International Journal of Intercultural Relations
24 (2000) 47±81
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Ethnic/cultural identity salience and con¯ict
styles in four US ethnic groups p
Stella Ting-Toomey a,*, Kimberlie K. Yee-Jung a, Robin
B. Shapiro a, Wintilo Garcia a, Trina J. Wright a, John
G. Oetzel b
a
California State University at Fullerton, USA
b
University of New Mexico, USA
Abstract
This study examined the in¯uence of ethnic background, ethnic identity, and cultural
identity on con¯ict styles among African Americans, Asian Americans, European
Americans, and Latino(a) Americans. Panethnic factor analysis yielded four dimensions of
ethnic identity: ethnic belonging, fringe, intergroup interaction, and assimilation. A secondorder factor analysis yielded two clear identity dimensions: ethnic identity salience and
cultural identity salience. In addition, panethnic factor analysis yielded seven con¯ict
management styles: integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding, neglecting, emotional
expression, and third party. Some of the major ®ndings of the study are: (1) African
Americans have a stronger ethnic identity and a weaker cultural identity than the other
ethnic groups; (2) European Americans have a weaker ethnic identity than the other
groups; (3) Latino(a) Americans and Asian Americans use avoiding and third party con¯ict
styles more than African Americans, and, Asian Americans use avoiding con¯ict style more
than European Americans; (4) Individuals with a strong cultural identity (i.e., identifying
with the larger US culture) use integrating, compromising, and emotionally expressive
con¯ict styles more than individuals with a weak cultural identity; (5) Individuals with a
strong ethnic identity (i.e., identifying with their ethnic memberships) use integrating
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Speech
Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 1994. We want to thank Bill
Gudykunst and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this
paper.
* Corresponding author. Department of Speech Communication, California State University at
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92834, USA. Fax: +1-714-278-3377.
p
0147-1767/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 3 - 1
48
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
con¯ict style more than individuals with a weak ethnic identity; (6) bicultural, assimilated,
and traditional-oriented groups use integrating and compromising con¯ict styles more than
the marginal group, and the marginal group uses third party help more than the other three
groups. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: ethnic identity; cultural identity; con¯ict styles
Introduction
Con¯ict is a pervasive human phenomenon that penetrates all forms of social
relationships in all ethnic and cultural groups. From intergroup con¯ict to
interpersonal friction, con¯ict is often an intrinsic part of the human relating
process. Con¯ict itself, however, is not necessarily a negative or positive
phenomenon. It is how we manage con¯ict that can lead to constructive or
destructive outcomes. Con¯ict is de®ned in this study as an intense disagreement
process between a minimum of two interdependent parties when they perceive
incompatible interests, viewpoints, processes, and/or goals in an interaction
episode (Ting-Toomey, 1994a, 1994b).
While there are many factors that can contribute to an escalatory con¯ict
episode, con¯ict style is viewed as one of the critical factors that can exacerbate
an already intense con¯ict situation. Con¯ict style refers to patterned responses to
con¯ict in a variety of situations. Con¯ict interaction style is learned within the
primary socialization process of one's cultural or ethnic group. Individuals learn
the norms and scripts of appropriate con¯ict conduct and e€ective con¯ict
behavior in their ethnic and cultural environment.
Unfortunately, while there has been a blossoming interest concerning the study
of interpersonal and intercultural con¯ict communication in the past ®ve years
(e.g., Cahn, 1992, 1994; Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols, & Iwawaki, 1992; Trubisky,
Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991), there is a paucity of research addressing the critical
role of ethnic identity and its e€ect on con¯ict styles. Interpersonal con¯ict
researchers in the US tend to focus their attention in uncovering con¯ict norms
and rules of the European American group to the neglect of practices by many
non-European American communities. Intercultural researchers, on the other
hand, tend to focus their attention in identifying di€erences of con¯ict patterns
between US and non-US cultures to the neglect of examining ethnic variability of
con¯ict styles within the US sample.
With the changing demographic trends of the US population within the next 50
years (when one in every three US Americans will be a person of non-white
heritage, Thornton, 1992), it is vital that theory-development in the area of ethnic
identity and con¯ict style should be as inclusive and as ethnocentric-free as
possible. As Yinger (1994) notes: ``by the middle of the twenty-®rst century, if the
present trend continues, the United States will be a truly global society, with
slightly over half of primarily European ancestry and nearly half of Latino,
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
49
African, Asian, and Native American background. How the United States
develops as a multi-ethnic society will be of critical importance . . . for its own
quality of life'' (p. 35). Understanding the relationship between ethnic identity
salience and con¯ict management styles in African, Asian, European, and
Latino(a) American groups will help us to understand con¯ict variations across
groups. Understanding such stylistic variations can serve as a ®rst step in the
constructive management of intraethnic and interethnic con¯icts.
Towards this end, this project tests the e€ects of ethnic background, ethnic
identity, and cultural identity on con¯ict styles among four US membership
groups. This study is concerned with the general phenomenon of ethnic identity as
a construct with composite elements that are relevant to di€erent ethnic groups in
the larger US culture. Identifying common ethnic/cultural identity dimensions and
decoding particular con¯ict style factors will o€er us a clearer, comparative
picture of identity issues and con¯ict style preferences across various US groups.
Understanding the complex relationships among ethnic background, ethnic
identity, and cultural identity on di€erent con¯ict styles will help us to deal with
con¯ict modes more adaptively in a diverse range of ethnic contact situations.
Ethnic identity
Ethnic identity is a complex, multidimensional construct. It is the subject of
continuous fascination that is debated and argued about by researchers from
diverse disciplines (see, for example, Alba, 1990; De Vos & Suarez-Orozco, 1990;
Espiritu, 1992; Hecht, Sedano, & Ribeau, 1993; Keefe, 1992; Mirande & Tanno,
1993; Phinney, 1990; Roosen, 1989; Waters, 1990). Ethnic identity is an elastic
concept that is often shaped and molded by the researcher's lens of emphasis.
There are two important issues that are central to the study of ethnic identity:
ethnic identity salience and ethnic identity content. While ethnic identity salience
refers to the degree of importance of ethnic identity to the individuals, ethnic
identity content refers to the ethnic values that individuals subscribe to and
practice. These two issues are central to understanding the role of ethnic identity
on con¯ict management styles within and across the four US ethnic groups.
Ethnic/cultural identity salience
Drawing from social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and
acculturation theory (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989), ethnic identity
is viewed as a multidimensional construct that includes issues of group
membership, self-image, ethnic aliation and larger cultural aliation, and
ingroup and intergroup attitudes. More speci®cally, ethnic identity is
conceptualized in this paper as a composite of attitudes, feelings, and perceptions
of the degree of aliation and belonging towards one's own ethnic group and/or
the larger culture. It also embodies favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward
ingroup/outgroup interactions. Ethnic identity salience involves the extent to which
50
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
individuals hold their ethnicity to be of importance. Cultural identity salience, on
the other hand, involves the extent to which individuals hold their larger culture
to be of importance.
Macro- to mico-level factors such as permeable/impermeable group boundaries,
positive or negative intergroup comparisons, identity distinctiveness issues, and
socialization processes shape individuals' ethnic membership preferences (Berry et
al., 1989; Brewer, 1991, 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Ting-Toomey, 1993).
Phinney (1991), after reviewing extensive studies on ethnic identity of multiple
ethnic groups, argues that ethnic identity salience varies on a continuum from
strong to weak. She contends that persons with strong ethnic identity salience selfidentify as ``group members, evaluate their group positively, prefer or are
comfortable with their group membership, are interested in, knowledgeable about,
and committed to the group, and are involved in ethnic practices'' (p. 194). Thus,
strong ethnic identity salience can be manifested in gestalt ways. Conversely, weak
ethnic identity is apparent when individuals have ``little ethnic interest, knowledge,
commitment, or involvement, and negative evaluation of the group and of one's
membership in the group'' (p. 194). Individuals who experience weak ethnic
identity salience are less likely to embody ethnic values associated with their ethnic
group memberships. Individuals may be situated at any point between the
extremes of strong and weak ethnic identity salience. Likewise, individuals can
identify strongly or weakly with the larger culture. Persons with strong cultural
identities hold the larger culture as important to their self-images, and persons
with weak cultural identities are less likely to internalize the larger culture as
important to their self-images.
More speci®cally, from the acculturation typological perspective (Berry, Kim, &
Boski, 1987; Berry et al., 1989), ethnic identity salience can be viewed as a
fourfold model that emphasizes an individual's orientation towards issues of
ethnic identity maintenance and larger cultural identity maintenance. According to
Berry et al. (1987), individuals who tend to favor ethnic tradition maintenance
and at the same time attach low signi®cance to the values and norms of the larger
culture practice the traditional-oriented (i.e., ``separation'') option. Individuals who
favor ethnic tradition maintenance and at the same time express movement to
become an integral part of the larger society practice the bicultural (i.e.,
``integration'') option. Individuals who attach low signi®cance to their ethnic
values and norms and at the same time tend to view themselves as members of the
larger society practice the assimilation option. Finally, when individuals lose
ethnic/psychological contact with both their ethnic group and the larger society
and experience feelings of alienation, they practice the marginalization option. For
example, a second-generation Asian American can commit to one of the following
four ethnic identity salience categories: Asian primarily, American primarily, both,
or neither. From this fourfold model, an interaction e€ect is posited between
ethnic identity maintenance and cultural identity maintenance in a pluralistic
society. Cultural identity maintenance refers to the degree of membership
aliation with the larger culture. Ethnic identity maintenance refers to the degree
of membership aliation with one's speci®c ethnic group. Finally, Phinney (1989,
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
51
1992) has identi®ed four common themes of ethnic identity that are relevant to
di€erent ethnic group members at any stage of racial/ethnic identity development:
ethnic belonging (i.e., positive aliation with one's own ethnic group), ethnic
identity achievement (i.e., active search for ethnic identity knowledge), ethnic
practices (i.e., participation in ethnic activities), and other-group orientation (i.e.,
attitudes and feelings toward members of other ethnic groups).
Overall, it appears that the study of ethnic identity salience has both ethnicgeneral and ethnic-speci®c elements. As a general phenomenon, ethnic identity in
a pluralistic society is a composite construct that involves ethnic group belonging,
ingroup/outgroup attitudes, and the larger cultural identity issues. Ethnic identity
is basically concerned with the intergroup boundary maintenance theme. As a
speci®c phenomenon, ethnic identity encompasses the unique history, common
ancestral descent, shared fate, and shared ethnic traditions and values. Thus, in
order to understand the role of ethnic identity salience in a pluralistic society,
both ethnic identity maintenance and the larger cultural identity maintenance
should be taken into consideration. In order to gain a more complete
understanding of this in¯uence of ethnic/cultural identity, the following section
describes the content of ethnic identity.
