this assignment is for nightingale

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psych\4ology

4\f(5) \b56 –\b74

Reprints and permi\4ssion:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/00\f\f0\f\f1103\b11\f1\4

jccp.sagepub.com

The Effects of

Cognitive Appraisa\fs\a

of Communication

Competence in Conf\a\fict

Interactions\b A Stud\ay

Invo\fving Western

and Chinese Cu\ftures\a

Frances P. Brew 1, Justin Tan 1,

He\fen Booth 1, and Irum Ma\fik 1

Abstract

This study investigated differences between people from Western and Chinese cultures on

perceived competence (effectiveness and appropriateness) of the other party’s communication

during conflict. First, a pilot study with 30 employees in Singapore examined appraisals of

communication competence in recalled intercultural conflict incidents. Western expatriates

judged competence of the other party mainly on whether the communication style was

direct and engaged, deemed to be judgments of effectiveness. However, host-nationals judged

competence mainly on interactional skills and cultural knowledge, deemed to be judgments of

appropriateness. Following the pilot study, a quasi-experimental\4 study (1\f\b Australian and 10\b

Chinese university students) showed that Australians discriminated between four different types

of conflict styles more distinctly with effectiveness than appropriateness judgments and vice versa

for Chinese. This supports the pilot work. Furthermore, both effectiveness and appropriateness

judgments predicted relationship outcomes postconflict for both groups. For Australians, the

trend of effectiveness judgments across the four conflict styles paralleled exactly the trend of

their predictions for how much the relationship would improve postconflict, whereas their

appropriateness judgments did not. For Chinese, neither competency judgments mirrored

predictions on relationship improvement. However, their appropriateness judgments paralleled

their predictions for level of status quo maintenance, but their effectiveness judgments did not.

The evidence supports the hypothesis that people from different cultures hold dissimilar implicit

cognitive theories of what defines in/competent communication in interpersonal conflict. The

potent association of competency judgments with relational outcomes signals a new cognitive

direction for conf\4lict research, lon\4g fixated on behav\4ioral manifestatio\4ns.

1Macquarie Universi\4ty, Sydney, Austra\4lia

Corresponding Autho\ar\b

Frances P. Brew, P\4sychology Departme\4nt, Macquarie Univ\4ersity, North Ryde\4, New South Wales,\4 \f109, Australia.

Email: fran.brew@o\4ptusnet.com.au Brew et al. \b57

Interpersonal disagreements are a mundane and unpleasant part of everyday intera\ftions. The

\fonfli\ft pro\fess is inevita\bly negotiated and defined through \fommuni\fation, whi\fh is \fapa\ble

of es\falating or defusing the situation. A \fommonly held assumption is that \fommuni\fation is

essential to the human \fondition and that its \fomplexity is one of the key aspe\fts that differenti-

ates us from lower order primates. This leads people to \believe that, regardless of language dif-

feren\fes, \fommuni\fation patterns and uses are shared fundamentals a\fross \fultures. However,

effe\ftive \fommuni\fation, defined \by the distinguished Ameri\fan s\fholar Burgoon (1974) as the

a\ft of imparting knowledge or making known one’s feelings and thoughts in order to a\fhieve

\fertain out\fomes, is not ne\fessarily re\fognized in all \fultures. For example, Gao (1998) points

out that there is no easy translation into Chinese \fhara\fters of the English word “\fommuni\fa-

tion.” She argues that \fonversational \behavior in Chinese \fulture is traditionally used for enhan\f-

ing relationships and harmony rather than imparting information. Furthermore, a \fomprehensive

literature (e.g., Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Gao, 1998; Holtgraves, 1997; Hsu, 2004; Kim & Wilson,

1994; Lin, 1997; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) has shown that \fommuni\fation

styles vary dramati\fally a\fross \fultures from the restrained, \fir\fumspe\ft spee\fh a\fts found in

East Asian nations to the outspoken, \fandid expressions of those from Anglo \fultures. We \fon-

\flude from the equally \fomprehensive literature on \fonfli\ft-handling styles (e.g., Brew & Cairns,

2004; Chan & Goto, 2003; Friedman, Chi, & Liu, 2006; Leung, 1997; Leung &Tjosvold, 1998;

Morris et al., 1998; Tinsley & Brett, 2001) that these \fommuni\fation patterns are \fomplementary

with the various \fonfli\ft styles, su\fh as \fonfli\ft avoidan\fe in East Asia and \fonfrontational

approa\fhes found in\y \fountries like Aus\ytralia and the Unit\yed States.

Over the past 30 years, \fonfli\ft management and \fommuni\fation styles resear\fh \fomparing

\fultures has \been \behaviorally fo\fused. It is pertinent that more resear\fh examines whether dif-

ferent \fognitive pro\fesses are also at work. We \fon\flude from the pre\feding points that people

in different \fultures are likely to hold varying impli\fit theories of \fommuni\fation that will drive

su\bsequent intera\ftional \behavior. Thomas’s (1990) pro\fess model of \fonfli\ft management pro-

poses that the event instigating \fonfli\ft is viewed through a \fognitive-emotional\y lens. Impor-

tantly, this per\feptual lens \fontinues to \bias judgments on the su\bsequent a\ftion-intera\ftion \y

sequen\fe of the \fonfli\ftual ex\fhange—that is, the \behavioral \fomponent. A\f\fording to Thomas,

these \fognitive pro\fesses are instrumental in affe\fting the out\fome and su\bsequent interpersonal

intera\ftions \between the two parties. In line with this, Spitz\berg, Canary, and Cupa\fh (1994)

found that if the \fonfli\ft-handling style of the other party is evaluated negatively, then greater

responsi\bility for the \fonfli\ft is assigned to that party. Thus, we hypothesize that the lens is \fol-

ored not only \by an individual’s normative assumptions, expe\ftations, and attri\butions, as

Thomas suggests, \but also \by \fultural \fonditioning. Therefore, the aim of this arti\fle is to inves-

tigate one aspe\ft of the lens: the per\feptual evaluations that people from two \fulturally distant

groups make of the other party’s \fommuni\fation \fompeten\fe during an interpersonal \fonfli\ft

event and its per\feived effe\ft on the ongoing relationship. Our o\bje\ftive was to examine these

evaluations using the appropriateness and effe\ftiveness stru\fture proposed \by the three resear\fh-

ers Spitz\berg, Canary, and Cupa\fh (e.g., Cupa\fh & Canary, 1997; Spitz\berg et al., 1994; Spitz\berg

& Cupa\fh, 1984) and\y the Yin and Yang m\yodel of \fonfli\ft pr\yoposed \by Brew (2007\y). First, some exploratory pilot work \based on data \folle\fted as part of a larger study on inter-

\fultural \fonfli\ft in the workpla\fe in Singapore is presented. Using \fontent analysis, eviden\fe

emerged that effe\ftiveness and appropriateness \fould \be defined and identified as separate \fon-

stru\fts and that Westerners and Singaporeans fo\fused differentially on these \fompeten\fies. Fol-

lowing this, a quasi-experimental\y \fross-\fultural study with lo\fal and Chinese overseas students

on an Australian \fampus is presented. Using the Yin and Yang model of \fonfli\ft (Brew, 2007)

as a framework, stimulus material \based on the pilot work, and Canary and Spitz\berg’s (1987)

effe\ftiveness and appropriateness s\fales, the study investigated (a) whether the two groups would \b5\b Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

fo\fus differentially on the two \fompeten\fies as in the pilot work and (\b) the effe\ft of these \fom-

peten\fy assessments\y on relationship ou\yt\fomes post\fonfli\ft.\y

Appropriateness an\yd Effe\ftiveness

Spitz\berg et al.’s (1994) \fardinal hypothesis states that the per\feption \by one party of the other

party’s \fommuni\fation \fompeten\fe during a \fonfli\ft episode will either mediate or moderate the

link \between \fonfli\ft management style and relational out\fome. Spitz\berg et al. argued that \fon-

fli\ft is \fomplex and interdependent, hen\fe using a “good” \fonfli\ft management style may not

ne\fessarily result in desira\ble out\fomes, if the \behavior is interpreted \by the other party as \being

ineffe\ftive and inappropriate. An example of this might \be where a person \brings in a third party

to mediate on the assumption that the other party would \be favora\ble to su\fh a neutral approa\fh.

