Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42(5) 856 –874© The Au.docx

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
42(5) 856 –874
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022022110381121
jccp.sagepub.com
The Effects of
Cognitive Appraisals
of Communication
Competence in Conflict
Interactions: A Study
Involving Western
and Chinese Cultures
Frances P. Brew1, Justin Tan1,
Helen Booth1, and Irum Malik1
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
study (128 Australian and 108
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 conflict research, long fixated on behavioral
manifestations.
1Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Frances P. Brew, Psychology Department, Macquarie

University, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
Brew et al. 857
Interpersonal disagreements are a mundane and unpleasant part
of everyday interactions. The
conflict process is inevitably negotiated and defined through
communication, which is capable
of escalating or defusing the situation. A commonly held
assumption is that communication is
essential to the human condition and that its complexity is one
of the key aspects that differenti-
ates us from lower order primates. This leads people to believe
that, regardless of language dif-
ferences, communication patterns and uses are shared
fundamentals across cultures. However,
effective communication, defined by the distinguished
American scholar Burgoon (1974) as the
act of imparting knowledge or making known one’s feelings and
thoughts in order to achieve
certain outcomes, is not necessarily recognized in all cultures.
For example, Gao (1998) points
out that there is no easy translation into Chinese characters of
the English word “communica-
tion.” She argues that conversational behavior in Chinese
culture is traditionally used for enhanc-
ing relationships and harmony rather than imparting
information. Furthermore, a comprehensive
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 communication
styles vary dramatically across cultures from the restrained,

circumspect speech acts found in
East Asian nations to the outspoken, candid expressions of
those from Anglo cultures. We con-
clude from the equally comprehensive literature on conflict-
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
communication patterns are complementary
with the various conflict styles, such as conflict avoidance in
East Asia and confrontational
approaches found in countries like Australia and the United
States.
Over the past 30 years, conflict management and communication
styles research comparing
cultures has been behaviorally focused. It is pertinent that more
research examines whether dif-
ferent cognitive processes are also at work. We conclude from
the preceding points that people
in different cultures are likely to hold varying implicit theories
of communication that will drive
subsequent interactional behavior. Thomas’s (1990) process
model of conflict management pro-
poses that the event instigating conflict is viewed through a
cognitive-emotional lens. Impor-
tantly, this perceptual lens continues to bias judgments on the
subsequent action-interaction
sequence of the conflictual exchange—that is, the behavioral
component. According to Thomas,
these cognitive processes are instrumental in affecting the
outcome and subsequent interpersonal
interactions between the two parties. In line with this,
Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach (1994)
found that if the conflict-handling style of the other party is
evaluated negatively, then greater

responsibility for the conflict is assigned to that party. Thus, we
hypothesize that the lens is col-
ored not only by an individual’s normative assumptions,
expectations, and attributions, as
Thomas suggests, but also by cultural conditioning. Therefore,
the aim of this article is to inves-
tigate one aspect of the lens: the perceptual evaluations that
people from two culturally distant
groups make of the other party’s communication competence
during an interpersonal conflict
event and its perceived effect on the ongoing relationship. Our
objective was to examine these
evaluations using the appropriateness and effectiveness
structure proposed by the three research-
ers Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach (e.g., Cupach & Canary,
1997; Spitzberg et al., 1994; Spitzberg
& Cupach, 1984) and the Yin and Yang model of conflict
proposed by Brew (2007).
First, some exploratory pilot work based on data collected as
part of a larger study on inter-
cultural conflict in the workplace in Singapore is presented.
Using content analysis, evidence
emerged that effectiveness and appropriateness could be defined
and identified as separate con-
structs and that Westerners and Singaporeans focused
differentially on these competencies. Fol-
lowing this, a quasi-experimental cross-cultural study with local
and Chinese overseas students
on an Australian campus is presented. Using the Yin and Yang
model of conflict (Brew, 2007)
as a framework, stimulus material based on the pilot work, and
Canary and Spitzberg’s (1987)
effectiveness and appropriateness scales, the study investigated
(a) whether the two groups would

858 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5)
focus differentially on the two competencies as in the pilot
work and (b) the effect of these com-
petency assessments on relationship outcomes postconflict.
Appropriateness and Effectiveness
Spitzberg et al.’s (1994) cardinal hypothesis states that the
perception by one party of the other
party’s communication competence during a conflict episode
will either mediate or moderate the
link between conflict management style and relational outcome.
Spitzberg et al. argued that con-
flict is complex and interdependent, hence using a “good”
conflict management style may not
necessarily result in desirable outcomes, if the behavior is
interpreted by the other party as being
ineffective 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
favorable to such a neutral approach.
However, the person discovers that the other party feels that
using a mediator is inappropriate
because sensitive issues have to be exposed to a third party and
is likely to be ineffective in
achieving a good outcome because all communication has to be
relayed second-hand to the other
party.
Cupach and Canary (1997) distinguished between effectiveness
and appropriateness by sug-
gesting that effectiveness is related to the accomplishment of
one’s goals and appropriateness to
awareness of the rules of the interaction. Spitzberg and

Cupach’s (1984) original definitions
proposed that communication is effective if interpersonal
problems are resolved and the needs
and desires of the interactants are met. Thus, in a conflict
episode, effectiveness concerns the
perceived quality and impact of the content of messages in
obtaining such goals. Communication
is appropriate if the social norms of the other person are not
violated too strongly or if new rules
or norms are established during the interaction. Thus,
appropriateness concerns the expected
social behaviors within the context of the conflict.
Cultural Variations on Effectiveness and Appropriateness
According to Spitzberg et al. (1994), inappropriate and
ineffective communication is associated
with avoidant conflict management. Although this hypothesis
might hold for cultures not too
distant from that of the United States, it is problematic when
applied to other cultures such as
those in East Asia. It has been argued by Gao (1998), Leung and
Chan (1999), and others that an
avoidant conflict style is preferable in East Asian societies due
to living in interdependent and
hierarchical social structures, which are generally associated
with a collectivist orientation. In
Hofstede’s (1980) seminal work, East Asian societies were
found to be predominantly collectivist
with a focus on group needs over individual rights. By contrast,
Anglo societies such as Australia
and the United States were highly individualistic, with priority
given to one’s own interests, needs,
and goals. Hence, it is highly likely that individualists would
find that avoidance behavior frus-
trates expression of one’s concerns and effective own-goal
achievement. The enduring features of

