Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans, and ... · differences in conflict management...

Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans,

and Filipinos Differ from One Another?

Tae-Yeol Kim

Management Department

City U. of Hong Kong

83 Tat Chee Avenue

Kowloon, Hong Kong

852-2788-7181

[email protected]

Chongwei Wang

Fisher College of Business

Ohio State University

Mari Kondo

Asian Institute of Management, Philippines

Tae-Hyun Kim

Kellogg School of Management

Northwestern University

mailto:[email protected]

37077

2

Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans,

and Filipinos Differ from One Another?

We examined how Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos resolve an interpersonal conflict with

their immediate supervisor differently from one another and how cultural factors can affect

the conflict management styles and explain the county differences. Based on a sample of 295

employees from various organizations in Japan, Korea, and Philippine, we found that

Koreans, compared to Japanese and Filipinos, were less likely to oblige to their supervisors

and less likely to use arbitration in solving an interpersonal conflicts. On the other hand,

Japanese, compared to Koreans and Filipinos, were less likely to use dominating,

compromising, and mediation. We also found that cultural factors significantly affect conflict

management styles and partially explain the country differences found. This study can open

the door for more fine-grained research and theory on cross-cultural differences associated

with conflict management.

37077

3

Conflict is inevitable in all cultures, but every culture has evolved its own way of

managing it (Brett, 2004). As the number of multinational companies and international

alliances increases, understanding cross-cultural differences in conflict management becomes

more and more important (Kozan, 1997; Tinsley, 2001). Much of this research has focused

on comparisons between Americans and Asians (Gelfand et al., 2001; Leung, 1987; Ohbuchi

& Takahashi, 1994; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Tinsley & Brett, 2002). Although these

studies have extended our understating about how culture influences conflict management

styles, they are based on the assumption that people in all Asian countries will behave alike.

Yet, there are reasons to believe that Asian countries have substantially different attitudinal

and behavioral patterns (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995; Callister & Wall, 1997; Kim, 2004;

Paik & Tung, 1999).

Recently several researchers have investigated how Asians resolve interpersonal

conflicts differently from one another (Morris et al., 1998; Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, &

Yang, 1991). For example, Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) examined how people from China,

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the U.S. resolve a conflict with a classmate in a hypothetical

situation using undergraduate samples. They found that Koreans and Chinese were more

likely to use integrating style (e.g., investigate the problem with another party and find a

solution acceptable to both of them) than Japanese. Although they have found some

significant difference among Asian countries, several important questions still remain

37077

4

unaddressed. First, they paid little attention to developing a sound theory to account for the

differences in conflict management styles among Asian countries. Second, they have mainly

focused on dyadic conflict management styles such as Rahim (1983)’s five types of conflict

management styles. Rahim (1983) differentiated the styles of handling interpersonal conflict

on two basic dimensions: concern for the self and concern for others. Combination of the two

dimensions results in the following styles: a) integrating (high concern for self and others); (b)

obliging (low concern for self and high concern for others); (c) dominating (high concern for

self and low concern for others); (d) avoiding (low concern for self and others); and (e)

compromising (intermediate concern for self and others). However, in Asian countries, third

party approaches, such as mediation or arbitration, may play an even more important role in

solving an interpersonal conflict considering the indirect nature of these cultures (Lind, Tyler,

& Huo, 1997; Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). Third, the current Asian conflict management

studies did not explicitly examine how cultural variables can affect conflict management

styles and explain the country differences in conflict management styles. Finally, they did not

examine how employees in the work place resolve an interpersonal conflict with their

supervisors differently across countries.

To address theses issues, this study examines how Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos

resolve an interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisors using Rahim (1983)’s five

types of dyadic conflict management styles and two third-party tactics (i.e., mediation and

37077

5

arbitration). We have chosen to contrast the three Asians counties for several reasons. First,

Japan and Korea are among the most frequently examined in the past cross-cultural

comparison studies on conflict management. Second, Philippine is one of the South Asian

countries that have been culturally influenced by the Mainland China and is one of the most

fast-growing South East Asian countries. It would be more comprehensive to include

Philippine to study Asian differences in conflict management styles. Third, in most studies,

only one or two countries were picked as the comparison to the U.S. or other country, and

research design varies across the studies. Thus, we do not know whether their findings can be

used to gauge how Asians differ from each other (cf., Van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). As a

result, it would be more accurate to study Asia differences with the three Asian countries with

the same research design. We also study how cultural factors can affect conflict management

styles and explain the country differences. Next, we discuss research hypotheses for Asian

differences in the conflict management styles.

Theoretical Backgrounds and Research Hypotheses

Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles

Conflict Management in Korea. Some of interesting social climates that can help us

understand Koreans’ conflict management styles are progressivism and optimism (Cho &

Park, 1998). Since an optimistic view of the future and social problems is very common,

when they have an interpersonal conflict with others, Koreans tend to resolve the conflict

37077

6

directly and in a speedy way. Consistent with this, Park and Tung (1999) found, on the basis

of interviews with American executives who had experienced international business

negotiations, that Koreans seldom hide their feelings in public and tend to directly address the

issues that may be regarded as sensitive to either Japanese or Chinese. In a similar vein, Lee

and Rogan (1991) found that Koreans were more likely than Americans to engage in

solution-oriented strategies (e.g., open and direct communication about the conflict) to

manage interpersonal conflicts.

