Prevodb

From Mesopoly 3.0
Revision as of 14:00, 9 November 2011 by Zlatko (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of
conflict resolution:A meta-analysis$
Jennifer L. Holta,�, Cynthia James DeVoreb
aHolt Enterprises Consulting Services, Minneapolis, MN, USA
bInver Hills Community College, 2500 East 80th Street, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
Abstract
The popularity of self-report five-style conflict resolution instruments, spawned by Blake
and Mouton’s [(1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX:Gulf Publishing] dual concerns
theory, resulted in a plethora of research studies examining possible differences in culture,
gender and organizational role. Using the Managerial Grid, dual concerns theory postulates
that conflict involves balancing the desire to meet production goals (x) versus concern for
personal relationships (y). Five styles of managing conflict are then revealed:smoothing,
withdrawing, compromising, problem-solving, and forcing. Numerous studies using instruments
derived from this theory validate its basic premises, but results have provided confusing
results.
Given the disparity of results, a meta-analysis was conducted to provide a clearer overall
picture for the variables of culture (individualistic versus collectivistic), gender, and
organizational role (superior, subordinate, and peer). Based upon 123 paired comparisons
within 36 empirical studies, the results of the meta-analysis indicate:(1) individualistic cultures
choose forcing as a conflict style more than collectivistic cultures; (2) collectivistic cultures
prefer the styles of withdrawing, compromising, and problem-solving more than individualistic
cultures; (3) in individualistic cultures, compromising is endorsed more frequently by
females; (4) females are more likely to endorse the use of compromising than males, regardless
of culture; (5) males are more likely to report using forcing than females in individualistic
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.002
$Questions about article content should be directed to Jennifer Holt at drjenniferholt@yahoo.com.
Meta-analytic questions should be directed to Cynthia DeVore, University of Minnesota Department of
Psychology, N218 Elliott Hall, 75 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455; devo0023@umn.edu.
�Corresponding author. Tel.:+1 763 588 1234; fax: +1763 588 1334.
E-mail addresses: drjenniferholt@yahoo.com (J.L. Holt), cdevore@inverhills.edu (C.J. DeVore).
cultures; and (6) with regard to organizational role, males are more likely than females to
choose a forcing style with their superiors.
Further research is needed, particularly on the variable of cultural status.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Conflict; Conflict resolution; Conflict resolution style; Gender; Culture; Organizational role;
Meta-analysis; Managerial grid; Dual concerns theory; Conflict styles; Blake and Mouton; Conflict
management survey; CMS; Rahim organizational conflict inventory; ROCI-I; ROCI-II; Employee conflict
inventory; ECI; Thomas and Kilmann; Management-of-differences exercise; MODE
1. Introduction
Multiculturalism, to flourish, relies on effective, expedient management of
disputes. Addressing conflict effectively becomes more urgent as social change
accelerates. (Duryea, 1992, p. 1)
On a global level, people are increasingly concerned with creating and maintaining
peace. Understanding conflict and how to resolve it are two issues directly related to
accomplishing this goal, given that resolution of conflict helps to sustain peaceable
relations (Blumberg, 1998). Cultural differences both within and across countries can
result in conflictive communication; therefore, communication strategies such as
conflict resolution may provide an important means of bridging diverse cultural
perspectives (Dubinskas, 1992; Gabrielidis, Stephan, Ybarra, Pearson, & Villareal,
1997; Hofstede, 1983; Holt, 2000; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Ting-Toomey et al.,
2000). Goodall (1996), for example, states:
Professionals and academics are being called upon to articulate some new
revolutionary ‘communication’ breakthrough capable of teaching us how diverse
peoples can learn to live together meaningfully without destroying each other
and—in the process—the planet itself. (pp. 1–2)
Perhaps never before has this been more important, given the September 11, 2001
attack on the United States’ World Trade Center and Pentagon and its consequences
(Kliman & Llerena-Quinn, 2002; Schuman, 2002). Clearly, conflict and violence are
at the heart of the world’s problems, on both microcosmic and macrocosmic levels;
thus the study of conflict resolution vis-a` -vis culture is an important endeavor. In
addition, gender would appear to be a significant way that human beings differ in
relationship to conflict resolution style. Similarly, within the workplace, how one
chooses to resolve a conflict may be affected in large part by the status of the other
party—whether superior, subordinate or peer to oneself. Despite the fact that
intuitively, individuals from various cultural backgrounds, of different genders, and
within the workplace would appear to solve conflicts in very different ways, there are
no conclusive findings. In fact, the results of myriad studies using one of the many
five-style conflict resolution instruments and measuring the variables of culture,
gender, and organizational role, whether alone or in combination, yield confusing
results. Therefore, this study used meta-analytic techniques to contribute a more
ARTICLE IN PRESS
166 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
complete picture of possible conflict resolution style differences among cultures,
between genders, and with regard to organizational role.
