Content uploaded by Stephen M. Croucher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen M. Croucher on Sep 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Mr Stephen M Croucher]
On: 04 September 2012, At: 11:39
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Research Reports
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20
Conflict Styles and High–Low Context
Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension
Stephen M. Croucher
a
, Ann Bruno
b
, Paul McGrath
b
, Caroline
Adams
b
, Cassandra McGahan
b
, Angela Suits
b
& Ashleigh Huckins
b
a
School of Communication, Arts at Marist College
b
Marist College
Version of record first published: 13 Jan 2012
To cite this article: Stephen M. Croucher, Ann Bruno, Paul McGrath, Caroline Adams, Cassandra
McGahan, Angela Suits & Ashleigh Huckins (2012): Conflict Styles and High–Low Context Cultures: A
Cross-Cultural Extension, Communication Research Reports, 29:1, 64-73
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.640093
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
BRIEF REPORT
Conflict Styles and High–Low Context
Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension
Stephen M. Croucher, Ann Bruno, Paul McGrath,
Caroline Adams, Cassandra McGahan, Angela Suits,
& Ashleigh Huckins
This study examines the assertion that culture influences conflict style preference. Data
were gathered in India (n ¼ 657), Ireland (n ¼ 311), Thailand (n ¼ 232), and the United
States (n ¼ 592). Conflict was measured using Oetzel’s Conflict Style Measure. Results
confirm that high-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging
conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas
low-context nations prefer the dominating conflict style more than high-context nations.
However, results of this study are contrary to previous research in that high-context
nations prefer the compromising style more than do low-context nations, and the nations
are mixed in their level of preference for the integrating style.
Keywords: Conflict Styles; Culture; Hall; Nation
Conflict is a significant aspect of communication. Hocker and Wilmot (1991) defined
conflict as an ‘‘expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who
perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party
in achieving their goals’’ (p. 12). Individuals manage conflict in multiple ways.
Approaches to conflict management are manifested in various conflict styles (Blake
& Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983). Scholars have tested the relationship between
Stephen M. Croucher (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2006) is an Associate Professor in the School of
Communication and the Arts at Marist College. Ann Bruno, Paul McGrath, Caroline Adams, Cassandra
McGahan, Angela Suits, and Ashleigh Huckins received their MA in Communication from Marist College
in 2011. All student authors are randomly listed to indicate their equal participation in this endeavor.
Correspondence: Stephen M. Croucher, School of Communication and the Arts, Marist College, LT211b,
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601; E-mail: stephen.croucher@marist.edu
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 29, No. 1, January–March 2012, pp. 64–73
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) # 2012 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.640093
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
conflict styles and cultural, relational, and situational variables (Conrad, 1991;
Croucher, DeMaris, Holody, Hicks, & Oommen, 2011; Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey
& Kurogi, 1998; Zhang, 2007) and specifically pointed out the significance of studying
the relationship between conflict and culture (Cai & Fink, 2002; Chau & Gudykunst,
1987; Kim & Leung, 2000; Tafoya, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1985; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, &
Yee-Jung, 2001).
Studies have explored how cultural variables such as individualism–collectivism
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001), self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and context (Hall,
1976) influence approaches to conflict. Cai and Fink (2002) found the avoiding style
is more preferred by individualists, whereas collectivists prefer the compromising and
integrating style. Oetzel (1998) found self-construal to be a greater predictor of con-
flict style preference than either ethnic or cultural background. Chau and Gudykunst
(1987) and Ting-Toomey (1985) suggested context explains conflict style preference.
Context is the environment in which the communication takes place (Hall, 1976).
