"Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory" by Mitchell R. Hammer (2005)

Core Problem & Central Thesis

Opening Hook (Astronaut Example): Since Yuri Gagarin's first space flight in 1961, 422 individuals from 27 countries have flown in space. The International Space Station involves 16 nations. Yet evidence shows that astronauts living together in "confined space locations in hostile environments" experience disagreements and hostility based partly on culturally different styles for resolving conflict.

The Central Problem: Existing conflict style taxonomies (e.g., ROCI-II's dominating, obliging, avoiding, integrating, compromising) have been developed largely within Western, individualistic cultural contexts. They are not specifically designed to assess or compare Intercultural Conflict Styles (ICSs) because their underlying frameworks are not grounded in culturally based patterns of differences.

The Central Thesis:

• Conflict style is culturally learned during primary socialization.

• Existing frameworks are suspect in their generalizability to collectivist Asian cultures (e.g., "avoiding" in Western terms = low self/other concern; in collectivist cultures = high concern for relational harmony).

• There is no existing conceptual framework and measure that attempts to understand and assess conflict style based on explicit identification of viable "etic" (culturally generalizable) patterns of cultural difference.

• This article presents: (1) a preliminary conceptual framework for describing ICSs, and (2) the development of the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory (ICSI).

Definition of Conflict (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000):

Two Essential Characteristics of Conflict Dynamics:

1. Perceived substantive disagreements (cognitive/content dimension)

2. Affective or emotional reaction (antagonism based on perceived threat or interference)

2. Key Theoretical Foundations

2.1 Interaction Style vs. Conflict Style

2.2 Historical Taxonomies of Conflict Style

Critical Limitation of ROCI-II: The avoiding strategy, viewed in Western terms as low self AND low other concern, is employed in collectivist cultures to maintain relational harmony, where it culturally reflects a high concern for self and other interests (Ting-Toomey, 1994).

3. Theoretical Framework of Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS)

3.1 Core Communication Framework: The Pragmatics of Human Communication (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)

Central Premise: Communication "not only conveys information, but at the same time imposes behavior" (p. 51).

Two fundamental functions of communicative meaning:

Key Insight: These two dimensions function as communicative frames for conflicting parties (Putnam & Holmer, 1992). A frame is "the particular quality assigned to an issue by the negotiator's linguistic choices" (Drake & Donohue, 1996, p. 301).

3.2 Definition of Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS)

More precisely: ICS is generated in terms of specific culture groups' preferred manner for communicating with the other party around:

1. Substantive disagreements (the "report" function)

2. Feelings toward one another (the "command" function - affective/emotional response)

3.3 Why Existing Cultural Constructs Are Insufficient

3.4 The Proposed Two Core Dimensions of ICS

The model is:

1. Conceptualized theoretically within the "report" and "command" functions

2. Contexted in terms of the two fundamental characteristics of conflict (disagreement + emotion)

3. Interculturally grounded in terms of:

4. Literature Support for the Two Dimensions

4.1 Direct vs. Indirect Approaches to Disagreement

Indirect strategies include:

• Greater reliance on ambiguity in language

• Use of analogies and metaphors

• Hinting or saying one thing to mean another

• Use of third party intermediaries

• Relying on the receiver to clarify misunderstanding

Direct strategies include:

• Precise, explicit language

• "Say what you mean and mean what you say"

• Looking to the sender for clarifying misunderstanding

• Direct, face-to-face channels

• Verbal fluency as main mechanism for conflict resolution

Evidence from Individualism/Collectivism Research:

Evidence from High/Low Context Research (Hall, 1976):

4.2 Emotionally Expressive vs. Restrained Approaches

Key Quote (Matsumoto, 1996):

Display Rules (Ekman & Friesen, 1969): Emotional expression is based on culturally learned norms.

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1998) Data:

• Emotionally Restrained (75% would NOT show emotions if upset at work): Poland, Japan, Ethiopia

• Emotionally Expressive (75% would openly express frustration): Kuwait, Egypt, Oman, Spain, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Philippines

Characteristics of Emotionally Expressive Cultures:

• Overtly and visibly demonstrate feelings (laughing, gesturing, body posture, facial expressions)

• Value affective engagement and involvement

• Use whole body, intense gestures, elevated volume, vocalized patterns (Kochman, 1981; Zandpour & Sadri, 1996)

Characteristics of Emotionally Restrained Cultures:

• Contain, hide, mask, or minimize overt emotional expression

• "Maintaining restrained emotional composure is viewed as the self-disciplined, mature way to handle conflict" (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 215)

• Control over negative emotions central for Latino and Southeast Asian cultures (Alum & Manteiga, 1977; Triandis et al., 1984; Dsilva & Whyte, 1997; Locke, 1992)

Hammer & Rogan (2002) Finding: One central interpretive frame for conflict de-escalation among Indochinese and Central American refugees was the control of negative emotional verbal and non-verbal expression.

Relationships to Other Cultural Dimensions:

5. Method: Scale Development

5.1 Item Generation

Example Direct Items:

• Candidly express your disagreements to the other party

• Verbally confront differences of opinion directly

• Be comfortable with the other party fully expressing their convictions

Example Indirect Items:

• Offer indirect suggestions rather than explicit recommendations

• Express your complaints indirectly

• Accommodate and go along with statements made by the other party even though you disagree

Example Emotionally Expressive Items:

• Allow your own emotions to come out when interacting

• Passionately express your disagreement

• Express your deeper emotions like fear and anger

Example Emotionally Restrained Items:

• Avoid expressing strong emotions

• Keep strong emotions like fear and anger hidden

• Avoid imposing your feelings on the other party

5.2 Response Format (Initial)

6-point Likert scale:

• 1 = Strongly disagree

• 2 = Disagree

• 3 = Slightly disagree

• 4 = Slightly agree

• 5 = Agree

• 6 = Strongly agree

5.3 Demographic Variables Collected

5.4 Sample 1 (Initial Validation)

Note: Sample deliberately NOT drawn from college student population. Largely from a large metropolitan city in eastern US.