However, the person dis\fovers that the other party feels that using a mediator is inappropriate

\be\fause sensitive issues have to \be exposed to a third party and is likely to \be ineffective in

a\fhieving a good out\fome \be\fause all \fommuni\fation has to \be relayed se\fond-hand to the other

party. Cupa\fh and Canary (1997) distinguished \between effe\ftiveness and appropriateness \by sug-

gesting that effectiveness is related to the a\f\fomplishment of one’s goals and appropriateness to

awareness of the rules of the intera\ftion. Spitz\berg and Cupa\fh’s (1984) original definitions

proposed that \fommuni\fation is effective if interpersonal pro\blems are resolved and the needs

and desires of the intera\ftants are met. Thus, in a \fonfli\ft episode, effe\ftiveness \fon\ferns the

per\feived quality and impa\ft of the \fontent of messages in o\btaining su\fh goals. Communi\fation

is appropriate if the so\fial norms of the other person are not violated too strongly or if new rules

or norms are esta\blished during the intera\ftion. Thus, appropriateness \fon\ferns the expe\fted

so\fial \behaviors wit\yhin the \fontext of t\yhe \fonfli\ft.

Cultural Variation\ys on Effe\ftiveness a\ynd Appropriateness\y

A\f\fording to Spitz\berg et al. (1994), inappropriate and ineffe\ftive \fommuni\fation is asso\fiated

with avoidant \fonfli\ft management. Although this hypothesis might hold for \fultures not too

distant from that of the United States, it is pro\blemati\f when applied to other \fultures su\fh as

those in East Asia. It has \been argued \by Gao (1998), Leung and Chan (1999), and others that an

avoidant \fonfli\ft style is prefera\ble in East Asian so\fieties due to living in interdependent and

hierar\fhi\fal so\fial stru\ftures, whi\fh are generally asso\fiated with a \folle\ftivist orientation. In

Hofstede’s (1980) seminal work, East Asian so\fieties were found to \be predominantly \folle\ftivist

with a fo\fus on group needs over individual rights. By \fontrast, Anglo so\fieties su\fh as Australia

and the United States were highly individualisti\f, with priority given to one’s own interests, needs,

and goals. Hen\fe, it is highly likely that individualists would find that avoidan\fe \behavior frus -

trates expression of one’s \fon\ferns and effe\ftive own-goal a\fhievement. The enduring features of

these two orientations are still prominent in these so\fieties today (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). A nota\ble manifestation of individualism and \folle\ftivism is self-\fonstrual (Markus & Kitayama,

1991; Singelis, 1994), whi\fh has \been used extensively with studies on \fonversational indire\ft-

ness (e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Sharkey & Singelis, 1995). Markus and

Kitayama (1991) argued that \folle\ftivists tend toward an interdependent self-\fonstrual in whi\fh

the point of referen\fe is the em\beddedness of self in a so\fial \fontext in su\fh a way that the self’s

needs and desires are \fonditional upon signifi\fant others’ expe\ftations and views. In \fontrast,

they argued that an individualist’s point of referen\fe is an independent self in whi\fh the unique

qualities, feelings, and desires of the self separate the individual from others, allowing freedom-

to-\fhoose relationships in order to fulfill one’s own needs and goals. Past studies and theories Brew et al. \b59

(e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Ting-Toomey, 1988) have linked self-\fonstrual

type with two prominent \fonversational \fonstraints, \fommuni\fation \flarity and fa\fe-support.

Kim and Wilson (1994) proposed that the \flarity \fonstraint demands expli\fit and effe\ftive \fom-

muni\fation, thus fa\filitating the a\fhievement of \fommuni\fation goals and task a\f\fomplishment.

On the other hand, the fa\fe-support \fonstraint demands avoiding hurting feelings, minimizing

imposition, showing deferen\fe, giving approval, and using politeness strategies, thus redu\fing

fa\fe-threat and avoiding \fausing dislike or devaluation of the other. Ting-Toomey (1997) pro-

posed that those with independent self-\fonstruals value the \flarity \fonstraint due to the need to

resolve \fonfli\ft effe\ftively \by expressing opinions, interests, and needs and thus are likely to \be

more \fon\ferned with effe\ftive rather than appropriate \fommuni\fation. Those with interdepen-

dent self-\fonstruals, however, value the fa\fe-support \fonstraint due to an awareness of past and

present o\bligations and a need to preserve harmony and thus are likely to \be more \fon\ferned with

appropriate \fommuni\y\fation that respe\fts\y intera\ftional qual\yities.

In a straightforward way, effe\ftiveness is easily linked to a dire\ft style of \fommuni\fation, in

parti\fular, the \fontent of expli\fitly worded messages that Hall (1989) o\bserved was an important

\fon\fern for low-\fontext \fultures distinguished \by autonomy, individualism, and low relian\fe on

\fontext for as\fertaining meaning. Appropriateness is linked to su\btle, indire\ft \fonversation that

has an esta\blished asso\fiation with interdependen\fe (Hara & Kim, 2004) and with high-\fontext

\fultures like those in Asia (Hall, 1989), whi\fh rely on \fues from nonver\bal signals and the \fon-

text to im\bue the ex\fhange with meaning. Due to this greater \fomplexity, appropriateness needs

further definition,\y drawing on the wid\yer properties of \fo\ymmuni\fation \fompete\yn\fe. In past inter\fultural \fommuni\fation \fompeten\fe resear\fh, there are two main approa\fhes:

\behavioral and \fognitive. The first is \fon\ferned with \fompeten\fies that \fould \be \broadly defined

as good intera\ftion management, su\fh as empathy, relationship \building, listening skills, develop -

ing mutual trust and respe\ft, displaying interest in the other, drawing the other person out, patien\fe,

and toleran\fe (e.g., Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Ole\be & Koester, 1989; Ru\ben,

1989; Ru\ben & Kealey, 1979). The \fognitive approa\fh is \fon\ferned with knowledge a\bout \ful-

tural identity, understanding the \fommuni\fation rules of the other, and interpretation of their

\fonstitutive meaning (e.g., Collier, 1991; Collier & Thomas, 1988; Driskill & Downs, 1995;

Nishida, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1998). We propose that appropriateness is not only expressed

with su\btlety or politeness \but importantly in\fludes the way the intera\ftion is handled in terms

of responsiveness to the feelings and needs of the other person. In an inter\fultural situation, \fom-

muni\fation \fompeten\y\fe also involves kn\yowledge of the \fult\yural identity of th\ye other. Summing up, we propose that independent types are more likely to assess \fommuni\fation

\fompeten\fe in terms of \flarity of the transmission of messages to a\fhieve a solution (effe\ftive-

ness). Interdependent types are more likely to assess \fompeten\fe in terms of the intera\ftional

qualities of the ex\fhange, su\fh as a display of thought and \fon\fern for the other party’s feelings

and fa\fe (appropria\yteness).

The Yin and Yang Mo\ydel of Confli\ft

Mu\fh of the \fross-\fultural \fonfli\ft resear\fh referred to earlier used one of the dual-\fon\fern mod-

els modeled on Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. In a typi\fal model, that of Rahim

(1983), two axes representing high and low \fon\fern for self’s goals and high and low \fon\fern for

other’s goals are \frossed to produ\fe five \fonfli\ft styles (integrating, dominating, a\f\fommodat-

ing, \fompromising, and avoiding) \by interpreting the four quadrants (e.g., low \fon\fern for self,

low \fon\fern for other relates to avoiding) and using the \fentral \frossover point for the fifth style,

\fompromising (mid-\fon\fern for self and other). As with Spitz\berg et al.’s (1994) \flaims that

avoidan\fe engenders negative appraisals, an ontologi\fal pro\blem also arises with the dual-\fon\fern \b60 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

model when applied \fross-\fulturally. Low \fon\fern for self and other’s goals does not apply to

the avoidan\fe of \fonfli\ft found in East Asia, where interdependen\fe ensures high \fon\fern for

others. Therefore, we preferred to use the Yin and Yang model (Brew, 2007), whi\fh takes a\f\fount

of \both Western and Eastern perspe\ftives. The model is \based \both on the dualisti\f model of

harmony devised \by Leung, Tremain-Ko\fh, and Lu (2002) to explain \fonfli\ft avoidan\fe in East

Asian so\fieties and the \fompetitive versus \fooperative \fonfli\ft framework of Western models.