High-context communication or messages are ones ‘‘in which most of the infor-
mation is either in the physical context or internalized in the person while very little
is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message’’ (p. 79). In low-context mes-
sages, most of the information is ‘‘vested in the explicit code’’ (p. 79). In high-context
cultures, publicly disagreeing with someone may cause embarrassment or a loss of
‘‘face’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1985), whereas in low-context cultures, people are likely to
separate the issue from the person in a conflict. Ting-Toomey argued that individuals
from low-context cultures are more prone to use ‘‘explicit communication codes,
time-logic style, rational-factual rhetoric, and open, direct strategies’’ (p. 82), and
individuals from high-context cultures use more ‘‘implicit communication codes,
point-logic style, intuitive-affective rhetoric, and ambiguous, indirect strategies’’ in
conflict (p. 82). In a later test of Ting-Toomey’s theory, Chau and Gudykunst
(1987) found individuals from low-context cultures used solution-oriented conflict
styles more than individuals from high-context cultures, and individuals from
high-context cultures preferred non-confrontation.
The purpose of this study is to further Ting-Toomey’s (1985) theory that culture
influences conflict style preference and the results of Chau and Gudykunst (1987).
Specifically, this study explores conflict styles in four nations that differ in levels of con-
text (Hall, 1976). The United States and Ireland are low-context nations, whereas
Thailand and India are high-context nations (Hall, 1976). Along with this difference,
approaches to conflict in Ireland, Thailand, and India are vastly understudied and in
need of further clarification (Croucher et al., 2011; Iamsudha & Hale, 2003; Polkinghorn
& Byrne, 2001). Furthermore, each of these nations has vastly different histories, polit-
ical systems, economies, and religious communities. Such differences among nations are
likely to influence communicative behaviors, such as conflict (Croucher, 2011).
Conflict Styles
There are various ways to handle conflicts. People can manage conflict situations
through a number of styles or ‘‘patterned responses to conflict in a variety of situations’’
Communication Research Reports 65
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
(Ting-Toomey et al., 1999, p. 48). Although many models of conflict styles have been
studied and created, most borrow from the original conceptualizations developed by
Blake and Mouton (1964). The five generally accepted conflict styles include avoiding,
compromising, dominating, integrating, and obliging (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993;
Oetzel, 1998; Rahim, 1983). The avoiding style ignores=withdraws from a conflict,
the compromising style attempts to find middle ground to rapidly resolve a conflict,
dominating involves putting individual interests ahead of others, integrating is when
individuals try to appease the interest of all parties, and obliging is when an individual
sacrifices his or her own needs for the needs of others (Croucher, 2011; Rahim, 1983).
National Culture and Conflict Styles
Conflict studies have not directly compared these four nations. Research has examined
conflict in Ireland, Thailand, and India. Additional studies have compared the United
States to various other nations. In Thailand, most people use the avoiding style (a
high-context culture) and follow the ‘‘wait and see’’ approach in conflict situations.
They often believe conflict ‘‘will eventually fade away’’ and ‘‘can= should be over-
looked’’ (Iamsudha & Hale, 2003, pp. 4–5). Protestants in Northern Ireland (a
low-context culture) prefer to use an accommodating (compromising) conflict style
(Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001). In India (predominantly a high-context culture),
Hindus prefer the integrating and dominating styles, and least prefer the avoiding
and obliging styles. Muslims use the integrating and compromising styles, and least
prefer the dominating and avoiding styles (Croucher et al., 2011). Ting-Toomey
et al. (1991) found groups with a stronger cultural identity with the United States
(i.e., European Americans—a low-context culture) used integrating, compromising,
and emotionally expressive styles the most, whereas Asian Americans (a high-context
culture) tended to use the avoiding conflict style more. In other studies, U.S. parti-
cipants were found to use a dominating style more than many Asian cultures=nations
(Ohbuchi, Fukushima, & Tedeschi, 1999; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Chau and
Gudykunst (1987) found most Americans (a low-context culture) prefer active forms
of conflict resolution, whereas Mexicans (a high-context culture) prefer to deny the
existence of conflict. Research has clearly demonstrated that conflict styles differ in
high- and low-context cultures, as individuals in these different settings approach
the situations in different ways. Therefore, based on the research revealing differences
in conflict styles across national cultures, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: High-context cultures prefer to use indirect (avoiding and obliging) and
solution-oriented (compromising and integrating) conflict styles more, whereas
low-context cultures prefer to use the direct conflict strategy (dominating) more.
