The below essay was written for a Human Communications course at National University, Dec 2010:
Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. (King, 1964, para 3).
More than 40 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed such feelings about conflict, of which are still relevant to today’s society. With over 6 billion of people on Earth, conflict is a common encounter among human beings. While there were 16 named armed conflicts worldwide in 2008 (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2010), nonmilitant conflicts occur throughout the world privately between persons or publicly between parties in protests. Many of us are very familiar with conflict. Whether it is an argument with a spouse, disagreement with a friend, or a quarrel with family, conflicts are familiar to everyone. What is conflict? The online Oxford English dictionary (2010) defines conflict as "the clashing or variance of opposed principles, statements, arguments, etc." (para 5c). Thus, a conflict is a difference in point of view on a subject. Each individual deals with conflict differently. However, such differences in managing conflict are, to an extent, culturally bound. Many agree that the culture or subculture of which one belongs affects the conflict resolution techniques one will use (e.g. Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, & Ozer, 2010; Xie, Song, & Stringfellow, 1998). More specific, cultural aspects in individualistic societies and collectivistic societies are markers that affect conflict resolution styles. Thus, collectivistic and individualistic cultures differ in three key conflict management techniques relevant to collaboration, competition, and accommodation. As such, it is important to understand the cultural characteristics when dealing with any conflict in today’s global society.
One major difference in conflict resolution techniques between collectivistic and individualistic cultures is in collaboration. While collectivistic cultures tend to utilize collaboration, their individualistic counterparts tend to steer away from using such an approach to conflict resolution. Group harmony and cooperation are favored values of collectivistic culture. Because of the values of group harmony and cooperation, researchers have found that those from collectivistic cultures prefer an approach of collaboration to address conflict. In one study on Turkish participants, Ma, Erkus, and Tabak (2010) found that those from Turkey preferred to approach conflict by using collaboration techniques. Moreover, in another study on students from Mexico and students from the United States, Gabrielidis, Stephan, Ybarra, Pearson, and Villareal (1997) found that students from Mexico favored approaching conflict by using techniques of collaboration more so than students from the United States, who are of individualistic culture. Since individualistic cultures value independence and self goals, those of individualistic cultures approach conflict with a win/lose approach as opposed to win/win. According to Gamble and Gamble (2010), those of individualistic culture “…often are not inclined to meet the demands of teamwork.” (p.288). Therefore, those from individualistic cultures are less likely to practice collaboration as a method to address conflict. James Gire (1997) found this to be true when researching Canadian participants and Nigerian participants. Gire (1997) found that Canadian participants favored collaborative techniques to approach a potential conflict less than of their collectivistic Nigerian counterparts. Such details illustrate the major differences in collaborative conflict management techniques for both collectivists and individualists.
A second difference in addressing conflict by those of collectivistic and individualistic culture is in competition. Individuals from a culture of a collectivistic society use competition as a conflict resolution strategy less than do individuals of an individualistic culture. For example, Kim-Jo and her colleagues (2010) studied which conflict management approaches Koreans versus European Americans preferred and found that European Americans favored competition significantly more than did Koreans. Generally, those of collectivistic cultures embody group behavior and inclusion and thus tend to steer away from competitive behavior of working against one another. Parks and Vu (1994) found this to be the case after studying American and South Vietnamese individuals and found the Vietnamese to be more cooperative even on tasks that were competitive to address a conflict than were the Americans. In contrast, those of individualistic societies tend to favor the use of competitive strategies in conflict management. For instance, Fletcher, Olekalns, and Cieri (2001) compared individuals from Asian countries with those from Australia by using the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode scale and found that in testing, those who were born in Australia revealed characteristics of competition to approach conflict more so than of those born from Asia. Thus, the difference in using competitive techniques to address conflict among collectivistic cultures and individualistic cultures is the tendency of individualists and non-tendency of collectivists.
A third difference in conflict resolution techniques for both collectivistic and individualistic culture is in accommodation. While differences are not drastic, studies have indicated that collectivistic cultures tend to favor accommodation as a conflict resolving technique more than do individualistic cultures. For instance, those who are from collectivistic cultures such as Korea tend to favor approaches to conflict of accommodation significantly more than those from individualistic cultures in the United States (Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, Ozer, 2010). The differences may be due to the nature of accommodation in allowing the other party to win, resulting in a lose/win outcome. Likewise, because of the nature of accommodation, persons from individualistic cultures may utilize accommodation less as a conflict resolving technique because of the value of self achievement and emphasis on winning rather than losing. According to a study by Gabrielidis and her colleagues (1997), persons from individualistic cultures, specifically the United States, are less likely to prefer accommodation than those of collectivistic cultures. The differences in the use of accommodative strategies to address conflict are subtle but present between collectivistic cultures and individualistic cultures. Moreover, it is important to note that such differences do not mean those of collectivist societies only utilize accommodation and those of individualist societies refrain from using such a method. Rather such findings are generalized. Still, accommodation is a strategy to conflict resolution where collectivistic and individualistic cultures differ.
To summarize, more than 40 years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. described the need for humans around the world to find a way to address conflict to reach a peaceful outcome, words which still stand as true today. Experiencing conflict or a difference in opinion or ideas is a common occurrence among human beings. How beings approach such conflict situations will differ and are confounded with cultural perspectives of collectivism or individualism. Thus while it is so that people handle conflict in different ways, culture is one aspect wherein such differences are evident. Collaboration, competition, and accommodation are all conflict management techniques where those of collectivistic cultures and those of individualistic cultures differentiate. Therefore, by gaining awareness of the cultural differences in how conflict is addressed, persons can understand one another better when facing conflict and communicate with one another in a manner of peace rather than of war.
References
Fletcher, L., Olekalns, M., Cieri, H. D. (2001) Cultural differences in conflict resolution: Individualism and collectivism in the Asia-pacific region. Retrieved on December 14, 2010 from http://edtech.cebs.wku.edu/~rmiller/T-K%20cultural%20differences.pdf.
Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W., G., Ybarra, O., Pearson, S., D., M., V., Villareal, L. (1997). Preferred styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 661-677. Retrieved from Academic One File database.
Gamble, T. K., Gamble, M. (2010). Communication works. (10th ed.). New York , NY
Gire, J. (1997). The varying effect of individualism-collectivism on preference for methods of conflict resolution. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 29(1), 38-43. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.29.1.38.
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-MartÃnez, V., & Ozer, D. (2010). Culture and interpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role of acculturation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 264-269. doi:10.1177/0022022109354643.
King, M. L. Jr. (1964). Acceptance speech. Retrieved on December 13, 2010 from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance.html
Ma, Z., Erkus, A., Tabak, A. (2010). Explore the impact of collectivism on conflict management styles: a Turkish study. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(2), 169-185. Abstract retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.
Parks, C.D., Vu, A. D. (1994). Social dilemma behavior of individuals from highly individualist and collectivist cultures. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(4),708-718. Retrieved from JStor database at http://www.jstor.org/stable/174336.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2010). Appendix 2A. Patterns of major armed conflicts, 1999-2008. Retrieved on December 9, 2010 from http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/02/02A
Xie, J., Song, M., X., Stringfellow, A. (1998). Interfunctional conflict, conflict resolution styles, and new product success: A four-culture comparison. Management Science. 44(12), S192-S206. Retrieved from Jstor database on November 10, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/779724