1.1. Background
Conflict resolution, defined as ‘‘the process used by parties in conflict to reach a
settlement’’ (Sweeney & Carruthers, 1996, p. 328), first gained professional interest in
the 1960s due to seminal research conducted by Blake and Mouton (1964). Initially
using a population of managers, then eventually extending their ideas to the general
population, Blake and Mouton’s dual concerns theory proposed that individuals
have two primary motivations with regard to interpersonal conflict:the desire to
obtain one’s own goals (concern for production) versus the desire to retain
interpersonal relationships (concern for people). By mapping these two concerns on
the ‘‘Managerial Grid,’’ five discrete styles for resolving conflict resulted:smoot hing
(high concern for people and low concern for production); withdrawing (low concern
for both people and production); compromising (medium concern for production
and people); problem-solving (high concern for production and people); and forcing
(high concern for production versus low concern for people). For example, an
individual who is ultimately concerned with meeting production goals, and is willing
to sacrifice the desires of others (relationships) to reach these goals would fall under
the ‘‘forcing’’ style of conflict resolution. At the opposite end of the grid, someone
who is far more concerned with preserving the goodwill of others may choose not to
press their particular goals in a conflict, resulting in the style of ‘‘smoothing.’’
Another person might feel both relationships and production are equally high in
importance, exhibiting the style of ‘‘problem-solving,’’ in which win-win solutions
are generated. On the other hand, for someone who dislikes conflict of any kind,
neither meeting production goals nor retaining relationships may be important
enough to risk engaging; the style of ‘‘withdrawing’’ would then be a probable
choice. Finally, for someone who is willing to give up some of both—goals and
relationship—in order to resolve conflict, there is a style in the middle referred to as
‘‘compromising.’’ ‘‘When these basic styles are understood, one can predict for each
how a man [sic] operating under that style is likely to handle conflict’’ (Blake &
Mouton, 1970, p. 419).
In this article, ‘‘five-style paradigm’’ will refer to the set of beliefs Blake and
Mouton (1964) and authors with subsequent conflict resolution instruments share:
that conflict comes from the opposing forces of production (trying to meet one’s own
goals) versus people (attempting to honor the needs of others), and that five basic
styles of dealing with conflict are the result:smoo thing, withdrawing, compromising,
problem-solving, and forcing. If dual concerns theory is valid, and if the instruments
utilizing this theory are valid and reliable, then true differences regarding culture,
gender, and organizational role should become clear through meta-analytic
techniques. It is important to note, however, that one’s cognitive choices on a selfreport
instrument are not the same as one’s behavior. For the purposes of this
research, conflict choice is viewed as a cognitive orientation, and ‘‘all measures
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 167
including choice of conflict style will be assessed cognitively rather than
behaviorally’’ (Sorenson, Morse, & Savage, 1999, p. 30).
Blake and Mouton’s (1964) theory became a popular means of conceptualizing
and simplifying a complex issue, given that the grid enabled numeric assignation to
each conflict style. Several conflict resolution self-report instruments were subsequently
spawned from dual concerns theory, the four most prominent being
Hall’s (1969) Conflict Management Survey (CMS); Rahim’s (1983) Rahim
Organizational Conflict Inventories I and II (ROCI-I and ROCI-II); Renwick’s
(1975) Employee Conflict Inventory (ECI); and Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974)
Management-of-Differences Exercise (MODE). While the labels provided for each
conflict style vary among instruments (e.g., smoothing is also known as
accommodating, obliging and yield-lose), the general principles of the grid
(people concerns versus production needs) and basic descriptions of the styles
appear very similar (Fig. 1). For purposes of simplification, the names of the
styles as originally provided by Blake and Mouton will be utilized throughout
this article.