Content of ethnic/cultural identity
To understand di€erences and similarities in con¯ict styles across di€erent
ethnic or cultural groups, it is necessary ®rst to have a perspective to explain why
and how ethnic/cultural groups are di€erent or similar. An ethnic variability
perspective refers to how ethnic groups vary on a continuum of variations in
accordance to some basic dimensions or core value characteristics. While there are
many dimensions in which ethnic or cultural groups di€er, one dimension that has
received consistent attention from intercultural researchers around the world is
individualism-collectivism. Countless intercultural and ethnic studies (see, for
example, Asante & Asante, 1990; Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton,
1985; Bond, 1991; Casas & Pytluk, 1995; Davis, 1990; Gudykunst & TingToomey, 1988; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Hofstede, 1991; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995; Triandis, 1995) have provided
theoretical and empirical evidence that the value dimensions of individualism and
collectivism are pervasive in a wide range of ethnic and cultural communities.
Value characteristics serve as the content of ethnicity and culture that guide
individuals' behaviors and practices.
The value dimensions of individualism and collectivism, as existing on a
continuum of value tendency di€erences, can be used as a beginning point to
understand some of the basic ethnic/cultural communication di€erences.
Essentially, individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of a group in
emphasizing the importance of individual identity over group identity, individual
rights over group rights, and individual interests over relational or group interests.
In comparison, collectivism refers to the broad value tendencies of a group in
emphasizing the importance of the ``we'' identity over the ``I'' identity, group
52
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
obligations over individual rights, and ingroup-oriented needs over individual
wants and desires (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis, 1995). More speci®cally,
examining the individualistic and collectivistic tendencies of various ethnic groups
provides one means for examining the value content domains of ethnicity.
Triandis (1995) states that an understanding of individualistic and collectivistic
values can lead us to a better understanding of the social behavior of diverse
people within and across ethnic/cultural groups. Schwartz and Bilsky (1990)
describe values as re¯ecting the goals, needs, and motivations of an individual or
cultural group. Individualistic values include personal achievement, self-direction,
and the open expressions of individual goal-directed interests. Comparatively,
collectivistic values include relational-oriented values, ingroup harmony,
conformity, and the tactful expressions of mutual-oriented interests.
Hofstede (1991) reports the results of the individualistic tendencies of ®fty
countries worldwide. Each nation is assigned an individualism score, with the
United States (with the sample consisting primarily of European American
respondents) having the highest score, and Guatemala the lowest (and hence, the
highest in collectivism). Hofstede's (1991) study indicates that many African
countries were found to be highly collectivistic (e.g., East Africa, West Africa).
Further, Jamaica, a country that is largely populated by descendants of Africans,
also was found to be collectivistic. In addition, Asian countries were found to be
highly collectivistic (e.g., Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Thailand). With a few exceptions (e.g., Greece), European countries were
generally found to be individualistic (e.g., Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France,
Great Britain). Finally, Latin countries were found by Hofstede's (1991) study to
be collectivistic (e.g., Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Portugal, Spain,
and Venezuela). With knowledge of the individualism-collectivism scores of the
originating countries, it can therefore be inferred that African Americans, Asian
Americans, and Latino(a) Americans who strongly identify with their traditional
ethnic values and norms would tend to be collectivistic, while European
Americans who strongly identify with their European values and norms would
tend to be individualistic.
As indicated in the prior discussion of ethnic identity salience, it is essential to
consider the e€ect of the larger culture in shaping the cognition, emotions, and
behaviors of di€erent ethnic groups within the US. The high individualism score
of the United States (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1995) can be of in¯uence on those
(European Americans as well as African Americans, Asian Americans, and
Latino(a) Americans) who identify themselves primarily as ``Americans''. We can
infer that individuals who have strong cultural identity salience would tend to
identify with the values and norms of the larger culture. Individuals who have
weak cultural identity salience would tend to identify less with the values and
norms of the larger culture. Individuals who subscribe to the norms of the larger
culture would tend to engage in more individualistic-oriented practices.
Comparatively, individuals who subscribe weakly to the values of the larger US
culture would tend to engage in less individualistic, and perhaps more
collectivistic-oriented practices.
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
53
Since we do not know the precise relationship among ethnic background (i.e.,
the four broad ethnic categories of African, Asian, European, and Latino(a)
Americans), cultural identity (i.e., identifying with the larger US culture), and
ethnic identity (i.e., identifying with one's speci®c ethnic group), the ®rst research
question in this study asks:
RQ1
What is the e€ect of ethnic background on cultural identity and ethnic
identity?
Ethnic/cultural identity salience and con¯ict styles
Con¯ict styles: general issues
Ting-Toomey (1994a) de®nes con¯ict as ``the perceived and/or actual
incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or
more parties . . . over substantive and/or relational issues'' (p. 360). Con¯ict
style is simply individuals' characteristic mode of managing con¯ict in a variety
of interaction episodes (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Sternberg and Soriano
(1984) conclude that ``individuals do have more- and less-preferred styles of
con¯ict resolution, and that these styles are both generalizable across content
domains and related to other measures of personal dispositions'' (p. 126).
According to past research (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Sternberg & Soriano,
1984), preferred and manifested con¯ict communication styles are fairly stable
across time.
The present study focuses on patterned con¯ict styles with acquaintances from
the same ethnic group. It can be argued that con¯ict behaviors can be privately
negotiated in close relationships (e.g., intimate friends). The relational partners
can employ their relational knowledge to adapt their con¯ict styles toward each
other. Moreover, relational commitment may outweigh con¯ict style preference
issue. However, in acquaintance con¯icts (e.g., neighborhood con¯icts), con¯ict
parties would be more likely to rely on habituated modes of con¯ict to deal with
the problematic issue. In acquaintance con¯icts, when personal knowledge is
super®cial and relational stake is low, individuals would tend to engage in their
habituated ways of responding to con¯icts more so than in intimate relationship
con¯icts.
In terms of understanding speci®c con¯ict styles, Rahim's (1983, 1992)
conceptualization of con¯ict styles are employed for this study because of its
compatibility with the ethnic variability dimension of individualism-collectivism.
Furthermore, his con¯ict model is also compatible with Ting-Toomey's (1985,
1988) self-face and other-face dimensions as proposed in her con¯ict facenegotiation theory. For example, Rahim (1992) bases his classi®cation of con¯ict
styles on the two conceptual dimensions of concern for self and concern for
others. The ®rst dimension illustrates the degree (high or low) to which a person
54
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
seeks to satisfy her/his own interest or own face need. The second dimension
represents the degree (high or low) to which a person desires to incorporate the
other's con¯ict interest. The two dimensions combine for ®ve styles of handling
interpersonal con¯ict: integrating, compromising, dominating, obliging, and
avoiding. Brie¯y, the integrating style re¯ects a need for solution closure in
con¯ict and involves high concern for self and high concern for other in con¯ict
negotiation. Integrating style attempts to merge both self-interest goal and otherinterest goal via open channels of con¯ict negotiation. The compromising style
involves a give-and-take concession approach in order to reach a mid-point
agreement concerning the con¯ict issue. It is in the intermediate position of high
concern for self and other. The dominating style, in turn, is characterized by an
individual's need to control or dominate the con¯ict situation. It emphasizes
con¯ict tactics that push for one's own position or goal at the expense of the
other person's con¯ict interest. The obliging style is characterized by a high
concern for the other person's con¯ict interest above and beyond one's own
con¯ict interest. It emphasizes accommodating the need of the other person at the
expense of self's interest. Finally, the avoiding style involves evading the con¯ict
topic, the con¯ict party, or the con¯ict situation altogether.
In linking Ting-Toomey's (1988) con¯ict face-negotiation theory with Rahim's
(1992) styles of con¯ict management (i.e., integrating, compromising, dominating,
obliging, and avoiding), certain observations can be made. Her theory proposes
that members who subscribe to individualistic values tend to use direct modes of
con¯ict management, such as integrating, compromising, and dominating/
controlling styles. Comparatively, members who subscribe to collectivistic, groupbased values tend to use indirect modes of con¯ict management, such as obliging/
accommodating style and avoidance style. On a broad level, Rahim's (1983, 1992)
®ve con¯ict styles serve as a useful start for this study and are compatible with
Ting-Toomey's (1988) face-negotiation theory. However, on a speci®c level of
application, Rahim's con¯ict approach is re¯ective of an individualistic, Western
interpretation of what constitutes appropriate and e€ective con¯ict
communication. In particular, obliging and avoiding styles often take on a
Western slant of being negatively disengaged (i.e., ``placating'' or ``¯ight'' from the
con¯ict scene). However, obliging and avoiding con¯ict styles are not necessarily
perceived as negative by many Asian and Latin ethnic groups. These two styles
are typically employed by collectivists to maintain mutual-face interests (TingToomey, 1988, 1999).
Con¯ict styles: speci®c issues
More speci®cally, for example, for individuals who subscribe to traditional
Asian values, the moral philosophy of Confucianism guides their interpersonal
behaviors and practices. The philosophy of Confucianism emphasizes harmonious
interpersonal relationships and the concept of proper facework negotiation in
interpersonal relationships. Obliging the needs of the other person or avoiding the
con¯ict situation altogether is one way to ``give face'' and also ``save face'' for
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
55
both con¯ict parties. Thus, from the traditional-oriented Asian perspective,
obliging and avoiding styles do not necessarily convey the negative connotations
of being passive or elusive. The empirical work of Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) and
Trubisky et al. (1991) provided some evidence that Asian samples (i.e., Chinese
and Taiwanese groups) tend to use higher degrees of obliging and avoiding
con¯ict styles than European Americans in dealing with acquaintance con¯icts. In
addition, European Americans tend to use a higher degree of dominating con¯ict
style than Asian samples. Leung et al.'s (1992) work also provided some evidence
that Asians tend to use avoidance and third-party to deal with con¯ict issues,
while European Americans tend to use upfront, solution-oriented style (i.e.,
integrating and compromising) in dealing with con¯ict problems. These
researchers, however, had only examined cross-national di€erences of con¯ict
styles, and did not deal with ethnic variation issues in con¯ict management
behaviors.
In the context of traditional Latino(a) Americans' con¯ict practices, tactfulness
and consideration of others' feelings are considered to be important norms in
interpersonal confrontation situations (Casas & Pytluk, 1995; Garcia, 1996,
Padilla, 1981). Tactfulness and consideration of others' feelings are conveyed
through the use of obliging and avoiding con¯ict styles. In commenting on the
cultural values and norms of Mexican Americans, for example, Locke (1992)
observes that: ``Whereas members of the dominant culture of the United States
are taught to value openness, frankness, and directness, the traditional MexicanAmerican approach requires the use of much diplomacy and tact when
communicating with another individual. Concern and respect for the feelings of
others dictate that a screen be provided behind which an individual may preserve
dignity'' (p. 140). While Kagan, Knight, and Martinez-Romero's (1982) work
provided empirical support for the use of avoiding con¯ict mode in Mexican
Americans, Collier's (1991) interpretive work pointed to the importance of
preserving relational harmony in con¯icts (in close friendship con¯icts) among
Mexican Americans. The researchers, however, did not make distinctions between
levels of ethnic/cultural identi®cation in the Mexican American respondents, and
thereby, overlook the role of ethnic identity salience within groups.
In terms of African Americans' con¯ict styles, Kochman (1981) notes that in a
con¯ict situation, African Americans and European Americans are divided not
only over content but also over the con¯ict engagement process. According to
Kochman (1981), the ``Black mode'' of con¯ict is ``high-keyed: animated,
interpersonal, and confrontational'', comparatively, the ``White mode'' of con¯ict
is relatively ``low-keyed: dispassionate, impersonal and non-challenging'' (p. 18).
