1 Conflict-resolution of Sundanese and Chinese children in Bandung, Indonesia Wilis Srisayekti Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia Presented at XXIX International Congress of Psychology 2008, 20-25 July, Berlin, Germany Abstract This study was aimed to describe the conflict-resolution-pattern of children from two subcultures in Indonesia, and its relationship with the mother’s value orientation toward social relation. Subjects were 40 Sundanese children, 40 Chinese children, male and female, 9-12 year old, with their mothers. Their recent conflict experiences of children and its resolution were gathered by using self-report through an interview. The individualism-collectivism tendency of mother’s values was concluded from their reactions to the hypothetical situations in vignettes. Results indicated a similar tendency from both subcultures, both for the conflict-resolution-pattern of children and its relationship with the mother’s value orientation. Term of References Conflict Conflict (Shantz & Hartup, 1992, p.4): A state of resistance or opposition between (at least) two individuals. Conflict resolution (Shantz & Hartup, 1992, p.225): Actions that terminate an oppositional exchange. Thomas (1976, in fisher, 1982), two dimensions; Assertiveness & cooperativeness a. Assertiveness The willingness to satisfy one own interest b. Cooperativeness The willingness to satisfy others’ interest Five patterns: 1. 2 Collaborating or problem solving Characteristics: Find a common interest, very cooperative, very assertive Children concern of both parties’ interests Accommodating or smoothing Characteristics: Very cooperative Low assertiveness Children concern of others’ interest and satisfaction more then their own 2 3 Avoiding or withdrawal Characteristics: Uncooperative Unassertive Children tend to avoid conflict There is no conflict resolution They are not interested in thinking about the conflict, both for others’ and their own interest Compromising Characteristics: Children try to find compromised solution that could satisfy both parties, but they more concern of their own interest Competing or forcing Characteristics: Uncooperative Very assertive Children insist on their own interest on others 4 5 Value Definitions as compiled by Schwartz & Bilsky (1987, in Smith & Schwartz, 1997): 1. It is a belief, it is not objective, and it is still an idea. Value becomes active when it blends with feeling or emotion. 2. It is the expected goal (e.g. togetherness) and it leads to the simple objectives that support the main goals such as equitability. 3. It is particular on the specific actions or situations. Obedience for example, is relevant at school and work setting, sport and business settings, family and social settings. 4. It is a standard and an evaluator for behavior, people and events. 5. It depends on the interests that are related one another. A set of values builds a system of the value’s priorities. 6. Values as well as beliefs, have cognitive, affective and behavior components. As a cognitive component, value is something wanted. An individual has a value if he/she knows the right way to behave or the right reason to keep that way. The affective component of value makes an individual feels an emotion about something. It makes individual to affectively oppose something; he/she agrees with others who support him/her but disagrees with others who give negative responses to hem/her. Value has a behavior component when it is an intervention’s variable that leads into actions when it is activated. Value orientation Based on the finding that there is a consistent relationship between individual’s values (Feather, 1995) and behavior (Schwarts, 1996, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997): A set of value priorities is reflected on the individual’s attitudes and behavior. This set of value priorities directs individual to behave in every situation. 3 Value orientation: Set of value priorities that direct individual to behave and to interact with his environments in various situations (Feather, 1995; Schwarts, 1996, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997) Value orientation collectivism vs. individualism Collectivism & individualism (Hofstede, 1980): Concept of cultural level, it is not individual attribute Some researchers use this concept to show individual differences or personal variable individual, a level where individuals have values, norms and attitudes related to collective or individual cultures. Those researchers prefer to select one general dimension to differentiate individual in collective culture from individual culture. Main characteristics (Triandis, 1995, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997) priority on personal interest vs. on group interest independency, emotional bond, personal achievement vs. dependency, emotional attachment, group achievement, cooperation Cultural syndrome: patterns characterized by organized common believes, behavior, norms, values found in several geographical areas and certain historical periods constructed by several basic cultural syndrome exist on the individual level General dimensions (Triandis, 1995) no 1 2 3 dimensions The self Personal & community goals Focused