Another interesting social climate that strongly influences Koreans’ behaviors is

‘can-do’ spirit. Due to a result-oriented ‘can-do spirit’, aggressiveness has all become part of

social life (Cho & Park, 1998). In addition, Koreans tend to be more emotional than Chinese

and Japanese (Paik & Tung, 1999). In Korea, interpersonal relationships can be strongly

influenced by “kibun”, which refers to the personal feeling, mood, or state of mind, and is an

important factor in ego fulfillment (Steers, Shin, & Ungson, 1989). Kibun is a unique term

that has meaning only in Korea and not in China and Japan. Koreans try to interact with

others in a manner that will improve the kibun both in them and in those with whom they

interact. The state of kibun is easily disturbed, however, such as when a young person shows

irreverence toward an elder. In the workplace, individuals’ kibun can be disturbed when

co-workers treat their other co-workers without dignity or ignore others’ opinions. When

their kibun is disturbed, Koreans can be aggressive toward others and will be less likely to

37077

7

sacrifice their interests for others. Thus, Koreans are more likely to address an interpersonal

conflict in a way to get a positive solution for all parties involved due to progressivism and

optimism, or only for themselves due to aggressiveness associated with a ‘can-do’ spirit and

disturbed kibun in conflicting situations.

A managerial principle in Korean companies can also affect Koreans’ ways of dealing

with an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. According to Alston (1989), Korean

companies, unlike other Asian companies, emphasize mutual dependence between

supervisors and subordinates, so called “inwha”. Subordinates and supervisors who are

highly schooled with inwha view their relationship with others in a “paternal-like” way, and

as a result, expect reciprocal caring, and expressions of loyalty and support (Scarborough,

1998). Thus, when there is disagreement between subordinates and supervisors, Koreans tend

to gives up something to make a mutually acceptable, compromising decision. In addition, as

Tung (1991) noted, in Korea subordinates tend to have a loyalty toward their supervisors and

try to make a mutually assisting relationship with their supervisors. Thus, Korean

subordinates are less likely to use arbitration styles that can break the mutual dependence

between subordinates and supervisors.

Conflict Management in Japan. Traditionally, Japanese have highly valued honor, and

consideration of the other’s honor is still very important in social relations (Honna & Hoffer,

1989). Consistent with this, Oetzel et al. (2001) argue that Japanese have high other-face

37077

8

concern, that is, concern for other people’s image. As a result, Japanese are very careful not

to mar the other person’s honor, and thus tend to satisfy the concern of the other party in

conflicting situations. Consistent with this, Moran et al. (1993) found that obliging is one of

the most frequently used conflict management styles for Japanese.

In addition, Japanese are strongly discouraged from making an interpersonal conflict

in public. A well-known Japanese proverb says “In a quarrel both parties (the two) are to

blame.” As a result, Japanese are less likely to talk with somebody about their conflicts with

others. In addition, Japanese believe that each person has his or her proper place and position

and is expected to behave within that social boundary. One should not step out of his or her

position and intrude in others’ affairs, especially in something as personal as an interpersonal

conflict (Callister & Wall, 1997; Dialdin & Wall, 1999). Moreover, Japanese are strongly

encouraged to enhance their group harmony by protecting the social identities of all

participants in conflict management. Consistent with this, Goldman (1994) noticed that

Japanese do not want to publicly rank participants into winners and losers. As a result,

Japanese will least frequently use arbitration that forces an accord on the disputants and may

make one disputant the winner and the other the loser. Taken together, Japanese tend to

oblige to (not to dominate) their supervisors, less likely to use mediation and arbitration that

involves a third party to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

Conflict Management in the Philippines. 1) In the Philippines, generally speaking,

37077

9

many scholars found their work style is "SRI: Smooth Interpersonal Relationships"

oriented. Direct conflict is, generally, avoided at any cost. In order to avoid conflict, people

tend to do "pakikisama", which is, befriend with each other. Making relationships (chatting

each other) are important at workplace. Any confrontational actions are, generally regarded,

as "hiya (shameful)". You should not express your feeling directly by making big voices

(shouting), etc.

2) Unlike other counries (Korea, Japan, China), the Philippines do not have much influence

of confuciosm. 80% of the Philippine population are consisted mainly by Malay (lowland

Catholics).

3) Unlike other countries, the kinship system of the Filipinoss are different. Their family

system is extended family, BOTH father and mother sides are important. (For the above

three countries, father side is much more important.) Because their family -kin is ever

expanding, they rely on their own security by a large network of kins. Yet, the family

boundary is not very clear, it is difficult to identify who is the "insider of the group." Their

"team work" tend to be weak, when this ambiguity exists.

4) Because Philippines was colonized by America, and the education and business system

were set during the American colonization periond, at least on the surface, Filipinoss tries to

follow what they perceive American system. For example, there are numerous litigation

among the Filipinoss. Many conflicts are brought into the court.