While African Americans tend to prefer emotionally expressive and involving
modes of con¯ict management, European Americans tend to engage in
emotionally-restrained, factual con¯ict discussions. The explanation for the
African American con¯ict modes can be explained by many factors. Two such
factors can include the importance of oral artistry of traditional African practices
and the ethnic socialization experiences of African Americans in the larger US
society.
56
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
According to Boadu (1990), the oral artistry in the traditional African society
serves three functions: ritual, entertainment, and education. The pedagogical role
of the oral artist in the traditional African society ``is illustrated by the art of
storytelling. An elderly person tells stories to the young ones around the courtyard
in the moonlight. The storyteller performs not for any ®nancial gain but for other
reasons Ð artistic commitment, for teaching the moral values of their society, and
to exposing them to the sociocultural background of their society'' (p. 85). Oral
artistry, in traditional African society, has an ``imaginative quality and relies on a
play of the mind and spontaneity of composition'' (Boadu, 1990, p. 84).
Spontaneous a€ective expressions and rich storytelling are highly valued
communication practices in traditional African society. Additionally, the ethnic
socialization experiences of African Americans within the larger US society may
also contribute to their emotionally expressive con¯ict style. As Locke (1992)
comments that ``future successes for their sons [and daughters] hinges on an
ability to be alternatively assertive and acquiescent . . . the environment of
African-American children is an ambiguous and marginal one in which they live
simultaneously in two worlds Ð the African-American world and the world of the
dominant culture'' (p. 21). Phinney and Chavira (1995), in investigating ethnic
socialization by parents of ethnic minority adolescents, found that African
American parents reported more frequent discussion of prejudice and
discrimination issues with their daughter/son than Japanese American and
Mexican American parents. Ting-Toomey (1986), in testing Kochman's (1981,
1986) thesis on ethnic con¯ict style, found that African American females tend to
use more emotionally expressive con¯ict style (i.e., in close relationship con¯icts)
than African American males or European American males and females. Overall,
it appears that while African Americans prefer emotionally engaged con¯ict styles
in dealing with di€erences, European Americans prefer factual inductive modes in
dealing with con¯ict problems.
In sum, while past studies have examined con¯ict styles on either the crosscultural national level or racial di€erence level, the objective of this study intends
to understand the intricate relationships among ethnic background, ethnic identity
salience, and cultural identity salience on various con¯ict styles in four US ethnic
groups. The remaining four research questions guide the analysis of the results of
this study:
RQ2
RQ3
RQ4
RQ5
What is the e€ect of ethnic backgound on the con¯ict styles of the four
US ethnic groups?
What is the e€ect of ethnic identity salience on the con¯ict styles of the
four US ethnic groups?
What is the e€ect of cultural identity salience on the con¯ict styles of the
four US ethnic groups?
What is the interaction e€ect of ethnic background, ethnic identity
salience, and cultural identity salience on the con¯ict styles of the four US
ethnic groups?
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
57
Method
Respondents
The overall sample size for the four ethnic groups contained 662 respondents.
There were 238 males (36.1%) and 422 females (63.9%), and two missing values.
There were 194 European American respondents, 135 African American
respondents, 181 Asian American respondents, and 152 Latino(a) American
respondents. The majority of the respondents were recruited from several mediumsized universities in the southern region of California. Other respondents included
professionals from the southern part of California. The average age of the
participants was 23.83 (SD=7.81). The average educational level of the
respondents was at the level of a college sophomore. Overall, 41.9% of the
respondents reported their con¯ict with classmates, 42.2% with coworkers, 4.7%
with neighbors, and 11.1% marked ``other''.
In the European American sample, there were 77 (39.9%) males and 116
(60.1%) females. The European American self-report ethnic background labels
included 67.2% ``Europeans'', 6.8% ``Italian Americans'', 3.1% ``German
Americans'', and others. In terms of generation, 7.7% of European Americans
identi®ed themselves as ®rst generation immigrants, 11.9% as second generation,
19.6 as third generation, and 60.8% marked ``other''. In the African American
sample, there were 41 (30.4%) males and 94 (69.6%) females. The African
Americans self-report ethnic background or labels included 59% ``African
Americans'', 23.9% ``Blacks'', 6% ``Afro-Americans'', and others. In terms of
generation, 0.7% of African Americans identi®ed themselves as ®rst generation
immigrants, 1.5% as second generation, 17.0% as third generation, 78.5% marked
``other''.
In the Asian American sample, there were 64 (35.6%) males and 116 (64.4%)
females. The Asian Americans self-report ethnic background or labels included
32.7% ``Chinese Americans'', 19.9% ``Vietnamese Americans'', 12.2% ``Asian
Americans'', 8.3% ``Filipino Americans'', 8.3% ``Japanese Americans'', 6.4%
``Asian Indians'', 5.8% ``South East Asian Americans'', 5.1% ``Korean
Americans'', and others. In terms of generation, 75.7% of Asian Americans
identi®ed themselves as ®rst generation immigrants, 14.4% as second generation,
3.9% as third generation, and 1.1% marked ``other''.
In the Latino(a) American sample, there were 56 (36.8%) males and 96 (63.2%)
females. The Latino(a) Americans self-report ethnic background or labels included
35.8% ``Hispanics'', 20.4% ``Mexicans'', 16.8% ``Mexican Americans'', 12.4%
``Latino(a)s'', 7.3% ``Chicano(a)s'', and others. In terms of generation, 34.9% of
Latino(a) Americans identi®ed themselves as ®rst generation immigrants, 19.1% as
second generation, 24.3% as third generation, and 15.1% marked ``other''.
Procedures
The objective of the study was to examine the in¯uence of ethnic background,
58
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
ethnic identity salience, and cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles in four US
ethnic groups. A questionnaire was developed to assess ethnic/cultural identity
salience and con¯ict styles across di€erent ethnic groups in the US. Independent
(ethnic background, cultural identity, ethnic identity salience) and dependent
variables (con¯ict styles) were measured through self-report survey data. The
questionnaire was constructed by using items from various existing scales
concerning ethnic/cultural identity and con¯ict styles. Additionally, some items
were written speci®cally for this study to complement and tap dimensions not
addressed by the instruments used. Many of the con¯ict questions were reworded
to address the context of con¯ict style patterns among acquaintances. Each
questionnaire took approximately 30±45 min to complete.
In section I, participants were instructed that when ®lling out the con¯ict
section, think of how they typically handle face-to-face con¯icts with
acquaintances (e.g., classmates, neighbors, co-workers) who are from the same sex
and same ethnic group as the respondents. Con¯ict was de®ned for them as any
``intense disagreement between two parties which involves incompatible goals,
needs, or viewpoints''. After completing the ®rst section of the survey, the
respondents were asked what kinds of acquaintances they have in mind in ®lling
out the con¯ict responses. Four options were provided: classmates, co-workers,
neighbors, and others. Those who indicated that they answered with anyone other
than an acquaintance (e.g., family members, best friends) were excluded from this
analysis. In section II, prior to completing the ethnic/cultural identity section of
the questionnaire, respondents were instructed to think of the most important
ethnic group which a€ects their everyday experience or behavior. A blank was
provided for them to self-report their ethnic background label. Section II
contained two parts: ethnic/cultural identity salience items and intergroup attitude
items. After ®lling out the ethnic/cultural identity items, respondents ®lled out
answers in the demographic section.
Measurements of ethnic background, ethnic identity salience, cultural identity
salience, and con¯ict styles
Ethnic background was operationalized via self-report labels used by the
respondents in section II of the survey. Ethnic and cultural identity salience items
appeared in the second section of the questionnaire. The items were drawn from
the various scales used in past research, and new items were generated for this
study. Aspects of ethnic/cultural identity salience from the acculturation
perspective (Berry et al., 1987, 1989), and Phinney's (1992) general ethnic identity
salience were examined. More speci®cally, items were included and adapted from
Phinney's (1992) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), Helms and
Parham's (1993) Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS-B), and Luhtanen
and Crocker's (1992) Collective Self-Esteem scale. Additional items were also
written for the purpose of this study. There were a total of 84 ethnic/cultural
identity items included in the survey. The items were randomly distributed in
ÿ.60
.15
.06
ÿ.16
ÿ.15
.67
ÿ.18
ÿ.18
.64
.36
.09
.05
(continued on next page)
ÿ.06
.06
.01
.59
.09
ÿ.02
ÿ.13
ÿ.10
.15
ÿ.03
ÿ.07
ÿ.02
ÿ.08
.02
.06
ÿ.08
ÿ.04
ÿ.13
ÿ.05
ÿ.01
ÿ.02
ÿ.07
.03
ÿ.08
.04
ÿ.10
.03
.56
.26
.04
ÿ.06
ÿ.06
ÿ.52
.01
.20
ÿ.27
.32
.02
ÿ.02
.19
.28
.22
.01
ÿ.63
.32
.11
ÿ.25
.12
.11
ÿ.10
ÿ.72
ÿ.05
.55
.08
.65
.18
ÿ.24
.02
.63
.03
.55
.11
.09
.63
.71
.68
.65
ÿ.06
.65
.57
.07
.50
.03
.62
ÿ.04
ÿ.14
1. I have spent time trying to ®nd out more about my own ethnic group, such as history, traditions and customs.
4. I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.
5. I think a lot about how my life will be a€ected by my ethnic group membership.
7. I sometimes feel it would be better if di€erent ethnic groups didn't try to mix together.
8. I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity in my life.
9. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own.
13. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other people about my ethnic group.
15. I do not try to become friends with people from other ethnic group(s).
16. I participate in cultural practices of my own ethnic group, such as special food, music, or customs.
17. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups.
19. I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than my own.
23. I am increasing my involvement in activities with my ethnic group.
24. I feel an overwhelming attachment to being a member of my ethnic group.
25. I involve myself in causes that will help members of my ethnic group.
26. I am determined to ®nd my ethnic identity.
27. I often regret that I belong to the ethnic group I do.
28. I feel excitement in my own ethnic environment.
29. I ®nd myself thinking more about my ethnic group membership than when I was younger.
31. I generally do not feel comfortable being around members of other ethnic groups.
32. I am active in social clubs which include mostly members of my own ethnic group.
33. It is easy for me to get along with members of di€erent ethnic groups.
36. I think a lot about how my life will be a€ected by my ethnic group membership.
39. I often feel lost about who I am as an ethnic being.
40. I believe that the best way for members of di€erent ethnic groups to get along is to assimilate to the overall US
culture.
41. I usually do not feel comfortable around members of my own ethnic group.
42. It is important for me to identify closely with the overall US culture.
43. I generally identify strongly with the overall US culture.
47. The ethnic group I belong to is an important re¯ection of who I am.
.00
ÿ.57
.02
.50
ÿ.02
ÿ.67
ÿ.01
.54
ÿ.05
ÿ.61
ÿ.64
.08
.17
.13
.10
.20
.02
ÿ.08
.60
.29
ÿ.62
.12
ÿ.03
.02
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Item
Table 1
Ethnic identity factors
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
59
48.
49.
52.
55.
59.
61.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
73.
74.
76.
77.
79.
81.
82.
83.
Items used to de®ne factors.