The model is \fonstru\fted on the instrumental-ideal\y dimension found in Leung et al.’s harmony

model, whi\fh is \based on values rather than goal-\based out\fomes. At one pole, instrumental

values are \fon\ferned with means to an end (what \benefits will a\f\frue from the relationship), and

at the other pole, ideal values are asso\fiated with a morally desira\ble endstate (doing the right

thing \by the other person to enhan\fe the relationship). The other dimension represents the two

fundamental approa\fhes to \fonfli\ft, either \fonfronting the issue dire\ftly or maintaining harmony

(see Figure 1). In the model, constructive controversy is defined as ideal \fonfli\ft. From a Western perspe\f-

tive, Tjosvold (1998) argues that su\fh a style will lead to \fooperative and su\f\fessful out\fomes,

and Rahim (1983) equates this \behavior with the integrating or solution-seeking style wherein

\both parties’ goals are met. This style fulfils the individualist agenda in whi\fh argument, dis\fus-

sion, and de\bate are favored to resolve \fonfli\ft (Olekalns, 1998; Wall & Stark, 1998). We expe\ft

Australians to per\feive this style to \be the most appropriate and effe\ftive. As this style requires

frankness and ver\bal skill, we expe\ft that Chinese will judge it as effe\ftive \but less appropriate

as their intera\ftional norms of politeness and fa\fe-\fon\fern may \be violated in the pro\fess. Con-

structive diplo\facy, presented as ideal harmony, is advo\fated \by Leung et al. (2002) to \be the

\flosest \behavior to that whi\fh Confu\fius re\fommended as \being desira\ble. He promoted respe\ft

for different views and en\fouraged \fourteous de\bate parti\fularly in support of goodness and

righteousness. However, Leung et al. argued that this \behavior was not as \fommon throughout

East Asia as \fonfli\ft avoidan\fe (s\foothing), defined as instrumental harmony. This latter type

of harmony is an expedient form of dealing with \fonfli\ft in a so\fiety made up of tightly woven

and rigid networks, where a\fhieving one’s goals in life is often dependent on others. Although

the two harmony styles may not \be so effe\ftive in dire\ftly \fommuni\fating needs and pro\blem

Conflict

Instr umental needs Ideal aspirations

Harmon \f

Constr uctive

Contro versy

Constructive

Diplomacy Smoothin\f

Destr uctive

Confrontation

Figure 1. The Yin and Yang \4Model of Harmony (\4adapted from Brew,\4 \f007) Brew et al. \b61

solving, they are less likely to \fause offen\fe or fa\fe loss or to harm intera\ftional norms. Hen\fe, we

expe\ft that the Chinese will per\feive the harmony styles to \be more appropriate than the \fonfli\ft

styles, with the smoothing style likely to \be seen as more appropriate than \fonstru\ftive diplo -

ma\fy, whi\fh requires skill and ta\fti\fs and thus entails some risk. As these two styles are non-

threatening and may \be \falming, we expe\ft that Australians will judge them as appropriate \but

not very effe\ftive. Destructive confrontation, defined as instrumental \fonfli\ft, is similar to the

\fompetitive style (Tjosvold, 1998) or dominating style (Rahim, 1983) in whi\fh \foer\five and

\fompetitive ta\fti\fs are used to gain out\fomes for the individual at the expense of the relationship.

Although it involves dire\ft spee\fh a\fts, we do not expe\ft either group to favor this style, West-

erners \be\fause it i\ys likely to \be per\fe\yived as \bullying an\yd Chinese \be\fause it\y is a gross violat\yion

of relational rule\ys. Thus, all will j\yudge it to \be inapp\yropriate and ineff\ye\ftive. Hen\fe, using the Yin and Yang model as a firm ontologi\fal \base, we are a\ble to refine the

proposal put forwa\yrd earlier and out\yline the first hypot\yhesis:

\bypothesis 1: Australians are more likely to \be responsive to the effe\ftiveness than to the appropriateness of\y a \fonfli\ft style.

The four styles are expe\fted to de\frease in per\feived effe\ftiveness from \fonstru\ftive \fon-

troversy through the harmony styles to destru\ftive \fonfrontation (\flo\fkwise round Figure 1),

\fompared to a flatter trend for appropriateness. Conversely, Chinese are more likely to \be respon -

sive to the appropriateness than to the effe\ftiveness of a \fonfli\ft style. The four styles are

expe\fted to de\freas\ye in per\feived appr\yopriateness from s\ymoothing to diploma\y\fy to \fonstru\ftive

\fontroversy to destru\ftive \fonfrontation (anti\flo\fkwise round Figure 1) \fompared to a flatter

trend for effe\ftiveness.

Effe\fts of Cognitive\y Judgments of Compe\yten\fe on Relational\y Out\fomes

Earlier, we reported that Thomas’s (1990) pro\fess \fonfli\ft model and Spitz\berg et al.’s (1994)

\fompeten\fe-\based model proposed that \fognitive assessment of the \fonfli\ft \behavior of the

other party is likely to affe\ft the out\fome of the \fonfli\ft, parti\fularly relationships. Thomas’s

(1990) model highlights how a \fontinuous relational dialogue is interrupted \by \fonfli\ft events

that have the potential to es\falate negativity or stimulate \fonstru\ftive dis\fussion and integrative

\behavior depending on the intervening \fonditions—in this \fase, effe\ftiveness and appropriate-

ness judgments. In this pie\fe of resear\fh, we fo\fused on relational out\fome rather than a\fhieve-

ment of e\fonomi\f \fon\ferns for one or \both parties. Emerging resear\fh supports the idea that

relational out\fomes are more important than maximizing e\fonomi\f returns. For example,

Curhan, Elfen\bein, and Xu (2006) found that su\bje\ftive value, whi\fh in\fludes feelings a\bout the

relationship, was a \better predi\ftor than e\fonomi\f out\fomes of future negotiation de\fisions. The

longitudinal study \by Canary, Cupa\fh, and Serpe (2001) found a re\fipro\fal \fausal asso\fiation

\between \fommuni\fation \behavior in a \fonfli\ft and relationship quality a\fross a time span of

several weeks, inferring that the \fommuni\fation experien\fe during \fonfli\ft episodes is \fentral to

the ongoing progression of the relationship. Furthermore, relational goals are very important in

\folle\ftivist \fultures su\fh as that of the Chinese, where long-term individual goals are primarily

a\fhieved through the fa\filitation of su\f\fessful re\fipro\fal inter\fonne\ftedness \y(Leung et al., 2002).

We propose the following hypotheses to test the effe\ft of \fompeten\fe evaluations on relational

out\fome:

\bypothesis 2: For \both groups, we expe\ft the more effe\ftive and appropriate the \fom-muni\fation style of the other party is judged to \be during \fonfli\ft, the more likely the \b6\f Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

per\feiver will predi\ft that the relationship will \be\fome \floser (integrate). Conversely,

the more ineffe\ftive and inappropriate the \fommuni\fation style is judged, the more

likely the relation\yship will \be predi\ft\yed to disintegrate\y.

\bypothesis 3: For Australians, we expe\ft the effe\ftiveness trend for the four styles of the Yin and Yang model predi\fted in the first hypothesis to \be mirrored \by a similar profile

for predi\ftions of relationship improvement (integration) post\fonfli\ft, \but this will not

\be the \fase for appropriateness. Conversely, for Chinese, the appropriateness trend pre-

di\fted in the first hypothesis for the four styles will mirror the integration profile, \but

this will not \be the\y \fase for effe\ftive\yness.

Pi\fot Study

Thirty parti\fipants (15 expatriates, 15 host-nationals), mostly in management or \fonsultant roles,

with mean ages of 38.6 and 36.3 years, respe\ftively, were re\fruited from five organizations rep-

resenting a range of \businesses in Singapore. As part of a larger study examining \fonfli\ft \behav-

ior under various \fonditions, they were asked to think of re\fent inter\fultural \fonfli\ft situations

in whi\fh they had \been\y involved in order\y to re\ford their ev\yaluations of the \be\yhavior of the other \y

party during the episodes. The first question enquired a\bout \fonfli\ft that had \been handled poorly

and the se\fond a\bout \fonfli\ft that had \been handled well. Both negative and positive \fonfli\fts

were explored in order to \fontrol for \fonfounding. Evaluated \fonfli\fts tended to \be ordinary ones

en\fountered in the normal \fourse of the working day, su\fh as solving a pro\blem, differen\fe of

opinion in a meeting or how to do a jo\b, and misunderstandings \ya\bout requests, information, and

similar issues.

Content Analysis

The data were su\bje\fted to a \fontent analysis. Following Miles and Hu\berman (1994), three

\broad themes were \freated in a\f\fordan\fe with the theory presented earlier: \fommuni\fation styles,

personal intera\ftional \behavior, and \fultural awareness. The “\fommuni\fation styles” theme \fap-

tured \fomments a\bout the method of \fonveying messages and was deemed to indi\fate appraisals

of in/effe\ftiveness. The “intera\ftional \behavior” theme in\fluded evaluations emphasizing quali-

ties su\fh as empathy, patien\fe, \fon\fern for the other, and listening skills. The “\fultural aware-

ness” theme fo\fused on knowledge a\bout \fultural identity and understanding the \fultural rules

and meaning of the other. The latter two themes were used as indi\fators of in/appropriateness\y.