37077

10

5) About the groups, there are two important concepts. One is Patron-clinent system (based

on Utang-na-loob, or literaly means, a debt of gratitude). Another is barkada system. At the

workplace, people tend to rely on their security based on the paternalism (or bossism). It is

bsolutely NO to confront your own Padrino (your own boss), who may be your immediate

boss. However, if your Padrino is not your immediate boss, it is quite OK to confront with

them. They will shift an "American way". And sometimes, they even go for the law suit to

settle their demand.

6) Another important group concept is Barkada. Barkada is a peer group, loosely

formed. Thus, this is a horizontal relationships. However, in many workplace, barkadas are

less important/strong than patron-client system.

The general relationships between subordinates and supervisors.

High power distance, which makes patron-clinet system work. Frequently, subordinates use

words, such as "Sir", "Mom". Usually subordinates say "Yes", even they know that they

cannot do the work. This is to avoid to say "No" to the supervisors.

Use of intermediary is quite frequent when subordinates want something from the supervisors.

Rarely, they ask things directly. Taken together, we predict:

Hypothesis 1. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be more likely to

use integrating to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a supervisor.

Hypothesis 2. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be less likely to

37077

11

oblige to their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

Hypothesis 3. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be more likely to

compromise with their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

Hypothesis 4. Compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese will be less likely to

dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

Hypothesis 5. Compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese will be less likely to

use mediation to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.

Hypothesis 6. Compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos will be more likely to

use arbitration to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.

Hypothesis 7. Compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos will be more likely to

avoid conflict with their supervisors.

Cultural Values/Factors and Conflict Management Styles

We have so far discussed how conflict management styles can vary across countries.

Now we discuss how cultural values can affect conflict management styles. One of the

cultural values that we believe can influence conflict management styles is the view of the

self (i.e., self-construals1). Individuals with a high interdependent self-construal view the self

1 The independent-an interdependent self-construal should not be regarded as the same

construct as collectivism-individualism “despite the relevance of self-construals as a

consequence of a person’s cultural orientation (Earley & Gibson, 1998: 298).” The

self-construals is a focal element to help understand cultural effects on individuals while

collectivism-individualism is a broad cultural construct that explain both country and

individual differences (Earley & Gibson, 1998).

37077

12

as “a priori fundamentally interdependent with others; that is, the self is inherently socialan

integral part of the collective (Markus & Kitayama, 1994: 570).” Thus, they are generally

sensitive to others’ thoughts, feelings, and actions, and as a result perceive their surroundings

in terms of others that are vital and influential (Hernandez & Iyengar, 2001; Markus &

Kitayama, 1991). Their major task is to maintain their connectedness to others by thinking

and behaving in ways that fit in with relevant others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As a result,

when they have a conflict with their supervisors, people with a high interdependent

self-construal attempt to play down the differences and emphasize commonalities to satisfy

the concern of the other party (i.e., obliging style). Individuals with a high interdependent

self-construal are also motivated to become part of various interpersonal relationships and to

maintain a good relationship with others, particularly those who are vital and influential to

them such as an immediate supervisor (Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Thus, they will

collaborate with others (i.e., integrating style) to resolve any intense disagreement that

involves incompatible goals, needs, or viewpoints. In addition, people with a high

interdependent self-construal tend to resolve an interpersonal conflict in an indirect way not

to ruin the interpersonal relationship. Thus, they may shy away from topics that are sources

of disputes or ask someone to give them advice about how to resolve the problem. However,

people with a low interdependent (i.e., high independent) self-construal view the self as an

independent entity that “comprises a unique, bounded configuration of internal attributes (e.g.,

37077

13

preferences, traits, abilities, motives, values, and rights) and behave primarily as a

consequence of these internal attributes (Markus & Kitayama, 1994: 569).” As a result, they

tend to satisfy their own interests in interpersonal conflicting situations and stand up for their

own rights and defend a position that they believe to be correct. Taken together, we predict:

Hypothesis 8: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal

more likely use obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


more likely use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


more likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


more likely use mediation to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


less likely use dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Another cultural value that can affect conflict management styles is power distance

which refers to “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and

organizations is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980: 45).” In high power distance societies,

differences in power are assumed to be natural. People in unequal status are considered being

of a different kind and this difference reflects an existential inequality (Hofstede, 2003). Thus,

37077

14

people with higher (rather than lower) power distance will probably view exchanges in which

an authority is treating a subordinate in a power-oriented (e.g., dominating) manner as natural

(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Consistent with this, Bond, Wan, Leung, & Giacalone

(1985) found that individuals who were higher (rather than lower) in power distance tended

to perceive less interpersonal mistreatment in situations describing authorities as having

treated them aggressively. As a result, in an effort to reresolve an interpersonal conflict with a

supervisor, subordinates with a high power distance will be more likely to satisfy the concern

of their supervisors and are less likely to pursue their own interests and objectives. In addition,

they usually avoid open discussion of the differences with their supervisors and try to stay

away from disagreement with their supervisors and hardly explore the differences to find a

solution together. Moreover, employees in high power distance societies rely on a higher

level of authority in dealing with interpersonal issues (Leung, 1997; Tinsley & Brett, 2001).

Individuals in high power society involve an authority in a conflict not only because they

respect status distinctions but because to gain power by association over the outcome and to

minimize social friction (Leung, 1997; Tinsley, 1997). Consistent with this, Smith et al.