I feel I do not have much to o€er to the ethnic group I belong to.
I often feel confused about which ethnic group I should identify myself with.
The ethnic group I belong to is important to my sense of what kind of person I am.
In general, belonging to my ethnic group is an important part of my self-image.
I feel good about the ethnic group I belong to.
I usually go by the values of the overall US culture.
I feel very ``confused'' about my sense of ethnic membership.
It is important for me to internalize the overall US cultural values.
I feel comfortable identifying with both my ethnic heritage and the overall US culture.
I often feel ``left out'' when others around me talk about ethnic identity issues.
The overall US culture is an important re¯ection of who I am.
I often feel ``suspended'' and ``lost'' as far as ethnic group membership is concerned.
It is important for me to be accepted both by my ethnic group and the overall US culture.
I feel like I live on the ``fringe'' in terms of my sense of ethnic group belongingness.
The values of my own ethnic group are very compatible with that of the overall US culture.
I do not spend much time with members of the other ethnic group(s).
I feel unable to involve myself in activities with members of the other ethnic group(s).
I frequently involve myself in activities with members of the other ethnic group(s).
Sometimes I feel it would be better that my ethnic group did not mix with members of the other ethnic group(s).
I often ®nd myself referring to members of the other ethnic group(s) in a negative way.
I have many friends from the other ethnic group(s).
I feel unable to involve myself comfortably in activities with members of the other ethnic group(s).
I generally do not trust members of the other ethnic group(s).
Item
Table 1 (continued )
ÿ.16
ÿ.08
.62
.67
.41
ÿ.09
ÿ.09
.12
.17
ÿ.15
.06
ÿ.14
.31
.05
ÿ.16
.07
.04
ÿ.01
.18
.24
.05
.05
.19
ÿ.53
ÿ.67
.30
.33
.62
ÿ.17
ÿ.73
ÿ.24
.24
ÿ.62
ÿ.15
ÿ.72
ÿ.03
ÿ.65
.05
.06
ÿ.05
ÿ.13
ÿ.10
ÿ.11
ÿ.05
ÿ.12
ÿ.07
.10
.08
.13
.10
ÿ.10
ÿ.09
ÿ.02
ÿ.02
ÿ.24
.10
ÿ.03
.02
ÿ.06
.03
ÿ.00
.70
.66
ÿ.63
.65
.53
ÿ.63
.66
.54
.23
.10
.06
.06
.11
.67
.08
.60
.55
.11
.68
.10
.54
.15
.55
ÿ.01
.04
.05
ÿ.10
ÿ.10
.12
ÿ.00
ÿ.16
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
60
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
61
section II and participants were asked to respond on a ®ve-point Likert-type scale,
from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.
In measuring con¯ict styles, items from several scales and items written
speci®cally for this study were generated. Rahim's (1983) ROCI±II (Rahim
Organizational Con¯ict Inventory±II) scale was modi®ed and used to measure the
following styles of con¯ict: integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding, and
obliging. Other con¯ict style items were also included for the purpose of tapping
into a diverse range of ethnic con¯ict styles. In particular, items from the
Disputing Process Instrument (DPI) (Morrill & Thomas, 1992), the Dissatisfaction
in Friendship Instrument (DFI) (Healey & Bell, 1990), and the A€ective
Orientation Scale (AOS) (Booth-Butter®eld & Booth-Butter®eld, 1990) were
adapted to capture the multifaceted factors of panethnic con¯ict characteristics.
New con¯ict items (e.g., third party, neglect, and emotional expression) were also
written to tap a wider range of ethnic con¯ict styles. Respondents were asked to
respond on a scale 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1=very little extent, to 5=very
great extent.
Results
The data were analyzed using principal components of factor analysis,
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), t-tests, and Tukey post hoc
comparisons. The results are presented in two sections: factor analysis and
MANOVA ®ndings.
Factor analysis
In exploring the dimensions of ethnic identity salience, factor analysis with
varimax rotation was used to uncover the cross-ethnic dimensions of ethnic/
cultural identity. Several criteria were used to determine and interpret the factors.
First, a .50 (with the exception of one con¯ict item which loaded at .49) and .20
criterion was used to decide if an item loaded on a factor (i.e., the item had to
have a primary loading of at least .50 and its primary factor had to be .20 greater
than all secondary factors). Second, for a factor to be considered, a minimum of
®ve items had to load on that factor.
Ethnic/cultural identity
The initial factor analysis performed for ethnic identity was limited to four
factors. Based on Berry et al.'s (1989) acculturation typology, four identity types
should emerge. Indeed, four clear factors emerged from the factor analysis. All
four factors met the criteria for interpretation (henceforth, the Ethnic/Cultural
Identity Dimensions Ð EID Scale; see Table 1).
The ®rst factor was comprised of 15 items. The items tapped at feelings of
ethnic belonging. As a result, this factor was labeled ``belonging''. These items
together yielded an alpha of .91. for the panethnic sample. The alpha coecients
62
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .90, Asian Americans .89,
European Americans .88, and Latino(a) Americans .90. The second factor
consisted of 11 items. All items that loaded for this factor re¯ected a sense of
marginalism or the feelings of being on the fringe of ethnic identity. Thus, this
factor was labeled ``fringe''. The combination of these items yielded an alpha of
.89. The alpha scores for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .90,
Asian Americans .89, European Americans .84, and Latino(a) Americans .89. The
third factor was made up of 14 items. These items re¯ected the desire or the lack
of desire to interact with members of other ethnic groups. Consequently, this
factor was labeled ``interaction''. The alpha for this factor was .89. The alpha
scores for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .88, Asian
Americans .87, European Americans .92, and Latino(a) Americans .90. The fourth
factor contained nine items. Generally, all these items re¯ected primarily
assimilation attitudes. As a result, the factor was labeled ``assimilation''. The
resulting alpha for assimilation was .83 for the panethnic sample. The alpha scores
for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .88, Asian Americans .76;
European Americans .82, and Latino(a) Americans .76.
In examining the four ethnic identity dimensions, it was determined that they
could be dimensions of two overarching factors that measure strong and weak
ethnic identity and strong and weak cultural identity. Items with positive and
negative factor loadings were recoded to be consistent within each factor. A
second order factor analysis was performed on the four ethnic identity factors (see
Table 2). These four factors loaded on two distinct factors, with belong (.78) and
fringe (.89) loading on factor one (which will henceforth be labeled as salience of
``ethnic identity''), and interaction (.87) and assimilation (.59) loading on factor
two (which will be referred to as salience of ``cultural identity''). Salience of ethnic
identity was dichotomized to form strong and weak ethnic identity categories
using a median split. Salience of cultural identity was also dichotomized to form
strong and weak cultural identity using a median split. The median for ethnic
identity salience was 3.60. The median for cultural identity salience was 3.51.
The overall results of the ®rst-order factor analysis yielded an initial four ethnic
identity dimensions, namely, belonging, fringe, intergroup interaction, and
assimilation. The second-order factor analysis produced two distinctive
dimensions: ethnic identity salience and cultural identity salience.
Table 2
Second-order factor analysis for ethnic identity
Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
.78
.89
.15
ÿ.25
ÿ.24
.12
.87
.59
1:
2:
3:
4:
Belong
Fringe
Interact
Assimilate
Items used to de®ne factors.
1. I would attempt to avoid being ``put on the spot'' and try to keep my
con¯ict with the other person to myself.
3. I would try to stay away from disagreement with the other person.
6. I would give some to get some in order to reach a compromise.
8. I would use my in¯uence to get my ideas accepted.
9. I would try to ®nd a middle course to resolve an impasse.
10. I would use my authority to make a decision in my favor.
12. I would win some and lose some so that a compromise could be
reached.
13. I would avoid an encounter with the other person.
14. I would argue my case with the other person to show the merits of my
position.
17. I would try to keep my disagreement with the other person to myself in
order to avoid hard feelings.
18. I would use my expertise to make a decision in my favor.
20. I would usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.
21. I would try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with the other person.
22. I am generally ®rm in pursuing my side of the issue.
25. I would generally avoid an argument with the other person.
26. I would sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation.
28. I would use a ``give and take'' so that a compromise could be made.
29. I would sit down with the other person to negotiate a resolution to his/
her objectionable behavior.
30. I would generally ask a third person to intervene in our dispute and
settle it for us.
33. I would be emotionally expressive in the con¯ict situation.
34. I would ask a third party to make a decision about how to settle the
dispute between myself and the other person.
36. I would rely on a third person to negotiate a resolution to the con¯ict.
Item
Table 3
Panethnic con¯ict factors
ÿ.09
ÿ.09
.20
ÿ.01
.10
ÿ.09
.28
ÿ.18
.22
ÿ.03
.10
.22
.11
.20
ÿ.04
.02
.34
.53
ÿ.00
.11
.01
ÿ.02
.52
.03
ÿ.07
.06
ÿ.05
.14
.55
ÿ.14
.59
.01
.13
.53
ÿ.21
.61
.01
.07
ÿ.04
.10
ÿ.08
.16
.09
Factor 2
.50
Factor 1
.21
.09
.18
.79
.09
.79
.10
.79
.09
ÿ.05
ÿ.23
.05
ÿ.21
.20
ÿ.08
.06
ÿ.08
ÿ.06
.10
ÿ.20
ÿ.07
.03
ÿ.05
.23
ÿ.08
ÿ.24
Factor 4
ÿ.03
ÿ.01
ÿ.06
ÿ.12
ÿ.01
.07
.05
.11
.02
.11
ÿ.14
.03
.01
.08
ÿ.01
.12
ÿ.02
ÿ.01
Factor 3
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.59
.25
ÿ.02
.27
ÿ.02
.60
.25
.11
.07
.04
.14
.54
.09
.63
ÿ.03
.60
.17
.01
ÿ.03
.52
.05
ÿ.07
ÿ.01
.01
.00
.08
.08
.10
ÿ.03
ÿ.03
.68
.01
.09
.51
.05
.70
ÿ.05
.10
.06
.04
.11
.03
.11
.15
.06
.05
.08
.04
ÿ.00
Factor 7
.04
.02
.50
.07
.02
.64
.10
.65
ÿ.03
.06
Factor 6
.00
ÿ.05
(continued on next page)
Factor 5
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
63
37. I would generally ``grin and bear it'' when the other person did
something I did not like.
38. I would typically leave the other person alone.
40. I would ask a third person for advice in settling the dispute.
41. I would meet with the other person to see if we could work out a
resolution to our con¯ict.
42. I would use my feelings to guide my con¯ict behaviors.
43. I would prefer the other person to be emotionally expressive with me in
the con¯ict situation.
44. I would generally endure actions by the other person that I did not like.
46. I would integrate my viewpoints with the other person to achieve a joint
decision about the con¯ict.
47. I would typically go through a third party to settle our con¯ict.
48. I would meet with the other person to bargain for a resolution to our
con¯ict.
49. I would appeal to a person at a higher level to settle my con¯ict with
the other person.
50. I would use my feelings to determine what I should do in the con¯ict
situation.
51. I would work with the other person to reach a joint resolution to our
con¯ict.
52. I would ask another person to help negotiate a disagreement with the
other person about his/her behavior.
55. I would try to tolerate our disagreement and not make waves.
56. I would be patient and hope the other person would change his/her
behavior.
