Intercultural Conflict Management Karen Alon Wasana Suthaphan Stacy Roberts Alicia Wolfson Olga Legotina November 22, 2004 Dr. Hasenauer Introduction Ethnicity, identity, and national attachments play a significant role in most conflicts, whether in an isolated small group, or across the world. This annotated bibliography focuses on five different facets of intercultural and international conflict management. We begin with face negotiation theory, and explore how intercultural conflict competence is perceived among different groups, and how conflict is communicated, dealt with, and resolved. We reveal that different groups experience various types of conflict management, depending on the cultural history, and personal background. Our second section incorporates conflict style differences between collectivist and individualist groups, with the goal of unveiling ways for each group to handle conflict effectively, in any given situation. Examining individualist and collectivist differing conflict styles leads us into the third section, which focuses on conflict styles based on the concern for one’s self, and for other’s. We choose to branch off into another aspect of the individualist, and collectivist conflict management styles, to give a clearer picture of the differences, and similarities between the two. Within the context of intercultural conflict management, it is important to also include international conflict management, and successful mediation tactics. On an international level, not only do we acknowledge long standing intercultural conflict, but we also place significant value on mediation tactics, which have been tested to be successful in numerous conflict situations. We conclude the annotated bibliography with a general overview of intercultural conflict by comparing and contrasting various isolated groups, and examining whether or not certain conflict management styles are effective. Face Negotiation Theory: Competence in Intercultural Conflict Oetzel, J. G. (1998). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles. Communication Reports, 11 (2), pp. 133-145. This study examines whether self-construal and ethnicity predict conflict styles of individuals in small group settings. Participants include 463 college students in the western United States, varies in ethnic backgrounds. Results suggest that self-construal is a better predictor of conflict styles than ethnic/cultural background. This maybe because the participants may have resided in the United States for long enough so that their culture of origin exerts very little influence on conflict style. Dominating conflict styles are associated positively with independent self-construals while avoiding, obliging, and compromising styles are associated positively with interdependent self-construals. The finding also shows that interdependent self-construals are found to be better predictor of integrating conflict styles than independent self-construals. For example, latino(a)s prefer an integrating style more than European Americans. The final result reports that situational characteristics do not influence conflict styles. However, because the use of scenarios and self-report questionnaires, the results may not always a valid explanation of one’s actual communication behaviors. Oetzel, J. G. (1999). The influence of situational features on perceived conflict styles and self-construals in work groups. International Journal of intercultural relations, 23 (4), pp. 679-695. This study examines the influence of situational features on self-construal and conflict styles in work group settings. The purpose is twofold: (1) to determine which situation influences conflict styles and (2) to examine whether situation influences self-construals. The researcher focuses on two particular situation features: cooperative (e.g. brainstorming) and competitive (e.g. mixedmottiv tasks) group tasks. Results confirm that individuals in competitive tasks would prefer to dominate, avoid, or seek third-party help more than individuals in cooperative tasks. The second situational factor is the ingroup/outgroup distinction. Ingroups refer to family, friends, and work groups while outgroups refer to people that are not well known, people who perceived as harmful or people with whom one is in conflict. Results suggest that individuals in ingroups prefer avoiding and emotional expression less than individuals in outgroups. Cooperative ingroup situations lead to more integrating and more compromising than either cooperative outgroup or competitive ingroup situations and greater emphasis of the interdependent self-construal than cooperative outgroup situations. In sum, this study illustrates that conflict management styles and selfconsttrual are influenced by situational features which is contradict to his previous study conducted in 1998. Oetzel, J. G. & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30 (6), pp. 599-624. This present study validates the face-negotiation theory based on the assumption that face is an explanatory mechanism for culture’s influence on conflict behavior. The questionnaires are administered to 768 participants in 4 national cultures (China, Germany, Japan and the United States) asking them to describe interpersonal conflict. The independent variables in this study are cultural individualism-collectivism (I-C), self-construal, and face concerns. The dependent variables are avoiding, integrating, and dominating conflict styles. The results confirm that cultural individualism-collectivism has direct effects on conflict styles, as well as mediates effects through self-construal and face concerns. Specifically, the display of other-face concern can lead to a collaborative, win-win integrative approach or an avoiding approach. In contrast, individuals with self-pride or self-image during conflict episode may devote effort into defending their conflict position to the neglect of other-face validation issue. Self-face concern is associated with dominating conflict style and other-face concern is associated with avoiding and integrating conflict style. However, some of the findings contradict the findings of previous research for collectivistic cultures. That is, in this study, both individualistic and collectivistic samples have more independence and self-face tendencies than interdependence and other-face tendencies. This contradictory finding is possible because college students may not be the best representatives for collectivistic cultures. Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D. & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35 (1), pp. 44-72. This article investigates the concepts and perspectives of conflicts, power, and status developed across the disciplines: Psychology, Economics, Political Science and Sociology. The different disciplines focus on different aspects of group phenomena. Psychology and economics tend to focus on the individual decision-makers or actors, whereas political science and sociology tend to emphasize the structures or constraints that surround the actors. The authors use the institutional mechanisms of rules: boundary rules, aggregation rules, position rules, and information rules, to delineate the specific rules and tasks involved in the group. These rules legitimize some kinds of behavior, and as a consequence, delegitimize others. In summary, boundary rules indicate who is and is not a member of the group so it is imposed from authorities in the form of restraints about who is able to work with, live with, or interact with whom. Boundary rules minimize conflict by creating particular statuses that are fully legitimized and determine power relations. Aggregation rules define the procedure or process by which decisions are made within groups. If the authority endorses a particular aggregation rule, conflict over the rule itself will be less likely. Rules of position relate directly to power and status. If leadership positions or particular rules about positions are in place, then conflict is less probable. Finally, information rules dictate what information is available to whom. Asymmetrical information is one important way in which some actors gain power over others. Thus, in addition to face-negotiation theory, power and status are important in predicting and explaining the interaction and the consequences of group, especially during the conflicts. Ting-Toomey, S. & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (2), pp. 187-225. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi discuss that conflict is an ideal forum for facethreaatenin and face-saving behaviors. Two major attentions are delineated in this article; (1) an update on face-negotiation theory; and (2) a facework competence model for intercultural conflict training. While face and facework are universal phenomenon, the meanings of face and the performing of facework differ from one culture to the next. Originally, Ting-Toomey uses a cultural variability approach of individualism-collectivism to the study of face and facework. Individualism (e.g. northern and western regions of Europe and North America) refers to the broad value emphasizing the importance of “I” identity over “we” identity while collectivism (e.g. Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America and the Pacific) refers to the broad value emphasizing the importance of “we” identity over “I” identity. That is ingroup interest is over individual interest and mutual-face concerns are over self-face concerns. The updated propositions of face-negotiation theory suggest that individualists use situational accounts (i.e. external causes such as blaming others or situations) to save face while collectivists use negative or internal dispositional accounts (i.e. stories that locate/attribute the problematic event to one’s fail effort or negative personality traits) to accept face loss. Relating to conflict styles, while individualists tend to use more direct, face-threatening conflict styles, collectivists tend to use more indirect, mutual face-saving conflict styles. Beyond individualism-collectivism, the dimension of power distance is taken into consideration; power interplay between the conflict parties. Small power distance culture (e.g. the U.S.) tend to value equal power distributions, equal rights, symmetrical relations and equitable rewards and costs based on personal performance. Large power distance culture (e.g. Malaysia, Mexico, Arab countries) tend to accept unequal power distribution, hierarchical role, rewards and sanctions based on rank, role, status and sex. Another aspect is directed to self-construal or the distinction between independent (degree of autonomy) and interdependent self-construal (degree of connected to others). The authors propose three core dimensions of intercultural facework competence, including knowledge, mindfulness and communication skills in managing self(s) and other(s) face-related concerns. They suggest four criteria used to evaluate the facework competence: appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability and interaction satisfaction. All these issues are included in order to understand face and facework dynamics in multiple arenas. This study provides comprehensive foundation of face negotiation theory. The authors suggest that to extend face theory to the global study, we need efforts among multinational researchers and trainers to involve pluralistic comparative research methods and to have dialogue with practitioners from different cultural regions in order to develop an inclusive understanding of the theoretical and pragmatic relationships. Conflict Style Differences between Collectivists and Individualists Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69 (1), pp. 67-87. This article examines the ways in which individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures handle conflict. Cai and Fink write about the dual concern model, which originated from Blake and Mouton’s theory, and offer a brief explanation of five conflict management styles. The five conflict styles that they summarize from the dual concern model include: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. In this article, Cai and Fink examine previous studies that were conducted to compare the conflict styles of individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures, and report some of the findings. The authors make a point to acknowledge that the findings of some of the studies examined are inconsistent with one another. Cai and Fink also examine how conflict styles can have a different meaning and be interpreted in a different fashion amongst individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures. The authors of this article wrap up this piece by outlining a study that they conducted with the purpose of investigating cross-cultural differences that exist in regards to conflict management styles, along with assessing preferred conflict management styles. They describe the methods that they used, and present their findings. As a final note, the authors of this piece critique the dual concern model and state that it has limitations, and may be inaccurate. This article offers its readers an abundance of information on the conflict styles of individualists and collectivists. A potential limitation to the study that the authors of this piece conducted and described in this article, by their own admission, is that they measured the preferred conflict management styles of their participants by self report, as opposed to observing their actions. The authors acknowledge that the participants’ reports may not actually coincide with their true behaviors; nevertheless, they defend their method by stating that the results allowed for comparisons with past studies that utilized a similar method. This article is also very interesting because while the authors make a point to note that the dual concern model has been valuable, at the conclusion of their article, they determine that the model is imperfect. Ohbuchi, K. I., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management: Goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30 (1), pp. 51-71. The authors of this article begin the piece by discussing the different conflict management styles that people from individualist and collectivist cultures employ, and offer explanations for the differences in their styles. They also focus on the differences that exist in respect to each culture’s values and how this may play a role in how they manage conflict. The authors then turn their focus to the topic of goal orientation and attainment, and examine the goals that individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures are motivated to achieve when engaged in a conflict situation, along with the tactics that they use to achieve these goals. Ohbuchi, Fukushima and Tedeschi write about a conflict management study that was conducted with the purpose of examining the cultural differences of individuals from Japan (a collectivist culture) and the United States (an individualist culture) in regards to their behavioral styles and value orientations. They outline the methods that were used in this study and report their results, along with a comprehensive discussion and analysis. The authors conclude this piece by asserting that the study that was conducted confirms that cultural differences do exist in regards to the goals that individuals from different cultures are motivated to achieve in a conflict situation, as well as in the tactics that they employ to achieve these goals. They also claim that their findings are consistent with previous studies in respect to certain traits of individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures. This article provides great insight into the conflict management strategies that members of individualist and collectivist cultures employ in order to achieve their desired goals. Furthermore, this article not only allows its readers the opportunity to learn about the differences that exist between individualist and collectivist cultures in a general sense, but the inclusion of the study that was conducted and reported on in this article allows readers the ability to observe the differences being played out between two specific cultures that were the focus of this study, being the Japanese and American cultures. Sirra, K., Rogan, R. G., & Hall, J. A. (2004). A spoken word is an arrow shot: A comparison of Finnish and U.S. conflict management and face maintenance. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33 (2), pp. 89-107. The authors of this article examine the conflict styles and face concerns of members of the American and Finnish cultures. They begin this piece by acknowledging that while much research has been conducted to better understand how culture plays a role in how members of different cultures manage conflict, there has been a lack of research in examining the conflict style differences that exist between people in the United States and Western Europe. The authors provide an overview of the characteristics of individualist and collectivist cultures, as well as of high-and low-context cultures. They also provide an overview of the different conflict styles and face concerns that are associated with each culture. Siira, Rogan and Hall provide a comprehensive description of the Finnish culture and their preferred methods of communication. They sum up their description by noting that while the attributes of Finnish communication appear to reflect those of a collectivist and high-context culture, Finland is typically deemed as being, like the United States, an individualist and lowconntex culture. The authors of this piece also write about a study that was conducted with the intent of exploring the conflict management styles and face concerns of members of the American and Finnish cultures. They outline the methods that were used in this study and report their results, along with a comprehensive discussion and analysis. The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) and Baxter’s Face Maintenance Instrument were used in this study. This piece provides a plethora of useful information for anyone interested in learning more about the characteristics of individualist and collectivist cultures, along with their respective communication and conflict management styles, and concerns for face. The one thing missing from this piece is that, while it offers comparisons of the American and Finnish cultures and their conflict management styles, it doesn’t really take it to the next level in terms of addressing issues of intercultural conflict that exist between these two cultures. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G., (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. This book examines intercultural conflict in different settings and offers insight into how to manage intercultural conflict in an efficient manner. The book begins by examining the various causes and assumptions that are associated with intercultural conflict, and provides an inclusive overview of the communication and conflict management styles of individuals from collectivist and individualist cultures. The book then transitions into a discussion of intercultural conflict that exists in different settings, such as intimate settings in personal relationships, and small group and workplace settings. The authors conclude the discussion of each setting by offering suggestions on how to improve the management of conflict in each of the respective settings. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel conclude this book by offering valuable strategies for managing intercultural conflict in an effective manner, and layout three important dimensions: knowledge, mindfulness and constructive conflict skills. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel do an excellent job in detailing the communication and conflict management styles of members of individualist and collectivist cultures, along with providing explanations of the intentions behind their styles. This book is a great resource for learning more about the conflict that exists between cultures and the approaches that can be taken to effectively manage it. Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology 35 (2), pp. 145-52. In this article, Triandis examines cultural differences between members of collectivist and individualist cultures, along with various dimensions and attributes of each culture in terms of how they sample various pieces of information in their environment, how they handle the expression or suppression of emotions, and how they handle issues of miscommunication when dealing with members of other cultures. Triandis also examines the relationship between culture and conflict, and asserts that cultural differences frequently lead to miscommunication and conflict between members of different cultures. He gives several examples of instances in which miscommunication occurred between members of individualist and collectivist cultures. Triandis concludes his article with a discussion of how members from collectivist and individualist cultures manage conflict, and examines various cultural factors that have been linked to aggression. The author of this article provides a lot of insight into the differences that exist between collectivist and individualist cultures and provides useful information that explains the reasons behind these differences. He also provides valuable examples of various occasions in which miscommunication and conflict occurred between members of different cultures. Conflict Styles Based on the Concern for the Self and Others Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2004). Intergroup conflict management strategies as related to perceptions of dual identity and separate groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp. 115-127. This is a quantitative study that uses the dual concern model to test whether or not dual identity and separate group perceptions influences a preference for certain intergroup conflict management styles. Dual identity is identified as two separate groups that share a common identity, whereas separate group perceptions is identified as two or more groups having an individual identity from one another. The authors used two studies to identify whether or not dual identity or separate group perceptions had a propensity for certain conflict management styles. The first study consisted of secular Jews who were undergraduate students from several universities in Israel. The dual identity perception was common in this study which used questionnaires to focus on the perceived relationship between secular and religious Jews and their preferred conflict style. The second study was more commonly associated with the separate group perception and used hypothetical scripts to test the conflict strategies of Israeli courthouse guards within their organization. This article found that the propensity to use problem solving and contention was higher in the religious-secular context than in the organizational context. The level of concern for both self and others was also higher in the secular-religious study than in the organizational study. Contention was the most predictive conflict style in the separate group perception while the dual identity perception was the sole predictor of problem solving. This study is useful because it is one of the few studies available that attempts to predict conflict management styles in intergroup situations based on the degree of concern for self and concern for others. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. This book is a revised edition of The New Managerial Grid and focuses on which style of leadership behavior is most productive for both employees and managers. The goal of the book is to help the readers improve their effectiveness as a leader. The Grid is literally a grid that contains five different leadership styles which are strategically place on a grid based on its concern for the self and concern for others. The book is made up of four sections. Section one explains the Grid and goes into detail the characteristics, pros, and cons of each leadership style. Section two focuses in more detail on the leadership style identified as 9,9 on the grid. This style is judged by the authors as being the most preferred style since it is high in both concern for self and others. The authors believe that such high concern for both parties will maximize organizational production. The third section is a revision of the Grid theory. It examines three more leadership styles which are not on the Grid: paternalism/maternalism, opportunism, and facades. The last section discusses how the Grid can be useful to create changes in leadership skills and organizational effectiveness. The books consists of a systematic framework where each chapter discusses a leadership style on the Grid, including the three not on the grid, by identifying the similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses of each theoretical style. This book is one of the foundational works on identifying conflict styles based on concern for self and concern for other. Although the main focus of the book is on theoretical leadership styles it devotes a lot of information on how each style handles and perceives conflict. This book, and its last two editions, helped to contribute to the dual concern model where more specific terms have been created to identify different conflict styles (i.e. avoidance, problem solving). Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 27, pp. 16-20. The goal of this article is to help the reader improve their skills in conflict management by understanding the various interpersonal conflict styles presented by Conerly and Tripathi. The authors identify five interpersonal conflict styles and the characteristics associated with those styles: smoothing, confronting, withdrawing, forcing, and compromising. Each conflict style is based on two dimensions: the degree to which the reader wants to achieve their goal and the degree that the reader wants to cooperate with other group members. The article further explains why a reader’s assessment of his or her own conflict style may differ from how others perceive their conflict style. Conerly and Tripathi believe that readers can improve their conflict management skills by understanding and controlling the negative aspects associated with their conflict styles as well as with other styles. A chart is included in the article to help give readers a better understanding of the five conflict styles and how the two dimensions apply to each style. A questionnaire and scoring form is also included to help the reader assess his or her own conflict style. Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Dos Santos Pearson, V. M., & Villareal, L. (1997). Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, pp. 661-678. The purpose of this study was to use the dual concern model to examine how different cultures have different preferences for certain conflict management styles. The researchers chose to study and compare the different conflict management styles between Mexico and the United States. 103 college students from a state-funded university in Mexico and 91 college students from a statefunnde university in southwestern U.S. filled out questionnaires which measured their independent or interdependent sense of self, their masculinity and/or femininity, and assessed their individual preferences for different conflict styles. Their findings support that Mexicans see themselves as interdependent and prefer conflict styles that have a high concern for others: accommodation and collaboration. However, what was not expected in their findings was that both Mexicans and Americans preferred collaboration and accommodation over avoidance and competition. This contradicts past research which says that individualistic cultures like the U.S. tend to use competitive conflict styles. The researchers mentioned that this contradiction to past research could be contributed to the notion that Americans are not as competitive when resolving interpersonal conflict as they are in other areas of conflict. Femininity was associated with collaboration and accommodation in both cultures. Masculinity was associated with the collaboration style in both cultures while accommodation and avoidance styles were only found in the Mexican culture and not the U.S. Therefore, influence of masculinity and femininity on preferred conflict styles is said to exist within a culture and not between cultures. Overall, the researchers found that independent and interdependent sense of self is a bigger predictor of conflict style than masculinity and femininity. This study contributes to the study of intercultural conflict management styles. Although the study itself is limited because it uses an average of 100 educated people to represent the conflict style of its whole country, it does push researchers to apply the dual concern model to specific cultures to compare how two different cultures choose their conflict style based on their concern for self and others. This research is an example of how a theoretical model like the dual concern model can be applied to concrete situations and cultures. Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict management styles. Communication Reports, 14, pp. 87-104. The purpose of this study is to use the dual concern model to find out whether or not self-construal is a better predictor of conflict management styles than sex and ethnicity. In addition to the five conflict styles presented from the dual concern model, the authors included three more styles: emotional expression, third-party help, and neglect. The three styles were included in the study because the conflict styles associated with the dual concern model were limited in the sense that it did not capture the full range of conflict styles from a cross-ethnic and cross-cultural perspective. Self-construal is identified as how people perceive themselves; either as independent or interdependent. Independent construals have a high concern for self and low concern for others, whereas interdependent construals have a low concern for self and high concern for others. This mirrors the collectivist-individualistic theory. Four selfconsstrua types were identified: biconstrual, independent, interdependent, and ambivalent. The study consisted of 662 European-American, African-American, Asian-American, and Latina(o)-American participants. Each participant completed a questionnaire which investigated their self-construals and conflict styles in acquaintance conflicts. The findings show that biconstruals, independents, and interdependents use integrating and compromising styles more than ambivalents. Biconstruals also use emotional expressions more than ambivalents. Biconstruals were also found to use the dominating style more than interdependents and ambivalents. Interdependents and ambivalents use third-party help more than biconstruals and independents. Ambivalents were found to use neglect more than biconstruals, independents, and interdependents. Lastly, males use dominating more than females. Overall, the authors found that self-construal was a better predictor of conflict styles than sex and ethnicity. This research is beneficial to the topic of intercultural conflict management within small groups based on the concern for self and others. It applies the dual concern model to intercultural conflict management and helps to predict how one’s concern for self and others will influence the chosen conflict style. It is also closely tied in with Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation theory. International Conflict Management and Mediation Tactics Bercovitch, J. (2003). Managing internationalized ethnic conflict: Evaluating the role and relevance of mediation. Journal of World Affairs, 166 (1), pp. 56-68. This particular article examines the ways in which internationalized ethnic conflict can be managed successfully, and the ways which are the most effective. Bercovitch begins with a background of the Cold War, and how the conflict management style during this period has had an impact on the rest of the world, in a negative manner. He states that “conflict management style during this period was characterized mostly by deterrence, suppression, and diversion, rather than resolution” (p. 56). The United States and the Soviet Union dealt with each other on a number of conflicts, but their interventions served limited interests; therefore silencing the opinion of those who conflict truly impacted the most. Bercovitch goes on to define “ethnicity” because he feels that the term is loosely thrown around in certain