5.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Conclusion: The two-dimensional model (direct/indirect + emotional expressiveness/restraint) provides a good fit to the data.

5.6 Final Item Selection

Reliability:

• DI scale: Coefficient α = .71

• ER scale: Coefficient α = .86

6. Additional Testing of ICSI (New Sample)

6.1 Revised Format (User-Friendly)

Instead of Likert scale, each question presents a paired option (A vs. B) representing the two poles. Respondents distribute 5 points between options:

• 5-0, 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, 0-5

Example: "In general, when resolving conflict with another party, my preferred approach is to:"

• Option A: [Direct statement]

• Option B: [Indirect statement]

Structure: 9 direct/indirect paired questions + 9 emotionally expressive/restraint paired questions = 18 questions total + demographic items.

6.2 Sample 2

6.3 Reliability Results (Sample 2)

Conclusion: The ICSI maintains consistent and satisfactory reliability across samples and formats.

6.4 Validity Testing (Gender, Education, Experience)

Conclusion: The ICSI demonstrates generalizability across gender, education, and intercultural experience.

7. The Four-Quadrant Model of Intercultural Conflict Style

Figure 1 (conceptualized from the two dimensions):

7.1 Discussion Style (Direct + Restrained)

Description: Emphasizes verbally direct approach for dealing with disagreements + emotionally restrained/controlled manner for emotional response.

Key Characteristics:

• Precision in language use

• "Say what you mean and mean what you say"

• Views intense emotions as potentially dangerous and inhibitory to "effective" conflict resolution

• Talking about disagreement directly is comfortable

• Discussion should be based on objective facts

• Caution about injecting personal feelings

Potential Misperceptions (by other styles): May be seen as cold, detached, or unemotional.

7.2 Engagement Style (Direct + Expressive)

Description: Emphasizes verbally direct and confrontational approach + emotionally expressive demeanor.

Key Characteristics:

• Sincerity is embedded in the degree of concern demonstrated through intense verbal and non-verbal emotion

• More comfortable with personal engagement

• Disagreements are verbally confronted

• Emotion is "put on the table"

Potential Misperceptions (by other styles): May be seen as harsh, aggressive, rude, or out of control (especially by Discussion and Accommodation styles).

7.3 Accommodation Style (Indirect + Restrained)

Description: Emphasizes indirect approach for dealing with disagreements + emotionally restrained manner.

Key Characteristics:

• Ambiguity and circumlocution in language use to prevent conflict from "getting out of control"

• Maintaining emotional calm and reserve is essential for interpersonal harmony

• Views intense emotions as dangerous and inhibitory

• Strategies: indirect speech, use of intermediaries, minimizing level of conflict

Potential Misperceptions (by other styles): May be seen as lacking conviction, deceptive, uncommitted, or weak (especially by Engagement style).

7.4 Dynamic Style (Indirect + Expressive)

Description: Indirect strategies for dealing with disagreements + emotionally intense expression.

Key Characteristics:

• Linguistic devices: hyperbole, repetition, "associative" argument structure, ambiguity

• Use of third party intermediaries

• Emotionally confrontational discourse

• Credibility grounded in degree of emotional expressiveness

Potential Misperceptions (by other styles): May be seen as volatile, disorganized, irrational, or unpredictable (especially by Discussion style).

8. Practical Applications

8.1 Mediation Example (Provided by Author)

Situation: Two disputants in a mediation. One had Engagement style; the other had Accommodation style.

Misperceptions before ICSI:

• Accommodation style individual felt the other was "rude and aggressive"

• Engagement style individual felt the other was "deceptive and lacking in commitment"

Intervention: The mediator reviewed ICSI results and reframed the differences as differences in conflict resolution styles (not negative personal traits).

Outcome: Disputants were better able to address their substantive disagreements.

8.2 Organizational Diversity and Inclusion

Observation in US organizations: The Discussion style is most often identified as dominant. It is asserted as "proper and necessary" for productively resolving disputes.

Problem: Not all members of the organization use or value Discussion strategies. Other styles (Engagement, Accommodation, Dynamic) tend to be marginalized.

Negative consequences when Discussion style dominates without awareness:

• Engagement styles → viewed as harsh and aggressive

• Accommodation styles → viewed as lacking conviction

• Dynamic styles → viewed as volatile and disorganized

Result: Conflicts actually escalate even when a supposedly "effective" (Discussion style) model is used.

Solution: Recognize various styles and develop more inclusive conflict resolution systems using the four-quadrant ICS model and ICSI.

8.3 Other Applications

• Organizational conflict resolution

• Family dispute mediation

• Cross-cultural negotiation training

• Diversity and inclusion programs

• Expatriate and global team training

9. Summary of the Four Styles

10. Key Theoretical Contributions

11. Limitations and Future Directions

Future research directions implied by author:

• Cross-cultural validation of the ICSI with more balanced samples

• Examination of how style differences impact conflict outcomes

• Testing the four-style model in diverse organizational and national contexts

• Linking ICS to other intercultural competence measures

12. Key Quotes for Retention

On the need for a new framework:

On the two dimensions of communication in conflict:

On avoiding strategy in collectivist cultures:

On the danger of a single dominant style:

13. Glossary of Key Terms (Specific to This Article)