58. I would use my feelings to determine whether to trust the other person.
59. I would usually bear my resentment in silence.
60. I would attempt to solve our problems by talking things over in a calm
and polite manner.
61. I would say nothing and wait for things to get better.
Item
Table 3 (continued )
ÿ.19
.11
.04
ÿ.01
.74
.08
.11
.07
.59
ÿ.04
.55
.12
.08
.61
.02
.09
.20
.17
ÿ.00
.57
ÿ.21
.51
.00
.16
ÿ.08
.16
.08
.03
.16
.62
.62
.13
.64
.08
.65
.10
.60
.14
ÿ.11
.06
ÿ.13
.11
.06
.18
ÿ.01
.77
.15
.26
ÿ.02
.03
ÿ.19
ÿ.06
ÿ.04
.08
.16
.01
.03
.15
.13
ÿ.05
.01
.01
.10
ÿ.01
ÿ.21
.04
ÿ.04
.02
.67
.04
ÿ.07
.14
.56
.10
Factor 4
.53
.14
ÿ.13
.07
Factor 3
ÿ.05
Factor 2
.58
Factor 1
ÿ.05
.05
ÿ.02
.08
ÿ.04
ÿ.14
ÿ.06
.21
.00
ÿ.08
ÿ.01
.20
ÿ.00
.25
.04
.01
.16
.07
.16
.09
Factor 5
ÿ.06
.08
ÿ.01
.05
ÿ.03
ÿ.06
.05
ÿ.08
.08
.13
ÿ.01
.03
ÿ.08
ÿ.09
.14
ÿ.05
ÿ.06
ÿ.04
.07
ÿ.05
Factor 6
ÿ.04
.61
ÿ.11
ÿ.04
ÿ.05
ÿ.00
.07
.10
.74
ÿ.03
.01
.05
.11
.01
.75
.59
.08
.03
.15
ÿ.04
Factor 7
64
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
Items used to de®ne factors.
63. I would generally keep quiet and wait for things to improve.
64. When we discuss the problem I would refuse to cooperate.
65. I would listen to what my ``gut'' or ``heart'' says in the con¯ict
situation.
66. I would try to get us to work together to settle our di€erences.
67. Out of anger, I would say things to damage the other person's
reputation.
68. I would say nothing and deal with the situation by adopting a strategy
of forgive and forget.
70. I would make sure the other person realized that resolving our
di€erences was important.
71. I would hope that the situation would solve itself.
72. I would say nasty things about the other person to other people.
73. I would let the other person know that I did not want him/her to ever
talk to me again.
74. I would usually let my anger be known in a con¯ict situation.
75. I would try to negotiate upfront a solution to our con¯ict.
76. I would allow things to cool o€ rather than taking any action.
78. I would tell the other person that there were problems and suggest that
we work them out.
79. I would say and do things out of anger to make the other person feel
bad.
80. While in the presence of the other person, I would act as though he/she
did not exist.
81. I would tell the other person what was bothering me and ask for his/her
opinions on the matter.
83. I would talk openly and honestly about our di€erences.
Item
Table 3 (continued )
ÿ.05
.15
.09
.01
.07
.06
ÿ.05
.63
ÿ.17
.10
.61
ÿ.07
ÿ.23
ÿ.08
.04
.56
.02
.61
ÿ.20
ÿ.19
.56
.57
.02
ÿ.01
.52
ÿ.09
.53
.04
.05
ÿ.20
ÿ.14
.54
ÿ.16
ÿ.03
.17
ÿ.21
ÿ.15
.16
ÿ.08
.01
.01
ÿ.03
.08
.21
.09
.09
.24
ÿ.03
Factor 3
ÿ.18
ÿ.26
.11
Factor 2
.63
.06
.11
Factor 1
ÿ.07
ÿ.09
.65
.63
ÿ.13
ÿ.03
.03
.02
.13
.15
.08
.55
ÿ.03
ÿ.02
ÿ.23
ÿ.03
ÿ.02
ÿ.00
ÿ.12
.07
ÿ.09
.18
ÿ.06
.02
ÿ.18
.09
Factor 5
.23
.63
.65
ÿ.29
.18
ÿ.24
.63
.21
.49
.05
Factor 4
.05
ÿ.02
.11
.17
.13
.17
ÿ.08
.10
ÿ.04
.09
.11
.06
ÿ.18
ÿ.06
.15
ÿ.08
.10
.14
Factor 6
.10
.12
.05
.16
.29
.02
.01
.06
.02
.11
.03
.17
ÿ.05
.15
.13
ÿ.07
ÿ.09
.56
Factor 7
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
65
66
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
Con¯ict styles
The analysis performed for con¯ict styles was limited to eight factors. An
eight-factor solution was used because of Rahim's (1983) ®ve con¯ict style
dimensions, plus the additional con¯ict factors (from various scales and newly
written items) of neglect, third party help, and emotional expression. Seven out
of the eight met both criteria for interpretation. These seven-factor con¯ict styles
are, henceforth, labeled as the Con¯ict Style Dimensions (CSD) Scale (see Table
3). Reliability coecients (Cronbach's alpha) also were calculated for all
measurement scales.
The ®rst factor contained 17 items. All items that loaded on this factor re¯ected
an emphasis on the avoiding con¯ict style. Thus, the ®rst factor was labeled
``avoidance''. A combination of the 17 items yielded an alpha of .88 for the
panethnic sample. The alphas for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African
Americans .86, Asian Americans .85, European Americans .92, and Latino(a)
Americans .87. The second factor was composed of 12 items. All items that
loaded for this factor re¯ected an emphasis on integrating. As a result, this second
factor was labeled ``integrating''. The alpha result of these 12 items was .87. The
alphas for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .86, Asian
Americans .88, European Americans .89, and Latino(a) Americans .84.
The third factor was comprised of seven items. All of these items re¯ected the
preference of third party help in dealing with the con¯ict. Consequently, this
dimension was termed ``third party''. The resulting alpha was .88. The alphas for
the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .85, Asian Americans .89,
European Americans .90, and Latino(a) Americans .88. The fourth factor
contained seven items. All items re¯ected the dimension of neglect (i.e., passive
aggressive anger responses) con¯ict style. This factor was labeled ``neglect''. These
items yielded an alpha of .83. The alphas for the speci®c ethnic groups were:
African Americans .83, Asian Americans .79, European Americans .85, and
Latino(a) Americans .82.
The ®fth con¯ict style factor consisted of ®ve items. All items re¯ect the
compromising style of con¯ict management. The items on the ``compromising''
factor yielded an alpha of .75. The alphas for the speci®c ethnic groups were:
African Americans .80, Asian Americans .69, European Americans .80, and
Latino(a) Americans .60. The sixth factor consisted of six items. All of these items
re¯ected the dominating style of con¯ict, thus this factor was labelled
``dominating''. The resulting alpha for this factor was .73. The alphas for the
speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .74., Asian Americans .79,
European Americans .76, and Latino(a) Americans .73. The seventh factor was
comprised of six items. Items re¯ected emotional expression (plus relying on
emotions to guide con¯ict responses) during con¯ict situations. This factor was
labelled ``emotion''. The alpha for this factor was .75 for the panethnic sample.
The alphas for the speci®c ethnic groups were: African Americans .75, Asian
Americans .73, European Americans .80, and Latino(a) Americans .71. Thus,
according to the results of factor analysis, seven con¯ict style factors emerged
across the four ethnic groups.
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
67
MANOVA
Research question one
The ®rst research question focused on the relationship between ethnic
background and ethnic/cultural identity salience. The data were analyzed using
multivariate analysis of variance. The independent variable was ethnic background
(i.e., the broad ethnic categories) and the dependent variables were ethnic and
cultural identity salience. Bartlett's test of sphericity (.47, 1 df, P = ns) indicated
that multivariate analysis of variance was not warranted. Thus univariate tests
were utilized. The univariate tests for both ethnic identity salience
(F[3,587]=36.32, P < .001) and cultural identity salience (F[3,587]=22.17,
P < .001) were signi®cant. Post hoc comparisons of the means using Tukey tests
(P = .05) revealed that African Americans had a higher ethnic identity than the
other ethnic groups and that European Americans had a lower ethnic identity
than the other ethnic groups. Further, post hoc comparisons revealed that African
Americans had a lower cultural identity than the other ethnic groups (see Table 4
for means and standard deviations).
Research questions 2±5
The other four research questions focused on the in¯uence of ethnic
background, ethnic/cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles. The data were
analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. The independent variables were
ethnic background, ethnic identity salience, and cultural identity salience. The
dependent variables were integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding,
neglecting, emotional expression, and third party con¯ict styles. Table 5 reports
the means and standard deviations for the main e€ects. Bartlett's test of sphericity
(496.31, 21 df, P < .001) indicated that multivariate analysis of variance was
warranted. The multivariate main e€ect for ethnic background was signi®cant
(Wilks' lambda=.93, F[21,1634]=1.87, P = .01). Two of the univariate tests were
signi®cant: avoiding (F[3,575]=4.95, P < .01) and third party (F[3,575]=4.41,
P < .01). Integrating (F[3,575]=1.11, P = ns), compromising, (F[3,575]=1.52,
P = ns), neglecting (F[3,575]=2.40, P = ns), dominating (F[3,575]=.67, P = ns),
and emotional expression (F[3,575]=.42, P = ns) were not signi®cant. Post hoc
Table 4
Means and standard deviations for ethnic identity and cultural identity among the ethnic groups
Ethnic group
African American
Asian American
European American
Latino(a) American
Ethnic identity
Cultural identity
M
SD
M
SD
3.99
3.67
3.29
3.66
.63
.59
.49
.61
3.16
3.57
3.56
3.50
.59
.42
.43
.50
68
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
Table 5
Means and standard deviations for con¯ict styles
Main e€ect
Ethnic background
African American
Asian American
European American
Latino(a) American
Ethnic identity
Strong
Weak
Cultural identity
Strong
Weak
Ethnic background
African American
Asian American
European American
Latino(a) American
Ethnic identity
Strong
Weak
Cultural identity
Strong
Weak
Integrating
Compromising
Dominating
Avoiding
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3.52
3.45
3.38
3.43
.68
.63
.67
.63
3.46
3.50
3.52
3.43
.74
.58
.61
.56
3.19
3.20
3.24
3.28
.73
.76
.69
.71
2.74
3.13
2.92
2.94
.62
.57
.70
.64
3.56
3.33
.67
.61
3.51
3.43
.61
.64
3.26
3.18
.75
.69
2.89
2.98
.69
.61
3.56
3.31
.66
.31
3.60
3.34
.63
.59
3.25
3.18
.74
.70
2.96
2.91
.69
.62
Neglecting
Emotional expression
Third party
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1.96
2.13
2.08
2.27
.77
.69
.75
.84
3.16
3.20
3.19
3.28
.75
.69
.70
.71
2.24
2.59
2.36
2.56
.83
.86
.83
.87
1.99
2.24
.76
.77
3.26
3.11
.73
.68
2.31
2.58
.90
.79
1.95
2.28
.73
.79
3.28
3.11
.71
.70
2.36
2.53
.85
.85
comparisons of the means with Tukey tests (P = .05) revealed that Latino(a)
Americans and Asian Americans use the avoiding and third party styles more
than African Americans. Also, Asian Americans use avoiding more than
European Americans.