cognition 4 Relationship with others individualism independency independent collectivism dependency dependent Social behavior is directed by Social behavior is directed personal behavior, need & by norms, tasks & convention / agreements responsibility relationship itself rational analytic on loss & benefits 4 no 1 individualism Social patterns: lack of individual relationship Independent on a certain group Focused on personal attributes Motivated by attractiveness, needs, rights, agreements Priority on personal goals Rational analysis on loss & benefits in relating with others Lack of harmony: Argumentation will solve problems Individual has his own goal inconsistent with the group’ s goal In conflict, concern only on their own goal collectivism Monolithic & homogen Commonalities in thinking, emotional & behavior Dependent on a certain group No attributes individualism collectivism 1 2 aspects definition goals Focused on collective attributes harmony Concern on collective goals, Individual goal is consistent with the group’s goal Individual behaves as group’s expectation, never against them Attributes: Self perception Social perception Consequences 2 Identity & Emotion 3 Cognition 4 Motivation Individual as basic unit of social perception Individual who has a relation Positive consequences of behavior What they own and experience Focused on ego Long term, remain unchanged with changes in situation Focused on personal needs & rights, self capacities& agreements Motive structures, a reflection of personal needs, rights & capacities, incl. survive in social pressures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) Group as basic unit of social perception A set of organized relation between individuals Negative consequences of behavior Obtained from relationship between group’s members Focused on others (empathy) short term, as long as they are in the same situation Focused on group’s needs Motive structures, a reflection of acceptance & adaptation on others’ needs 5 5 Attitude 6 Norms 7 Values 8 Social behavior 9 privacy 10 communication 11 Conflict resolution 12 Morality 13 Responsibility Believe in self-reliance, hedonism, competition & emotionally unintegrated in group Less consensus related with male-female roles Less safety, in group inharmonious relationship, rationalized relationship Behavior is independent on the context More skills to face new group & strangers relationship tends to be less closer Like sociable, interdependent & family integrity More consensus related with malefemale roles Incl. safety, good social relationship, in group harmonious relationship, personalized relationship Behavior is dependent on the context Little skills to face new group & strangers Once relationship formed, tends to be more closer & long term relationship Everyone has to mind his Individual business is group’s own business business Respect to privacy Individual has freedom to think freely Use ‘I’ Use ‘we’ focused on content focused on context Clarity of the topic Concern on others’ feeling Say what they think, even it Avoid conflict in group is risky for the relationship Read others’ mind curing communication Messages indirectly sent, dependent on eyes, distances, etc. Less use obligation, Tend to use obligation, avoidance, integration, avoidance, integration, compromising compromising Less motivated to keep the More motivated to keep the relationship relationship Less contextual More contextual Members’ welfare is less Members’ welfare is the most important important Individual is responsible for his Group is responsible for the mistakes own behavior done by group’s member/s Research on individualism & collectivism (Triandis, 1995) Indonesian & Chinese are more collective cultures In Indonesia? More than 13.000 islands, 360 ethnic groups, 250 languages Major ethnic groups, sub cultures, empirical findings minimum 6 Aims of the study : To describe the conflict-resolution-pattern of children To show its relationship with the mother’s value orientation toward social relation Case: sundanese & Chinese children in Bandung, Indonesia A beginning of the study of subcultures in Indonesia Methods Subjects: 40 Sundanese children with 40 Sundanese mothers, 40 Chinese children with 40 Chinese children, male and female students, primary school 4th & 5th grade, 9-11 year old. Data collection: Children: Self-report through an interview: The children were asked to tell their recent conflict experiences and its resolution during the last four weeks Coding: Inter-rater, two psychologists Five patterns from Thomas (1976, in fisher, 1982); 5 - Collaborating or problem solving 4 - Accommodating or smoothing 3 - Avoiding or withdrawal 2 - Compromising 1 - Competing or forcing Mothers: The hypothetical situations in vignettes: 7 conflict situations (from survey): 3 (three) conflict situations in which they might be often involved in the daily life 3 (three) conflict situations in which their children might be involved with their peers 1 (one) conflict situation, neutral, in which they might not be involved directly The vignettes were constructed based on Shantz (1992) situations: A state of verbal or non verbal resistance or opposition between (at least) two individuals. The mothers were