(1998) found that employees with a high power distance tend to ask a higher level of

authority to reresolve disagreements between coworkers within their own department and

with other department’s employees. Taken together, we predict:

Hypothesis 13: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance more likely

37077

15

use obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Hypothesis 14: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less likely

use dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Hypothesis 16: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less likely

use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


use arbitration to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Communication styles. Another variable that can affect conflict management styles is

individuals’ indirect communication styles. According to Gudykunst et al. (1996), one of the

characteristics of high-context (HC) communication is indirect/ambiguous communication.

Individuals who use an indirect communication style tend to respond with an ambiguous

position in order to avoiding hurting others and imposing on others. Thus, they are more

likely to resolve an interpersonal conflict in an indirect mode (Gudykunst et al., 1996). For

example, they respond to disagreements with less coming face-to-face with whomever one

has a disagreement and less verbally talking about the differences one has with the other.

Indirectness is also illustrated by someone choosing to avoid being in the same location with

the person with whom there is a disagreement (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991), and to shy away

37077

16

from topics that are sources of disputes (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). In addition, individuals

who use indirect communication styles may be more likely to involve a third party to resolve

an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. Taken together, we predict:

Hypothesis 18: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication less likely

use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Hypothesis 19: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication more

likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


likely use mediation conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.


likely use arbitration conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Cumulatively, the above predictions indicate mediation, such that country predict

interdependent self-construal, power distance, and communication styles, which in turn

influences conflict management styles (Hypothesis 22).

METHODS

Participants and Procedures

The participants consist of current employees who are working at a large company in

Japan, Korea, and Philippine. A total of 295 surveys were collected and used for the further

analyses (i.e., Japan = 105, Korea = 90, and Philippines = 100). Table 1 shows the sample

37077

17

size, participants’ age, tenure, and gender by country. There were significant cross-cultural in

age and tenure (r = -.17, p <.01, r = -.18, p <.01). Japanese were significantly older and had a

longer tenure than Chinese and Koreans had. However, age and tenure was not significantly

associated with conflict management styles, and thus they were not controlled in further

analyses.

Insert Table 1 about here

Procedures

Surveys were distributed by undergraduate students who study in a university in

each country to their friends, relatives, or parents who are working in a company. Participants

were told that the survey is a voluntary exercise and were asked to return it to the researcher

at the address attached to the survey. To ensure that participants’ survey-responses would be

anonymous, the survey explained that respondents would not place their name anywhere on

the survey and their individual results would not be analyzed nor reported.

All surveys began by asking respondents to assess their values and attitudes toward

themselves, others, and the organization. Then, they were asked to describe the most recent

incident that they had an interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisor in terms of

incompatible goals, needs, and view points. After describing the incident, respondents were

asked to answer how they reresolved the conflict. The survey was initially developed in

37077

18

English and then will be translated into Japanese, Korean, and Filipinos using Brinslin’s

(1986) back-translation procedure. All of the variables in this study were assessed on a

7-point Likert scale (where 1= extremely disagree or not at all and 7= extremely agree or

very much).

Measure

Conflict management styles. We measured conflict management styles using the

Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II (Rahim, 1983). We also assessed two third-party

involved conflict management styles: mediation and arbitration. Mediation was assessed by

Ting-Toomey et al.’s (2000) two items and Lind et al.’s (1997) two items. Example items are

“Asked a peer for advice in settling the dispute” and “Discussed the conflict with my peers to

get some advice.” Arbitration is assessed by Ting-Toomey et al.’s (2000) four items.

Example items are “Appealed to a person at a higher level to settle the conflict” and “Asked a

higher-level manager to make a decision about how to settle the dispute.” Respondents were

asked to assess the extent to which they used each conflict management style to resolve the

interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisor they described earlier (1 = not at all; 7

= very much).

Cultural values. We measured two types of cultural values. First, power distance was

measured by Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) five items. Example items are

“Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees” and “Managers should not

37077

19

delegate important tasks to employees.” Second, interdependent self-construal is measured by

Cross, Bacon, and Morris’s (2000) five items. Example items are “When I think of myself, I

often think of my close friends or family also” and “In general, my close relationships are an

important part of my self-image.”

Communication styles. Indirect communication style was measured using Gudykunst

et al.’s (1996) five items. Example items are “I communicate in an indirect fashion.” and “I

avoid eye contact when I communicate with others.”

Control variable. We controlled the severity of the conflict that respondents had with

the immediate supervisor reported. We measure the conflict severity by asking respondents to

assess the conflict with three sets of appositive adjectives using a 7-point Likert scale: 1 = not

at all important, 7 = very important; 1 = not at all serious, 7 = very serious; and 1 = not at all

serious, 7 = very critical.

Analysis

We run several regression analyses to test the effects of country and cultural values on

conflict management styles. In addition, to test the mediating effects of cultural values on the

country differences, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. That is, we tested

whether significant country differences in conflict management styles remained significant or

reduced significantly after entering cultural values in the same regression equation.