contexts without the true meaning. If a group is understood to be an ethnic group, they must collectively identify with shared cultural history, territory, and clear emotional attachment to a culture. An ethnic conflict is thus “a conflict that involves two or more groups that perceive themselves as different and are seen by others as different” (p. 56). It is essential to clearly define the term ethnicity as it relates to conflict because of the ways in which groups create a separate sense of identity, and thus are more prone to experience divergence. According to Bercovitch, “perceived deprivation and the desire to remove it are characteristic of the development and conduct of ethnic conflict” (p. 58). In order to apply ethnic conflict to our present day society, Bercovitch suggests that most of the conflicts that we refer to as ethnic conflicts do not usually remain confined to a single state, nor are they purely ethnic in nature. He further develops this notion by stating that “most ethnic conflicts transform themselves into international conflicts, and as a result create a set of internationalized conflicts which had origins in domestic disputes over identity or discriminatory structures” (p. 58). Currently, through a variety of mechanisms and social developments, those internationalized conflicts have quickly transformed into the more familiar picture of an international conflict. In this study Bercovitch develops three kinds of conflicts that affect our society today; internationalized ethnic conflict, interstate conflicts, and internationalized civil conflicts. Internationalized ethnic conflicts are conflicts that become internationalized through migration of refugees or from the spread of conflict. Interstate conflicts are considered to be an internationalized that affects and exacerbates the ethnic identities within a state. Lastly, internationalized civil conflicts exist when external demands for territory, resources, or regime change and are superimposed on an ethnic identity. Throughout the article he uses each category of conflict to examine the persistence of each over a period of fifty years. He used 309 international conflicts which occurred throughout 1945-1995 in order to determine how and why a problem developed into an internationalized conflict. Out of the 309 conflicts, he found that 131 had a significant ethnic component which directly correlated to an internationalized conflict, which is an impressive number. This article is extremely informative and offers specific definitions and explanations for internationalized conflict, and effective strategies to identify and manage conflict. The study is useful, and beneficial to the concept of conflict management, specifically international and ethnic conflict management. Bercovitch, J., & Derouen, K. (2004). Mediation in internationalized ethnic conflicts: Assessing the determinants of a successful process. Armed Forces & Society, 30 (2), pp. 417-170. The article by Bercovitch and Derouen addresses how ethnic conflict can be diminished with different methods of mediation. Rather than devise a variety of constitutional accommodative arrangements, this article argues there are in fact three basic methods of conflict management that apply to all conflicts. They believe that parties in any conflict may resort to different levels of coercion, both physical and psychological, to manage their conflict, although managing conflict by bargaining and negotiation are the most successful. They spend the majority of the article focusing on the peaceful intervention of third parties. Bercovitch and Derouen offer three different mediation strategies; communication-facilitation, procedural-formulative, and directive strategies. The first strategy, communication-facilitation, focuses on mediation with passiveness and minimal direct interaction. The mediator attempts to channel information to both parties by facilitating cooperation but exhibiting little control of the situation. The second strategy, procedural-formulative, enables a mediator to exert a more formal control over the mediation process with respect to the environment. Here a mediator may determine structural aspects of the meetings and control constituency influences, media publicity, the distribution of information, and communication process (p. 157). The third strategy, which is directive, is considered to be the most powerful form of intervention. Here, a moderator affects the content and substance of the bargaining process by providing both parties incentives and thus changing their motivations. The main focus of the study was to test the effect of mediation and the impact of mediation strategies, timing and experience within the context of international conflict. It was hypothesized that mediation is more likely to be successful when it is undertaken at the right time, and when it lasts less than a year, and that mediation is more likely to be successful when a directive strategy is used. The research findings suggested that both scholars and practitioners should pay more attention to a traditional instrument of diplomacy, mediation. Specifically, mediators who employ directive strategies, have international experience, and have the opportunity to initiate mediation fairly early in the process. This article does a decent job of outlining specific moderation tactics, but lacks in the actual study portion of the article. The research findings, although true, were backed by a lack-luster case study. Cross, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55 (3), pp. 561-580. The purpose of this particular article was to compare three different models of conflict resolution, namely distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining, and interactive problem solving. Cross and Rosenthal contrasted each of these models in their ability to facilitate positive change in the expectancies and attitudes of the parties involved in an Israeli-Palestinian dispute about Jerusalem. Cross and Rosenthal describe three core strategies for successful interethnic conflict resolution; distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining, and interactive problem solving. Distributive bargaining is a competitive, position based, agreement oriented approach to dealing with conflicts that are perceived as win-lose situations. The single aim of the negotiator in distributive bargaining is to maximize self interest, and produce an environment where the parties interact as though they have no past and no future (p. 564). Integrative bargaining is a cooperative interest based, agreement oriented approach to dealing with conflicts that are intended to be viewed as win-win situations, which allows for concession and flexibility among both parties involved. Lastly, interactive problem solving involves a transformative, needs based approach to resolving conflict. It is designed to facilitate a deeper analysis of the conflict, and asks that both parties explore the underlying motivations, needs values and fears of both parties (p. 565). It was predicted that the interactive problem solving model would lead to the least amount of pessimism about the conflict concerning the issue of Jerusalem and the future relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. It was also predicted that the dyad members in the interactive problem solving model would undergo the most positive attitude change toward members of the other ethnic group. Results proved that dyad members who used the interactive problem solving strategy became the least pessimistic about the conflict in Jerusalem and the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis. They also showed the greatest positive change in attitudes toward members of the other ethnic group (p. 572). In particular, Jewish dyad members using the interactive problem solving model displayed more pro-Palestinian sentiment than did Jewish and Arab dyad members who used the other models of conflict resolution. This study presents an extremely effective argument for the success of interactive problem solving. Even in a hostile situation regarding ethnic backgrounds and beliefs, individuals were able to remain positive and maintain effective communication. Ross, M. H. (2000). Creating the conditions for peacemaking: Theories of practice in ethnic conflict resolution. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (6), pp. 1002-1034. This article focuses on creating conditions so that groups of different ethnic backgrounds in conflict can move towards developing an agreement. Ross hypothesizes that “until key preconditions are met, competing groups are unlikely to make effective progress towards an agreement, and that the development of cooperation s between small groups in local settings can produce changes which spill over and produce a shift in the larger conflict” (p. 1003). In order to test these hypotheses Ross utilizes the theories of practice from six different approaches to ethnic conflict resolution; community relations, principled negotiation, human needs, psychoanalytically rooted identity, intercultural miscommunication, and conflict transformation. He continues to compare the core assumptions of the six theories of practice in terms of how each view the nature of conflict, and argues that greater attention to their underlying assumptions will make for better theory and improved possibilities for developing contingency models of conflict resolution (p. 1004). The main portion of this article is spent on exploring each theory of practice, and dissecting how each theory is problematic, show signs of consistent overlap, and how each can be applied to minimizing ethnic conflict in communities. The community relations theory promotes the development of constructive local level interaction and cooperative relationships between people from different groups. While specific interactions can vary, the core assumption is that functional cooperation around substantive matters can contribute to the breakdown of negative images and diminish intergroup hostility (p. 1010). Ross states that the principled negotiation theory was “not proposed specifically with ethnic conflicts in mind” although its advocates argue that it can be applied to all conflicts and disputes. Principled negotiation, with its overall emphasis on mutual gains, is seen as particularly useful in large scale, multipaart conflicts which waste resources and provoke public alienation when conflict spins out of control. In opposition to the principled negotiation theory, the human needs theory argues that there is a class of deep rooted conflicts in which there are frustrations and concerns under the surface that are not negotiable and cannot be repressed. The human needs theory uses problem solving workshops as the primary method for the resolution of deeply rooted conflicts such as those between ethnic communities, which brings both parties together in a setting that enables them to check on their perceptions and on the relevance of their conflicts (p. 1014). The psychoanalytical informed identity theory links the individual to larger social groupings and is experienced at the deepest emotional levels, as social identity is something that is constructed at such a young age. This theory believes that ethnicity or nationality originates much as other emotional phenomena do in clans or tribes, indicating that the sense of self is intertwined at a primitive level with the identification of the group (p. 1015). This reinforces a shared view of the world filled with enemies and allies, thus naturally creating ethnic conflict. Observers of ethnic disputes frequently suggest that groups with very different cultural beliefs and practices get into conflict because of their inability to communicate effectively, thus creating the intercultural miscommunications theory. Problems of miscommunication and incomplete understanding naturally provoke tension which leads to a greater, more complex conflict. Within this theory, Ross focuses on the fact that cultural differences in styles of communication produce significant divergence in how actions are understood and interpreted. Lastly, the theory of conflict transformation poses as an alternative approach based on the premise that building a sustainable peach requires far more than mere agreements. Instead, it emphasizes the need to alter relationships among groups in a society through the engagement of, and the need for fundamental reconciliation of, middle range and grass roots leaders and groups of citizens (p. 1020). Ross argues that conflict transformation makes possible the development of new images which include justice, forgiveness, and reconciliation. This article gives an in-depth description of all six theories of practice, and how each can be applied to ethnic conflict, whether it was designed to do so or not. Ross provides an excellent perspective on ethic conflict, and gives concrete examples for each theory, and creating a clear understanding of what ethnic conflict is, and how theory can be used to minimize the effect of conflict in our society. Ryan, S. (1990). Conflict management and conflict resolution. Terrorism and Political Science, 2 (1), pp. 54-72. In this article, Ryan discusses problems caused by violent ethic conflict, and the distinction between the management and resolution approaches associated with handling conflict. The article seeks to identify the different assumptions on which each strategy is based, and makes an argument which claims that instead of management and resolution acting as incompatible, that they are in fact mutually compatible. Ryan only concerns himself with violent and protracted ethnic conflict. By this he means, conflict between different groups who define themselves as being distinct from each other because of cultural factors which have given rise in each community to be a unique set of beliefs, values and ways of living (p. 55). He further explores what can be done to counter the threat that such violent conflicts pose to the life and well being of the people caught up in them and to the peace and security of the wider inter-state system within which such conflicts arise. The second portion of the article makes distinctions between the management and resolution approaches. Ryan makes two clear distinctions between the two strategies and develops each with evidence to support both views. The first distinction is that resolvers are mainly optimists who argue that the fundamental issues should be raised and can be resolved. Conflict managers on the other hand, are considered pessimists who believe that attempts to resolve conflicts are unrealistic. So rather than deal with the basic issues, attention should be placed on ameliorating the symptoms of the conflict, and in this way reduce suffering (p. 56). The second distinction, which is the most developed, is the examination of the assumption about whether the parties are in a zero-sum situation (lose-lose). In this case, Ryan gives an example about the case of the Northern Ireland conflict, where the heart of the problem between the Loyalists and the Republicans was the territorial destiny of Ulster. Loyalists wanted it to be part of a sovereign territory, and the Republicans wanted it to be part of a sovereign territory of an Irish Republic. Both sides felt strongly about this, and a compromise was out of the question. Therefore, it was seen that no hope of conflict resolution could be reached, and effective management was the only way out. Yet, a resolver would adopt a very different perspective. They would argue that the irresolvable nature of this particular situation is more apparent than real. For it may be incorrect to see it as a zero-sum, but rather a positive-sum (winwiin situation. For the rest of the article, Ryan developers his argument by exploring what one prominent peace researcher and one prominent conflict analyst have to say about how the problem of violent conflict can be handled. He reiterates what has already been stated previously in the article; the merging of the pessimistic management approach and the peace keeping resolution approach. Ryan finally comes to the conclusion that developing a successful strategy for dealing with violent ethnic conflict may not be to set up these two approaches as mutually exclusive strategies which results in a zero sum situation. Rather, Ryan hopes