It is important to note an implicit value judgment within Blake and Mouton’s
(1964) original theory (Dena, 1994). That is, problem-solving was considered the
superior mode of solving conflict, being high in concern for people as well as
production. This assumption formed the basis for many popular treatises on
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Smoothing (Blake & Mouton, Renwick)
Accommodating (Thomas)
Obliging (Rahim)
Yield-Lose (Hall)
Concern for People (Blake & Mouton)
Party’s Desire to Satisfy Other’s Concerns (Thomas)
Concern for Others (Rahim)
Concern for Relationships (Hall, Renwick)
Problem-Solving (Blake & Mouton)
Confronting (Renwick)
Collaborating(Thomas)
Integrating (Rahim)
Synergistic (Hall)
Compromising (Blake & Mouton,
Renwick,Thomas,Rahim,Hall)
Withdrawing (Blake & Mouton, Renwick)
Avoiding (Thomas, Rahim)
Lose-Leave (Hall)
Forcing (Blake &Mouton)
Competing (Thomas)
Dominating (Rahim)
Win-Lose (Hall)
Concern for Production (Blake & Mouton)
Party’s Desire for Own Concern (Thomas)
Concern for Self (Rahim)
Concern for Personal Goals (Hall, Renwick)
Fig. 1. Overlay of conflict resolution styles and authors derived from dual concerns theory. Although the
majority of this figure is original, the idea was based on ‘‘Fig. 1, Composite of the Hall, Pruitt, Rahim, and
Thomas two-dimensional models with associated conflict styles’’ (Sorenson et al., 1999, p. 27).
168 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
‘‘win-win’’ business strategy, including Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Blake
and Mouton admit this style is more popular as a choice for respondents from the
United States than any other countries; the ethnocentric bias appears to be very
clear:‘‘Regar dless of national grouping, managers agree that the 9, 9 [problemsolving]
Grid style represents the soundest way to manage’’ (p. 16). In other cultures,
however, problem-solving may not be the preferred choice, nor the best means of
solving conflict (Kilmann & Thomas, 1978; Lewicki, Weiss, & Lewin, 1992). For
example, researchers have provided evidence that, depending upon the particulars of
the situation, other styles may be preferred (Elangovan, 1998; van de Vliert,
Euwema, & Huismans, 1995).
By the late 1970s, the vanguard of conflict resolution researchers had begun to
eliminate this bias toward problem-solving in updated work (Kilmann & Thomas,
1978). Initial research by Thomas (1976), one of the most prolific and wellresearched
conflict resolution experts, stated:
People who practice the withdrawing style tend to behave as if they were
indifferent both to their own concerns and to the concerns of others. The
withdrawing orientation is often manifested through nonassertive and uncooperative
behavior. Those who avoid conflict tend to prefer apathy, isolation and
withdrawal to facing conflicts. (p. 892)
However, two years later, Thomas, in research with Kilmann, indicates opposition
toward value judgments being placed on any one style (Kilmann & Thomas, 1978).
Withdrawing, in fact, has been found to be the superior style for many Asians (Chua
& Gudykunst, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1988), perhaps because it is considered more
respectful not to argue.
Given the wide assortment of research studies that have examined conflict
resolution styles, conducted over a span of nearly half a century, an overall
evaluation to assess possible culture, gender, and organizational role differences is an
important contribution to the field. This research is unique; to the authors’
knowledge, no research has yet been done using rigorous statistical procedures via
meta-analysis to analyze the results of conflict resolution self-report instruments
within the five-style paradigm.