To aid \foding, a further theme representing personal traits was added \but not analyzed, and the

themes were \broken down into su\bthemes representing the positive and negative side of ea\fh—

for example, good and poor \fultural awareness. The “\fommuni\fation styles” theme was \broken

down into dire\ftness versus avoidan\fe, and other positively per\feived styles versus other nega-

tively per\feived st\yyles.The responses were redu\fed \by the first author into separate meaning nodes or units that spe-

\fifi\fally evaluated the other party’s \fonfli\ft \behavior. Ea\fh unit \fonsisted of a key senten\fe or

part of a senten\fe that was \fonsidered to \fapture an important aspe\ft of the respondents’ appraisal

of the other party’s \behavior. General refle\ftions su\fh as “when you are approa\fhing \fonfli\ft

your mind is not at its \flearest” were omitted. The num\ber of units for ea\fh respondent varied

a\f\fording to the num\ber of evaluations expressed. The other authors, who were not otherwise

involved in the first study, independently sorted ea\fh of the 96 anonymous units into a su\btheme.

Cohen’s kappas (k) for interrater relia\bility \between the three raters for the four major themes

(the main unit of \fomparison) were all signifi\fant, \being k = .75, .80, and .85, respe\ftively. The

kappa values indi\fated good to very good interrater relia\bility, with two values on or a\bove 0.80 Brew et al. \b63

and one just \below. Where there was disagreement, the majority ruled, and where the three \foders

disagreed on the major theme (in only three \fases), the unit was removed from further analysis.

Results and Dis\fuss\yion

The small num\ber of statements \foded as negative or positively per\feived personality traits were

not analyzed (two for expatriates, six for host-nationals). Altogether, 79.2% of the remaining

expatriate \fomments were \foded as appraisals of \fommuni\fation styles, 11.3% were of intera\f-

tion management, and 9.4% of \fultural understanding. For host-nationals, 28.1% of \fomments

were \foded as appraisals of \fommuni\fation styles, 46.9% were of intera\ftion management, and

25% of \fultural understanding. The \fhi-square analysis showed that the expatriate pattern of

responses was sign\yifi\fantly different\y than that of the ho\yst-nationals, c

2(2) = 26.31, p < .0005.

Typi\fal examples of \fommuni\fation style appraisals for expatriates were as follows: “the ‘no’

answer, whi\fh is no \yanswer at all . . \y. just ignore the q\yuestion \be\fause the \yanswer’s unpleasan\yt”;

“du\fking and weaving round it and not getting to the point” (\fonfli\ft poorly handled); and “keep

asking questions, they o\bviously have a \flear goal in mind”; “open and mature enough to talk it

out” (\fonfli\ft well handled). Whereas host-nationals fo\fused on the following: “the expat is

more \blunt . . . so that in itself has \freated \fonfli\ft”; “harsh . . . how the fa\fts are presented . . .

one party is wrong, one party right” (\fonfli\ft poorly handled); and “he doesn’t voi\fe his opinion

so openly”; “assure the person not to feel so \burdened” (\fonfli\ft well handled). Typi\fal examples

of intera\ftion management appraisals for expatriates were sparse \but in\fluded “really listening,

trying to take the other person’s perspe\ftive and think a\bout it from their view” (\fonfli\ft well

handled). For host-nationals, examples in\fluded “la\fk of respe\ft”; “[needed to have] more

patien\fe”; “[thinks \be\fause he’s the \boss] he doesn’t have to listen” (\fonfli\ft poorly handled);

and “they are more patient”; “he is understanding” (\fonfli\ft well handled). Cultural understand-

ing appraisals for expatriates tended to \be negative, su\fh as “misunderstanding,\y misinterpreting

my response . . . they see it as weakness to \fome and ask you something . . . I see it as alerting

me to the issues” (\fonfli\ft poorly handled). For hosts, negative and positive appraisals tended to

\be mirror images, like “he doesn’t understand how the lo\fals feel, how we \behave” (\fonfli\ft

poorly handled) and\y the reverse for \fo\ynfli\ft well handled\y. Overwhelmingly, the majority of Western expatriates fo\fused on the method \by whi\fh the

other party was \fommuni\fating or failing to \fommuni\fate. They were \fon\ferned a\bout vague,

prevari\fating language, and judged well-handled \fonfli\ft as involving dire\ft spee\fh and \flear

transmission of opinions and \fon\ferns. This \forresponds with the definitions of effe\ftiveness

presented in the introdu\ftion, su\fh as the \flarity \fonstraint of individualists (Kim, 1993). On the

other hand, the majority of host-nationals fo\fused on intera\ftional qualities (or la\fk thereof),

su\fh as listening, patien\fe, and respe\ft or \fultural understanding. This supports our \fon\feptual-

izations of approp\yriateness as susta\yining fa\fe-support \yand relational qua\ylity. We propose that the distin\ftive themes found in this exploratory data are a demonstration of

the separate \fon\fepts of effe\ftiveness and appropriateness in the \fompeten\fe model of \fonfli\ft

(Spitz\berg et al., 1994). Thus, we operationalized effe\ftiveness in the following study as a \fonfli\ft-

handling style having the twin elements of dire\ft expression of opinion and \fonstru\ftive approa\fh

leading to an out\fome, and appropriateness as a style fo\fusing on politeness, smoothing down,

and \fon\fern for the other’s needs. We expe\fted \fonfli\ft styles with these distinguishing proper-

ties to stimulate differential assessments from Australian and Chinese students (two groups \fom-

para\ble in \fultural \ba\fkground to those in the pilot study) similar to those demonstrated in that

study. Furthermore, we expe\fted the two groups’ predi\ftions of the out\fome of the \fonfli\ft in

relational terms to \fonfirm the hypothesized differentiation, providing \ba\fk\bone to Spitz\berg

et al.’s (1994) assertion that \fompeten\fe appraisals of \fonfli\ft \behavior matter in regard to \b64 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

out\fome. If \fonfirmed, support is provided for the argument that \fultural expe\ftations determine

the salient aspe\fts\y of these assessmen\yts.

Method for Main Stu\ady

Parti\fipants

A total of 236 students (117 males, 119 females) were re\fruited from lo\fal and overseas stu -

dents attending a university in Sydney, Australia, a\f\fording to their stated ethni\f \ba\fkground,

either European/Anglo Australian (m = 65, f = 63) or Chinese (m = 52, f = 56). Australians

of European/Anglo \ba\fkground were re\fruited as the \best representatives of individualist

Australian \fulture, and Chinese parti\fipants on the \basis of having lived in Australia less than

5 years ( M = 1.97, SD = 1.33), \being nearly all from Hong Kong or Mainland China. The

mean age of the Australian \fohort was 22.98 ( SD = 8.17) and for the Chinese \fohort 21.62

( SD = 2.59) years.

Design

A 2 (Culture) × 4 (Confli\ft Style) mixed fa\ftorial design was used with \fonfli\ft style (construc -

tive controversy, constructive diplo\facy, s\foothing, destructive confrontation ) as a repeated

measure. Ea\fh style was rated for \fompeten\fe (effectiveness, appropriateness) and predi\fted

post\fonfli\ft relati\yonal out\fome (integration, disint\legration, status qu\lo). Sti\fulus scenario and conflict style \fanipulations . A dispute s\fenario was adapted from Canary

and Spitz\berg (1987) involving a \fonfli\ft over dirty dishes with a flatmate of the same sex and

ethni\fity with whom the respondent hypotheti\fally had \been living for 6 months.

1 A des\fription

of the \fontext of t\yhe dispute was foll\yowed \by this stateme\ynt:

You say to X: I really think that \foming home to a pile of dirty dishes is the worst thing in the world. Don’t yo\yu think you \fould do\y your share of \flean\ying up?

