructive conflict management skills are collaborative dialogue and communication adaptability.
3.2.1 Collaborative Dialogue
����In collaborative dialogue sessions with collectivists, individualists may want to (1) practice patience and verbal restraint in articulating their personal interests, goals, and wants; (2) use vocal segregates or back-channeling cues such as "uhm, uhm" or "uh-huh" to signal listening attentiveness; (3) be open to the expressions of stories, proverbs, metaphors, analogies, and understatements; (4) use self-effacing questions to encourage the others to coach you or show you the way; (5) address the conflict problem to general team members rather than singling out one person; (6) accept longer turn-taking pauses and reflective silences; (7) use appropriate head nods to indicate identity affirmation ; and (8) listen to the identity and relational meanings that underscore the conflict content messages.
����In collaborative dialogue sessions with individualists, collectivists may want to (1) practice verbal assertiveness in articulating their personal interests, goals, and wants; (2) use direct verbal responses to indicate agreements, negotiable points, and disagreements; (3) articulate clearly the reasons behind the disagreement from either an inductive mode (i.e., from specific reasons to general conclusions when dealing with, say, U.S. Americans) or a deductive logical mode (i.e., from a general framework to specific reasons when dealing with, say, western Europeans); (4) use direct, specific questions to cross-check facts, interests, and unclear goals; (5) target the questions to a specific individual; (6) learn to engage in overlap talks and faster turn-taking verbal behavior; (7) use verbal paraphrasing to summarize what you have heard in your own words so as to prevent misunderstanding; (8) use perception check questions to clarify whether you have interpreted the nonverbal messages accurately; and (9) listen to content messages and action plans, as well as identity and relational meanings that underlie content messages.
����Collaborative dialogue is based on a culture-sensitive, respectful inquiry process in which conflict parties try to suspend their own assumptions regarding the conflict situation. Rather, they work on inviting the other conflict parties to tell their stories, expectations, and needs. In the inquiry stage, new dimensions of thinking, feeling, and seeing are explored. Cultural dimensions of inquiry can include the following questions: (1) What are their cultural identity tendencies-individualistic-based or group-based? (2)What is their power value tendencies-horizontal-based or vertical-based? (3) What are their facework assumptions the "I" -identity or "we"-identity facework model? (4) What are their preferred interaction styles-direct, low-context or indirect, high-context styles?
����Personal dimensions of inquiry can include the following questions: (1) What activates their personal motivations-independent-self or interdependent-self motivations-and what is the extent of discrepancy between the personal-self and the cultural-self motivations? (2) How would they like to be respected-on an equal basis or a deferential basis? (3) What would it take to satisfy their face needs-approval face (self vs. other) and/or bound-ary respect (personal privacy vs. group-based regulation) issues? (4) What are the most effective ways to practice appropriate facework interaction in this particular situation?
����Collaborative dialogue, in a long-term negotiation session, aims to unfold common identity need issues such as safety, honor/dignity, boundary, approval, competence, and meaning issues. The more we learn to display a genuine, inquiring attitude, the more we may uncover deep-level common interests and common ground. Collaborative dialogue also emphasizes inclusivity in terms of drawing from local cultural resources in mediating or managing the historical, intergroup conflict problem. To engage in genuine collaborative dialogue, the international community needs to adopt a paradigm shift: "that we move beyond a simple prescription of answers and modalities for dealing with conflict from outside the setting and focus at least as much attention on discovering and empowering the resources, modalities, and mechanisms for building peace that exist [within] the context" (Lederach, 1997, p. 95).
����Many examples of cultural resources' inclusivity can be identified. From Somalia, we have the extraordinary example of "women functioning as fore-runners in rebuilding interclan communication, which prepared the way for clan conferences-guided by elders and massaged by poets-that led to 1ocal and regional peace agreements. From Mozambique is the ... example of the UNICEF-funded ��Circus of Peace', built on traditional arts, music, and drama, which targeted and incorporated children at the village level in conflict resolutions and peace building activities" (Lederach, 1997, p. 95). While the roads to peace are diverse, the ultimate goal of universal peace without violence remains a common vision.