Method
Participants and Procedures
A total of 1,792 people participated in the study: India (n ¼ 657), Ireland (n ¼ 311),
Thailand (n ¼ 232), and the United States (n ¼ 592). Indian participants ranged in
66 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
age from 18 to 69 (M ¼ 30.52, SD ¼ 9.88), Irish participants from 18 to 57
(M ¼ 31.17, SD ¼ 9.81), Thai participants from 21 to 45 (M ¼ 30.94, SD ¼ 6.21),
and U.S. participants from 18 to 57 (M ¼ 30.55, SD ¼ 9.59). In India, men made
up 54.8% (360) of the sample, and women made up 45.2% (297) of the sample.
In Ireland, men made up 53.1% (165) of the sample, and women made up 46.9%
(146) of the sample. In Thailand, men made up 59.1% (137) of the sample, and
women made up 40.9% (95) of the sample. In the United States, men accounted
for 53.5% (317) of the sample, and women accounted for 46.5% (275) of the sample.
As for the self-identified religious makeup of the sample, the Indian sample contained
three religious groups: Hindu (62.1%; n ¼ 408), Sunni Muslim (31.4%; n ¼ 206), and
Christian (6.6%; n ¼ 43). The Irish sample contained four religious groups: Protes-
tants (56.3%; n ¼ 175), Catholics (40.5%; n ¼ 126), Fundamental Christians (2.3%;
n ¼ 7), and Jews (1%; n ¼ 3). The Thai sample was entirely Buddhist. The U.S. sam-
ple contained six religious groups: Catholics (41.2%; n ¼ 244), Protestants (40.2%;
n ¼ 238), Hindus (7.6%; n ¼ 45), Sunni=Shia Muslims (6.4%; n ¼ 38), Fundamental
Christians (3.5%; n ¼ 21), and Jews (1%; n ¼ 6). The Indian sample contained 75
(11.41%) college students, the Irish sample had 34 (10.93%), Thailand had 40
(17.24%), and the U.S. sample had 78 (13.18%).
After receiving institutional review board approval, data for this study were col-
lected through self-administered paper and online questionnaires in 2009 and 2010.
The principal investigator elicited participants from each nation through numerous
social networks and through the assistance of various religious organizations in India,
Ireland, and Thailand. In the United States, data were collected through the
same means, as well as at universities in the Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest.
Participants received no financial incentive for participation.
Instrument
All surveys included demographic questions and the Conflict Style Instrument
(Oetzel, 1998). Surveys were prepared in English, Hindi, and Thai. After the instru-
ment was written in English, a native speaker of Hindi and Thai translated it. A
bilingual speaker then back-translated it. All translations were then compared to
ensure accuracy.
Conflict Style Instrument. Oetzel’s (1998) 38-item Conflict Style Instrument was
used to measure conflict styles. The measure is a combination of Rahim’s (1983)
28-item Conflict Inventory II (ROCI–II) and 10 items on identity=construal that sup-
plement the 28 ROCI–II items. Combined, the items measure an individual’s propen-
sity for avoiding (9 items), compromising (7 items), dominating (6 items), integrating
(9 items), and obliging (7 items) in conflict situations. The measure, a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree), asked individuals how
they would react in conflict situations. A sample conflict style question is, ‘‘I would
avoid open discussion of my differences.’’ A sample identity=construal question is,
‘‘I would hope that the situation would resolve itself.’’ Cronbach’s alphas in the
Communication Research Reports 67
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
1998 study for the five conflict styles ranged from .75 to .90. See Table 1 for the means,
standard deviations, correlations, and alphas associated with the study variables by
nation.
Results
To test H1, five one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted. The
hypothesis stated culture influences conflict style preference. There was a main effect
for national culture on the avoiding conflict style: Welch’s F(3, 1,747) ¼ 66.14,
p < .0001 (g
2
¼ .10). High-context nations (India and Thailand) preferred the avoid-
ing conflict style more than the low-context nations (Ireland and the United States).