these two orientations are still prominent in these societies
today (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
A notable manifestation of individualism and collectivism is
self-construal (Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Singelis, 1994), which has been used extensively with
studies on conversational indirect-
ness (e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Sharkey
& Singelis, 1995). Markus and
Kitayama (1991) argued that collectivists tend toward an
interdependent self-construal in which
the point of reference is the embeddedness of self in a social
context in such a way that the self’s
needs and desires are conditional upon significant others’
expectations and views. In contrast,
they argued that an individualist’s point of reference is an
independent self in which the unique
qualities, feelings, and desires of the self separate the
individual from others, allowing freedom-
to-choose relationships in order to fulfill one’s own needs and
goals. Past studies and theories
Brew et al. 859
(e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Ting-Toomey,
1988) have linked self-construal
type with two prominent conversational constraints,
communication clarity and face-support.
Kim and Wilson (1994) proposed that the clarity constraint
demands explicit and effective com-
munication, thus facilitating the achievement of communication
goals and task accomplishment.
On the other hand, the face-support constraint demands
avoiding hurting feelings, minimizing

imposition, showing deference, giving approval, and using
politeness strategies, thus reducing
face-threat and avoiding causing dislike or devaluation of the
other. Ting-Toomey (1997) pro-
posed that those with independent self-construals value the
clarity constraint due to the need to
resolve conflict effectively by expressing opinions, interests,
and needs and thus are likely to be
more concerned with effective rather than appropriate
communication. Those with interdepen-
dent self-construals, however, value the face-support constraint
due to an awareness of past and
present obligations and a need to preserve harmony and thus are
likely to be more concerned with
appropriate communication that respects interactional qualities.
In a straightforward way, effectiveness is easily linked to a
direct style of communication, in
particular, the content of explicitly worded messages that Hall
(1989) observed was an important
concern for low-context cultures distinguished by autonomy,
individualism, and low reliance on
context for ascertaining meaning. Appropriateness is linked to
subtle, indirect conversation that
has an established association with interdependence (Hara &
Kim, 2004) and with high-context
cultures like those in Asia (Hall, 1989), which rely on cues from
nonverbal signals and the con-
text to imbue the exchange with meaning. Due to this greater
complexity, appropriateness needs
further definition, drawing on the wider properties of
communication competence.
In past intercultural communication competence research, there
are two main approaches:
behavioral and cognitive. The first is concerned with

competencies that could be broadly defined
as good interaction management, such as empathy, relationship
building, listening skills, develop-
ing mutual trust and respect, displaying interest in the other,
drawing the other person out, patience,
and tolerance (e.g., Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978;
Olebe & Koester, 1989; Ruben,
1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). The cognitive approach is
concerned with knowledge about cul-
tural identity, understanding the communication rules of the
other, and interpretation of their
constitutive meaning (e.g., Collier, 1991; Collier & Thomas,
1988; Driskill & Downs, 1995;
Nishida, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1998). We propose that
appropriateness is not only expressed
with subtlety or politeness but importantly includes the way the
interaction is handled in terms
of responsiveness to the feelings and needs of the other person.
In an intercultural situation, com-
munication competence also involves knowledge of the cultural
identity of the other.
Summing up, we propose that independent types are more likely
to assess communication
competence in terms of clarity of the transmission of messages
to achieve a solution (effective-
ness). Interdependent types are more likely to assess
competence in terms of the interactional
qualities of the exchange, such as a display of thought and
concern for the other party’s feelings
and face (appropriateness).
The Yin and Yang Model of Conflict
Much of the cross-cultural conflict research referred to earlier
used one of the dual-concern mod-
els modeled on Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. In

a typical model, that of Rahim
(1983), two axes representing high and low concern for self’s
goals and high and low concern for
other’s goals are crossed to produce five conflict styles
(integrating, dominating, accommodat-
ing, compromising, and avoiding) by interpreting the four
quadrants (e.g., low concern for self,
low concern for other relates to avoiding) and using the central
crossover point for the fifth style,
compromising (mid-concern for self and other). As with
Spitzberg et al.’s (1994) claims that
avoidance engenders negative appraisals, an ontological
problem also arises with the dual-concern
model when applied cross-culturally. Low concern for self and
other’s goals does not apply to
the avoidance of conflict found in East Asia, where
interdependence ensures high concern for
others. Therefore, we preferred to use the Yin and Yang model
(Brew, 2007), which takes account
of both Western and Eastern perspectives. The model is based
both on the dualistic model of
harmony devised by Leung, Tremain-Koch, and Lu (2002) to
explain conflict avoidance in East
Asian societies and the competitive versus cooperative conflict
framework of Western models.
The model is constructed on the instrumental-ideal dimension
found in Leung et al.’s harmony
model, which is based on values rather than goal-based
outcomes. At one pole, instrumental
values are concerned with means to an end (what benefits will
accrue from the relationship), and

at the other pole, ideal values are associated with a morally
desirable endstate (doing the right
thing by the other person to enhance the relationship). The other
dimension represents the two
fundamental approaches to conflict, either confronting the issue
directly or maintaining harmony
(see Figure 1).
In the model, constructive controversy is defined as ideal
conflict. From a Western perspec-
tive, Tjosvold (1998) argues that such a style will lead to
cooperative and successful outcomes,
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 which argument, discus-
sion, and debate are favored to resolve conflict (Olekalns, 1998;
Wall & Stark, 1998). We expect
Australians to perceive this style to be the most appropriate and
effective. As this style requires
frankness and verbal skill, we expect that Chinese will judge it
as effective but less appropriate
as their interactional norms of politeness and face-concern may
be violated in the process. Con-
structive diplomacy, presented as ideal harmony, is advocated
by Leung et al. (2002) to be the
closest behavior to that which Confucius recommended as being
desirable. He promoted respect
for different views and encouraged courteous debate
particularly in support of goodness and
righteousness. However, Leung et al. argued that this behavior
was not as common throughout
East Asia as conflict avoidance (smoothing), defined as
instrumental harmony. This latter type
of harmony is an expedient form of dealing with conflict in a
society made up of tightly woven