that more attention will be given to how the two strategies can be used together to balance out the negatives that each one presents. Intercultural Conflict Management Strategies Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2004). Personalization of conflict across cultures: A comparison among the united states, new zealand and australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33 (2), pp. 109-118. The critical role of cultural influence on the interpretation of conflict is the focus of this research, where three low-context cultures reported on their emotional reactions and predisposition towards conflict situations. One of the classifications identifies cultures as high-context, where communication is generally indirect and formal, or low-context, where communication tends to be more direct and informal (p. 111). Thus, the present study attempted to compare the Australian, United States and New Zealand cultures level of predispositions to and perceptions of conflict communication situations. The researchers take Hample and Dallinger’s notion of Taking Conflict Personally (TCP) as a basis, mostly because it is defined as a stable personal trait, and, thus, universally relevant to conflict situations. The researchers view TCP as either aggression or avoidance, which is believed to immediately affect those with whom we are communicating. Thus, the participants of the study, University-level students from the three cultures, both men and women, form 17 to 40 years of age were asked to complete the TCP Scale as to how they communicate in general with other people. Hample and Dallinger elaborated an instrument designed to measure the TCP construct, the TCP six-dimensional scale: Direct Personalization (measures the hurt one experiences during conflict), Persecution Feelings, Stress Reaction (measures a feeling of tension or discomfort during conflict), Positive Relational Effect (measures the level of an individual belief that a conflict may have a positive outcome), Negative Relational Effect (measures the level of an individual belief that a conflict may have a negative outcome) and Like/Dislike Valence (measures the extent to which individuals may enjoy conflict). Thus, personalization of conflict was measured through the TCP sixdimennsiona Scale, containing 37 items presented in a 5-point Likert-format (1= strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree). The overall findings reveal that there were no significant differences on any of the six TCP dimensions between the Australian and New Zealand samples. Americans, however, were higher on stress reactions, yet lower on direct personalization, like/dislike valence and persecution feelings. The significance of the study offers heuristic value, as it might in the future help to understand the origins and outcomes of intercultural relational conflict. It is the first study of its type to investigate cross-cultural differences in personalization of conflict. However, the researchers acknowledge that the data of the current study were obtained from the so-called convenience samples, and therefore may not be fully reliable and universally applicable. In addition, demographic variables were limited in this study, whereas age factors, educational or situational context may strongly influence the level of predisposition to conflict and ways of its management. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes. Communication Monographs 57, pp. 139-151. The study attempts to investigate the likelihood of the influence of the individual opinions of actors and their partners, grouped in dyads, on the outcomes of conflict messages. Students in communication courses and partners with whom they had experience conflict in the near past served as participants. The sample consisted of 97 dyads of these students, the majority of whom were females, and the average age was 25 years. The conflict partners included relatives, marital or relational partners, friends and other relationship types. Participants were asked to complete separate questionnaires that measure the actor’s self-reported conflict behaviors and competence or the partner’s perceptions of actor’s conflict behaviors and competence outcomes. There were 6 tactics (elaborated by Canary, Cunningham and Cody) offered to the participants to measure, using a seven-item Likert-format scale (from 1=strongly agree to 7=strongly disagree). The six offered tactics were: integrative tactics, criticism, anger, semantic focus, sarcasm and topic shifting. The overall findings of the present research may be summarized as follow: first, actors generally judged themselves as a lot more competent and appropriate than their partners judged them (perhaps, mainly because actors are generally viewed as egoistic and selfcenteered) Second, distributive conflict management tactic was perceived most positively, followed by avoidance and integrative behavior tactics. The study has a few limitations. First, actual real-life conversations were not observed which makes the external validity of the research questionable. Second, as the researchers acknowledged themselves, there was little control over the data collection distribution. In addition, future research seems to be necessary. For instance, the analysis should include less dramatic, but more routine interactions. Gross, M., Guerro, L. K., & Alberts, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication competence in task oriented dyads. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32 (3), pp. 249-270. The present study makes an attempt to apply the competence model of interpersonal conflict to temporary task-oriented dyads. The vast majority of the previous research on conflict management in groups, linking perceptions of conflict strategies to judgments of communication competence, has focused on close relationships (for instance, relational partner, family member, friend or spouse). However, it is in temporary task-oriented situations where conflict often plays the critical role. Thus, the significance of the study accounted for in this article is in its concentration on unacquainted dyads assigned to work on tasks, as there is little research conducted in this area and temporarily organized taskorieente groups of people are at the highest risk of being critically influenced by not being able to manage conflict. The participants of the present research were undergraduate students (N=200), who were paired into 100 dyads. Only total strangers (to one another) were eligible to participate in this research. The analyses were balanced in terms of sex, as the dyads consisted of 25 female dyads, 25 male dyads and 50 oppositesse dyads. The students were of different various ethnic backgrounds and ages (range from 18 to 57 years old). Each pair of partners were asked to complete a simulated decision-making task related to laying off two out of four employees in an organization, arrive at a collaborative mutual decision and to write a report with a detailed account on their decision-making process and justification of that decision. After that, each participant was asked to independently complete a questionnaire for both themselves (self-report) and their partners (partner – reports) with a number of different instruments, including Putnam and Wilson’s Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) and Spitzberg and Canary’s Interpersonal Communication Competency Scale (ICCS). The OCCI measures the frequency of using each of three conflict strategies: non-confrontational, solution-orientation and control. Spitzberg and Canary’s ICCS is a modification of Spitzberg and Phelps’ semantic differential scale of competency into a 40-item Likert-format instrument designed to test these scales in the relationship between loneliness and competency. Overall, findings suggested that task-oriented temporary dyads or small groups (for instance, students working together on a project) may quite productively use the competence model. The solution-oriented conflict strategy (active listening, collaborative brainstorming or consensus) was perceived as generally competent. The controlling strategy was generally perceived as inappropriate, yet