The multivariate main e€ect for ethnic identity salience was also signi®cant
(Wilks' lambda=.95, F[7,569]=4.32, P < .001). Three of the univariate e€ects
were signi®cant: integrating (F[1,575]=9.92, P < .01), neglecting (F[1,575]=6.82,
P < .01), and third party (F[1,575]=14.17, P < .001). Compromising
(F[1,575]=.75, P = ns), avoiding (F[1,575]=.94, P = ns), dominating
(F[1,575]=1.28, P = ns), and emotional expression (F[1,575]=2.19, P = ns) were
not signi®cant. An examination of the means in Table 5 indicates that individuals
with a strong ethnic identity use integrating style more and neglecting and third
party styles less than individuals with a weak ethnic identity.
The multivariate main e€ect for cultural identity salience was also signi®cant
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
69
(Wilks' lambda=.90, F[7,569]=8.78, P < .001). Four of the univariate tests were
signi®cant:
integrating
(F[1,575]=26.79,
P < .001),
compromising
(F[1,575]=22.18, P < .001), neglecting (F[1,575]=33.46, P < .001), and emotional
expression (F[1,575]=4.72, P < .05). Avoiding, (F[1,575]=.54, P = ns),
dominating (F[1,575]=.40, P = ns), and third party (F[1,575]=3.52, P = ns) were
not signi®cant. An examination of the means in Table 5 indicates that individuals
with a strong cultural identity use integrating, compromising, and emotionally
expressive styles more and neglecting style less than individuals with a weak
cultural identity.
The multivariate interaction e€ect for ethnic background, ethnic identity
salience, and cultural identity salience (Wilks' lambda=.95, F[21,1634]=1.42,
P = ns) was not signi®cant. Likewise, the interaction e€ect for ethnic background
and ethnic identity salience (Wilks' lambda=.95, F[21,1634]=1.28, P = ns) was
not signi®cant. The multivariate interaction e€ect for ethnic identity salience and
cultural identity salience was signi®cant (Wilks' lambda=.96 F[7,569]=3.70,
P < .01). Three of the univariate e€ects were signi®cant: integrating
(F[1,575]=5.15, P < .05), compromising (F[1,575]=12.35, P < .001), and third
party (F[1,575]=8.58, P < .01). Avoiding (F[1,575]=1.84, P = ns), neglecting
(F[1,575]=3.23, P = ns) dominating, (F[1,575]=.04, P = ns), and emotional
expression (F[1,575]=.51, P = ns) were not signi®cant. Table 6 displays the means
and standard deviations for the signi®cant univariate interaction e€ects of cultural
and ethnic identity salience. T-tests and an examination of the means in Table 6
indicate that bicultural (t=ÿ6.76, df=362, P < .001), assimilated (t=ÿ5.56,
df=329, P < .001), and traditional-oriented groups (t=ÿ4.97, df=329,
P < .001) use the integrating con¯ict style more than the marginal group.
Assimilated (t=ÿ5.67, df=329, P < .001), bicultural (t=ÿ4.91, df=362,
P < .001), and traditional-oriented groups (t=ÿ2.57, df=329, P < .05) also use
compromising con¯ict style more than the marginal group. Additionally, t-tests
and examination of the means in Table 6 further indicate that the marginal group
uses third party more than assimilated (t = 4.43, df=329, P < .001), bicultural
(t = 4.53, df=362, P < .001), and traditional-oriented groups (t = 5.45, df=329,
P < .001). Finally, t-tests and examination of the means in Table 6 indicate that
assimilated (t=ÿ3.02, df=296, P < .01) and bicultural individuals (t=ÿ2.11,
Table 6
Means and standard deviations for integrating, compromising, and third party in the cells for the cultural identity and ethnic identity interaction e€ect
Acculturation type
Bicultural
Traditional-oriented
Assimilated
Marginalized
Integrating
Compromising
Third Party
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3.61
3.49
3.53
3.17
.69
.63
.61
.56
3.57
3.43
3.65
3.26
.61
.59
.66
.58
2.35
2.26
2.37
2.75
.92
.87
.77
.77
70
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
df=329, P < .05) use compromising more than traditional-oriented individuals.
All remaining t-tests were not signi®cant at the .05 level.
The multivariate interaction e€ect for cultural identity salience and ethnic
background was signi®cant (Wilks' lambda=.92, F[21,1634]=2.16, P < .01).
Three of the univariate e€ects were signi®cant: compromising (F[3,575]=4.64,
P < .01), avoiding (F[3,575]=4.04, P < .01), and neglecting (F[3,575]=3.78,
P < .05). Integrating (F[3,575]=1.39, P = ns), dominating (F[3,575]=1.26,
P = ns), third party (F[3,575]=.78, P = ns), emotional expression (F[3,575]=.14,
P = ns) were not signi®cant. (F[3,575]=4.64, P < .01). Table 7 reports the means,
Table 7
Means, standard deviations, and t-tests for compromising, avoiding, and neglect in the cells for the cultural identity by ethnic background interaction e€ecta
Cell
M
SD
N
1
2
3
Compromising
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.77
3.33
3.61
3.36
3.58
3.44
3.54
3.32
.74
.70
.59
.53
.60
.61
.62
.47
39
95
89
67
100
65
67
69
ÿ3.29
ÿ1.36
ÿ3.32
ÿ1.63
ÿ2.51
ÿ1.76
ÿ3.92
2.89
.30
2.64
1.00
1.95
ÿ.15
ÿ2.68
.35
ÿ1.74
ÿ.71
ÿ3.34
Avoiding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.02
2.63
3.10
3.18
2.88
2.97
2.95
2.94
.69
.56
.64
.47
.71
.68
.70
.58
39
95
89
67
100
65
67
69
ÿ3.49
.57
1.35
ÿ1.06
ÿ.42
ÿ.55
ÿ.68
5.29
6.55
3.46
2.81
3.22
3.49
Neglecting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.66
2.08
2.08
2.19
1.98
2.22
1.89
2.63
.66
.78
.72
.66
.76
.73
.67
.82
39
95
89
67
100
65
67
69
2.95
3.12
3.99
2.34
3.96
1.75
6.69
.03
.94
ÿ.87
1.18
ÿ1.56
4.35
4
5
6
7
2.37
.76
1.76
ÿ.52
ÿ1.44
ÿ.40
ÿ3.01
.94
ÿ1.29
ÿ2.35
.86
ÿ1.21
ÿ2.14
ÿ1.37
ÿ1.59
ÿ2.06
ÿ2.96
ÿ2.21
ÿ2.61
.74
.57
.54
ÿ.16
ÿ.25
ÿ.07
.94
ÿ.92
1.19
ÿ1.65
4.43
ÿ1.80
.29
ÿ2.55
3.44
2.02
ÿ.77
5.25
ÿ2.69
3.01
5.67
a
Note: 1=African American and strong cultural identity, 2=African American and weak cultural
identity, 3=Asian American and strong cultural identity, 4=Asian American and weak cultural identity, 5=European American and strong cultural identity, 6=European American and weak cultural
identity, 7=Latino(a) American and strong cultural identity, and 8=Latino(a) American and weak cultural identity; P < .05, P < .01.
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
71
standard deviations, and t-tests for the signi®cant univariate interaction e€ects of
cultural identity and ethnic background. For the sake of parsimony, the ®ndings
of the t-tests will only be summarized here. First, t-tests revealed a trend that
individuals with a strong cultural identity used compromising more than
individuals with a weak cultural identity. There were some exceptions (especially
Latino(a) Americans with a strong cultural identity), but this was a consistent
trend for the various ethnic groups. Second, t-tests revealed that African
Americans with a weak cultural identity used avoiding less than all other groups.
Further, Asian Americans with a weak cultural identity used avoiding more than
most of the other groups (except Asian and African Americans with a strong
cultural identity). Finally, Latino(a) Americans with a weak cultural identity used
neglecting more than all other groups. Additionally, African Americans with a
strong cultural identity used neglecting less than almost every other group (except
Latino(a) Americans with a strong cultural identity).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the in¯uence of ethnic background,
ethnic identity salience, and cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles among
African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, and Latino(a)
Americans. Panethnic factor analysis yielded four dimensions of ethnic identity:
ethnic belonging, fringe, intergroup interaction, and assimilation. A second-order
factor analysis yielded two clear identity dimensions: ethnic identity salience and
cultural identity salience. In addition, panethnic factor analysis yielded seven
con¯ict management styles: integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding,
neglecting, emotional expression, and third party. Using the discovered factors,
the in¯uence of ethnic identity salience, cultural identity salience, and ethnic
background on con¯ict styles was determined.
The major ®ndings of the study are: (1) African Americans have a stronger
ethnic identity and a weaker cultural identity than the other ethnic groups; (2)
European Americans have a weaker ethnic identity than the other ethnic groups;
(3) Latino(a) Americans and Asian Americans use avoiding and third party
con¯ict styles more than African Americans, and Asian Americans use avoiding
con¯ict style more than European Americans; (4) Individuals with a strong
cultural identity (i.e., identifying with the larger US culture) use integrating,
compromising, and emotionally expressive con¯ict styles more and neglecting
con¯ict styles less than individuals with a weak cultural identity; (5) Individuals
with a strong ethnic identity (i.e., identifying with their ethnic memberships) use
integrating con¯ict style more and neglecting and third party con¯ict styles less
than individuals with a weak ethnic identity; (6) bicultural, assimilated, and
traditional-oriented groups use integrating con¯ict style more than the marginal
group and the marginal group uses third party help more than the other three
groups; (7) assimilated, bicultural, and traditional-oriented individuals prefer
compromising con¯ict style more than the marginal group, and, the assimilated
72
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
and bicultural groups prefer compromising style more than the traditionaloriented group; (8) Asian Americans with a weak cultural identity use avoiding
con¯ict style more than other ethnic groups regardless of cultural identity, while
African Americans with a strong cultural identity use avoiding con¯ict style less
than other ethnic groups regardless of cultural identity; and (9) Latino(a)
Americans with a weak cultural identity use neglecting con¯ict style more than
other ethnic groups regardless of cultural identity, while African Americans with a
strong cultural identity use neglecting con¯ict style less than other ethnic groups
regardless of cultural identity. In this section, the ®ndings will be discussed in
accordance to the ®ve research questions.
Ethnic/cultural identity salience
The ®rst research question focused on the relationship between ethnic
background and ethnic/cultural identity salience. A factor analysis was conducted
to determine the relevant factors for ethnic/cultural identity. The four ethnic/
cultural identity dimensions that were found in the initial factor analysis include:
belonging, fringe, interaction, and assimilation. These dimensions consist of items
from the various scales and also items written speci®cally for this study. All four
dimensions yielded fairly high reliability coecients across groups. The dimension
of ethnic belonging re¯ects the degree to which members feel attached and
comfortable with their own ethnic group. This dimension is similar to Berry et
al.'s (1989) traditional-oriented type. The dimension of fringe refers to the degree
of clarity or confusion individuals have concerning their own ethnicity. This
dimension re¯ects, to some extent, Berry et al.'s (1989) marginal-oriented type.
