The Effects of Cognitive Appraisals of Communication Competence in Conflict Interactions: A Study Involving Western and Chinese Cultures

Abstract

This study investigated differences between people from Western and Chinese cultures on perceived competence (effectiveness and appropriateness) of the other party's communication during conflict. First, a pilot study with 30 employees in Singapore examined appraisals of communication competence in recalled intercultural conflict incidents. Western expatriates judged competence of the other party mainly on whether the communication style was direct and engaged, deemed to be judgments of effectiveness. However, host-nationals judged competence mainly on interactional skills and cultural knowledge, deemed to be judgments of appropriateness. Following the pilot study, a quasi-experimental study (128 Australian and 108 Chinese university students) showed that Australians discriminated between four different types of conflict styles more distinctly with effectiveness than appropriateness judgments and vice versa for Chinese. This supports the pilot work. Furthermore, both effectiveness and appropriateness judgments predicted relationship outcomes postconflict for both groups. For Australians, the trend of effectiveness judgments across the four conflict styles paralleled exactly the trend of their predictions for how much the relationship would improve postconflict, whereas their appropriateness judgments did not. For Chinese, neither competency judgments mirrored predictions on relationship improvement. However, their appropriateness judgments paralleled their predictions for level of status quo maintenance, but their effectiveness judgments did not. The evidence supports the hypothesis that people from different cultures hold dissimilar implicit cognitive theories of what defines in/competent communication in interpersonal conflict. The potent association of competency judgments with relational outcomes signals a new cognitive direction for conflict research, long fixated on behavioral manifestations. Brew et al. 857Interpersonal disagreements are a mundane and unpleasant part of everyday interactions. The conflict process is inevitably negotiated and defined through communication, which is capable of escalating or defusing the situation. A commonly held assumption is that communication is essential to the human condition and that its complexity is one of the key aspects that differentiates us from lower order primates. This leads people to believe that, regardless of language differences, communication patterns and uses are shared fundamentals across cultures. However, effective communication, defined by the distinguished American scholar Burgoon (1974) as the act of imparting knowledge or making known one's feelings and thoughts in order to achieve certain outcomes, is not necessarily recognized in all cultures. For example, Gao (1998) points out that there is no easy translation into Chinese characters of the English word "communication." She argues that conversational behavior in Chinese culture is traditionally used for enhancing relationships and harmony rather than imparting information. Ting-Toomey et al., 1...

Incivility and employee performance, citizenship, and counterproductive behaviors: Implications of the social context.

“…In addition, in highly interdependent and hierarchical societies, such as China, maintaining interpersonal harmony is of great importance during social interactions (Leung, 1987; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Collectivists are expected to avoid hurting feelings, to minimize outward expression of conflict, and to perform norm appropriate behaviors to meet the face-support constraint (Brew, Tan, Booth, & Malik, 2011; Morris & Peng, 1994). Therefore, it is possible that Chinese targets who feel angry about the instigator of incivility would replace the direct interpersonal inappropriateness (i.e., reducing OCB toward other individuals) with less overt responses (i.e., reducing OCB toward organization or increasing CWB) to retaliate.…”

Quiet or questioning? Students' discussion behaviors in student-centered education across cultures

“…Students' discussion behaviors in student-centered education across cultures 4 interdependence of group members, and behaviors that are shaped by group norms and values (Hui and Triandis 1986).It should be noted though that cultural diversity within Eastern and Western regions can be larger than across, and they cannot be characterized straightforwardly as either collectivistic or individualistic. Previous research has, however, shown a general preference of Eastern cultures for collectivistic communication styles, which tend to favor harmonious group relations, avoidance of conflict, and indirect communication as opposed to a more confrontational, direct, and outspoken style of individualistic cultures (Brew et al 2011;Oetzel et al 2001;Smith 2011). Consequently, it seems logical to assume that the distinction between individualistic Western cultures and collectivistic Eastern cultures is likely to lead to cross-cultural differences in communicative behaviors demonstrated by students in discussions in student-centered education.…”

“…Cross-cultural differences in communication styles have been extensively researched, particularly in Eastern and Western cultures (e.g. Brew et al 2011;Smith 2011;Yeung and Kashima 2012). Eastern cultures are often characterized as collectivistic, in contrast to Western cultures, which are regarded as individualistic (Hofstede 2001;Triandis 1995).…”

15. Developing negotiation competencies

“…Moreover, research on behavioral competencies typically centers on two dimensions: effectiveness in implementing communicative skills to accomplish goals and the appropriateness in using them to adhere to the norms and rules of particular situations (Canary and Spitzberg 1987;Spitzberg and Cupach 1989). Scholars have linked both effectiveness and appropriateness to communication competencies in conflict management styles, interpersonal conflicts, and intercultural conflict interactions, but not to negotiation per se (Brew et al 2011;Canary and Spitzberg 1989). In this way, competence is the intersection of abilities perceived to be effective and appropriate.…”