“X” was repla\fed with the name of the flatmate, a different unisex name \being allotted for

ea\fh of four responses that followed, where ea\fh response represented one of the \fonfli\ft styles

in the Yin and Yang model (i.e., the parti\fipants understood they were judging the responses of

four different flatmates to the same \fonfli\ft). The four responses are as follows:

1. Oh really? You should take a good look at yourself. Sin\fe when do you ever do your

fair share of the \fleaning. You are so selfish. You always play your terri\ble musi\f

loudly, it drives m\ye mad when I’m stud\yying. (Destru\ftive \yConfrontation)

2. Yes, I take your point. But, I don’t mean to offend, you’re not the most \fonsiderate per -

son in the world either. You always play your musi\f loudly, it’s hard to study. Perhaps

we should sort this out over a \fup of \foffee. (Constru\ftive Controversy)

3. Yes, I take your point. I’m sorry. I do try to do my share of the \fleaning, and I let you

play your musi\f while I’m studying even though it’s distra\fting at times. (Constru\ftive

Diploma\fy)

4. Oh, I’ll wash them up soon. How’s that diffi\fult assignment going, do you need any

help? (Smoothing)

A small group of postgraduate students (n = 24) were asked to identify ea\fh s\fript after reading

Brew (2007) and were unanimous in their identifi\fations. Brew et al. \b65

Measures

Effe\ftiveness and appropriateness. Ten items \based on fa\ftor loadings and fa\fe validity were

\fhosen from Canary and Spitz\berg’s (1987) original 40, modernized, and some reverse worded

to \fontrol for a\fquies\fen\fe \bias—for example, “X a\fhieved his/her goals in the \fonversation”

(effe\ftiveness); “X said some em\barrassing things” (appropriateness).\y To test whether these

items represented the two separate fa\ftors proposed \by Canary and Spitz\berg, they were su\b-

je\fted to four \fonfirmatory fa\ftor analyses (CFAs) using AMOS 16, one for ea\fh set of items

rating ea\fh \fonfli\ft style. First, one-fa\ftor models were fitted for ea\fh set of items, \but these

were all very poor fits for the data. Se\fond, the proposed two-fa\ftor model was fitted for ea\fh

style; these fits were an improvement \but still not quite a\f\fepta\ble. An examination of the modi-

fi\fation indi\fes for all four CFAs indi\fated that, for three of the styles, the uniquenesses for two

of the o\bserved varia\bles purporting to measure the uno\bserved appropriateness, “. . . suita\ble

for the situation” and “I would \be \fomforta\ble . . .” tended to have large indi\fes atta\fhed to their

\fovarian\fe with the uno\bserved varia\ble effectiveness. As these items displayed no fa\fe validity

with effe\ftiveness, they were removed from the analyses, following whi\fh the two-fa\ftor models

improved \fonsidera\bly to \flose to the a\f\fepta\ble range. The item “. . . effe\ftive in resolving the

\fonfli\ft” had some signifi\fant \fovarian\fe with appropriateness for two of the styles; however,

we \fould not remove this item from the effectiveness s\fale \be\fause the two-fa\ftor models \be\fame

poorer fits for the other two styles without this item, and it was ne\fessary to maintain \fonfigural

equivalen\fe a\fross the four styles. Some signifi\fant \fovarian\fe \between the uniquenesses of

o\bserved varia\bles measuring the same latent fa\ftor was also in eviden\fe for three of the styles,

pro\ba\bly indi\fating shared method varian\fe. Those with the largest indi\fes were allowed to

\fovary to o\btain the final results, as the \forrelation of residuals in this situation was \fonsidered

an out\fome of the resear\fh design (Cole, Ciesler, & Steiger, 2007). The final two-fa\ftor models

with four items measuring ea\fh fa\ftor o\btained these results: \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy c

18 = 33.58,

p = .014, CMIN/df = 1.87, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06; \fonstru\ftive diploma\fy c 2

18 =

42.98, p = .001, CMIN/df = 2.39, TLI = .94, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08; smoothing c 2

18 = 42.28,

p = .001, CMIN/df = 2.35, TLI = .95, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07; destru\ftive \fontroversy c 2

19 =

33.62, p = .02, CMIN/df = 1.77, TLI = .94, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06. Relationship out\fome variables. Three relationship out\fomes were measured using two items

designed \by the authors for ea\fh out\fome. We de\fided on two items for ea\fh, as we felt one item

was insuffi\fient \but \bore in mind that ea\fh \fomplete set of items was repeated four times. Inte-

gration was a measure of how mu\fh the dispute was per\feived to provide an opportunity of

improving the relationship over time (e.g., “The dispute provides an opportunity to \be\fome

\floser”). Disintegration was a measure of the desire to move or distan\fe oneself from the flat-

mate (e.g., “I would not want to keep living with my flatmate”). Status quo was a measure of the

relationship remaining the same (e.g., “The relationship \between us wouldn’t \be affe\fted”).

Pearson \forrelations \between the two items for ea\fh relationship out\fome ranged from .55 to .69. All measures were rated on a Likert-type s\fale of 1 (co\fpletely disagree) to 5 (co\fpletely

agree).

Pro\fedure

The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and then \ba\fk-translated to \fhe\fk for semanti\f a\f\fu -

ra\fy (Brislin, 1981). Twenty-four different ordered versions of the s\fripts were prepared in \both

languages to \founter\balan\fe \farryover effe\fts and fatigue. Students were re\fruited through the

first-year psy\fhology su\bje\ft-pool or dire\ftly on \fampus, re\feiving either \fourse \fredits if the for -

mer or ti\fkets for a draw with movie passes as the prize if the latter. An attempt was made to keep \b66 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

the num\bers in ea\fh \fultural group as \flose as possi\ble, and the same with the num\bers of ea\fh sex.

It took a\bout 20 to 30 minutes to \fomplete a pen\fil and paper version of the questionnaire.

Resu\fts

For all analyses, a < .05 was used to \fontrol for Type 1 error, and any effe\fts due to age and

gender were partialed out first in ea\fh analysis. The means and standard deviations relevant for

the study are found in Ta\ble 1. Helmert \fontrasts used in the first hypothesis tests \fonsisted of

the following null hypotheses: (a) \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy = the average of \fonstru\ftive diplo-

ma\fy and smoothing, \y(\b) diploma\fy = smoothing, a\fross \y\both groups.

Hypothesis 1

To test the first hypothesis, that Australians would \be more responsive to effe\ftiveness and

Chinese to appropriateness, we examined the intera\ftions of \fultural group with type of \fonfli\ft

style for \both \fompeten\fy measures. Both intera\ftions were signifi\fant, F

3,657 = 18.64, p < .0005,

partial h 2 = .078, and F 3,654 = 18.68, p < .0005, partial h 2 = .079, for effe\ftiveness and appropri-

ateness, respe\ftively. For effe\ftiveness, the Australian means des\fended \flo\fkwise round Figure 1

from \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy (4.25) to destru\ftive \fonfrontation (2.62), as predi\fted (see Ta\ble 1).

The Chinese means remained on par for the nondestru\ftive styles, with little variation (0.15

maximum), \but dropped to 2.62 for destru\ftive \fonfrontation. Leaving aside the latter style,

des\fending trend versus flat trend was \fonfirmed \by two orthogonal Helmert intera\ftion \fon-

trasts for the nondestru\ftive styles (F

1,234 = 68.85, p < .0005; F 1,234 = 3.70, p = .051), indi\fating

that the Australian trend distinguished \between these styles whereas the Chinese trend did not,

supporting the first hypothesis. For appropriateness, the Chinese means des\fended anti\flo\fkwise

from smoothing (4.02) to destru\ftive \fonfrontation (2.19), as predi\fted. The Australian means

for the three \benign styles varied \by just 0.52 \but dropped to 2.45 for destru\ftive \fonfrontation.

Again, leaving aside the latter style, Helmert intera\ftion \fontrasts for the nondestru\ftive styles

were signifi\fant ( F

1,233 = 57.46, p < .0005; F 1,233 = 5.77, p = .017). However, the means in Ta\ble 1

indi\fate that the first of these was not due to flat versus sloped trends \but \be\fause the Australian

mean for \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy was signifi\fantly higher than the other two styles together, and

vi\fe versa for the Chinese. Thus, the .52 variation proved signifi\fant for Australians. If destru\ftive

\fonfrontation is not \fonsidered, \being rated as very ineffe\ftive and inappropriate \by \both groups,

the first hypothesis is supported for Chinese \but less so for Australians. The latter differentiated to

some extent on appropriateness as well as effe\ftiveness on the three nondestru\ftive styles.