����After understanding the different angles on all issues (e.g., cultural premises toward conflicts, face/identity, relational, and process issues), the two cultural teams can then use the following substantive problem-solving sequence: differentiation, mutual problem description, and integration (Papa & Papa, 1997). The differentiation phase refers to the important stage of clarifying conflict positions, interests, and goals, and pursuing the underlying reasons that underscore the positional differences. The mutual problem description phase refers to the stage wherein the conflict problem is described in specific, mutually understandable terms. Each party tries to use neutral-toned language to describe the conflict situation and its related dilemmas. Individuals refrain from any evaluative comments or intrusive interruptions. Individuals also focus on peace-building outcomes rather than on assigning blames. Lastly, the integration phase includes (1) displaying cooperative, mutual-interest intentions via culture-sensitive verbal and non-verbal acknowledgment and supportive messages; (2) generating creative solutions via a wide range of cultural approaches such as traditional dramas, storytelling, naming cultural metaphors, proverbs, visualization or sculpting techniques (i.e., using people as nonverbal living sculptures to role-play the solutions), and Western "brainstorming"; (3) evaluating the positive and negative aspects of each solution and making sure that all cultural members are committed and involved in the selection process; (4) combining the best of different solutions that members of both teams help to blend together; (5) selecting the best synergistic solutions that are applicable (i.e., desirable and feasible) to both cultural teams; and (6) establishing a monitoring system (e.g., a timeline and criteria for successful implementation) to determine if the solution or action plan is culturally workable.
3.2.2 Communication Adaptability
����All the skills already mentioned cannot be applied prescriptively. Depending on the context, the conflict issue, the people, relationship, resources, and timing, no conflict resolution relies primarily on collaborative dialogue or mindful reframing alone. Even in the best of negotiations, there will be a mixed pattern of competitive and collaborative exchanged messages. The key in any constructive conflict management is to be flexible and adaptable and not be locked into one set of thinking patterns or behavioral patterns.
����Communication adaptability is one of the key skills to constructive intercultural conflict negotiation. Communication adaptability refers to our ability to change our conflict goals and behaviors to meet the specific needs of the situation (Duran, 1985, 1992). It signals our mindful awareness of the other person's perspectives, interests, and/or goals, and our willingness to modify our own interests or goals to adapt to the conflict situation. It can also imply behavioral flexibility in dealing with the intercultural conflict episode. By mindfully observing what is going on in the intercultural conflict situation, both parties may modify their nonverbal and verbal behavior to achieve a more synchronized interaction process. In modifying or tailoring our behavioral styles, polarized views on the conflict content problem may also be depolarized or "softened."
����In sum, constructive intercultural conflict management requires us to communicate effectively and appropriately in different intercultural situations, which necessitates adaptation. Constructive conflict management requires us to be knowledgeable and respectful of different world views and multiple approaches to dealing with a conflict situation. It requires us to be sensitive to the differences and similarities between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. It also demands that we be aware of our own ethnocentric biases and cultural-based attributions when making snapshot evaluations of other people's conflict management approaches.
����Constructive conflict negotiation promotes flexible, adaptive behaviors in attuning to both the process and the outcome of an intercultural conflict episode. While the study of intercultural conflict is a complex phenomenon, understanding conflict along the individualism-collectivism continuum and the personal variation continuum (e.g., the independent and interdependent self across a spectrum) serves as the beginning step in under-standing conflict variations among different clusters of cultures.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
����Some specific recommendations can be made based on differences in individualistic and collectivistic styles of conflict management. These recommendations, however, are not listed in the order of importance. In order to deal with conflict constructively in the collectivistic culture, individualists need to do the following:
1. Be mindful of the mutual face-saving premises in a collectivistic culture. Strategic skills of managing the delicate balance of humiliation and pride, sincerity and appropriateness, shame and honor are critical. Culture-sensitive face-protecting and face-honoring moves, the use of same status negotiators, and the proprieties of gracious "face fighting" have to be strategically staged with the larger group audience in mind.
2. Be proactive in dealing with low-grade conflict situations (such as by using informal consultation or "go-between" methods) before they escalate into runaway escalatory conflict spirals. Individualists should try to realize that by helping their opponent to save face, they may also enhance their own face. Face is intrinsically an interdependent/relational connectedness concept in many collectivistic cultures.
3. "Give face" and try not to push their opponent's back against the wall with no room to maneuver face loss or recovery. They should learn to let their opponent find a gracious way out of the conflict situation if at all possible (i.e., without violating the basic principle of fundamental human rights). They should also learn self-restraint and try not to humiliate their opponent in the public arena or slight her or his public reputation if at all possible. For collectivists, "giving face" typically operates from a long-term historical perspective.
4. Practice patient, mindful observation. Individualists need to be mindful of the past events that bear relevance to the present conflict situation. They also need to restrain themselves from asking too many "why" questions. Since collectivists typically focus on the nonverbal "how" process, individualists need to learn to experience the conflict process on the implicit, nonverbal rhythmic level.
