Intercultural Conflict Interaction Competence: From Theory to Practice

STELLA TING-TOOMEY

In this chapter, intercultural communication training is defined as a skillful facilitation process in which trainees are given ample opportunities to acquire culturally relevant knowledge, increase self-awareness and other-awareness, confront emotional and communication challenges and practice context-pertinent communication skills (Bennett, 2003; Brislin & Yoshida, 1994a; Ting-Toomey, 2004). The 'big picture' goal of intercultural (IC) communication training is to prepare individuals to communicate appropriately and effectively across a diverse range of cultures or in a particular culture and to achieve a comfortable degree of 'goodness of fit' between the new culture and the homeland culture.

More specifically, IC conflict competence training refers to competence-based training of individuals to manage emotional frustrations and interaction struggles mindfully due primarily to cultural group membership differences. Such differences can stem from perceived or actual incompatibility of cultural values, norms, face orientations, goals, scarce resources, processes and/or outcomes in a face-to-face (or mediated) context (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). The greater the cultural distance between the two conflict parties, the more likely the assessment or judgment of the conflict negotiation process would be polarized and misconstrued. The cultural membership distances can include deep-level differences, such as historical grievances, cultural worldviews and beliefs. Concurrently, they can also include the mismatch of applying different expectations in a particular conflict scene.

Through competence-based IC training, trainers can mindfully transform the mindsets, affective habits and behavioral routines of the trainees and help them to communicate adaptively across cultures. For a thorough overview of the history of the IC communication training domain, readers can consult Pusch (2004) on the historical trends of the IC training field. This chapter is organized in three sections. The first section reviews major theory-practice approaches related to IC identity-based interactions. The second section draws out the applied implications of the identity-based conflict competence lenses. The chapter concludes with some suggestions for becoming a competent IC communication trainer. In this chapter, an identity-based competence perspective is emphasized because identity issues – whether they surround cultural or ethnic group membership issues or personal identity issues are viewed as the anchoring concepts that sojourners, immigrants and local hosts have to deal with on an everyday interaction basis. Furthermore, when it involves IC conflict process work, most entangled conflict situations between polarized groups or individuals have a strong identity locus.

Intercultural Identity-based Conflict: Three Lenses Some very useful identity-based theories exist in the IC conflict competence and IC adjustment training literature. I have used the following criteria to guide my selection of three identity-based competence approaches for a synoptic review: (a) the approach covers either a strong conceptual-research angle or an applied angle to explain culture-based identity competence issues; (b) the framework has either been systematically tested in a wide range of international cross-cultural settings or has been utilized functionally with a wide range of diverse cultural/ethnic groups; (c) the theory or model has a heuristic function for bridging conflict interaction issues with applied competence practices; and (d) the IC or intergroup concepts are readily accessible in published chapter or paper format for further readings by curious IC researchers or practitioners.

Identity is conceptualized in this chapter as reflective self-images constructed, experienced and communicated by individuals within a culture and in a particular interaction situation (Ting-Toomey, 2005a). I have selected the following three frameworks for discussion in this section: the integrated threat (IT) theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2003), the conflict face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2004) and the cross-cultural code-switching model (Molinsky, 2007).

Integrated Threat Theory

Throughout the years, Stephan et al. (1999) have collaborated closely and influenced each others' ideas in their respective development of the IT theory and the anxiety/uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b). The IT theory (Stephan, 1999; Stephan & Stephan, 2003) is a theory that fuses various affective theories in the social identity and intergroup prejudice literature and emphasizes one key causal factor on prejudice, namely, feelings of fear or threat. Feelings of fear or identity threat prompt intergroup animosities and conflicts. Feelings of fear or threat are closely aligned with Gudykunst's (2005a) notions on anxiety management issues and ineffective communication concepts.