asked to tell or describe their reactions Coding: Inter-rater, two psychologists The individualism-collectivism tendency of mother’s value orientation toward social relation 7 collectivism 5 - Focused on only others’ interest and / or sacrifice their own interest 4 - Focused on others’ interest with a bit concern on their own interest 3 - Focused on the harmony between others’ interest and their own interest or behave according to the norms 2 - Focused on their own interest with a bit concern on others’ interest 1 - Focused on their own interest, have no concern on others’ interest at al individualism Results Sundanese children ( = 48) situation 1 2 3 total Mean SD 3.08 2.82 2.95 8.84; 2,95 1.148 .982 1.038 2.212 Chinese children ( = 48) situation 1 2 3 total Mean SD 3.50 3.47 3.39 10.37; 3,5 .952 1.006 .823 2.019 conflict resolution pattern mean 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 c-1 c-2 c-3 situation Sundanese mothers ( = 48), total sundanese chinese 8 code situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total Mean SD 3.39 3.03 3.29 3.11 3.66 3.39 3.21 23.08 .547 .972 .768 .798 .745 1.001 .741 2.842 Code + intensity situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total Mean SD 7.78 7.06 7.00 6.85 7.77 7.21 6.49 43.97 1.028 1.284 1.431 1.267 1.181 1.373 1.464 8.793 (Code + intensity): 2 situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total Mean SD 3.46 3.53 3.50 3.425 3.885 3.605 3.395 25.225; 3.6 1.028 1.284 1.431 1.267 1.181 1.373 1.464 6.974 Chinese mothers ( = 48), code situation 1 2 3 4 Mean SD 3.03 2.58 2.92 2.74 .434 .683 .712 .795 9 5 6 7 total 3.11 2.79 2.87 20.03 1.008 .811 .741 2.307 Code + intensity situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total Mean SD 7.78 7.06 7.00 6.85 7.77 7.21 6.49 43.97 1.028 1.284 1.431 1.267 1.181 1.373 1.464 8.793 (Code + intensity): 2 situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total Mean SD 3.39 3.345 3.17 2.70 3.41 2.83 3.08 21.985; 3.14 1.028 1.284 1.431 1.267 1.181 1.373 1.464 8.793; 10 code the mothers' value toward social relation 4 mean 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 s-1 s-2 s-3 s-4 s-5 s-6 s-7 total sundanese situation chinese Code + intensity the mothers' value orientation toward social relation mean 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 s-1 s-2 s-3 s-4 situation s-5 s-6 s-7 sundanese chinese 11 (code+intensity): 2 the mothers' value toward social relation mean 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 s-1 s-2 s-3 s-4 s-5 s-6 s-7 total situation sundanese chinese Relationship between the conflict-resolution-pattern of children and the mothers’ value orientation no 1 2 subcultures Sundanese Chinese r Total Male Female Total Male Female .563(**) : .465(**) .624(**) : .583(**) .470(*) : .339 -.001 .246 -.255 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). : .001 : .162 : -.242 12 Conclusion: Conflict resolution Sundanese children: 2-3 compromising avoiding or withdrawal Chinese children : 3-4 avoiding or withdrawal accommodating or smoothing, the tendency of the Sundanese children toward collectivism is weaker then the tendency of the Chinese children toward collectivism Value orientation of social relation Sundanese mothers : 3-4 more collectivism Chinese mothers : 2-3 less collectivism the tendency of the Sundanese mothers toward collectivism is stronger then the tendency of the Chinese mothers toward collectivism The relationship between the conflict-resolution-pattern of children and the mothers’ value orientation: Significant in Sundanese culture (total = .563(**); male =.624(**); female = .470(*)) Insignificant in Chinese culture (total = .001; male =.246; female = .255) Discussion: support the finding from Triandis (1995) studies with more subjects References Bandura, A., & Walters. R. (1964). Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Inehart and Winston, USA. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R. (2002). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications, 2nd edition. Cambridge: University Press, UK. Bond, M.H. (1988). The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology. Sage publication, USA. Costanzo, P.R. (1985). Theories of Social Psychology, 2nd edition. Singapore: McGrawHill. Crain, W.C. (1980). Theories of Development, Concepts and Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Fisher, R.J. (1982). Social Psychology, an Applied Approach. St. Martin’s press Hartup, W.W. (1985) Child Development. Chicago, Illinois: Society for research in Child Development. Hurlock, E. (1978). Child Growth and Development, 5th edition. New York: Mc.GrawHill. Koentjaraningrat. (1983). Kebudayaan, Mentalitas dan Pembangunan. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia. 13 Rockeach, M. (1986). The nature of Human Value. New York: Mc.GrawHill Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Social and Personality Development, 3rd edition. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc. Shantz, C.U. Hartup, W.W. (1992). Conflict in Child and Adolescence Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith & Schwartz. (1997), Values. Sussex: Sussex University. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Westvie Press.