There was also a main effect for national culture on the compromising conflict
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, Alphas, and Mean Differences
Associated With the Study Variables
Variable MSDa 12345
India
1. Dominating
a,b,c
4.19 1.62 .78 —
2. Integrating
f,g,h
5.79 0.73 .84 .08
—
3. Avoiding
k,l,m
6.41 1.48 .92 .43
.76
—
4. Obliging
q,r
5.02 1.08 .91 .45
.68
.94
—
5. Compromising
u,v,w
5.23 0.93 .87 .47
.80
.93
.96
—
Ireland
1. Dominating
c,e
4.89 1.32 .91 —
2. Integrating
h,i
5.45 0.99 .90 .32
—
3. Avoiding
m,n,o
5.72 1.56 .87 .22
.38
—
4. Obliging
r,s
4.80 0.98 .86 .12
.69
.70
—
5. Compromising
w,x
4.63 1.36 .85 .13
.77
.58
.84
—
Thailand
1. Dominating
b,d
3.92 1.05 .80 —
2. Integrating
g,j
5.32 0.95 .91 .06 —
3. Avoiding
l,o,p
6.09 1.43 .87 .02 .68
—
4. Obliging
t
4.97 0.76 .79 .22
.80
.89
—
5. Compromising
v,x,y
4.98 1.09 .92 .13
.89
.83
.89
—
United States
1. Dominating
a,d,e
5.08 1.39 .83 —
2. Integrating
f,I,j
4.99 1.07 .91 .30
—
3. Avoiding
k,n,p
5.25 1.41 .84 .32
.22
—
4. Obliging
q,s,t
4.49 1.05 .77 .29
.62
.55
—
5. Compromising
u,y
4.66 1.03 .88 .32
.83
.38
.72
—
Note. Superscripts represent significant mean differences in each conflict style using the Games–Howell
procedure. ps < .05.
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .0001.
68 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
style: Welch’s F(3, 1,760) ¼ 36.58, p < .0001 (g
2
¼ .06). High-context cultures preferred
the compromising style more than the low-context nations. National culture also had a
significant effect on the dominating conflict style: Welch’s F(3, 1,775) ¼ 62.14,
p < .0001 (g
2
¼ .10). The low-context nations preferred the dominating style more than
the high-context nations. The integrating style was also affected by national culture:
Welch’s F(3, 1,744) ¼ 76.79, p < .0001 (g
2
¼ .12). Regarding the integrating style, the
differences were not dichotomous (high vs. low context). Indians (a high-context
nation) had the highest preference for integration, with Americans (a low-context
nation) scoring the lowest. The Irish (a low-context nation) were the second highest
in favor of integration, with Thais (a high-context nation) scoring the second lowest.
Finally, there was a significant main effect for national culture on the obliging style:
Welch’s F(3, 1,759) ¼ 30.01, p < .0001 (g
2
¼ .05). For the obliging style, members of
high-context nations (India and Thailand) scored highest in preference, and members
Table 2 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National
Culture and the Avoiding Conflict Style
Source df SS MS F
Between groups 3 425.82 141.94 66.14
Within groups 1,747 3,748.94 21.46
Total 1,750 4,174.76
Note. SS ¼ sum of square; MS ¼ mean square.
p < .0001.
Table 3 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National
Culture and the Compromising Conflict Style
Source df SS MS F
Between groups 3 125.31 41.77 36.58
Within groups 1,760 2,009.47 1.14
Total 1,763 2,134.78
Note. SS ¼ sum of square; MS ¼ mean square.
p < .0001.
Table 4 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National
Culture and the Dominating Conflict Style
Source df SS MS F
Between groups 3 380.85 126.95 62.14
Within groups 1,775 3,626.05 2.04
Total 1,778 4,006.89
Note. SS ¼ sum of square; MS ¼ mean square.
p < .0001.