and rigid networks, where achieving one’s goals in life is often
dependent on others. Although
the two harmony styles may not be so effective in directly
communicating needs and problem
Conflict
Instrumental needs Ideal aspirations
Harmony
Constructive
Controversy
Constructive
Diplomacy
Smoothing
Destructive
Confrontation
Figure 1. The Yin and Yang Model of Harmony (adapted from
Brew, 2007)
Brew et al. 861
solving, they are less likely to cause offence or face loss or to
harm interactional norms. Hence, we
expect that the Chinese will perceive the harmony styles to be
more appropriate than the conflict
styles, with the smoothing style likely to be seen as more
appropriate than constructive diplo-
macy, which requires skill and tactics and thus entails some

risk. As these two styles are non-
threatening and may be calming, we expect that Australians will
judge them as appropriate but
not very effective. Destructive confrontation, defined as
instrumental conflict, is similar to the
competitive style (Tjosvold, 1998) or dominating style (Rahim,
1983) in which coercive and
competitive tactics are used to gain outcomes for the individual
at the expense of the relationship.
Although it involves direct speech acts, we do not expect either
group to favor this style, West-
erners because it is likely to be perceived as bullying and
Chinese because it is a gross violation
of relational rules. Thus, all will judge it to be inappropriate
and ineffective.
Hence, using the Yin and Yang model as a firm ontological
base, we are able to refine the
proposal put forward earlier and outline the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Australians are more likely to be responsive to
the effectiveness than to the
appropriateness of a conflict style.
The four styles are expected to decrease in perceived
effectiveness from constructive con-
troversy through the harmony styles to destructive confrontation
(clockwise round Figure 1),
compared to a flatter trend for appropriateness. Conversely,
Chinese are more likely to be respon-
sive to the appropriateness than to the effectiveness of a
conflict style. The four styles are
expected to decrease in perceived appropriateness from
smoothing to diplomacy to constructive
controversy to destructive confrontation (anticlockwise round
Figure 1) compared to a flatter

trend for effectiveness.
Effects of Cognitive Judgments of Competence on Relational
Outcomes
Earlier, we reported that Thomas’s (1990) process conflict
model and Spitzberg et al.’s (1994)
competence-based model proposed that cognitive assessment of
the conflict behavior of the
other party is likely to affect the outcome of the conflict,
particularly relationships. Thomas’s
(1990) model highlights how a continuous relational dialogue is
interrupted by conflict events
that have the potential to escalate negativity or stimulate
constructive discussion and integrative
behavior depending on the intervening conditions—in this case,
effectiveness and appropriate-
ness judgments. In this piece of research, we focused on
relational outcome rather than achieve-
ment of economic concerns for one or both parties. Emerging
research supports the idea that
relational outcomes are more important than maximizing
economic returns. For example,
Curhan, Elfenbein, and Xu (2006) found that subjective value,
which includes feelings about the
relationship, was a better predictor than economic outcomes of
future negotiation decisions. The
longitudinal study by Canary, Cupach, and Serpe (2001) found a
reciprocal causal association
between communication behavior in a conflict and relationship
quality across a time span of
several weeks, inferring that the communication experience
during conflict episodes is central to
the ongoing progression of the relationship. Furthermore,
relational goals are very important in
collectivist cultures such as that of the Chinese, where long-
term individual goals are primarily

achieved through the facilitation of successful reciprocal
interconnectedness (Leung et al., 2002).
We propose the following hypotheses to test the effect of
competence evaluations on relational
outcome:
Hypothesis 2: For both groups, we expect the more effective
and appropriate the com-
munication style of the other party is judged to be during
conflict, the more likely the
perceiver will predict that the relationship will become closer
(integrate). Conversely,
the more ineffective and inappropriate the communication style
is judged, the more
likely the relationship will be predicted to disintegrate.
Hypothesis 3: For Australians, we expect the effectiveness trend
for the four styles of the
Yin and Yang model predicted in the first hypothesis to be
mirrored by a similar profile
for predictions of relationship improvement (integration)
postconflict, but this will not
be the case for appropriateness. Conversely, for Chinese, the
appropriateness trend pre-
dicted in the first hypothesis for the four styles will mirror the
integration profile, but
this will not be the case for effectiveness.
Pilot Study
Thirty participants (15 expatriates, 15 host-nationals), mostly in
management or consultant roles,

with mean ages of 38.6 and 36.3 years, respectively, were
recruited from five organizations rep-
resenting a range of businesses in Singapore. As part of a larger
study examining conflict behav-
ior under various conditions, they were asked to think of recent
intercultural conflict situations
in which they had been involved in order to record their
evaluations of the behavior of the other
party during the episodes. The first question enquired about
conflict that had been handled poorly
and the second about conflict that had been handled well. Both
negative and positive conflicts
were explored in order to control for confounding. Evaluated
conflicts tended to be ordinary ones
encountered in the normal course of the working day, such as
solving a problem, difference of
opinion in a meeting or how to do a job, and misunderstandings
about requests, information, and
similar issues.
Content Analysis
The data were subjected to a content analysis. Following Miles
and Huberman (1994), three
broad themes were created in accordance with the theory
presented earlier: communication styles,
personal interactional behavior, and cultural awareness. The
“communication styles” theme cap-
tured comments about the method of conveying messages and
was deemed to indicate appraisals
of in/effectiveness. The “interactional behavior” theme included
evaluations emphasizing quali-
ties such as empathy, patience, concern for the other, and
listening skills. The “cultural aware-
ness” theme focused on knowledge about cultural identity and
understanding the cultural rules
and meaning of the other. The latter two themes were used as

indicators of in/appropriateness.
To aid coding, a further theme representing personal traits was
added but not analyzed, and the
themes were broken down into subthemes representing the
positive and negative side of each—
for example, good and poor cultural awareness. The
“communication styles” theme was broken
down into directness versus avoidance, and other positively
perceived styles versus other nega-
tively perceived styles.
The responses were reduced by the first author into separate
meaning nodes or units that spe-
cifically evaluated the other party’s conflict behavior. Each unit
consisted of a key sentence or
part of a sentence that was considered to capture an important
aspect of the respondents’ appraisal
of the other party’s behavior. General reflections such as “when
you are approaching conflict
your mind is not at its clearest” were omitted. The number of
units for each respondent varied
according to the number of evaluations expressed. The other
authors, who were not otherwise
involved in the first study, independently sorted each of the 96
anonymous units into a subtheme.
Cohen’s kappas (k) for interrater reliability between the three
raters for the four major themes
(the main unit of comparison) were all significant, being k =
.75, .80, and .85, respectively. The
kappa values indicated good to very good interrater reliability,
with two values on or above 0.80
Brew et al. 863