RESULTS

37077

20

Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures are

reported in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, all reliability estimates exceeded the .70 criterion

suggested by Nunnally (1978) except for power distance and indirect communication (α = .61

and .66, respectively). The mean for integrating conflict management style was relatively

higher than those for others, suggesting that employees from moderate high (i.e., Mean =

4.24). As expected, the mean for dominating style to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a

supervisor was the lowest (Mean = 3.65). Correlations between dyadic and third-party

involved conflict management styles were positively significant, suggesting that third-party

involved tactics (i.e., mediation and arbitration) can be used simultaneously with dyadic

tactics. Correlations between dominating and obliging and avoiding were not significant, and

conflict severity was significantly correlated with some of conflict management styles such as

mediation and arbitration. There are also some cross-cultural differences in the correlation

patterns. For example, the correlation between integrating and avoiding was negative and

significant in the Philippines (r = -.23, p < .01), but it was not significant in Japan and Korea

(r = .01, .n.s., and -.01, n.s., respectively).


Country Difference in Conflict Management Styles

Hypothesis 1 predicted that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be

more likely to use integrating to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a supervisor. Table 3

37077

21

shows that there was no significant country difference regarding the integrating style. Thus,

Hypothesis 1 was not supported.


Hypothesis 2 proposed that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be

less likely to oblige to their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Consistent with

this, Table 3 shows that Koreans used less obliging tactics than Japanese and Filipinos did

(Means = 3.90 vs. 4.44., p <.01; 3.90 vs. 4.49, p < .01, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was

supported.

Hypothesis 3 stated that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be

more likely to compromise with their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

Consistent with this, Koreans used more compromising tactics in dealing with an

interpersonal conflict with their supervisors than Japanese did (Means = 4.75 vs. 4.14, p <.01).

However, there was no significant difference between Koreans and Filipinos (Means = 4.75

vs. 4.79, n.s.). On the other hand, Filipinos were more likely to compromise with their

supervisors than Japanese were (Means = 4.79 vs. 4.14, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was

partially supported.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese would be

less likely to dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Consistent with

this, Japanese dominated their supervisors in conflict situations less likely than Koreans and

37077

22

Filipinos did (Means = 3.27 vs. 3.84., p <.01; 3.27 vs. 3.91, p < .01, respectively), as can be

seen in Table 3. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Hypothesis 5 predicted that compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese would be

less likely to use mediation to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. Table 3

shows that Japanese used mediation in dealing with an interpersonal conflict with their

supervisors less likely than Koreans and Filipinos did (Means = 4.25 vs. 4.69., p <.01; 4.25 vs.

4.65, p < .01, respectively), supporting Hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 6 stated that compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos would be

more likely to use arbitration to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.

Consistent with this, Filipinos used arbitration in dealing with an interpersonal conflict with

their supervisors more likely than Koreans did (Means = 3.96 vs. 3.41, p <.01). However,

there was no significant difference between Filipinos and Japanese (Means = 3.96 vs. 3.80,

n.s.). On the other hand, Koreans were less likely to use arbitration than Japanese were

(Means = 3.41 vs. 3.80, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported.

Hypothesis 7 predicted that compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos would be

more likely to avoid conflict with their supervisors. Consistent with this, Filipinos were more

likely to avoid dealing with an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors than Koreans and

Japanese were (Means = 4.63 vs. 4.09., p <.01; 4.63 vs. 4.03, p < .01, respectively), as can be

seen in Table 3. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was supported.

37077

23

The country differences discussed above are shown in Figure 1. As can be seen in

Figure 1, there were significant country differences except for integrating conflict

management style.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Cultural Values/Factors and Conflict Management Styles

Hypothesis 8 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent

self-construal more likely used obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with

a supervisor. Consistent with this, Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was

significantly associated with obliging tactic (β = .14, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 8 was

supported.


Hypothesis 9 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent

self-construal more likely used integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict

with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was significantly

associated with integrating tactic (β = .26, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 9.

Hypothesis 10 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent

self-construal more likely used avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with

a supervisor. Consistent with this, interdependent self-construal was significantly associated

37077

24

with the tendency to avoid an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .25, p < .01),

as shown in Table 4. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was supported.

Hypothesis 11 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent

self-construal more likely used mediation to resolve a conflict with a supervisor. Consistent

with this, Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was significantly associated with

mediation (β = .26, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 11 was supported.

Hypothesis 12 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent

self-construal less likely used dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict

with a supervisor. As can be seen in Table 4, interdependent self-construal was significantly

associated with integrating tactic, but the direction was positive rather than negative (β = .26,

p < .01). That is, people with a high interdependent self-construal were more likely to

dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Thus, Hypothesis 12 was not

supported.

Hypothesis 13 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance

more likely used obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Table 4 shows that power distance was significantly associated with obliging tactic (β = .28,

p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 13.

Hypothesis 14 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less

likely used dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

37077

25

Contrary to this, power distance did not significantly affect dominating tactic subordinates

use to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .02, n.s). Thus, Hypothesis

14 was not supported.

Hypothesis 15 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance

more likely used avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Consistent with this, power distance was significantly associated with the tendency to avoid

an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .15, p < .05), as shown in Table 4. Thus,

Hypothesis 15 was supported.

Hypothesis 16 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance

less likely used integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Table 4 shows that power distance was negatively associated with integrating tactic, but the

effect size is not significant (β = -.01, n.s). Thus, Hypothesis 16 was not supported.