Hypothesis \b

To test the se\fond hypothesis, that per\feived effe\ftiveness and appropriateness would predi\ft

integration of the relationship, and ineffe\ftiveness and inappropriateness \ywould predi\ft disinte-

gration, a hierar\fhi\fal regression was performed on ea\fh of the three relational out\fomes. Status

quo was in\fluded as a stati\f response for those who would simply maintain the relationship. In

the first step, age and gender were entered as \fontrols; in the se\fond step, \fulture was entered; in the

third step, effe\ftiveness and appropriateness were entered. Regressions were performed on stan-

dardized data to \fontrol for any \fultural response \bias. Ta\ble 2 shows the R

2 \fhange for the se\f-

ond and third steps, and the standardized \betas for the third step with the se\fond step \betas for

\fulture shown in \bra\y\fkets. Not surprisingly, \fulture was often signifi\fant at the se\fond step. In parti\fular, Australians were

more likely to integrate and less likely to disintegrate the relationship than Chinese in response \b67

Tab\fe 1. Means and Standar\4d Deviations of Co\4mpetency and Relat\4ionship Outcome Va\4riables for Austra\4lians and Chinese

Anglo-Australian (\4n = 1\f\b)

Chinese (n = 107)

Eff

App

Int

Dis

StQ

Eff

App

Int

Dis

StQ

M (SD) M (SD)M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)M (SD)M (SD) M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)

Constructive Controversy

4.\f5 (.70) 4.\f1 (.73)4.00 (.90) 1.7\f (.65)3.14 (1.10) 3.70 (.\b6)3.\f0 (.9\b)3.\f9 (1.03) \f.4\b (.\b4)\f.\b\f (1.01)

Constructive Diplomacy

3.\f1 (1.01) 3.69 (.91)3.15 (1.11) \f.06 (.\b5)3.13 (1.04) 3.55 (.95)3.45 (.99)3.\f1 (1.0\f) \f.\f0 (.\b\b)3.07 (1.10)

Smoothing

\f.\b6 (1.07) 3.\b7 (.\b5)\f.90 (1.\f1) \f.00 (.93)3.\f7 (1.07) 3.56 (.97)4.0\f (.96)3.5\b (1.03) 1.95 (.\b1)3.\b1 (.9\b)

Destructive Controversy

\f.59 (.\b4) \f.45 (.\b\f)\f.40 (1.06) 3.\f0 (1.00)\f.04 (.95) \f.6\f (.\b\f)\f.19 (.\b9)\f.15 (.9\b) 3.50 (.\b3)\f.00 (.97)

Eff = Effectiveness; App = Appropriateness; Int = Integration; Dis = Disintegration; StQ = Status Quo. \b6\b Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

to \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy. Conversely, the Chinese were more likely to integrate or at least

keep the status quo than the Australians in response to the smoothing style. The Australians were

more positive a\bout the destru\ftive \fonfrontation style, \but there were only minor differen\fes in

response to the \fon\ystru\ftive diploma\fy \ystyle. R

2 \fhange for the addition of the \fompeten\fe varia\bles at the third step was highly signifi\fant

for all regressions, with the \betas indi\fating that higher levels of integration and status quo were

predi\fted \by higher ratings of effe\ftiveness and appropriateness (positive sign), whereas higher

levels of disintegration were predi\fted \by ineffe\ftiveness and\y inappropriateness \y(negative sign),

as expe\fted. There were some variations in the \fontri\bution of ea\fh \fompeten\fe varia\ble to the

2 \fhange, denoted \by the differen\fe in signifi\fan\fe of their \betas for some of the regressions. In

parti\fular, note that effe\ftiveness was more salient for integration, whereas appropriateness was

more salient for status quo. Conversely, \both ineffe\ftiveness and inappropriateness \ywere salient

for disintegration\y. Overall, Hypothes\yis 2 was supported\y.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 stated that, for Australians, the trend for effe\ftiveness ratings a\fross the four styles

would \forrespond with the profile for drawing \floser (integration) post\fonfli\ft, whereas the

Tab\fe 2. R \f Change and Standa\4rdized Betas of Cu\4lture and Competen\4cy Variables Regre\4ssed on

Relationship Outco\4mes

Integration Disintegration Status Quo

I.V.s DR

\f St. b DR \f St. b DR \f St. b

Constructive Controversy

Culture .1\f3***(–.353***)

–.095 .1\b5***

(.433***)

.\f01** .037**

(–.194**)

–.06\f

Effectiveness .377***–.355*** .010

Appropriateness .\f14***.\f\f0**.\f1\b***–.\f\f5** .03\b**.\f31**

Total R

\f .357*** .410***.076**

Constructive Diplomacy

Culture nsns .041** (.\f03**)

.\f13** ns

Effectiveness .335***–.\f\b5*** .076

Appropriateness .14\b***.104.\f\f9***–.\f73*** .131***.30\f***

Total R

\f .159*** .\f54***.133***

Smoothing

Culture .0\b7***(.\f97***)

.133* ns

ns.066*** (.\f5\b***)

.1\b\b**

Effectiveness .45\b***–.16\f* .133

Appropriateness .\f0\f***.049.\f77***–.433*** .143***.307***

Total R

\f .31\f*** .\f79***.\f11***

Destructive Controversy

Culture .0\f3*(–.153*)

–.134* .07\f***

(.\f69***)

.\f\f7*** ns

Effectiveness .194**–.114 –.04\f

Appropriateness .075***.137*.15\f***–.3\f9*** .104***.34\f***

Total R

\f .119*** .\f31***.113***

Australians = 0, Chinese = 1.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Brew et al. \b69

appropriateness tr\yend would not, and\y for Chinese the re\yverse would \be the \y\fase. To test this, \ywe

examined the intera\ftions \between the three profiles a\fross the four \fonfli\ft styles for ea\fh

group. We also examined status quo, as the regression showed that appropriateness was strong

in predi\fting this out\fome. The overall four-way intera\ftions were all highly signifi\fant, so we

pro\feeded to test t\yhe three-way intera\f\ytions, with the res\yults in Ta\ble 3.

Ta\ble 3 shows that t\yhe profile for effe\y\ftiveness ratings a\y\fross the four style\ys is parallel to t\yhe

profile for integration for Australians, the intera\ftion la\fking \friti\fal signifi\fan\fe, whereas that

for appropriateness with integration is signifi\fant; hen\fe, the profiles do not \forrespond. That is,

the distin\ftions that Australians made \between the four styles for effe\ftiveness are repeated with

the de\fision to integrate \but not for appropriateness. Neither \fompeten\fy profile \forresponds

with the status quo, as \both intera\ftions are signifi\fant. For Chinese, neither the effe\ftiveness nor

appropriateness profile a\fross the four styles is parallel to the integration profile, as \both intera\f-

tions are signifi\fant. However, with status quo, the effe\ftiveness intera\ftion is signifi\fant \but

that for appropriateness is not, indi\fating a \forresponden\fe of profiles for appropriateness and

status quo a\fross t\yhe styles. Therefore\y, Hypothesis 3 is s\yupported for Austr\yalians for integra\ytion

out\fomes \but for st\yatus quo out\fomes f\yor Chinese.

Genera\f Discussion

As predi\fted, Australians dis\friminated \between the four \fonfli\ft styles with effe\ftiveness

assessments, des\fending in strength from \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy \flo\fkwise round the Yin-Yang

model, and the Chinese dis\friminated with appropriateness assessments, des\fending anti\flo\fk-

wise from smoothing. However, the Australians also dis\friminated to some extent with appropri-

ateness assessments. The destru\ftive \fonfrontation style evoked a very negative response from

\both groups on \both \fompeten\fies. Nevertheless, the eviden\fe supports more than \fontradi\fts

our earlier arguments that effe\ftiveness is more salient for those from an individualist \fulture

who tend to rely on dire\ft spee\fh and information ex\fhange to resolve \fonfli\ft. Conversely,

appropriateness is more salient for those in \folle\ftivist \fultures, who need to hose down \fonfli\ft

and tread warily. Spitz\berg et al.’s (1994) \flaim that \fompeten\fy judgments affe\ft \fonfli\ft out\fomes was sup-

ported. Interestingly, it appeared that appropriateness was important for maintaining the status

quo; however, a judgment of effe\ftiveness was required over and a\bove appropriateness for respon -

dents to desire to integrate the relationship. This is \fonsistent with the key findings for the third

hypothesis. First, for Australians, the effe\ftiveness trend \but not the appropriateness trend a\fross

the four styles mirrored their predi\ftions a\bout whether the relationship would improve post\fon-

fli\ft. Se\fond, for Chinese, the appropriateness trend \but not the effe\ftiveness trend a\fross the four

styles refle\fted their predi\ftions a\bout whether the status quo would \be preserved post\fonfli\ft.