effective in certain situations. Thus, it is rather inadvisable in task-oriented decision-making situations to use non-confrontational tactics (avoiding or changing the subject, giving in to a task partner’s demand or minimizing disagreements). But, when a tough decision needs to be made and in order to avoid conflict, it is advisable to utilize solution-oriented conflict strategies. However, if it is impossible to accomplish the goals, it may eventually be necessary to adhere to a controlling strategy. Along with the importance and significance of the research findings, there is a number of limitations that this investigation has, and, thus, requires future research. First, the decision-making process in this study affected others, not the participants themselves. Second, this study focused only on task-oriented situations only, whereas relational issues, even between unacquainted partners, are almost always present. Third, the research lacks external validity, as its data were collected from a simulated, not a real life task. Finally, demographic and personality variables were limited in this research and, thus, may not be applicable to a larger social milieu. Johnson, C., & Ford, R. (2000). Emotional reactions to conflict: Do dependence and legitimacy matter? Social Forces, 79 (1), pp. 107-138. In this article the researchers account for an examination of how power positions in an organization directly influence workers’ emotional responses to conflict, as power positions, according to Johnson and Ford, shape the cognitive components of emotional experience in a conflict. The present study tests the effects of dependence and legitimacy on the anticipated experience of three backward-looking emotions (satisfaction, anger and resentment) and two forward-looking emotions (excitement and worry). Thus, 330 college students were asked to take the position of a subordinate in a conflict situation with a superior (a manager) and report on the likelihood of their emotional expression toward the manager. The participants were given a description of the subordinate-manager conflict and were asked to describe their feelings towards it. Traditionally, the Likert-format scale was used to classify the five emotions: satisfaction, anger, resentment, worry and excitement). The authors of the article (and the research) justify their concentration on expressions of emotions in a conflict as follows: strong emotions may motivate individuals to take actions, which in the particular context of this study may strongly influence the origin, the nature and the outcome of a conflict situation at work. Thus, the goal of this article (and the given study) is to analyze how two forms of power (dependence and authority) affect subordinates’ emotional reaction to a conflict as well as the probability of that emotional expression toward the superior at all. The findings of the study revealed that dependence and legitimacy (authority) do, indeed, influence both emotional response and the likelihood of the expression of negative emotions. The five evaluated emotions were classified backward-looking and forward-looking. With regard to satisfaction, anger and resentment (backwardloookin emotions), the more the subordinates felt injustice the less satisfaction but more resentful they felt. Dependence and legitimacy-wise, subordinates reported higher levels of anger and resentment, when they were in the least dependent position. The results of the study also showed that subordinates are least likely to feel anger or resentment, when they are in a highly or equally dependent position in a conflict situation with their superior. On the other hand, experienced injustice has a lot lesser effect on the likelihood of expression of excitement and worry, the forward-looking emotions, than dependence and legitimacy. A less dependent situation, as the research revealed, generally offers subordinates more opportunities to take action to address the conflict. The more alternatives subordinates have the more excited and less worried they feel. In addition, the findings of the study showed that the likelihood of subordinates to express negative emotions towards their authorities is significantly higher, when other coworkers being supportive or simply present. Even though future research on the likelihood and nature of emotional reactions to conflict is necessary, the data revealed in the present research have a few important implications. First, the power structure factors (dependence and authority) have a strong impact on the nature of certain emotional responses and likelihood of their expression in a conflict. Second, emotional response to a conflict is a gender-related variable. Thus, the findings suggested that women reported having stronger negative emotions (anger and worry) and men, on the contrary, reported experiencing stronger positive emotions (satisfaction and excitement). Marin, M. J., Sherblom, J. C., & Shipps, T. B. (1994). Contextual influences on nurses conflict management strategies. Western Journal of Communication 58 , pp. 201-228. The present study examines the conflict management strategies used by nurses, when they are confronted by patients and investigates the direct effect of contextual influences on the choice of conflict management strategies. Concentration on contextual influences reflects the significance of the present research, since the previous conflict management studies were mainly focused on the personal nature of conflict management strategies only and, thus, underestimated the importance of contextual influences. In particular, the present study investigates how contextual influence affect the selected by nurses conflict management strategies in response to patient-issue related dilemmas. The research questions raised in the study ask if the organizational context and certain relational, professional, situational aspects influence a nurse’s choice of conflict management strategy. The participants consisted of 33 female professional nurses, from 22 to 57 years of age and, at least, one year of experience. This constancy in gender can be identified as a limitation of the study. The nurse-participants were presented with a number of patient-issue related dilemmas (both real-life and hypothetical) that might create conflict situations. According to the researchers, these dilemmas necessarily included 5 Hocker and Wilmot’s characteristics: interdependence, expressed struggle, perceived incompatible goals, perceived scarce resources and interference. The conflict in the presented dilemmas, according to the researchers, is influenced by Gutknecht and Millers’ 6 contextual levels on which organizational conflict occurs: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, intraorganizational and interorganizational. The nurse respondents were asked to describe the influence of each of these contextual levels on their choice of conflict management strategy. The possible actions/responses were measured through 5 choice options: from 1=tell the patient the truth or take action to prevent physician action to 5= lie directly to the patient. In spite of a few limitations (inability to distinguish the most important contextual influences on conflict or to identify personal preference in conflict management strategy choices, or gender variable consistency), the present study makes a number of significant contributions to the research. First, the findings of the study suggest that personal characteristics be considered together with contextual influences. Thus, in this study, nurse respondents reported that personal characteristics (such as being a female or being too passive as a person) often influenced their decisions. Second, the data collected throughout this research demonstrated the significance of additional contextual influences (respondents reported, foe example, that the role of a professional nurse or a particular organizational situation played a critical role in their conflict management choices). Third, the researchers preferred to use interviews instead of paper and pencil questionnaire tests. Human interaction proved to be more effective in obtaining data for the present research.