Hypothesis 17 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance

more likely use arbitration to resolve a conflict with a supervisor. Consistent with this, power

distance was significantly associated with arbitration (β = .19, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 17

was supported.

Hypothesis 18 proposed that people who use indirect (rather than direct)

communication less likely use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict

with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that indirect communication had a significantly negative

37077

26

effect on integrating tactic (β = -.17, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 18.

Hypothesis 19 predicted that people who use indirect (rather than direct)

communication more likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict

with a supervisor. Consistent with this, indirect communication was significantly associated

with the tendency to avoid an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .28, p < .01),

as shown in Table 4. Thus, Hypothesis 19 was supported.

Hypothesis 20 stated that people who use indirect (rather than direct) communication

more likely used mediation conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.

Contrary to this, indirect communication did not significantly affect mediation tactic although

the association was positive (β = .05, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 20 was not supported.

Hypothesis 21 proposed that people who use indirect (rather than direct)

communication more likely used arbitration conflict management styles to resolve a conflict

with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that indirect communication had a significantly positive

effect on arbitration (β = .16, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 21 was supported.

Hypothesis 22 stated that cultural values mediated the effects of country on conflict

management styles. Consistent with this, Table 5 shows that the significant differences

between Japan and Korea in terms of obliging, avoiding, and arbitration became

nonsignificant after taking interdependent self-construal, power distance, and indirect

communication into account. In addition, the significant differences between Japan and

37077

27

Philippine in terms of avoiding, compromising, and dominating became nonsignficant or

substantially reduced. However, the significant differences between Korea and Philippine in

terms of obliging, compromising, domination, and mediation remained significantly. Taken

together, Hypothesis 22 was partially supported.


DISCUSSION

This research can provide several important theoretical implications for cross-cultural

conflict management studies and suggest opportunities for more fine-grained research and

theory. For example, this study can enhance our understanding about cross-cultural

differences by examining the subtle but important cultural attributes among different

“collectivist” cultures (i.e., Japan, Korea, and Philippine) that have been distorted or simply

overlooked.

Another theoretical contribution of this study was examining

Collectivism has served as a powerful theoretical construct for cross-cultural

comparison of conflict management styles (Leung, 1987). However, this framework will not

work for this study since the three Asian countries examined are collectivist. Thus, as a

growing group of researchers advocate, this study will consider more specific values and

belief constructs that have meaning only within a given culture to explain East Asia

37077

28

differences in conflict management styles (Earley & Gibson, 1998; Morris & Leung, 2000).

The values and beliefs include “face” concerns and managerial principles as well as cultural

values such as power distance and self-construals.

Finally, with regard to consideration, self-construals significantly mediated the

country’s moderating effects on the relationship between normative comparison and

interactional justice. Specifically, there was a significant indirect effect of country on the

relationship between normative comparison and interactional justice through an independent

self-construal. This result extends current cross-cultural justice research (e.g., Chen et al.,

1998; Hui et al., 1991; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988) by successfully explaining the country

differences found in justice judgments. This success may result from the fact that this study

used more specific cultural dimensions (i.e., self-construals) rather than general dimensions

(e.g., collectivism) in explaining the country differences (Morris & Leung, 2000). However,

future studies should make further efforts to explore other variables that may explain the

country differences found in justice judgments. For instance, materialism that indicates the

extent to which people use possessions as an indicator of success in life (Richins & Dawson,

1992) and varies across countries (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995) may explain the country

differences in the effects of social comparison on justice perceptions, especially for

distributive justice.

37077

29

Although, for some types of treatment, country and self-construals interacted as

expected with social/normative comparison, others behaved in unpredicted ways. For

example, for job security, voice opportunity, and accuracy rule, U.S. Americans, compared to

Asians, were more likely to be sensitive to social comparison when making justice judgments.

Specifically, for job security the curvilinear relationship between social comparison and

justice perceptions was stronger for U.S. Americans than Asians. These results are

consistent with the classical social comparison theory that has typically implied that social

comparison processes differ across domains of comparison (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990).

It is possible that recent economic recession in the U.S. that results in relatively high

This study has some practical implications too. For example, it helps cross-cultural

managers decrease unnecessary animosity from different Asian countries by enhancing their

understanding of Asian differences in conflict management styles. Furthermore, this study

suggests that multinational companies need to develop different conflict reduction systems

across Asian countries. For example, Koreans are rather direct and solution-oriented in

conflict management situations, and Japanese hesitate to involve a third party to resolve a

conflict, whereas Filipinoss tend to avoid the conflict itself. If cross-cultural managers fail to

distinguish among Asian countries, they will reduce their ability to do business in one of the

37077

30

most formidable markets in the world (Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996).

Limitations and Strengths

It should be noted that as in most cross-cultural studies, we did not have completely

matched samples from the three countries. For example, Japanese were significantly older

than Koreans and Filipinoss. However, the demographic variables did not significantly affect

conflict management styles, and thus we expect that the demographic differences across

countries will not influence the interpretation of the results. Nevertheless, this limitation

underscores the urgent need for better data in future cross-cultural studies.

In addition, this study did not measure all of the variables that may explain the

differences found across countries. Regarding Asian differences, this was a pioneering effort;

developing scales for the variables that explain Asian differences was out of this study’s

scope. However, cross-cultural justice literature can be benefited by future studies to develop

measures to explain Asian differences (e.g., inwha).