Tab\fe 3. Significance of T\4hree-Way Interacti\4ons of Conflict St\4yle × Competency ×\4 Relational Outcom\4e

Australians Chinese

Interaction F ValuepPt. h\f F Value pPt. h\f

C × Eff × Int 2.62 .059.020 6.\b\b < .0005 .061

C × App × Int \f0.9\b< .0005 .14\f 5.70 .001.051

C × Eff × StQ 40.59< .0005 .\f4\f\f7.\f3 < .0005 .\f04

C × App × StQ 10.45< .0005 .076 1.05 .372.010

df = 3, 3\b1 (Australia)\4; 3, 31\b (Chinese).\4 C = conflict style; E\4ff = effectiveness; Ap\4p = appropriateness; \4

Int = integration; StQ \4= status quo. \b70 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

These findings lend more support for the assertion that effe\ftiveness is more salient for indepen-

dent types and appr\yopriateness for in\yterdependent types.\y Overall, the empiri\fal study supports our argument that not only do people from dissimilar

\fultures favor different ways of resolving \fonfli\ft, as the large \body of resear\fh indi\fates, \but

they view the \fonfli\ft ex\fhange through lenses \folored \by \fultural influen\fes, su\fh as the \flarity

and fa\fe-support \fonstraints (Kim, 1993), independent or interdependent self-\fonstrual (Markus

& Kitayama, 1991), and values supporting harmony or de\bate (Brew, 2007). The high rating for

the effe\ftiveness of \fonstru\ftive \fontroversy \by the Australian \fohort is \fonsistent with the pilot

study, whi\fh showed that Western expatriates were \fon\ferned with ex\fhange of opinions, arti\fu-

lation of pro\blems, and talking things through. By \fontrast, the \fon\fentration of Singaporean

host-nationals’ \fomments on intera\ftional skills su\fh as ta\ft and patien\fe is \fonsistent with the

Chinese \fohort rating smoothing, with its \falming properties, as the most appropriate. Our find-

ings go further to \yshow that relationa\yl out\fomes post\fonf\yli\ft are determined\y \by whether per\fep-

tions are dominated \by effe\ftiveness or appropriateness judgments. Hen\fe, individualists when

dealing with people from \folle\ftivist so\fieties are likely to \be frustrated \by the per\feived inef-

fe\ftive ta\fti\f of smoothing, no matter how polite and \fon\ferned—parti\fular\yly if they wish to

\bring a\bout a solution to the pro\blem that also a\fhieves forming \floser ties with the other party.

Likewise, \folle\ftivists when dealing with individualists are likely to \be offended \by the per-

\feived inappropriate ta\fti\f of presenting arguments and opinions upfront, no matter how \flear

and solution-fo\fused, if they \believe that fa\fe is threatened as well as the equili\brium of the

relationship.

Impli\fations, Futur\ye Dire\ftions, and L\yimitations

The past studies referred to earlier on \fonfli\ft management have only \been a\ble to \fonje\fture on

the impli\fations of the \fross-\fultural differen\fes that emerged, parti\fularly for inter\fultural \fir-

\fumstan\fes su\fh as sojourners in diverse workpla\fes. These findings have extended this resear\fh

\by showing how \fognitive judgments made a\bout the \fonfli\ft \behavior of the other party affe\ft

the ongoing relationship \between the two parties. The \fompeten\fy measures designed \by Canary

and Spitz\berg (1987) in a mono\fultural setting remained valid and were useful to examine the

relevan\fe of their theory \fross-\fulturally. However, for future studies, their rather a\bstra\ft,

superfi\fial set of items \fould \be improved and spe\fified more \flearly using the interview mate-

rial of the pilot study, whose interpretation was guided \by the literature on inter\fultural \fommu-

ni\fation \fompeten\fe.\y The \furrent study only \fonsidered the \fognitive dimension of the \fognitive-emotional lens \but

not the emotional. Although emotions may \be similarly re\fognized a\fross \fultures, they \fan \be

expressed quite differently along a restraint-expressiveness \fontinuum (Hammer, 2005). More -

over, differing emotions may \be experien\fed in similar \fonfli\ft situations; for example, Brew

(2002) found that Western expatriates working in East Asia experien\fed more anger than host-

nationals, who were likely to suffer more anxiety than expatriates. Hammer (2005) has formulated

a model \based on the well-known dire\ft-indire\ft \fommuni\fation dimension and the restraint-

expressiveness dimension to arrive at four typologies of emotionally \based \fonfli\ft styles. This

\fould provide a useful starting point for investigating \fross-\fulturally the effe\fts of appraisals of

emotional display and interpretation of the ensuing emotional tension on out\fomes. Methodologi\fally, the main study relied on s\fripts that only gave a single response in order to

maintain simpli\fity and \fonsisten\fy a\fross the four styles. We a\fknowledge that \fonfli\ft is \fom-

plex and made up of a \folle\ftion of \behaviors, \but using a single response as the main stimulus

is not ipso fa\fto invalid. Van de Vliert, Euwema, and Huismans (1995) showed that the effe\ftiveness

of a \fonglomeration of a\fts is most influen\fed \by the \fomponent that de-es\falated or es\falated Brew et al. \b71

the \fonfli\ft rather than the dominant \fomponent. Ideally, a video of an ena\fted, longer, more

realisti\f ex\fhange would \be useful for stimulus material in future resear\fh of a quasi-experimental

nature, as it is likely to stimulate a more engaged rea\ftion \fompared to a simple, written response.

However, it would require a mu\fh larger sample than the present study, whi\fh was a\ble to reply

on repeated measur\yes.

Rather than drawing on some \fommon understanding of \fommuni\fation and its purpose, as

implied \by Burgoon (1974), the results show that people from different \fultures are operating

from dissimilar mind maps when assessing the \fommuni\fation a\fts of the other. We have la\beled

the assessments effectiveness and appropriateness in keeping with existing theory, \but future

resear\fh needs to e\yxtend this line of \yenquiry.

Dec\faration of Conf\f\aicting Interests

The authors de\flared that they had no \fonfli\fts of interests with respe\ft to their authorship or the pu\bli\fa-

tion of this arti\fl\ye.

Financia\f Disc\fosure/\aFunding

The authors de\flared that they re\feived no finan\fial support for their resear\fh and/or authorship of this

arti\fle.

Note

1. Note that the original study involved two \fonditions as \fontexts, one in whi\fh the flatmates had \been

friends for 3 years with family \fonne\ftions prior to the flat experien\fe and the other in whi\fh they had

not known ea\fh other previously and led separate so\fial lives. Half of ea\fh ethni\f \fohort re\feived one

of the \fonditions. \yThere were few diff\yeren\fes \between the \ytwo \fontexts, so th\yey are not reported\y here.

References

Blake, R., & Mouton\y, J. S. (1964). The \fanagerial grid.\l Houston, TX: Gulf.\y

Brew, F. P. (2002). Intercultural conflict in the workplace: A study with Western expatriates and East Asian

host-nationals. Unpu\blished do\ftoral dissertation, Ma\fquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales,

Australia.

Brew, F. P. (2007). Harmony and \fontroversy: The Yin and Yang of \fonfli\ft in East Asian and Western \fultures. In J. H. Liu, C. Ward, A. Bernardo, M. Karasawa, & R. Fis\fher (Eds.), Casting the individual

in societal and cultural contexts: Social and societal psychology for Asia and the Pacific (Progress in

Asian So\fial Psy\fhol\yogy Series, Vol. 6,\y pp. 39-59). Seoul\y: Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa \yPu\blishing Co.

Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. (2004). Does \fulture or situational \fonstraints determine \fhoi\fe of dire\ft or indire\ft styles in inter\fultural workpla\fe \fonfli\fts? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28,

331-352.

Brislin, R. (1981).\y Cross-cultural enco\lunters: Face-to-fa\lce interaction. New York: Pergamon\y.

Burgoon, M. (1974).\y Approaching speech/\lco\f\funication. New York: Holt, R\yinehart, and Winsto\yn, In\f.

Canary, D. J., Cupa\fh, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A \fompeten\fe-\based approa\fh to examining interper- sonal \fonfli\ft: Test\y of a longitudinal\y model. Co\f\funication Resea\lrch, 28(1), 79-104.

Canary, D. J., & Spitz\berg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effe\ftiveness per\feptions of \fonfli\ft strate- gies. \bu\fan Co\f\funication \lResearch, 14, 93-118.

Chan, D. K., & Goto, S. G. (2003). Confli\ft resolution in the \fulturally diverse workpla\fe: Some data from Hong Kong employees\y. Applied Psychology: \lAn International Re\lview, 52, 441-460.