and one just below. Where there was disagreement, the majority
ruled, and where the three coders
disagreed on the major theme (in only three cases), the unit was
removed from further analysis.
Results and Discussion
The small number of statements coded as negative or positively
perceived personality traits were
not analyzed (two for expatriates, six for host-nationals).
Altogether, 79.2% of the remaining
expatriate comments were coded as appraisals of communication
styles, 11.3% were of interac-
tion management, and 9.4% of cultural understanding. For host-
nationals, 28.1% of comments
were coded as appraisals of communication styles, 46.9% were
of interaction management, and
25% of cultural understanding. The chi-square analysis showed
that the expatriate pattern of
responses was significantly different than that of the host-
nationals, c2(2) = 26.31, p < .0005.
Typical examples of communication style appraisals for
expatriates were as follows: “the ‘no’
answer, which is no answer at all . . . just ignore the question
because the answer’s unpleasant”;
“ducking and weaving round it and not getting to the point”
(conflict poorly handled); and “keep
asking questions, they obviously have a clear goal in mind”;
“open and mature enough to talk it
out” (conflict well handled). Whereas host-nationals focused on
the following: “the expat is
more blunt . . . so that in itself has created conflict”; “harsh . . .
how the facts are presented . . .
one party is wrong, one party right” (conflict poorly handled);
and “he doesn’t voice his opinion
so openly”; “assure the person not to feel so burdened” (conflict

well handled). Typical examples
of interaction management appraisals for expatriates were
sparse but included “really listening,
trying to take the other person’s perspective and think about it
from their view” (conflict well
handled). For host-nationals, examples included “lack of
respect”; “[needed to have] more
patience”; “[thinks because he’s the boss] he doesn’t have to
listen” (conflict poorly handled);
and “they are more patient”; “he is understanding” (conflict
well handled). Cultural understand-
ing appraisals for expatriates tended to be negative, such as
“misunderstanding, misinterpreting
my response . . . they see it as weakness to come and ask you
something . . . I see it as alerting
me to the issues” (conflict poorly handled). For hosts, negative
and positive appraisals tended to
be mirror images, like “he doesn’t understand how the locals
feel, how we behave” (conflict
poorly handled) and the reverse for conflict well handled.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of Western expatriates focused
on the method by which the
other party was communicating or failing to communicate. They
were concerned about vague,
prevaricating language, and judged well-handled conflict as
involving direct speech and clear
transmission of opinions and concerns. This corresponds with
the definitions of effectiveness
presented in the introduction, such as the clarity constraint of
individualists (Kim, 1993). On the
other hand, the majority of host-nationals focused on
interactional qualities (or lack thereof),
such as listening, patience, and respect or cultural
understanding. This supports our conceptual-
izations of appropriateness as sustaining face-support and

relational quality.
We propose that the distinctive themes found in this exploratory
data are a demonstration of
the separate concepts of effectiveness and appropriateness in
the competence model of conflict
(Spitzberg et al., 1994). Thus, we operationalized effectiveness
in the following study as a conflict-
handling style having the twin elements of direct expression of
opinion and constructive approach
leading to an outcome, and appropriateness as a style focusing
on politeness, smoothing down,
and concern for the other’s needs. We expected conflict styles
with these distinguishing proper-
ties to stimulate differential assessments from Australian and
Chinese students (two groups com-
parable in cultural background to those in the pilot study)
similar to those demonstrated in that
study. Furthermore, we expected the two groups’ predictions of
the outcome of the conflict in
relational terms to confirm the hypothesized differentiation,
providing backbone to Spitzberg
et al.’s (1994) assertion that competence appraisals of conflict
behavior matter in regard to
outcome. If confirmed, support is provided for the argument
that cultural expectations determine
the salient aspects of these assessments.
Method for Main Study
Participants

A total of 236 students (117 males, 119 females) were recruited
from local and overseas stu-
dents attending a university in Sydney, Australia, according to
their stated ethnic background,
either European/Anglo Australian (m = 65, f = 63) or Chinese
(m = 52, f = 56). Australians
of European/Anglo background were recruited as the best
representatives of individualist
Australian culture, and Chinese participants 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 cohort was 22.98 (SD = 8.17) and
for the Chinese cohort 21.62
(SD = 2.59) years.
Design
A 2 (Culture) × 4 (Conflict Style) mixed factorial design was
used with conflict style (construc-
tive controversy, constructive diplomacy, smoothing,
destructive confrontation) as a repeated
measure. Each style was rated for competence (effectiveness,
appropriateness) and predicted
postconflict relational outcome (integration, disintegration,
status quo).
Stimulus scenario and conflict style manipulations. A dispute
scenario was adapted from Canary
and Spitzberg (1987) involving a conflict over dirty dishes with
a flatmate of the same sex and
ethnicity with whom the respondent hypothetically had been
living for 6 months.1 A description
of the context of the dispute was followed by this statement:
You say to X: I really think that coming home to a pile of dirty
dishes is the worst thing in

the world. Don’t you think you could do your share of cleaning
up?
“X” was replaced with the name of the flatmate, a different
unisex name being allotted for
each of four responses that followed, where each response
represented one of the conflict styles
in the Yin and Yang model (i.e., the participants understood
they were judging the responses of
four different flatmates to the same conflict). The four
responses are as follows:
1. Oh really? You should take a good look at yourself. Since
when do you ever do your
fair share of the cleaning. You are so selfish. You always play
your terrible music
loudly, it drives me mad when I’m studying. (Destructive
Confrontation)
2. Yes, I take your point. But, I don’t mean to offend, you’re
not the most considerate per-
son in the world either. You always play your music loudly, it’s
hard to study. Perhaps
we should sort this out over a cup of coffee. (Constructive
Controversy)
3. Yes, I take your point. I’m sorry. I do try to do my share of
the cleaning, and I let you
play your music while I’m studying even though it’s distracting
at times. (Constructive
Diplomacy)
4. Oh, I’ll wash them up soon. How’s that difficult assignment
going, do you need any
help? (Smoothing)

