Study plan
Managing Conflict Across Cultures: Study Plan
Understand the reading "Managing Conflict", master its key academic vocabulary in context, and apply its ideas about culture, self-concept, upbringing and status to explain how people handle conflict.
Lessons in this plan
-
1
Reading Overview: Main Idea and Structure of "Managing Conflict"
Identify the reading's central claim (most cultures prefer mutually beneficial resolutions, but conflict communication varies), follow its paragraph-by-paragraph structure, and tell the main points apart from the supporting research examples.
- 2 Direct vs Indirect Styles: Face, Wa and Self-Enhancement Explain North American directness versus Japanese and Chinese indirectness and face-saving (paras 2-3), the concept of wa and the Heine et al. (2000) self-enhancement findings (para 4), and Lim's (2009) two harmony motives exactly as para 4 states them: (1) to enhance harmony and actively promote group cohesiveness, in which case a more assertive problem-solving approach is preferred; (2) to avoid the disintegration of group harmony, in which case avoidance or non-assertion are preferred. Do not add, rename or paraphrase these motives into other motives (for example, do not call them 'preserving relationships' or 'protecting face'). Cover paras 2-4 only; the para 5 Chinese proverb and persuasion methods belong to lesson 3, not this lesson.
- 3 Conflict Across More Cultures: China, First Nations and Argument as Sociability Describe, from paras 5-8: the Chinese proverb 'The first person to raise his voice loses the argument'; the three most common persuasion methods among Chinese college students (hinting, setting an example by one's own actions, strategically agreeing to whatever pleases others; Ma and Chuang, 2001); and Zhang et al. (2005): older Chinese adults still preferred an accommodating style, while younger adults 'viewed a problem-solving style just as positively' as an accommodating style (state it this way; do not say younger people 'may be more open'). Describe First Nations approaches to discipline (storytelling, parents modelling behaviour, avoiding personal criticism). Describe cultures that see argument as intimacy or a game: Greeks (Tannen, 1990), French and Arab men (but not women), who find argument stimulating (Copeland and Griggs, 1985), Italian children's discussione, and working-class Jewish speakers of Eastern European origin. Explain low- vs high-context communication using footnote 1 and para 8 (the reading calls Italy, Greece and parts of Eastern Europe individualistic and low-context). The reading does NOT call Chinese persuasion or First Nations storytelling high-context; any such link must be presented explicitly as an inference, not as something the reading says.
- 4 Beyond Culture: Self-Concept, Biology, Upbringing, Status and Relationships Explain why culture is not the only factor in conflict style (paras 9-11), keeping strictly to what the reading says. Biology: only that our approach to conflict 'may be part of our biological makeup' (Beatty and McCroskey, 1997); add no specific biological traits, genes or mechanisms. Self-concept: scholarship suggests it is more powerful than culture; independent, interdependent and both. Parental influence (para 10) covers only corporal punishment (Simons and Wurtele, 2010) and the link between a mother's conflict style and her adult children's (Martin et al., 1997); do not mention First Nations storytelling in this section. Status: it has a powerful effect 'at least in individualistic cultures' (Kim et al., 2007). Only students with an individualistic orientation were more argumentative with a classmate than with a professor; students with a collectivistic orientation were not more argumentative with a peer or more avoidant with a professor; both groups felt more apprehension about a conflict with the professor. Relationships: the 'culture' of each relationship (Messman and Canary, 1998).
- 5 Academic Vocabulary in Context Work out and use key words and phrases from the reading in context, such as mutually beneficial, assertiveness, self-restraint, confrontation, place a premium on, cohesiveness, disintegration, prevail, reprimand, intimacy, apprehension and corporal punishment. For cohesiveness, quote para 4 ('...actively promote group cohesiveness...') and explain that when this is the motive, a more assertive problem-solving approach is preferred (Lim, 2009). For disintegration, tie it to the phrase 'avoid the disintegration of group harmony', the motive for which avoidance or non-assertion are preferred. Do not give any example claiming that indirect, avoiding or non-assertive styles protect or promote group cohesiveness, because that contradicts Lim as reported in para 4.
- 6 Applying the Concepts: Analysing Cross-Cultural Conflict Apply the reading's concepts (direct vs indirect style, face, harmony, individualism vs collectivism, low- vs high-context communication, self-concept and status) to explain and predict how people from different backgrounds might handle a disagreement. Keep every prediction consistent with the reading: status affects conflict style 'at least in individualistic cultures' (Kim et al., 2007); only individualistic-oriented students were more argumentative with a peer than with a professor, collectivistic-oriented students were not, and both groups felt more apprehension about a conflict with the higher-status person. Do not claim that people from collectivistic backgrounds are especially attentive to role or status relationships, and do not use examples (such as a manager and an employee) predicting that collectivistic people will be more deferential, argumentative or avoidant depending on status. Present any link between high-context communication and a specific culture as an inference, not as the reading's claim, and remember that self-concept may outweigh culture.