Communication Research Reports 69
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
of low-context nations (Ireland and the United States) scored the lowest. Because
Levene’s test showed significant differences in each conflict style’s variance between
the nations and as the sample sizes were not equal, Games–Howell post hoc tests were
conducted. The results of these post hoc tests are in Table 1, and ANOVA summaries
are in Tables 2 through 6.
Discussion
The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. First, Ting-Toomey
(1985) asserted culture could explain conflict resolution styles. Results from our
study confirm much of Ting-Toomey’s research. Individuals from high-context cul-
tures (India and Thailand) are more likely to use indirect conflict strategies, such as
non-confrontation strategies (avoiding and obliging). These results are consistent
with previous studies that show individuals from predominantly high-context
cultures (which are often collectivistic as well) are more prone to avoid or oblige
in conflicts (Chau & Gudykunst, 1987; Ohbuchi et al., 1999; Ting-Toomey et al.,
1991). As for the dominating conflict style, Americans and Irish significantly pre-
ferred this style more than Indians and Thais did, revealing how individuals from
low-context cultures prefer to control conflict situations. This result mirrors previous
studies showing how members of low-context cultures typically prefer to dominate in
conflict situations (Cai & Fink, 2002; Croucher, 2011; Dsilva & Whyte, 1998; Oetzel,
Arcos, Mabizela, Weinman, & Zhang, 2006; Zhang, 2007).
Second, although the majority of the findings confirmed Ting-Toomey’s (1985)
and Chau and Gudykunst’s (1987) findings, some of the results were contrary. Overall,
Table 5 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National
Culture and the Integrating Conflict Style
Source df SS MS F
Between groups 3 195.79 65.26 76.79
Within groups 1,744 1,482.26 0.85
Total 1,747 1,678.05
Note. SS ¼ sum of square; MS ¼ mean square.
p < .0001.
Table 6 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for National
Culture and the Obliging Conflict Style
Source df SS MS F
Between groups 3 92.94 30.98 30.01
Within groups 1,759 1,815.97 1.03
Total 1,762 1,908.91
Note. SS ¼ sum of square; MS ¼ mean square.
p < .0001.
70 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
the high-context nations scored higher than the low-context nations on the solution-
oriented styles (compromising and integrating). Indians and Thais both scored higher
than Americans and the Irish on compromising, whereas only Indians scored higher
on the integrating style. Overall, the results demonstrate that the high-context nations
in this particular study are more apt to favor a solution orientation than the
low-context nations. This result is counter to those found by Chau and Gudykunst
in which members of low-context cultures preferred solution-oriented styles. There
are multiple explanations for differences in this result. First, it is possible that as the
economies of India and Thailand both grow rapidly, the approaches to conflict in these
cultures must take on a more solution-oriented style. Tharoor (2007) explained how as
Southeast Asian economies expand, approaches to negotiations in this region must
adapt to compete in a global market. Thus, the integration of ideas and collaboration
in nations such as India and Thailand, two of the fastest growing economies, makes
sense. Second, it is plausible that the potential changing nature of individualism in
these nations could be impacting conflict styles. As research has revealed relationships
among context, individualism, and conflict (Cai & Fink, 2002; Chau & Gudykunst,
1987), it is plausible that individualism is in flux in these traditionally high-context
nations. Third, this study sampled individuals in their native nations, whereas Chau
and Gudykunst sampled international students in the United States from 37 nations
(n ¼ 366). Chau and Gudykunst stated, ‘‘[I]nternational students in the United States
are not the ‘best’ respondents to test the theory. Ideally, respondents in many different
cultures would be used. There is, however no reason to rule out the use of international
students’’ (p. 35). Perhaps the results of our study reveal further differences between
international students in the United States and individuals in their native nations.
Next, the results of this study expand our intercultural understanding of conflict.
Although there is a depth of research exploring conflict in the United States and parts
of Southeast Asia, Ireland, India, and Thailand have been relatively neglected by con-
flict literature. Croucher et al. (2011) urged scholars to further explore how conflict
manifests itself in India, as India is now the fastest growing nation in the world and
one of the least explored cultures in the field of communication studies. The continued
exploration of conflict in Ireland and Thailand also helps us better understand conflict
in an ever-changing world (Iamsudha & Hale, 2003; Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001).