A small group of postgraduate students (n = 24) were asked to
identify each script after reading
Brew (2007) and were unanimous in their identifications.
Brew et al. 865
Measures
Effectiveness and appropriateness. Ten items based on factor
loadings and face validity were
chosen from Canary and Spitzberg’s (1987) original 40,
modernized, and some reverse worded
to control for acquiescence bias—for example, “X achieved
his/her goals in the conversation”
(effectiveness); “X said some embarrassing things”
(appropriateness). To test whether these
items represented the two separate factors proposed by Canary
and Spitzberg, they were sub-
jected to four confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using AMOS
16, one for each set of items
rating each conflict style. First, one-factor models were fitted
for each set of items, but these
were all very poor fits for the data. Second, the proposed two-
factor model was fitted for each
style; these fits were an improvement but still not quite
acceptable. An examination of the modi-
fication indices for all four CFAs indicated that, for three of the
styles, the uniquenesses for two
of the observed variables purporting to measure the unobserved
appropriateness, “. . . suitable
for the situation” and “I would be comfortable . . .” tended to
have large indices attached to their
covariance with the unobserved variable effectiveness. As these
items displayed no face validity

with effectiveness, they were removed from the analyses,
following which the two-factor models
improved considerably to close to the acceptable range. The
item “. . . effective in resolving the
conflict” had some significant covariance with appropriateness
for two of the styles; however,
we could not remove this item from the effectiveness scale
because the two-factor models became
poorer fits for the other two styles without this item, and it was
necessary to maintain configural
equivalence across the four styles. Some significant covariance
between the uniquenesses of
observed variables measuring the same latent factor was also in
evidence for three of the styles,
probably indicating shared method variance. Those with the
largest indices were allowed to
covary to obtain the final results, as the correlation of residuals
in this situation was considered
an outcome of the research design (Cole, Ciesler, & Steiger,
2007). The final two-factor models
with four items measuring each factor obtained these results:
constructive controversy c218 = 33.58,
p = .014, CMIN/df = 1.87, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06;
constructive diplomacy c218 =
42.98, p = .001, CMIN/df = 2.39, TLI = .94, CFI = .96, RMSEA
= .08; smoothing c218 = 42.28,
p = .001, CMIN/df = 2.35, TLI = .95, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07;
destructive controversy c219 =
33.62, p = .02, CMIN/df = 1.77, TLI = .94, CFI = .96, RMSEA
= .06.
Relationship outcome variables. Three relationship outcomes
were measured using two items
designed by the authors for each outcome. We decided on two
items for each, as we felt one item
was insufficient but bore in mind that each complete set of

items was repeated four times. Inte-
gration was a measure of how much the dispute was perceived
to provide an opportunity of
improving the relationship over time (e.g., “The dispute
provides an opportunity to become
closer”). Disintegration was a measure of the desire to move or
distance 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 affected”).
Pearson correlations between the two items for each
relationship outcome ranged from .55 to .69.
All measures were rated on a Likert-type scale of 1 (completely
disagree) to 5 (completely
agree).
Procedure
The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and then back-
translated to check for semantic accu-
racy (Brislin, 1981). Twenty-four different ordered versions of
the scripts were prepared in both
languages to counterbalance carryover effects and fatigue.
Students were recruited through the
first-year psychology subject-pool or directly on campus,
receiving either course credits if the for-
mer or tickets for a draw with movie passes as the prize if the
latter. An attempt was made to keep
the numbers in each cultural group as close as possible, and the
same with the numbers of each sex.

It took about 20 to 30 minutes to complete a pencil and paper
version of the questionnaire.
Results
For all analyses, a < .05 was used to control for Type 1 error,
and any effects due to age and
gender were partialed out first in each analysis. The means and
standard deviations relevant for
the study are found in Table 1. Helmert contrasts used in the
first hypothesis tests consisted of
the following null hypotheses: (a) constructive controversy =
the average of constructive diplo-
macy and smoothing, (b) diplomacy = smoothing, across both
groups.
Hypothesis 1
To test the first hypothesis, that Australians would be more
responsive to effectiveness and
Chinese to appropriateness, we examined the interactions of
cultural group with type of conflict
style for both competency measures. Both interactions were
significant, F3,657 = 18.64, p < .0005,
partial h2 = .078, and F3,654 = 18.68, p < .0005, partial h
2 = .079, for effectiveness and appropri-
ateness, respectively. For effectiveness, the Australian means
descended clockwise round Figure 1
from constructive controversy (4.25) to destructive
confrontation (2.62), as predicted (see Table 1).
The Chinese means remained on par for the nondestructive
styles, with little variation (0.15
maximum), but dropped to 2.62 for destructive confrontation.
Leaving aside the latter style,
descending trend versus flat trend was confirmed by two
orthogonal Helmert interaction con-
trasts for the nondestructive styles (F1,234 = 68.85, p < .0005;

F1,234 = 3.70, p = .051), indicating
that the Australian trend distinguished between these styles
whereas the Chinese trend did not,
supporting the first hypothesis. For appropriateness, the Chinese
means descended anticlockwise
from smoothing (4.02) to destructive confrontation (2.19), as
predicted. The Australian means
for the three benign styles varied by just 0.52 but dropped to
2.45 for destructive confrontation.
Again, leaving aside the latter style, Helmert interaction
contrasts for the nondestructive styles
were significant (F1,233 = 57.46, p < .0005; F1,233 = 5.77, p =
.017). However, the means in Table 1
indicate that the first of these was not due to flat versus sloped
trends but because the Australian
mean for constructive controversy was significantly higher than
the other two styles together, and
vice versa for the Chinese. Thus, the .52 variation proved
significant for Australians. If destructive
confrontation is not considered, being rated as very ineffective
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 effectiveness on the
three nondestructive styles.
Hypothesis 2
To test the second hypothesis, that perceived effectiveness and
appropriateness would predict
integration of the relationship, and ineffectiveness and
inappropriateness would predict disinte-
gration, a hierarchical regression was performed on each of the
three relational outcomes. Status
quo was included as a static response for those who would
simply maintain the relationship. In
the first step, age and gender were entered as controls; in the