Many newly-written items loaded on this factor. The third dimension emerged in
the factor analysis was degree of perceived positive/negative intergroup interaction.
This dimension captures Phinney's (1992) ``other-group orientation'' concept.
Many items were also written by the authors of this study to tap dominant/
minority group contact attitudes. Finally, the dimension of assimilation reveals the
degree to which individuals identify with the overall US culture. Many of the
items that loaded on this dimension were written for the present study and adhere
closely to Berry et al.'s (1989) assimilation type.
In the second-order factor analysis, these four dimensions loaded on two
distinct factors: salience of ethnic identity and salience of cultural identity.
Belonging and fringe loaded on the ®rst factor and captured the essence of the
salience of ethnic identity (i.e., strong ethnic membership belonging with ethnic
identity clarity). Intergroup interaction and assimilation loaded on the second
factor and re¯ected the essence of the salience of cultural identity (i.e., strong
cultural membership belonging with positive dominant/minority group contact
attitudes). Aspects of ethnic identity salience, according to this study include, but
are not limited to, the extent to which people feel a sense of belongingness,
involvement in ethnic activities, favorable ingroup attitudes, feel that the ethnic
group is an important re¯ection of the self, and that there is a sense of ethnic
identity clarity. Aspects of cultural identity salience were found to include a
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
73
following of the larger US cultural values and practices, a sense of assimilation to
the larger US culture, positive/negative attitudes concerning intergroup contact,
and a feeling that the larger US culture is a re¯ection of the self. Thus, the
stronger the respondents identify with the ethnic identity factor, the more likely
they exhibit ethnic-oriented values and favorable ingroup attitudes. The stronger
the respondents identify with the cultural identity factor, the more strongly they
hold assimilationist values and positive intergroup contact attitudes. These ethnic
and cultural identity salience dimensions are consistent with past research (e.g.,
Chung & Ting-Toomey, 1994) in that the important aspects of ethnic identity that
emerge deal with individuals' attitudes and feelings toward their own ingroups and
also toward relations with outgroups.
Overall, the results of factor analysis concerning the ethnic and cultural identity
salience dimensions support contentions made in the past (e.g., Berry et al., 1989)
regarding the importance of ethnic identity as well as that of cultural identity. It is
clear that in a pluralistic society such as the United States, the in¯uence of ethnic
group membership, as well as that of the overarching culture must be taken into
consideration in the study of ethnic/cultural identity salience. The results of the
ethnic identity factor analysis further corroborate the claim that was made earlier,
that ethnic identity is a multidimensional phenomenon. In this study, four
common ethnic identity factors (namely, ethnic belonging, fringe, intergroup
interaction, and assimilation) among African Americans, Asian Americans,
European Americans, and Latino(a) Americans were uncovered. In addition, these
four speci®c factors collapsed into two core identity salience dimensions: ethnic
identity salience and cultural identity salience.
Once the factors were identi®ed, MANOVA was utilized to determine that
African Americans strongly identi®ed with their own ethnic group, Latino(a)
Americans and Asian Americans identi®ed with both their ethnic groups and the
US culture, and European Americans identi®ed with primarily the larger US
culture. These ®ndings support previous research on identity. For example, past
studies (e.g., Alba, 1990; Waters, 1990) have consistently found that middle-class
European Americans often practice ``symbolic ethnicity'' more so than any other
indigenous or immigrant groups in the US. As Alba (1990) explains that
``symbolic ethnicity'' is an ethnicity of last resort: ``Because of widespread social
mobility and intermarriage, ethnicity has become increasingly peripheral to the
lives of many [European] Americans . . . But they do not relinquish ethnic identity
entirely; rather, they adapt it to their current circumstances, selecting from an
ethnic heritage a few symbolic elements that do not interfere with the need to
intermix socially, turning ethnicity thereby into an occasionally practiced
avocation'' (p. 29). For White ethnics, ``symbolic ethnicity'' satis®es both their
personal and group membership desires. For ethnic minority members, however,
prescribed ethnicity has both symbolic and substantive implications. As Waters
(1990) concludes: ``The reality is that White ethnics have a lot more choice and
room for maneuver than they themselves think they do. The situation is very
di€erent for members of racial minorities, whose lives are strongly in¯uenced by
their race or national origin regardless of how much they may choose not to
74
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
identify themselves in ethnic or racial terms'' (pp. 157±158). Indeed, for many
European Americans, ethnic and cultural identity involves voluntary choices
rather than constraints. However, for many minority group members, ethnic and
cultural identity maintenance issues involve the continuum of voluntary±
involuntary dimension and the continuum of perceived intergroup acceptancerejection dimension. One reason for this is phenotype identity (Cox, 1994) and the
resulting political and social issues of oppression, power struggles, and
discrimination (Asante & Asante, 1990). As a result, many ethnic minorities
identify strongly with their ethnic group. In a review of previous studies of ethnic
identity, Cox (1994) found that signi®cant numbers of Latino(a), Asian, and
African Americans identify strongly with their respective ethnic groups.
Ethnic background, ethnic/cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles
Research Questions 2±5 focused on the in¯uence of ethnic background and
ethnic/cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles. A factor analysis was conducted
to determine the relevant con¯ict styles. The results of the factor analysis
indicated that con¯ict styles can be conceptualized in terms of seven factors across
di€erent ethnic groups in the larger US culture: integrating, compromising,
dominating, avoiding, neglecting, emotion, and third-party. The con¯ict style
factors that emerged were from a mixture of scales and items created speci®cally
for this study. All con¯ict factors yielded acceptable reliability coecients across
the four ethnic groups. However, the scales from the original instruments are not
fully represented in the factors that emerged in this study. To illustrate, Rahim's
(1983) ROCI±II consists of ®ve con¯ict style scales: integrating, compromising,
dominating, avoiding, and obliging. The present study uncovered four of these ®ve
con¯ict styles: integrating, compromising, dominating, and avoiding. Obliging
dropped out from the factor analysis. It can be reasoned that for acquaintance
con¯icts, respondents in this study did not perceive obliging con¯ict style as an
option in managing their acquaintance disagreements. They appear to approach
acquaintance con¯ict either directly through the use of dominating, integrating,
and compromising con¯ict styles or exit strategies such as avoidance.
The second research question focused on the in¯uence of ethnic background on
con¯ict styles. MANOVA revealed that African Americans use avoiding and third
party less than Latino(a) and Asian Americans, while European Americans use
avoiding less than Asian Americans. These ®ndings are consistent with previous
research on con¯ict styles used by these groups. For example, Kochman (1981)
found that African Americans, during con¯ict, prefer to confront individuals
directly. Hecht et al. (1993) explain that this style is considered appropriate in
African American membership group because of concerns for expressiveness and
individuality. Using a third party is one way to avoid direct confrontation with
another, and thus, would not be consistent with African American interaction
norms. In addition, European Americans also tend not to use avoiding style of
con¯ict management because of individualism and self-face concerns (TingToomey, 1988). In contrast, Latino(a) and Asian Americans tend to be more
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
75
collectivistic than African and European Americans and, as a result, they prefer
avoidance style in dealing with con¯icts (Marin & Marin, 1991; Ting-Toomey,
1988).
The third research question explored the in¯uence of ethnic identity salience on
con¯ict styles. MANOVA indicated that individuals with strong ethnic identities
use integrating more and neglecting and third party less than individuals with
weak ethnic identities. In other words, individuals with strong ethnic identities
tend to be more direct and confrontive during con¯ict than individuals with weak
ethnic identities. Perhaps individuals with strong ethnic identities have developed a
strong sense of self in comparison to individuals with weak ethnic identities (TingToomey, 1993). With a secure sense of self, individuals become more con®dent
and assertive in dealing with con¯ict issues. With an insecure sense of self,
individuals become more hesitant and unsure of how they should approach
con¯ict. Individuals with weak ethnic identities tend to prefer a neglecting style
(i.e., venting anger in a passive aggressive way) of con¯ict or seek third party help
in mediating the con¯ict situation.
The fourth research question investigated the in¯uence of cultural identity on
con¯ict styles. MANOVA revealed that individuals with strong cultural identities
use integrating, compromising, and emotional expression more and neglecting less
than individuals with weak cultural identities. These results provide some support
for Ting-Toomey's (1988) propositions on con¯ict face-negotiation theory.
Individuals with strong cultural identities tend to subscribe to the con¯ict norms
of upfront, open communication because of the predominance of individualism in
the US. In comparison, individuals with weak cultural identities tend to subscribe
less to the low-context way of con¯ict practices. Individuals with weak cultural
identities in this study tend to prefer the neglect mode of con¯ict more so than
individuals with strong cultural identities. This fact can be due to their identity
vulnerability nature of approaching con¯ict situations assertively and con®dently.
The ®nal research question focused on the in¯uence of the interactions among
ethnic background and ethnic/cultural identity salience. MANOVA and t-tests
revealed two relevant interaction e€ects. First, there was an interaction e€ect on
con¯ict styles for cultural identity and ethnic identity. The interaction of these two
variables creates four categories consistent with Berry et al.'s (1987) acculturation
typology: traditional-oriented (strong ethnic identity and weak cultural identity),
bicultural (strong ethnic identity and strong cultural identity), assimilated (weak
ethnic identity and strong cultural identity), and marginalized (weak ethnic
identity and weak cultural identity). Two ®ndings were discovered: (1) bicultural,
assimilated, and traditional-oriented groups use integrating con¯ict style more
than the marginal group and the marginal group uses third party help more than
the other three groups; (2) assimilated, bicultural, and traditional-oriented
individuals prefer compromising con¯ict style more than the marginal group, and,
the assimilated and bicultural groups prefer compromising style more than the
traditional-oriented group.
It appears that individuals with strong bicultural, assimilated, and ethnicoriented identities tend to work harder in incorporating self-interest and other-
76
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
interest in managing con¯ict substantive issues. They are more comfortable in
using integrative con¯ict techniques to work out their con¯ict di€erences in
comparison to the encapsulated marginals. Encapsulated marginals refer to
individuals who are ``bu€eted by con¯icting cultural loyalties and unable to
construct a uni®ed identity'' (Bennett, 1993, p. 113). They are trapped by their
sense of alienation or marginality and they ®nd it dicult to discuss issues openly
and decisively. They do not appear to feel secure enough to directly ``voice''
during con¯ict situations. They tend to use neglecting or third-party help more as
alternatives than do the other types of individuals.
There was also an interaction e€ect on con¯ict styles for ethnic background and
cultural identity salience. T-tests revealed that: (1) individuals with a strong
cultural identity use compromising more than individuals with a weak cultural
identity, (2) Asian Americans with a weak cultural identity use avoiding more
than the other groups, while African Americans with a weak cultural identity use
avoiding less than the other groups, and (3) Latino(a) Americans with a weak
cultural identity use neglecting more than the other groups, while African
Americans with a strong cultural identity use neglecting less than the other
groups. It appears that individuals identifying strongly with the larger US culture
will directly negotiate con¯ict because of low-context mode of con¯ict practices
(Ting-Toomey, 1988). The second ®nding is consistent with previous con¯ict
research about Asian and African Americans. Avoiding re¯ects collectivistic, highcontext values. Asian Americans with weak cultural identities tend to lean more
towards group-oriented values. As a result, they would tend to use avoiding style
to preserve mutual ``face'' and relational harmony in acquaintance con¯ict
situations (Ting-Toomey, 1988). In comparison, African Americans with weak
cultural identities are likely to continue their practice of oral self-expressions and
emotional engagement in con¯ict. These communication values are consistent with
traditional African interaction norms. The ®nal discovery concerns the use of
neglect style by Latino(a) Americans with weak cultural identities. A key ethnic
value in many of the Latin American groups is respeto or the maintenance of
respect and dignity in social interactions (Marin & Marin, 1991). If identity
respect (i.e., a face-related issue) is not properly maintained and coordinated,
Latino(a) Americans would be more likely to respond with neglect than any other
ethnic groups.