1.2. Variables of interest
Rankings of the five styles of handling conflict were examined with
special emphasis on the following variables:cultural status (comparing intercountry,
as well as among ethnic minorities of the United States; for the
purposes of this research study, the term ‘‘Americans,’’ along with an ethnic
identifier, is being used to denote United States citizenship, e.g. ‘‘African
Americans’’); gender (including females and males); and organizational role (peer,
subordinate, and supervisor—the three levels typically present in hierarchical
work settings).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 169
1.3. Cultural status
With regard to cultural status, the growing diversity of the United States has
resulted in a multicultural workforce of its citizens (Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Kozan,
1990; Lagao, 1996; Oetzel, 1998). Given this increasing multiculturalism, Yinger
(1994) cautions, ‘‘How the United States develops as a multi-ethnic society will be of
critical importanceyfor its own quality of life’’ (p. 35). Indeed, many researchers
validate the fact that diversity can result in increased conflict. As individuals attempt
to communicate and work together, they may react negatively to the cultural
practices of others (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Pearson & Stephan, 1998; Ting-Toomey
et al., 2000). Yet until recent years, this crucial element was ignored in studies
assessing conflict resolution styles, according to researchers such as Gudykunst
(1998):
Most, if not all, of the cross-cultural [conflict resolution] studies comparing the
United States with other cultures have focused on European Americans. There
also are differences across ethnic groups in the United States. yFor instance,
ythere are severalyareas where European Americans’ and African Americans’
styles of communication may be problematic when they communicate with each
other, particularly in a conflict situation. (pp. 253–254)
The decrease in the popularity of conflict resolution self-report instruments, most
‘‘in vogue’’ in the United States from the late 1960s into the early 1980s, may be due,
in part, to such a lack of cross-cultural inclusiveness. However, a number of research
studies, primarily in the past two decades, have measured styles across cultures and/
or countries, thus providing the self-report conflict resolution five-style paradigm
with current relevance, and an updated appeal (see D’Silva & Whyte, 1998; Elsayed-
Ekhouly & Buda, 1996; Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Gudykunst et al., 1996; Lee, 1990;
Lee & Rogan, 1991; Oetzel, 1998; Pearson & Stephan, 1998; Smith & Haar, 1990;
Ting-Toomey et al., 2000; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991).
The concept of individualism and collectivism provides one means of distinguishing
broad differences in cultural values (Hofstede, 1980). While many theories have
branched off of this concept, such a distinction continues to be the basis of
discussions concerning how styles of conflict resolution may vary across cultures
(Elsayed-Ekhouly & Buda, 1996; Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991, 2000).
According to Ting-Toomey (1988), members of individualistic cultures prefer direct
and assertive methods when resolving conflict. Typically, when comparing
communication styles inter-country, such countries as the United States, Canada,
Germany, Australia, and England are considered individualistic (Elsayed-Ekhouly &
Buda, 1996; Hofstede, 1980, 1983; Trubisky et al., 1991). Individualistic cultures,
characterized as more concerned with self than others, are hypothesized to prefer the
conflict styles of problem-solving, compromising and forcing. Such styles involve
strong verbal communication, less emphasis on internal aspects of communication,
and less concern with the needs of others (Hofstede, 1983; Rahim, 1992; Rahim &
Blum, 1994).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
170 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
On the other hand, in collectivistic cultures such as China, Japan, Korea, the
Middle East, and Mexico, the needs of one’s group are considered more important
than oneself (Hofstede, 1980, 1983), and conflict communication will reflect this.
Styles high in relationship preservation, such as smoothing and compromising, are
thus hypothesized to be preferred over forcing (Elsayed-Ekhouly & Buda, 1996;
Rahim, 1992; Rahim & Blum, 1994). Withdrawing may also be employed in an effort
to ‘‘save face,’’ rather than embarrass others (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Several research
studies corroborate these hypotheses. For example, Kagan, Knight, and Martinez-
Romero (1982) found that subjects from Mexico (collectivistic) reported using
withdrawing and smoothing more than European American (individualistic)
subjects, who preferred more active, confrontational strategies such as forcing and
problem-solving (see also Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Soto-Fulp, 1996). Pearson and
Stephan (1998) found Brazilians (collectivistic) to be more likely to report the use of
smoothing and withdrawing with members of their in-group, while United States
subjects reported treating out- and in-groups the same. Other studies of conflict
resolution instruments utilizing the five-style paradigm have yielded differing results.
For example, Lagao (1996) found no significant differences in reported conflict styles
between European Americans (individualistic) and Filipinos (collectivistic).
Research results validate the postulation that ethnic minorities within the United
States may not use the same conflict resolution styles as European Americans
(Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992; Pearson & Stephan, 1998; Ting-
Toomey, 1986). African Americans have been hypothesized as individualistic in
conflict style; however, regardless of job level status, an African American male may
never feel comfortable using certain styles of conflict, such as forcing, due to fear of
being negatively stereotyped (Firebaugh, & Davis, 1988; Haslam et al., 1998). Ting-
Toomey (1986) conducted research comparing conflict resolution style choices of
African American and European American subjects, finding African American
males reported less use of forcing and problem-solving conflict strategies than
European American males. Interestingly, African American females were more likely
to choose the forcing conflict style than African American males or European
Americans of either gender. Algert (1998), however, studied conflict style preferences
with European Americans, African Americans, and Latin Americans, and found no
significant differences among all three. Dena (1994) found significant differences
between European Americans and Latin Americans, but the results were counterintuitive—
the European Americans preferred the styles of smoothing and withdrawing.