second step, culture was entered; in the
third step, effectiveness and appropriateness were entered.
Regressions were performed on stan-
dardized data to control for any cultural response bias. Table 2
shows the R2 change for the sec-
ond and third steps, and the standardized betas for the third step
with the second step betas for
culture shown in brackets.
Not surprisingly, culture was often significant at the second
step. In particular, Australians were
more likely to integrate and less likely to disintegrate the
relationship than Chinese in response
867
T
a
b
le
1
.
M
ea
ns
a
nd
S
ta

nd
ar
d
D
ev
ia
ti
o
ns
o
f
C
o
m
pe
te
nc
y
an
d
R
el
at
io

ns
hi
p
O
ut
co
m
e
V
ar
ia
bl
es
f
o
r
A
us
tr
al
ia
ns
a
nd
C

hi
ne
se
A
ng
lo
-A
us
tr
al
ia
n
(n
=
1
28
)
C
hi
ne
se
(
n
=

10
7)
Ef
f
A
pp
In
t
D
is
St
Q
Ef
f
A
pp
In
t
D
is
St
Q
M
(

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

SD
)
M
(
SD
)
M
(
SD
)
M
(
SD
)
C
o
ns
tr
uc
ti
ve
C
o
nt
ro

ve
rs
y
4.
25
(
.7
0)
4.
21
(
.7
3)
4.
00
(
.9
0)
1.
72
(
.6
5)
3.

14
(
1.
10
)
3.
70
(
.8
6)
3.
20
(
.9
8)
3.
29
(
1.
03
)
2.
48
(

.8
4)
2.
82
(
1.
01
)
C
o
ns
tr
uc
ti
ve
D
ip
lo
m
ac
y
3.
21
(

1.
01
)
3.
69
(
.9
1)
3.
15
(
1.
11
)
2.
06
(
.8
5)
3.
13
(
1.
04

)
3.
55
(
.9
5)
3.
45
(
.9
9)
3.
21
(
1.
02
)
2.
20
(
.8
8)
3.
07

(
1.
10
)
Sm
o
o
th
in
g
2.
86
(
1.
07
)
3.
87
(
.8
5)
2.
90
(

1.
21
)
2.
00
(
.9
3)
3.
27
(
1.
07
)
3.
56
(
.9
7)
4.
02
(
.9
6)

3.
58
(
1.
03
)
1.
95
(
.8
1)
3.
81
(
.9
8)
D
es
tr
uc
ti
ve
C
o
nt

ro
ve
rs
y
2.
59
(
.8
4)
2.
45
(
.8
2)
2.
40
(
1.
06
)
3.
20
(
1.

00
)
2.
04
(
.9
5)
2.
62
(
.8
2)
2.
19
(
.8
9)
2.
15
(
.9
8)
3.
50

(
.8
3)
2.
00
(
.9
7)
Ef
f
=
Ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s;
A
pp
=
A
pp
ro

pr
ia
te
ne
ss
; I
nt
=
I
nt
eg
ra
ti
o
n;
D
is
=
D
is
in
te
gr
at
io

n;
S
tQ
=
S
ta
tu
s
Q
uo
.
to constructive controversy. 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 about the destructive confrontation style, but
there were only minor differences in
response to the constructive diplomacy style.
R2 change for the addition of the competence variables at the
third step was highly significant
for all regressions, with the betas indicating that higher levels
of integration and status quo were
predicted by higher ratings of effectiveness and appropriateness
(positive sign), whereas higher

levels of disintegration were predicted by ineffectiveness and
inappropriateness (negative sign),
as expected. There were some variations in the contribution of
each competence variable to the
R2 change, denoted by the difference in significance of their
betas for some of the regressions. In
particular, note that effectiveness was more salient for
integration, whereas appropriateness was
more salient for status quo. Conversely, both ineffectiveness
and inappropriateness were salient
for disintegration. Overall, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 stated that, for Australians, the trend for
effectiveness ratings across the four styles
would correspond with the profile for drawing closer
(integration) postconflict, whereas the
Table 2. R2 Change and Standardized Betas of Culture and
Competency Variables Regressed on
Relationship Outcomes
Relationship Outcomes
Integration Disintegration Status Quo
I.V.s DR2 St. b DR2 St. b DR2 St. b
Constructive Controversy
Culture .123*** (–.353***)
–.095
.185*** (.433***)
.201**
.037** (–.194**)

–.062
Effectiveness .377*** –.355*** .010
Appropriateness .214*** .220** .218*** –.225** .038** .231**
Total R2 .357*** .410*** .076**
Constructive Diplomacy
Culture ns ns .041** (.203**)
.213**
ns ns
Effectiveness .335*** –.285*** .076
Appropriateness .148*** .104 .229*** –.273*** .131***
.302***
Total R2 .159*** .254*** .133***
Smoothing
Culture .087*** (.297***)
.133*
ns ns .066*** (.258***)
.188**
Effectiveness .458*** –.162* .133
Appropriateness .202*** .049 .277*** –.433*** .143***
.307***
Total R2 .312*** .279*** .211***
Destructive Controversy
Culture .023* (–.153*)
–.134*
.072*** (.269***)
.227***
ns ns
Effectiveness .194** –.114 –.042