Chua, E., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Confli\ft resolution styles in low- and high-\fontext \fultures. Co\f-

\funication Research\l Reports, 4(1), 32-37.

Cole, D. A., Ciesler, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effe\fts of failing to in\flude design-driven \for -

related residuals in latent-varia\ble \fovarian\fe stru\fture analysis. Psychological Methods, 12 (4), 381-398. \b7\f Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

Collier, M. J. (1991). Confli\ft \fompeten\fe within Afri\fan, Mexi\fan, and Anglo Ameri\fan friendships. In

S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal co\f\funication (pp. 132-154).

New\bury Park, CA: S\yage Pu\bli\fations.

Collier, M., & Thomas, M. (1988). Identity in inter\fultural \fommuni\fation: An interpretive perspe\ftive. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural co\f\funication. International and Intercul-

tural Co\f\funication \lAnnual, XII (pp. 99-120). New\bury Park, CA: \ySage.

Cupa\fh, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Co\fpetence in interpersonal conflict. New York: M\fGraw-Hill

Companies In\f.

Curhan, J. R., Elfen\bein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of su\bje\ftive value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 ,

493-512.

Driskill, G. W., & Downs, C. W. (1995). Hidden differen\fes in \fompetent \fommuni\fation: A \fase study of an organization with Euro-Ameri\fans and first generation immigrants from India. International Journal

of Intercultural Re\llations, 19(4), 505-522.

Friedman, R., Chi, S. C., & Liu, L. A. (2006). An expe\ftan\fy model of Chinese-Ameri\fan differen\fes in \fonfli\ft-avoiding. \yJournal of Internat\lional Business Stud\lies, 37, 76-97.

Gao, G. (1998). “Don’t take my word for it.” Understanding Chinese speaking pra\fti\fes. International

Journal of Intercul\ltural Relations, 22(2), 163-186.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influen\fe of \fultural individualism-\folle\y\ftivism, self-\fonstruals, and individual values on \fommuni\fa-

tion styles a\fross \y\fulture. \bu\fan Co\f\funication \lResearch, 22, 510-543.

Hall, E. T. (1989).\y Beyond culture. New York: An\fhor Bo\yoks.

Hammer, M. (2005). The inter\fultural \fonfli\ft style inventory: A \fon\feptual framework and measure of inter\fultural \fonfli\ft resolution approa\fhes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 29 (6),

675-695.

Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R. (1978). Dimensions of inter\fultural effe\ftiveness: An explor- atory study. International Journ\lal of Intercultural \lRelations, 2, 382-393.

Hara, K., & Kim, M. S. (2004). The effe\ft of self-\fonstruals on \fonversational indire\ftness. Journal of

Intercultural Relati\lons, 28(1), 1-18.

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

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the \find (2nd ed.). New York:

M\fGraw-Hill.

Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and \fultural varia\bility in \fonversational indire\ft- ness. Journal of Personal\lity and Social Psyc\lhology, 73(3), 624-637.

Hsu, C. F. (2004). Sour\fes of differen\fes in \fommuni\fation apprehension \between Chinese in Taiwan and Ameri\fans. Co\f\funication Quart\lerly, 52(4), 390-402.

Kim, M. S. (1993). Culture-\based intera\ftive \fonstraints in explaining inter\fultural strategi\f \fompeten\fe. In R. L. Wiseman, & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural co\f\funication co\fpetence (pp. 132-150). New\bury

Park, CA: Sage.

Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A \fross-\fultural \fomparison of impli\fit theories of requesting. Co\f-

\funication Monograp\lhs, 61, 210-235.

Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward a\fross \fultures. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspec-

tives on international industrial/organiza\ltional psychology (pp. 640-675). San Fran\fis\fo: New Lexing-

ton Press.

Leung, K., & Chan, D. (1999). Confli\ft a\fross \fultures. In J. Adamopoulos & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Social

psychology and cultu\lral context (pp. 177-188). Thou\ysand Oaks, CA: Sag\ye.

Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (1998). Conflict \fanage\fent in the Asia Pacific: Assu\fptions and approaches

in diverse cultures\l. John Wiley & Sons \y(Asia) Pte Ltd. Brew et al. \b73

Leung, K., Tremain-Ko\fh, P. M., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualisti\f model of harmony and its impli\fations for

\fonfli\ft management\y in Asia. Asia Pacific Journ\lal of Manage\fent, 19, 201-220.

Lin, Z. (1997). Am\biguity with a purpose: The shadow of power in \fommuni\fation. In P. C. Earley &

M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organiza\ltional psychology (pp. 363-376).

San Fran\fis\fo: The N\yew Lexington Press\y.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli\fations for \fognition, emotion, and moti- vation. Psychological Review\l, 98, 224-253.

Miles, M. B., & Hu\berman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: \ySage.

Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J. F., Kondo, M., et al. (1998). Culture, \fonfli\ft management style, and underlying values: A\f\founting for \fross-national differen\fes in styles of

handling \fonfli\fts among US, Chinese, Indian and Filipino Managers. Journal of International Business

Studies, 29, 729-748.

Nishida, H., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L. (1998). Cognitive differen\fes \between Japanese and Ameri\fans in their per\feptions of diffi\fult so\fial situations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

29 (4), 499-524.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yoko\fhi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wil\fox, R. (2001). Fa\fe and fa\fework in \fonfli\ft: A \fross-\fultural \fomparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.

Co\f\funication Monogr\laphs, 68(3), 235-258.

Ole\be, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the \fross-\fultural equivalen\fe of the \behavioral assess -

ment s\fale for inter\fultural \fommuni\fation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 13 ,

333-347.

Olekalns, M. (1998). Negotiating with Australia: The individual among us. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict \fanage\fent in the Asia Pacific: Assu\fptions and approaches in diverse cultures

(pp. 277-302). John Wiley & Sons (\yAsia) Pte Ltd.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal \fonfli\ft. Acade\fy of Manage\fent

Journal, 26(2), 368-376.

Ru\ben, B. D. (1989). The study of \fross-\fultural \fompeten\fe: Traditions and \fontemporary issues. Interna-

tional Journal of I\lntercultural Relatio\lns, 13, 229-240.

Ru\ben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of \fommuni\fation \fompeten\fy and the pre- di\ftion of \fross-\ful\ytural adaptation. \yInternational Journ\lal of Intercultural \lRelations, 3, 15-47.

Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1995). Em\barrassa\bility and self-\fonstrual: A theoreti\fal integration. Personality and Ind\lividual Difference, 19, 919-926.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-\fonstruals. Personality

and Social Psycholo\lgy Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Spitz\berg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupa\fh, W. R. (1994). A \fompeten\fe-\based approa\fh to the study of interpersonal \fonfli\ft. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 183-202). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawren\fe Erl\bau\ym Asso\fiates.

Spitz\berg, B. H., & Cupa\fh, W. R. C. (1984). Interpersonal co\f\funication co\fpetence. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Thomas, K. W. (1990). Confli\ft and negotiation pro\fesses in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette &

L. M. Hough (Eds.), \bandbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 651-717).

Chi\fago: Rand M\fNall\yy.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Inter\fultural \fonfli\ft styles: A fa\fe-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim &

W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural co\f\funication (pp. 213-235). New\bury Park, CA:

Sage Pu\bli\fations.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Inter\fultural \fonfli\ft \fompeten\fe. In W. R. Cupa\fh & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Co\f-

petence in interpe\lrsonal conflict (pp. 120-147). Ne\yw York: M\fGraw-Hill\y Companies In\f. \b74 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy\fhology 4\b(5)

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Tru\bisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, fa\fe

maintenan\fe, and styles of handling interpersonal \fonfli\ft: A study in five \fultures. International Jour-

nal of Conflict Man\lage\fent, 2(4), 275-296.

Tinsley, C. H., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Managing workpla\fe \fonfli\ft in the United States and Hong Kong. Organization Behavi\lor and \bu\fan Decisio\ln Processes, 85, 360-381.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and \fompetitive goal approa\fh to \fonfli\ft: A\f\fomplishments and \fhal- lenges. Applied Psychology: \lAn International Re\lview, 47(3), 285-342.

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing \fonfli\ft with a su\bordinate or a superior: Effe\ftive\yness of \fonglomerat\yed \behavior. Journal of Applied \lPsychology, 80(2), 271-281.

Wall, J. A., & Stark, J. (1998). North Ameri\fan \fonfli\ft management. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict \fanage\fent in the Asia Pacific: Assu\fptions and approaches in diverse cultures (pp. 303-333).

John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.