A limitation of this study is the sampling. Data in India were collected in various
cities and rural areas in and around those cities (Kolkota, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai,
Ahmadabad, Mysore, and Hyderabad). Data in the United States were collected in
rural and urban areas of the Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest. However, data in
Ireland were predominantly collected in and around Dublin, and data in Thailand
were collected in and around Bangkok. Thus, large portions of Ireland and Thailand
were not considered during the data collection. Therefore, generalizing to areas
outside of Dublin and Bangkok should be done with caution.
A first step for future research would be to strive for more representative samples
in each nation. Although the samples for this study in each nation were relatively
diverse in age, educational level, sex, and religious background, future work could
pursue a more diverse geographic sample in Thailand and Ireland. Moreover, as
Communication Research Reports 71
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
scholars such as Oetzel (1998) have questioned the validity of self-report measures,
future research could incorporate other- and self-report measures of conflict into
the same study. Such a design may yield a greater understanding of conflict.
This study analyzed the relationship between conflict styles and national culture in
India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States. The analysis revealed that national
culture significantly affected conflict style preference, confirming Ting-Toomey’s
(1985) theory. Work should continue to explore this relationship in various nations
to expand our understanding of conflict.
References
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.
Communication Monographs, 69, 67–87.
Chau, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and high-context
cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32–37.
Conrad, C. (1991). Communication in conflict: Style–strategy relationships. Communication
Monographs, 58, 135–155.
Croucher, S. M. (2011). Muslim and Christian conflict styles in Western Europe. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 22, 60–74. doi:10.1108=10444061111103625
Croucher, S. M., DeMaris, A., Holody, K., Hicks, M., & Oommen, D. (2011). An examination of
conflict style preferences in India: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 22, 10–34. doi:10.1108=10444061111103607
Dsilva, M., & Whyte, L. (1998). Cultural differences in conflict styles: Vietnamese refugees and
established residents. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 57–68. doi:10.1080=
106461798247113
Folger, J., Poole, M., & Stutman, R. (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships,
groups, and organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hocker, J., & Wilmot, W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iamsudha, P. P., & Hale, C. (2003, May). The implications of Thai cultural values for self-reported
conflict tactics, family satisfaction, and communication competence of young adults. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Kim, M., & Leung, T. (2000). A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review and criti-
cal synthesis. In M. Roloff & G. Paulson (Eds.), Communication Yearbook 23 (pp. 227–269).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Oetzel, J. (1998). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles.
Communication Reports, 11, 133–144. doi:10.1080=08934219809367695
Oetzel, J., Arcos, B., Mabizela, P., Weinman, A. M., & Zhang, Q. (2006). Historical, political, and
spiritual factors of conflict: Understanding conflict perspectives and communication in the
Muslim world, China, Colombia, and South Africa. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research and practice
(pp. 549–574). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ohbuchi, K., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management: Goal
orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,
51–71. doi:10.1177=0022022199030001003
72 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
Polkinghorn, B., & Byrne, S. (2001). Between war and peace: An examination of conflict manage-
ment styles in four conflict zones. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 23–46.
doi:10.1108=eb022848
Rahim, M. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 368–376.
Tafoya, D. (1983). The roots of conflict: A theory and a typology. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Inter-
cultural communication theory (pp. 205–238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Tharoor, S. (2007). The elephant, the tiger, and the cell phone: Reflections on India. The emerging
21st-century power. New York, NY: Arcade.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart
& S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71–86).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S. L., & Nishida, T. (1991).
Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five
cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
doi:10.1016=S0147-1767(98)00004-2
Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict manage-
ment styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87–104.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G. (1999).
Ethnic=cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four ethnic groups. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81. doi:10.1016=S0147-1767(99)00023-1
Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parent–child
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 113–128. doi:10.1080=01463370600998681
Communication Research Reports 73
Downloaded by [Mr Stephen M Croucher] at 11:39 04 September 2012