The IT theory can serve as a macro-level conflict theory that explains intergroup or IC antagonism. Macro-level theory factors refer to the 'big picture' socio-economic, institutional and/or historical factors that frame intergroup relations in a society. According to the IT theory, there are four antecedent conditions that prime the various perceived threat types. These conditions are: prior conflict history, ignorance or knowledge gap, contact and status. According to Stephan (1999: 32), intergroup conflict history is 'the single most important seedbed of prejudice'. More importantly, past intergroup conflict history serves as a backdrop to current intergroup contact relations. The more damaging and protracted the past conflict, the more perceived threats and prejudiced attitudes exist in the intergroup relations. Second, intergroup knowledge gap or ignorance of the outgroup refers to the fact that when intergroup members know very little of each other or they think they know too much (i.e. based on their overgeneralized, stereotypic lens), they are likely to perceive the other group as threatening in the context of an intergroup hostility situation. Third, the type (positive versus negative) and frequency of intergroup contact also affect feelings of security or insecurity, familiarity or unfamiliarity, trust or mistrust between members of different identity groups (Ting-Toomey, 2005a). The more positive and personalized the contact, the more likely members of both groups can see the 'human face' beyond the broad-based identity group categories. The more negative and surface-level the contact, the greater the perceived negative stereotypes and prejudice justifications.

Fourth, societal/group membership power status refers to both institutional power dominance/resistance issues and individual power perception issues. On the institutional power level, dominant group members in a society can be perceived as controlling the key political, economic and media functioning of a society. On the individual power level, it can refer to how high-status group members view low-status group members in a society or in a particular institutional setting, and vice versa. Frequently, 'high-status' or dominant group members may want to reinforce their own power positions and not want to give up their power resources. They might also worry about hostility or competition from the 'low-status' (i.e. in the pecking order of the societal or institutional power scheme) minority group members in snatching away their precious resources in the community. Minority group members might, indeed, resent the power resources or positions amassed by the dominant group members. They might already experience the historical legacy of inequality, injustice, prejudice and unfair treatment weighted on them. Thus, some minority group members are often emotionally frustrated because of the uneven playing field. The wider the cultural relation schism and the wider the perceived power schism, the more anxiety or fear generated in the escalatory conflict cycles. These antecedent conditions can either escalate or de-escalate the perceived threat level in intergroup conflict.

The four basic identity threat types that lead to escalatory prejudice and conflict cycles are: intergroup anxiety, negative or rigid stereotypes, tangible/realistic threats and perceived value/symbolic threats. The theory also emphasizes subjectively perceived threats posed by the other 'enemy' group (Stephan, 1999). The first type of threat, intergroup anxiety/ anticipated consequences, often arises in unfamiliar intergroup encounter processes (Gudykunst, 1995, 2005b). In intergroup encounters, people can be especially anxious about anticipated negative consequences, such as negative psychological consequences (e.g. confusion, frustration, feeling incompetent), negative behavioral consequences (e.g. being exploited, harmed) and negative evaluations by outgroup members (e.g. rejection, or being identified with marginalized outgroup members). Individuals have anticipated intergroup anxiety because they are concerned about potential face threats or their identities being stigmatized, embarrassed, rejected or even excluded in intergroup contact situations (Jackson, 1999, 2002). Emotional fear or anxiety is usually heightened and intensified when there exist intergroup historical grievances, low or little prior intergroup contact or that the contact is consistently antagonistic or reinforcing existing negative stereotypes.

The second type of threats, rigid stereotypes or negative stereotypes, pose as threats to the ingroup (especially dominant ingroup) because ingroup members typically learn negative images and traits of outgroups through the mass media and second-hand sources. These negative images can generate negative self-fulfilling prophecies and expectations, thereby arousing negative intergroup encountering processes and outcomes. Rigid positive stereotypes can also be considered a potential intergroup threat because of the fear that this particular group is taking over the educational system, the technological field or the medical health care profession. Overly positive and negative stereotypes can activate both dominant-minority and minority-minority intergroup conflicts in a multicultural society. This rigid or inflexible stereotypic mentality leads to a third type of identity threat.