The limitations of this study are countered by several important strengths. First, this

study provides a better comprehension of East Asia differences associated with reward

distribution by examining different types of inputs and rewards. Considering various types of

rewards will obviously extend our understanding of how individuals react to different forms

of contribution (Bond et al., 1982).

Second, this study employed a discrepancy approach using a polynomial regression

37077

31

analysis to examine how inequity affects justice perceptions. Specifically, we measured

inputs (i.e., contributions) and rewards separately and tested how the difference between

inputs and rewards affects distributive justice. This approach makes it possible to test how

justice perceptions change as inputs increases toward rewards, inputs exceeds rewards, and

inputs and rewards both increases together (cf., Edwards & Parry, 1993).

In addition, the results of this study were based on a large sample in many different

firms across more than eight industries from each country. This sampling diversity increased

our confidence that the results were not simply based on the idiosyncratic organizational

culture of a single firm, or the unique experience in a certain industry. Thus, the

characteristics of our sample increased the generalizability of the results across different

contexts.

Conclusion

Future studies may benefit from the development of a better and a more responsive

theory that discusses how Asians differ from one another in conflict management styles, and

it would also be interesting to examine how they differ from one another in solving an

interpersonal conflict with their peers and subordinates. Moreover, it is likely that other Asian

countries (e.g., Singapore) are substantially different from the three East Asian countries

examined here, suggesting that future research should examine the differences within Asian

countries with regard to allocation preferences and justice judgments. Finally, it would also

37077

32

be interesting to examine the contextual variables that enhance or mitigate the country

differences in allocation preferences and justice judgments.

37077

33

Reference

Anderson, L., & Wilson, S. 1997. Critical incident technique. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R.

Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology (pp. 89–112).

Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner and

J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications.

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. 2000. The relational-interdependent self-construal

and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 791-808.

Dorfman, P. & Howell, J. 1988. Dimensions of National Culture: Hofstede Revisited. In E.G.

McGoun (Ed.), Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3: 127-149.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fischer, R. 2004. Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification

of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35: 263-282.

Gudykunst. W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, Y., & Heyman, S.

1996. The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self contruals, and values on

communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22: 510-543.

Hui, C. H. 1988 Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in

37077

34

Personality, 22: 17-36.

Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R, & Huo, Y. J. 1997. Procedural context and culture: Variation in the

antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 73: 767-780.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets,V. 2002. A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Method, 7: 83-104.

Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of

Management Journal, 26: 368-376.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:

New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.

Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. 1963. Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the

construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,

47: 149-155.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. 2001. Managing intercultural conflict effectively.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G.

2000. Ethinic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24: 47-81.

37077

35

Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. 1998. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74:

118-128.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 4-69.

Abramson, P., & Inglehart, R. 1995. Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press.

Aquino, K., Bennett, R., Shapiro, D. L., Lim, V. K. G., & Kim, T. “Demographic and

Cultural Dissimilarity’s Effects on Responses to Offense.” R & R at Academy of

Management Journal.

Bond, M.H., Wan, K., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R.A. 1985. How are responses to verbal

insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 16: 111-127.

Callister, R. R., & Wall, J. A. 1997. Japanese community and organizational mediation.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41: 311-328.

Cho, Y., & Park, H. 1998. Conflict management in Korea: The wisdom of dynamic

collectivism. In Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia

37077

36

pacific. New York: Wiley.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. 1998. Taking stock in our progress in

individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of

Management, 24: 265-304.

Gao, G. 1998. An initial analysis of the effects of face and concern for "other" in Chinese

interpersonal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22:

467-482.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K. M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. 2001.

Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict

episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1059-1074.

Goldman, A. 1994. The centrality of "ningensei" to Japanese negotiating and interpersonal

relationships: Implications for U.S.^Japanese communication. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 18: 29-54.

Honna, N. & Hoffer, B. 1989. An English dictionary of Japanese ways of thinking. Tokyo:

Yuhikaku.

Kim, T. “Reactions to Unfairness: Differences between Americans and Asians and among

Asians” R & R at Journal of Applied Psychology.

Kim, T., & Edwards, J. R. “Social Comparison and Justice Perceptions: The Moderating

Effects of Individual Values and Country”. Under Review at Organizational Behavior

http://ca1.csa.com/ids70/view_record.php?id=2&recnum=0&SID=e4df9bc1164c8851ae0b4be76a5ff161


37077

37

and Human Decision Processes.

Laden, G. M. 1988. While mediation is wide-spread in China, trade with west calls for new

DR methods. ADR Report, 2: 398-400.

Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lee, H. O., & Rogan, R. G. 1991. A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict

management behaviors. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 181-199.

Leung, K. 1987. Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution:

A cross-national study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53: 898-908.

Moran, R. T., Allen, J., Wichmann, R., Ando, T., & Sasano, M. 1994. Japan. In Rahim, M. A.

& Blum, A. A. (Eds.), Global perspectives on organizational conflict (pp. 33-51)

Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. 2000. Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation

in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 49: 100-132.

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: 235-258.

Ohbuchi, K. 1998. Conflict management in Japan. In Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (Eds.),

Conflict management in the Asia pacific. New York: Wiley.