5. Practice attentive listening skills. Attend to the sounds, movements, and emotional experiences of the other person. Patient and attentive listening indicates that one person is attending to the other person's identity and relational expectation issue. Individualists should remember that the word "listen" can become "silent" by rearranging the letters.
6. Discard the Western model of effective communication skills in dealing with conflict situations in high-context cultures. Individualists should learn to use qualifiers, disclaimers, tag questions, and tentative statements to convey their thoughts. In refusing a request, they should learn not to use a blunt "no" as a response, as that word is typically conceived as carrying high face-threat value in high-context cultures. They should also learn to use self-effacing accounts (e.g., "Perhaps someone else is more qualified than I am in working on this project") or conditional statements (e.g., "I'm honored by your invitation, but I think someone else is more suitable to present this report ... ") to signal a refusal.
7. Let go of a conflict situation if the opposite side does not want to deal with it directly. A cooling period sometimes may help to mend a bro-ken relationship and deescalate the intensity of a dispute. Individualists should remember that avoidance is part of the integral conflict style that is commonly used in high-context cultures. Avoidance does not necessarily mean that collectivists do not care to resolve the conflict. In all likelihood, avoidance is being strategically used to avoid a face-threatening process and is meant to maintain face harmony and mutual face dignity.
Some specific recommendations also can be made for collectivists in handling conflict with individualists. When encountering a conflict situation in an individualistic culture, collectivists need to do the follow-109:
1. Be mindful of the outcome assumptions of the conflict situation.
The ability to separate the relationship from the conflict problem is critical to constructive conflict negotiation in an individualistic culture. Collectivists need to learn to compartmentalize the task dimension and the socioemotional dimension of conflict.
2. Focus in resolving the substantive issues of the conflict, and learn to openly express their opinions in a conflict scene. Collectivists should try not to take the conflict issues to the personal level, and they should learn to maintain distance between the person and the problem. They should also try not to take offense by the up-front, low-context conflict style.
3. Engage in an assertive style of conflict behavior emphasizing the right of both parties to speak up in the conflict situation and to respect each other's right to defend his or her position. Collectivists need to learn to open a conflict dialogue with a clear thesis statement, and then to develop the key point systematically with evidence, examples, figures, or a well-planned proposal. They also need to accept criticisms and suggestions for modification as part of the ongoing dialogue.
4. Acknowledge being individually accountable for the conflict decision-making process, which means using "I" statements in expressing their opinions, in describing their feelings, and in actively sharing their thought process. Collectivists should assume a sender-responsible approach to man-aging the conflict constructively. They should also learn to ask more "why" questions and probe for clear explanations and details.
5. Provide active verbal feedback and engage in active listening skills.
Active listening skill means collectivists have to engage in active verbal paraphrasing and perception checking skills and to ensure that the other person is understanding their points thoroughly. Collectivists have to learn to occasionally disclose their emotions, attitudes, and experiences within the conflict process itself. They cannot rely solely on nonverbal signals and count on other people to "intuit" their reactions.
6. Learn to "grab the floor" faster if they have something to say in the conflict negotiation process. Collectivists also may not want to engage in too many silent moments, as individualists will infer that as inefficient use of time.
7. Commit to working out the conflict situation with the other party.
Collectivists should learn to use more active task-based inquiry strategies and be more outcome-oriented in thinking of the consequences of an unresolved conflict. They can also work on managing the defensive climate and learn to build up trust and bring down their fear concerning dissimilar others.
����Both individualists and collectivists need to be mindful of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral blinders that they bring to a conflict encounter. They need to continuously develop new visions and ideas in dealing with differences. They need to be provided with enough space, a contact place for a true encounter. Reconciliation of any group-based or person-based differences must be "proactive in seeking to create an encounter where people can focus on their relationship and share their perceptions, feelings, and experiences with one another, with the goal of creating new perceptions and a new shared experience" (Lederach, 1997, p. 30).
����In managing conflicts constructively, all cultural members need to possess flexible intercultural conflict negotiation skills in managing diversities and uncovering common interests. By pooling their cultural and personal resources, different cultural and ethnic members can learn to engage in the peace-building process together-and to create a more just and harmonious human society.