The third type of threats, tangible/realistic threats, refer to perceived content threats from the outgroups, such as the battle for territory, wealth, scarce resources and natural resources, and also the perceived threats and competitions of economic, housing, education placements and/or political clout. The fourth type of threats, perceived values/ symbolic threats, are founded in cultural/ethnic membership differences in morals, beliefs, values, norms, standards and attitudes. These are threats to the 'standard way of living' and the 'standard way of behaving' of the dominant ingroup. Outgroups who hold worldviews and values that are different from the ingroup threaten the core value systems of the ingroup, which may then lead to fossilized ingroup ethnocentrism and outgroup avoidance or rejection. Values or symbolic threats can be experienced by minorities, disadvantaged groups and subordinate groups, as well as by majority groups. Research studies testing the four threat types demonstrated that three (i.e. intergroup anxiety, tangible threats and values/symbolic threats) out of the four threat types consistently predicted prejudice and attitudinal animosity from mainstream dominant groups (e.g. European Americans) toward minority groups (e.g. African American, Asian American and Mexican American groups; Plant & Devine, 2003; Stephan et al., 2000) and immigrant groups (e.g. Cuban American immigrants; Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002; Stephan et al., 1999) in a multicultural society.

In sum, intergroup anxiety and fear can color our expectations and intensify our perceived identity threat levels in dealing with culturally dissimilar strangers or what we consider as our 'enemies'. On the macrolevel of analysis, if the backdrop of the intergroup relations evokes continuous, acrimonious hostilities, it is difficult for identity group members to come together with a clean slate. With historically tainted glasses and competition for scarce resources, members from dominant and minority groups might view each other with certain mistrust, suspicions, disrespect and face destruction outlook.

The Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory

On the meso level, IC conflict often involves different face-losing and face-saving behaviors. Face refers to a claimed sense of desired social self-image in a relational or international setting (Ting-Toomey, 2004, 2005b). Face loss occurs when we are being treated in such a way that our identity claims are either being directly or indirectly challenged or ignored. Face loss can occur either on the individual level or the identity group level, or both. Repeated face loss and face threat often lead to escalatory conflict spirals or an impasse in the conflict negotiation process.

In response to the heavy reliance on the individualistic Western perspective in framing various conflict approaches, Ting-Toomey (1988) and Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) developed an IC conflict theory, namely, the conflict face-negotiation theory, to include a collectivistic Asian perspective in order to broaden the theorizing process of various conflict orientations. In a nutshell, Ting-Toomey's (1988, 2005b) conflict face-negotiation theory assumes that: (1) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) the concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity-vulnerable situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question; (3) the cultural value spectrums of individualism-collectivism (Triandis, 1995, 2002) and small/large power distance (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) shape facework concerns and styles; (4) individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members' preferences for self-oriented facework versus other-oriented facework; (5) small/large power distance value patterns shape members' preferences for horizontal-based facework versus vertical-based facework; (6) the value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational and situational factors, influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular cultural scenes; and (7) IC facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively and adaptively. For a recent review of research findings in testing the conflict face-negotiation theory, readers can consult Ting-Toomey (2005b) and Ting-Toomey and Takai (2006).

More specifically, for example, in a direct empirical test of the theory (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel et al., 2001), the research program tested the underlying assumption of the face-negotiation theory that face is an explanatory mechanism for cultural membership's influence on conflict behavior. A questionnaire was administered to 768 participants of four national cultures (China, Germany, Japan, and the USA) in their respective languages, asking them to recall and describe a recent interpersonal conflict. The major findings of the study are as follows: first, cultural individualism-collectivism had direct effects on conflict styles, as well as mediated effects through self-construal and face concerns. Second, self-face concern was associated positively with a dominating style and other-face concern was associated positively with avoiding and integrating styles. Third, German respondents reported the frequent use of direct confrontive facework strategies and did not care much for avoidance facework tactics; Japanese respondents reported the use of different pretending strategies to act as if the conflict situation did not exist; Chinese participants engaged in a variety of avoiding, obliging and also passive aggressive facework tactics; and US Americans reported the use of upfront expression of feelings and remaining calm as facework strategies to handle problematic conflict situations. Within the pluralistic US sample, multiethnic research (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000) has also uncovered distinctive conflict interaction styles in relation to particular ethnic identity salience issues.