37077

38

Paik, Y., & Tung, R. L. 1999. Negotiating with Asians: How to attain “win-win” outcomes.

Managerial International Review, 39: 103-122.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.

American Psychologist, 54: 741-754.

Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of

Management Journal, 26: 368-376.

Sommer, S. M., Bae, S., & Luthans, F. 1996. Organizational commitment across cultures:

The impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49: 977-993.

Steers, R., Shin, Y., & Ungson, G. 1989. The Chaebol: Korea’s new industrial might. New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

The Korean Broadcasting System (KBS), & Yonsei University. 1996. The Handbook of

Values and Beliefs among Korean, Chinese, and Japanese.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., & Yang, Z. 1991. Culture, face maintenance, and

styles of handling interpersonal conflicts: A study in five cultures. International

Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 275-296.

Wall, J. A., & Blum, M. 1991. Community mediation in the People's Republic of China.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35: 3-20.

37077

39

Table 1

Sample Characteristics

Sample Age Gender (%) Tenure

Country size M SD Male Female (year)

Korean 90 31.91 7.93 47.80 52.20 4.73

Japanese 105 35.72 12.44 53.90 44.30 9.95

Philippines 100 31.68 8.53 55.00 45.00 6.28

37077

40

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Coefficients for Variables in All Data

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Country — — —

2. Conflict severity 4.66 1.27 .08 (.87)

3. Integrating 4.71 1.01 -.03 .16 (.83)

4. Obliging 4.29 1.02 -.03 .00 .24 (.81)

5. Avoiding 4.25 1.00 .14 .01 -.05 .55 (.71)

6. Compromising 4.54 1.02 .05 .01 .59 .36 .26 (.71)

7. Dominating 3.65 1.08 -.04 .14 .28 .05 .08 .25 (.79)

8. Mediation 4.52 1.09 .04 .18 .52 .25 .17 .45 .34 (.75)

9. Arbitration 3.73 1.16 -.02 .15 .31 .20 .21 .39 .43 .57 (.79)

10. Interdependent self 5.07 .96 .34 .17 .28 .16 .23 .27 .22 .25 .11 (.70)

11. Power distance 4.11 .98 .22 .11 .02 .25 .21 .10 .04 .15 .17 .19 (.61)

12. Indirect communication 3.19 1.09 .20 -.12 -.16 .16 .28 .13 .08 .02 .18 -.40 .19 (.66)

Note.(N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100). Reliabilities are in parentheses.

For all correlation above .10 or below -.10, p ≤.05; and above .15 or below -.15, p ≤.01.

37077

41

Table 3


Koreans Japanese Filipinos Country Differences

Conflict management styles

Integrating 4.83 4.70 4.62 N/A

Obliging 3.90 4.44 4.49

Japanese > Koreans**

;

Filipinos > Koreans**

Avoiding 4.09 4.03 4.63


;

Filipinos > Japanese**

Compromising 4.75 4.14 4.79

Koreans > Japanese**

;


Dominating 3.84 3.27 3.91


;


Mediation 4.69 4.25 4.65


;

Filipinos > Japanese*

Arbitration 3.41 3.80 3.96

Japanese > Koreans*;


Note. (N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100).

* : p < .05

** : p < .01

37077

42

Table 4

Regression Results for the Effects of Cultural Values on Conflict Management Styles

Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Mediation Arbitration

Conflict severity .09 -.03 -.01 -.02 .09 .13* .13

*

Interdependent self .26**

.14* .25

** .34

** .29

** .26

** .09

Power distance -.01 .28**

.15**

.01 .02 .08 .19**

Indirect

communication -.17**

.12 .28**

.19**

.17**

.05 .16**

R2 .12

** .13

** .19

** .15

** .13

** .11

** .11

**


* : p < .05

** : p < .01

37077

43

Table 5

Regression Results for the Mediating Effects of Cultural Values on Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles


Step

1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Conflict severity .10 .16* -.03 -.05 -.02 -.02 -.01 -.02 .13

* .12 .18

** .14

* .13

* .13

*

Korea vs. Japan -.07 -.16 .28**

.11 .25**

.12 .04 -.08 .04 -.04 -.05 -.16 .16* .05

Korea vs. Philippine -.03 -.04 .23**

.24**

-.05 .01 -.29**

-.25**

-.27**

-.23**

-.18* -.18

* .10 .12

Japan vs. Philippine .06 .12 -.05 .13 -.31**

-.12 -.33**

-.17* -.31

** -.18

* -.13 -.02 -.07 .07

Interdependent self .23**

.18**

.26**

.27**

.21**

.18* .12

Power distance .07 .24**

.08 .04 .05 .14 .15*

Indirect communication

-.19**

.16* .25

** .15

* .15

* -.02 .17

*

R2 .03 .13 .06

** .18

** .08

** .20

** .10

** .18

** .11

** .17

** .06

** .11

** .04

* .11

**

R2 change .10

** .12

** .12

** .08

** .06

** .05

** .07

**


* : p < .05

** : p < .01

37077

44

Figure 1


3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Conflict Management Styles

Fre

qu

ency


Korea

Japan

Phillippine

Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans, and ... · differences in conflict management...

Documents

Transcript of Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans, and ... · differences in conflict management...