Appropriateness .075*** .137* .152*** –.329*** .104***
.342***
Total R2 .119*** .231*** .113***
Australians = 0, Chinese = 1.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Brew et al. 869
appropriateness trend would not, and for Chinese the reverse
would be the case. To test this, we
examined the interactions between the three profiles across the
four conflict styles for each
group. We also examined status quo, as the regression showed
that appropriateness was strong
in predicting this outcome. The overall four-way interactions
were all highly significant, so we
proceeded to test the three-way interactions, with the results in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the profile for effectiveness ratings across
the four styles is parallel to the
profile for integration for Australians, the interaction lacking
critical significance, whereas that
for appropriateness with integration is significant; hence, the
profiles do not correspond. That is,
the distinctions that Australians made between the four styles
for effectiveness are repeated with
the decision to integrate but not for appropriateness. Neither
competency profile corresponds
with the status quo, as both interactions are significant. For
Chinese, neither the effectiveness nor
appropriateness profile across the four styles is parallel to the
integration profile, as both interac-

tions are significant. However, with status quo, the
effectiveness interaction is significant but
that for appropriateness is not, indicating a correspondence of
profiles for appropriateness and
status quo across the styles. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is
supported for Australians for integration
outcomes but for status quo outcomes for Chinese.
General Discussion
As predicted, Australians discriminated between the four
conflict styles with effectiveness
assessments, descending in strength from constructive
controversy clockwise round the Yin-Yang
model, and the Chinese discriminated with appropriateness
assessments, descending anticlock-
wise from smoothing. However, the Australians also
discriminated to some extent with appropri-
ateness assessments. The destructive confrontation style evoked
a very negative response from
both groups on both competencies. Nevertheless, the evidence
supports more than contradicts
our earlier arguments that effectiveness is more salient for those
from an individualist culture
who tend to rely on direct speech and information exchange to
resolve conflict. Conversely,
appropriateness is more salient for those in collectivist cultures,
who need to hose down conflict
and tread warily.
Spitzberg et al.’s (1994) claim that competency judgments
affect conflict outcomes was sup-
ported. Interestingly, it appeared that appropriateness was
important for maintaining the status
quo; however, a judgment of effectiveness was required over
and above appropriateness for respon-
dents to desire to integrate the relationship. This is consistent

with the key findings for the third
hypothesis. First, for Australians, the effectiveness trend but
not the appropriateness trend across
the four styles mirrored their predictions about whether the
relationship would improve postcon-
flict. Second, for Chinese, the appropriateness trend but not the
effectiveness trend across the four
styles reflected their predictions about whether the status quo
would be preserved postconflict.
Table 3. Significance of Three-Way Interactions of Conflict
Style × Competency × Relational Outcome
Australians Chinese
Interaction F Value p Pt. h2 F Value p Pt. h2
C × Eff × Int 2.62 .059 .020 6.88 < .0005 .061
C × App × Int 20.98 < .0005 .142 5.70 .001 .051
C × Eff × StQ 40.59 < .0005 .242 27.23 < .0005 .204
C × App × StQ 10.45 < .0005 .076 1.05 .372 .010
df = 3, 381 (Australia); 3, 318 (Chinese). C = conflict style; Eff
= effectiveness; App = appropriateness;
Int = integration; StQ = status quo.
These findings lend more support for the assertion that
effectiveness is more salient for indepen-
dent types and appropriateness for interdependent types.
Overall, the empirical study supports our argument that not only
do people from dissimilar

cultures favor different ways of resolving conflict, as the large
body of research indicates, but
they view the conflict exchange through lenses colored by
cultural influences, such as the clarity
and face-support constraints (Kim, 1993), independent or
interdependent self-construal (Markus
& Kitayama, 1991), and values supporting harmony or debate
(Brew, 2007). The high rating for
the effectiveness of constructive controversy by the Australian
cohort is consistent with the pilot
study, which showed that Western expatriates were concerned
with exchange of opinions, articu-
lation of problems, and talking things through. By contrast, the
concentration of Singaporean
host-nationals’ comments on interactional skills such as tact and
patience is consistent with the
Chinese cohort rating smoothing, with its calming properties, as
the most appropriate. Our find-
ings go further to show that relational outcomes postconflict are
determined by whether percep-
tions are dominated by effectiveness or appropriateness
judgments. Hence, individualists when
dealing with people from collectivist societies are likely to be
frustrated by the perceived inef-
fective tactic of smoothing, no matter how polite and
concerned—particularly if they wish to
bring about a solution to the problem that also achieves forming
closer ties with the other party.
Likewise, collectivists when dealing with individualists are
likely to be offended by the per-
ceived inappropriate tactic of presenting arguments and
opinions upfront, no matter how clear
and solution-focused, if they believe that face is threatened as
well as the equilibrium of the
relationship.

Implications, Future Directions, and Limitations
The past studies referred to earlier on conflict management have
only been able to conjecture on
the implications of the cross-cultural differences that emerged,
particularly for intercultural cir-
cumstances such as sojourners in diverse workplaces. These
findings have extended this research
by showing how cognitive judgments made about the conflict
behavior of the other party affect
the ongoing relationship between the two parties. The
competency measures designed by Canary
and Spitzberg (1987) in a monocultural setting remained valid
and were useful to examine the
relevance of their theory cross-culturally. However, for future
studies, their rather abstract,
superficial set of items could be improved and specified more
clearly using the interview mate-
rial of the pilot study, whose interpretation was guided by the
literature on intercultural commu-
nication competence.
The current study only considered the cognitive dimension of
the cognitive-emotional lens but
not the emotional. Although emotions may be similarly
recognized across cultures, they can be
expressed quite differently along a restraint-expressiveness
continuum (Hammer, 2005). More-
over, differing emotions may be experienced in similar conflict
situations; for example, Brew
(2002) found that Western expatriates working in East Asia
experienced 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 direct-indirect communication
dimension and the restraint-
expressiveness dimension to arrive at four typologies of

emotionally based conflict styles. This
could provide a useful starting point for investigating cross-
culturally the effects of appraisals of
emotional display and interpretation of the ensuing emotional
tension on outcomes.
Methodologically, the main study relied on scripts that only
gave a single response in order to
maintain simplicity and consistency across the four styles. We
acknowledge that conflict is com-
plex and made up of a collection of behaviors, but using a
single response as the main stimulus
is not ipso facto invalid. Van de Vliert, Euwema, and Huismans
(1995) showed that the effectiveness
of a conglomeration of acts is most influenced by the
component that de-escalated or escalated
Brew et al. 871
the conflict rather than the dominant component. Ideally, a
video of an enacted, longer, more
realistic exchange would be useful for stimulus material in
future research of a quasi-experimental
nature, as it is likely to stimulate a more engaged reaction
compared to a simple, written response.
However, it would require a much larger sample than the
present study, which was able to reply
on repeated measures.
Rather than drawing on some common understanding of
communication and its purpose, as
implied by Burgoon (1974), the results show that people from
different cultures are operating
from dissimilar mind maps when assessing the communication

acts of the other. We have labeled
the assessments effectiveness and appropriateness in keeping
with existing theory, but future
research needs to extend this line of enquiry.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with
respect to their authorship or the publica-
tion of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The authors declared that they received no financial support for
their research and/or authorship of this
article.
Note
1. Note that the original study involved two conditions as
contexts, one in which the flatmates had been
friends for 3 years with family connections prior to the flat
experience and the other in which they had
not known each other previously and led separate social lives.
Half of each ethnic cohort received one
of the conditions. There were few differences between the two
contexts, so they are not reported here.
References
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.
Houston, TX: Gulf.
Brew, F. P. (2002). Intercultural conflict in the workplace: A
study with Western expatriates and East Asian
host-nationals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie

University, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
Brew, F. P. (2007). Harmony and controversy: The Yin and
Yang of conflict in East Asian and Western
cultures. In J. H. Liu, C. Ward, A. Bernardo, M. Karasawa, & R.
Fischer (Eds.), Casting the individual
in societal and cultural contexts: Social and societal psychology
for Asia and the Pacific (Progress in
Asian Social Psychology Series, Vol. 6, pp. 39-59). Seoul:
Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishing Co.
Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. (2004). Does culture or situational
constraints determine choice of direct or
indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts?
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28,
331-352.
Brislin, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face
interaction. New York: Pergamon.
Burgoon, M. (1974). Approaching speech/communication. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A
competence-based approach to examining interper-
sonal conflict: Test of a longitudinal model. Communication
Research, 28(1), 79-104.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and
effectiveness perceptions of conflict strate-
gies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
Chan, D. K., & Goto, S. G. (2003). Conflict resolution in the
culturally diverse workplace: Some data from
Hong Kong employees. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 52, 441-460.

Chua, E., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles
in low- and high-context cultures. Com-
munication Research Reports, 4(1), 32-37.
Cole, D. A., Ciesler, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The
insidious effects of failing to include design-driven cor-
related residuals in latent-variable covariance structure
analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381-398.
Collier, M. J. (1991). Conflict competence within African,
Mexican, and Anglo American friendships. In
S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural
interpersonal communication (pp. 132-154).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Collier, M., & Thomas, M. (1988). Identity in intercultural
communication: An interpretive perspective. In
Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural
communication. International and Intercul-
tural Communication Annual, XII (pp. 99-120). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Competence in
interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc.
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do
people value when they negotiate? Mapping
the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
493-512.

Driskill, G. W., & Downs, C. W. (1995). Hidden differences in
competent communication: A case study of
an organization with Euro-Americans and first generation
immigrants from India. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 19(4), 505-522.
Friedman, R., Chi, S. C., & Liu, L. A. (2006). An expectancy
model of Chinese-American differences in
conflict-avoiding. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,
76-97.
Gao, G. (1998). “Don’t take my word for it.” Understanding
Chinese speaking practices. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163-186.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida,
T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The
influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals,
and individual values on communica-
tion styles across culture. Human Communication Research, 22,
510-543.
Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Hammer, M. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory:
A conceptual framework and measure of
intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6),
675-695.
Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R. (1978).
Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An explor-
atory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2,
382-393.

Hara, K., & Kim, M. S. (2004). The effect of self-construals on
conversational indirectness. Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 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 mind (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and
cultural variability in conversational indirect-
ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 624-
637.
Hsu, C. F. (2004). Sources of differences in communication
apprehension between Chinese in Taiwan and
Americans. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 390-402.
Kim, M. S. (1993). Culture-based interactive constraints in
explaining intercultural strategic competence. In
R. L. Wiseman, & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural
communication competence (pp. 132-150). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural
comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Com-
munication Monographs, 61, 210-235.
Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward across cultures. In P.
C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspec-
tives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp.
640-675). San Francisco: New Lexing-
ton Press.

Leung, K., & Chan, D. (1999). Conflict across cultures. In J.
Adamopoulos & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Social
psychology and cultural context (pp. 177-188). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (1998). Conflict management in the
Asia Pacific: Assumptions and approaches
in diverse cultures. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Brew et al. 873
Leung, K., Tremain-Koch, P. M., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic
model of harmony and its implications for
conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 19, 201-220.
Lin, Z. (1997). Ambiguity with a purpose: The shadow of power
in communication. In P. C. Earley &
M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international
industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 363-376).
San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and moti-
vation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J.
F., Kondo, M., et al. (1998). Culture,
conflict management style, and underlying values: Accounting

for cross-national differences in styles of
handling conflicts 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 differences between Japanese and
Americans in their perceptions of difficult social situations.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
29(4), 499-524.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan,
X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face
and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China,
Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235-258.
Olebe, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the cross-cultural
equivalence of the behavioral assess-
ment scale for intercultural communication. 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 management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions
and approaches in diverse cultures
(pp. 277-302). John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling
interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(2), 368-376.
Ruben, B. D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence:
Traditions and contemporary issues. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 229-240.

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of
communication competency and the pre-
diction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47.
Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1995). Embarrassability and
self-construal: A theoretical integration.
Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 919-926.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and
interdependent self-construals. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A
competence-based approach to the study of
interpersonal conflict. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal
relationships (pp. 183-202). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. C. (1984). Interpersonal
communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Thomas, K. W. (1990). Conflict and negotiation processes in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 651-717).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-
negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim &
W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural
communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Intercultural conflict competence. In
W. R. Cupach & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Com-
petence in interpersonal conflict (pp. 120-147). New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S.,
Lin, S., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face
maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A
study in five cultures. International Jour-
nal of Conflict Management, 2(4), 275-296.
Tinsley, C. H., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Managing workplace
conflict in the United States and Hong Kong.
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 360-
381.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach
to conflict: Accomplishments and chal-
lenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(3),
285-342.
Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995).
Managing conflict with a subordinate or a
superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(2), 271-281.
Wall, J. A., & Stark, J. (1998). North American conflict
management. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.),
Conflict management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and
approaches in diverse cultures (pp. 303-333).
John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42(5) 856 –874© The Au.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42(5) 856 –874© The Au.docx

Similar to Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42(5) 856 –874© The Au.docx (20)

More from tawnyataylor528

More from tawnyataylor528 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42(5) 856 –874© The Au.docx