Conclusions
The speci®c results illustrate that ethnic background, ethnic identity salience,
and cultural identity salience in¯uence the various con¯ict styles in di€erent ways.
Ethnic identity salience and cultural identity salience interact and produce some
interesting ®ndings. More speci®cally, bicultural, assimilated, and traditionaloriented groups prefer the integrating con¯ict style in acquaintanceship con¯icts
more than the marginal group. The marginal group uses third party help more
than the other three groups. Assimilated, bicultural, and traditional-oriented
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
77
groups also prefer the compromising con¯ict style more than the marginal group.
Lastly, the assimilated and bicultural groups prefer the compromising style more
than the traditional-oriented group.
One interesting and surprising ®nding was that a clear relationship was not
established for the dominating con¯ict style. This may be because ethnic identity
and cultural identity do not directly in¯uence dominating con¯ict mode. Instead,
personality may be a more important factor. Speci®cally, self-construal, or one's
conception of oneself as either independent or interdependent (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991) may be more important for dominating style. Oetzel (1998)
found that independent self-construal is positively associated with the dominating
con¯ict style. Thus, future research should investigate the role of self-construal as
an important factor for con¯ict styles among di€erent ethnic groups.
In addition, there are several conceptual and methodological limitations in this
study. First, the concept of ethnic/cultural identity salience is such a complex
phenomenon that it is dicult to try and capture the essence of it by way of a few
dimensions. For example, ethnic identity salience has probably both stable and
situational characteristics. While this study attempts to examine ethnic/cultural
identity salience as manifested via stable attitudes and practices, ethnic identity
salience may also take on situational characteristics. For example, for some
individuals, ethnic identity only becomes salient when they are forced to confront
interpersonal issues of ``being di€erent'' like stereotypes, prejudice, and
discrimination. While the present study focuses on situation-general tendencies of
ethnic identity salience, perhaps a situation-speci®c probe would provide more
insight into such issues as salience of ethnic/cultural identity. Second, in terms of
con¯ict styles, seven con¯ict styles have been uncovered in this study. Like the
examination of ethnic identity salience, con¯ict styles have been de®ned as
situational-general tendencies of con¯ict responses. While this study obtained
some meaningful results concerning the e€ect of ethnic/cultural identity salience
on the seven con¯ict styles, there may be other con¯ict factors that are not tapped
by this study. Future research needs to work on developing etic-derived con¯ict
styles and delineate speci®c high-context modes (e.g., via subtle nonverbal and
relational-oriented strategies) of con¯ict management. Stronger attention should
also be paid to link the relationship among facework identity, con¯ict style,
con¯ict topic salience, and con¯ict competence issues. Third, this study examines
the in¯uence of ethnic/cultural identity salience on con¯ict styles in four ethnic
groups. Within each group, however, there exists ethnic variations (such as
between Chinese American and Vietnamese American) within each broad category
of ``Asian Americans'', ``Latino(a) Americans'', ``African Americans'', or
``European Americans''. While panethnic factor analysis yielded common
dimensions of ethnicity that enable us to maintain conceptual consistency in
interpreting the comparative ®ndings, the study does not capture the ethnicspeci®c elements of ethnic/cultural identity.
Although conceptual limitations are important to consider, there are also some
methodological limitations to the present study. First, this study's ®ndings are
based more on the responses of female respondents than male respondents. For
78
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
every male respondent in this study, we have two female respondents. Thus, the
results may not represent ethnic/cultural identity salience and con¯ict style issues
in the larger population. Second, no speci®c con¯ict scenarios were provided for
the respondents. The recall method of con¯ict styles may not tap the actual
strategies of con¯ict in real-life situations. Finally, participants were asked to
think of acquaintances when completing the con¯ict portion of the questionnaire.
However, it is dicult to assess who exactly the participants had in mind when
completing the survey.
Despite these limitations, this study makes several contributions. First, this
study has identi®ed two clear dimensions of ethnicity in a pluralistic society,
namely, ethnic identity salience and cultural identity salience, across four ethnic
groups. In addition, con¯ict styles such as neglect, third party, and emotional
expression Ð in conjunction with integrating, compromising, dominating, and
avoiding Ð have been uncovered as important con¯ict style factors across four
ethnic groups. Third, ethnic/cultural identity variations of con¯ict management
styles have been identi®ed. Finally, this study lends additional support to TingToomey's (1988) theory of con¯ict face-negotiation theory in which individuals
who subscribe to the larger US culture (i.e., with emphasis on individualistic
values) are posited to use upfront, confrontive modes of con¯ict. Individuals who
subscribe to collectivistic ethnic memberships tend to prefer the use of indirect,
high-context modes (e.g., avoidance and third party) of con¯ict.
This study serves as an exploratory step in uncovering ethnic/cultural identity
dimensions and con¯ict management style factors across four ethnic groups in the
US. The results of this study point to some consistent patterns of con¯ict styles in
relation to strong/weak ethnic identity and strong/weak cultural identity.
Methodologically, this study contributes two new scales that maybe useful to
measure ethnic and cultural identity issues, and con¯ict management styles across
four ethnic groups within the US. Two panethnic scales, the Ethnic/Cultural
Identity Dimensions (EID) Scale and the Con¯ict Style Dimensions (CSD) Scale
appeared to have reasonably high reliability coecients. They can be further
tested and re®ned by researchers interested in other identity-related or con¯ictrelated phenomenon. This study paves the groundwork for future research in the
area of interethnic con¯ict negotiation competence.
References
Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic identity: transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Asante, M., & Asante, K. (1990). African culture: the rhythms of unity. Trenton, NJ: African World
Press.
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: individualism
and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bennett, J. (1993). Cultural marginality: identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.),
Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
79
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., & Boski, P. (1987). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Y. Y. Kim &
W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: current approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berry, J., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185±206.
Boadu, S. O. (1990). African oral artistry and the new social order. In M. Asante & K. Asante (Eds.),
African culture: the rhythms of unity. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.
Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Booth-Butter®eld, M., & Booth-Butter®eld, S. (1990). Conceptualization a€ect as information in communication production. Human Communication Research, 16, 451±476.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: on being same and di€erent at the same time. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475±482.
Brewer, M. (1996). When contact is not enough: social identity and intergroup cooperation.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291±303.
Cahn, D. (1992). Con¯ict in intimate relationships. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cahn, D. (Ed.) (1994). Intimate con¯ict in personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Casas, J. M., & Pytluk, S. (1995). Hispanic identity development: Implications for research and practice. In J. Ponterotto, J. Casas, L. Suzuki & C. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chung, L. C., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Ethnic identity and relational expectations among Asian
Americans. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Sydney,
Australia.
Collier, M. J. (1991). Con¯ict competence within African, Mexican, and Anglo American friendships.
In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Davis, M. (1990). Mexican voices/American dream. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
De Vos, G., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1990). Status inequality: the self in culture. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American panethnicity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Garcia, W. R. (1996). Respeto: a Mexican base for interpersonal relationships. In W. Gudykunst, S.
Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Healey, J., & Bell, R. (1990). Assessing alternative responses to con¯icts in friendship. In D. Cahn
(Ed.), Intimates in con¯ict: a communication perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hecht, M., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. (1993). African American communication: ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hecht, M., Sedano, M., & Ribeau, S. (1993). Understanding culture, communication, and research: applications to Chicanos and Mexican Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17,
157±165.
Helms, J., & Parham, T. A. (1993). Black racial identity attitude scale (Form RIAS-B). In J. Helms
(Ed.), Black and white racial identity: theory, research, and practice. New York: Greenwood Press.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Kagan, S., Knight, G. P., & Martinez-Romero, S. (1982). Culture and the development of con¯ict resolution style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 43±58.
Keefe, S. E. (1992). Ethnic identity: the domain of perceptions and attachment to ethnic groups and
cultures. Human Organization, 51, 35±41.
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in con¯ict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kochman, T. (1986). Black verbal dueling strategies in interethnic communication. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.),
Interethnic communication: current research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leung, K., Au, Y-F., Fernandez-Dols, J. M., & Iwawaki, S. (1992). Preference for methods of con¯ict
processing in two collectivistic cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 195±209.
80
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
Locke, D. (1992). Increasing multicultural understanding: a comprehensive model. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302±318.
Marin, G., & Marin, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 2, 224±253.
MirandeÂ, A., & Tanno, D. V. (1993). Labels, researcher perspective, and contextual validation: a commentary. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 149±155.
Morrill, C., & Thomas, C. K. (1992). Organizational con¯ict management as disputing process: the problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research, 18, 400±428.
Oetzel, J. G. (1998). The e€ects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported con¯ict styles.
Communication Reports, 11, 133±144.
Padilla, A. (1981). Pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy for Hispanic Americans. In A. Marsella &
P. Pedersen (Eds.), Cross-cultural counseling and psychotherapy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 9, 34±49.
Phinney, J. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescence and adulthood: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
499±514.
Phinney, J. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: a review and integration. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 13, 193±208.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: a new scale for use with diverse groups.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156±176.
Phinney, J., & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 31±54.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal con¯ict. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 368±376.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing con¯ict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Roosen, J. (1989). Creating ethnicity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878±891.
Sodowsky, G., Kwan, K-L., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the United States. In J.
Ponterotto, J. Casas, L. Suzuki & C. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J., & Soriano, L. J. (1984). Styles of con¯ict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 115±126.
Sternberg, R. J., & Dobson, D. M. (1987). Resolving interpersonal con¯icts: an analysis of stylistic consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 794±812.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1978). Di€erentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup con¯ict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thornton, M. (1992). The quiet immigration: foreign spouses of US citizens, 1945±1985. In M. Root
(Ed.), Racially-mixed people in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of con¯ict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart & S.
Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Con¯ict communication styles in Black and White subjective cultures. In Y.
Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: current research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural con¯ict styles: a face-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim & W.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: an identity negotiation perspective. In R.
Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994a). Managing intercultural con¯icts e€ectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: a reader (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
S. Ting-Toomey et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 47±81
81
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994b). Managing con¯ict in intimate intercultural relationships. In D. Cahn (Ed.),
Intimate con¯ict in personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S-L., & Nishida, T. (1991).
Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal con¯ict: a study in ®ve cultures. The
International Journal of Con¯ict Management, 2, 275±296.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S-L. (1991). The in¯uence of individualism-collectivism and selfmonitoring on con¯ict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65±84.
Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: choosing identities in America. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Yinger, J. M. (1994). Ethnicity: source of strength? Source of con¯ict?. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.