REFERENCE

Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Simul Press.

Casas, J. M., & Pytluk, S. (1995). Hispanic identity development: Implications for research and practice. In J. Ponterotto, J. Casas, L. Suzuki, & C. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chua, E., & Gudykunst, W. (1987). Conflict resolution style in low-and-high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32-37.

Cocroft, B. �CA., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469-506.

Cohen, R. (1991). Negotiating across cultures: Communication obstacles in international diplomacy. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.

Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Duran, R. (1985). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320-326.

Duran, R. (1992). Communicative adaptability: A review of conceptualization and measurement. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320-326.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate. New York: Free Press.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Garcia, W. R. (1996). Respeto: A Mexican base for interpersonal relationships. In W. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures. Thousand Oaks��CA��Sage.

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

Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life. New York; Doubleday.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture��s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Imahori, T., & Cupach, W. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: U. S. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural communication: A reaser (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.

Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898-908.

Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793-804.

Leung, K., & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49.

Locke, D. (1992). Increasing multicultural understanding: An employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Business One-Irwin.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 2, 224-253.

Mesquita, B., & Frijida, N. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 112, 179-204.

Padilla, A. (1981). Pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy for Hispanic Americans. In A. Marsella & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Cross-cultural counseling and psychotherapy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Papa, M., & Papa, W. (1997). Competence in organizational conflicts. In W. Cupach & D. Canary (Ed.), Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phinney, J., & Chvira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent outcomes in ethnic minority families. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 31-54.

Russell, J. (1991). Clture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 426-450.

Steward, E., & Bennett, M. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Ting-toomey, S. & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.

Ting-toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict style: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994a). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994b). Managing conflict in intimate intercultural relationships. In D. Cahn (Eds.), Intimate conflict in personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1997a). Intercultural conflict competence. In W. Cupach & D. Canary (Eds.), Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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.

Triandis, H. (1994b). Major cultural syndromes and emotion. In S. Kitayama & H. Markus (Eds), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S. & Lin, S. �CL. (1991). The influence of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65-84.

Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. (1998). Interpersonal conflict (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

��

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. What are the definitional characteristics of intercultural conflict?
Key:

2. Discuss the factors that may affect intercultural conflict.
Key:

3. Discuss the skills that are required for the intercultural conflict management.
Key:

����������������������������

How is productive conflict different from destructive conflict quizlet?

Which type of conflict occurs when people differ in ideologies on specific issues?

Which of the following is a characteristic of intercultural allies?

How can a dialectical perspective be applied to intercultural conflict situations?