In Kim and Kitani’s (1998) research, a comparison of European American
and Asian American students bears out individualistic versus collectivistic theory in
that Asian American (collectivistic) students preferred smoothing and withdrawing;
however, contrary to theory, they also preferred problem-solving.
Comparisons with the United States and Middle Eastern countries, the latter of
which are considered collectivistic, have yielded notable differences in conflict
resolution styles as well. Elsayed-Ekhouly and Buda (1996) compared conflict styles
between United States and Arab Middle Eastern [sic] executives, finding United
States executives’ conflict style preferences to be forcing, in keeping with predictions,
but also smoothing, and compromising. The Arab Middle Eastern executives
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 171
preferred withdrawing, considered typical of collectivistic cultures, but also problemsolving.
Similarly, Kozan (1990) found that Turkish/Jordanian managers and
United States managers all chose problem-solving as their primary style, but the
former ‘‘prefer[red] obliging [smoothing] the least and in this regard differ[red]
significantly from the US managers’’ (p. 179; see also Agee & Kabasakal, 1993). The
contradictory results of such studies indicate the need for a meta-analysis to more
thoroughly understand true cultural differences as measured by instruments within
the conflict resolution five-style paradigm.
1.4. Gender
Socially appropriate behavior differs for females and males in many countries
around the world; thus, it is probable to assume that females and males would prefer
to resolve conflicts with different conflict style choices (Shockley-Zalabak, 1981). In
the United States, historically, males have been socialized to communicate in direct,
confrontational ways, assuming the dominant power position; females have been
socialized to take care of others, and play a more receptive role (Gilligan, 1977;
Stockard & Lach, 1989; Zammuto, London, & Rowland, 1979). Kolb (1993) states:
Existing research and our own experience suggest that the voices of women are
often hushed in formal negotiation. Conflict and competition are important in
formal negotiation, and therefore, it may not be a comfortable place for many
women. (p. 139)
Given this difference, styles such as forcing (high in production, low in
relationships) or problem-solving (high in production and relationships) have been
postulated as popular choices for males on conflict resolution self-report instruments
(Mills & Chusmir, 1988). Females, for whom relationships may be of greater
importance, and for whom aggressive behavior is less condoned (Ting-Toomey,
1986), would seem more likely to prefer such styles as smoothing (high in
relationships, low in production), withdrawing (low in production and relationships),
and compromising (medium in production and relationships). As Ting-
Toomey (1986) states, ‘‘[M]ales typically engage in more direct, ‘up-front’ strategies.
yFemales typically engage in either indirect, ‘smoothing’ communication strategies
to diffuse the conflict topic, or engage in avoidance or withdrawal strategies’’ (p. 79).
In the first two decades after the inception of conflict resolution self-report
instruments, conflict studies primarily used a respondent base of males. Renwick
(1977) was one of the first researchers to examine differences in conflict resolution
styles between male and female management personnel in the United States. While
Renwick argued from a feminist point of view that females ought to be no less apt to
choose aggressive styles than males, her results indicated males tended to rate the
forcing style higher than females. Mills and Chusmir (1988), studying managers in
the United States, found similar results:‘‘[N] ot surprisingly, men were slightly more
likely to compete [force] at work’’ (p. 307). Nelson and Lubin (1991) determined that
females were significantly higher on smoothing, when asking United States
politicians about their conflict styles. Content (1986) found female principals in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
172 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
the United States reported higher use of the compromising mode than male
principals. Cardona (1995) found females from a Midwestern university population
in the United States to report more use of withdrawing than males. Rahim (1983)
created norming data with one of his instruments (ROCI-II), using a population of
1219 United States executives. Interestingly, his data indicated males rated
smoothing higher, while females preferred problem-solving, withdrawing and
compromising (however, only 50 female subjects were included). Zammuto et al.
(1979) reported supervisors in United States companies who were asked to rate their
subordinates’ use of conflict resolution styles rated males as more frequently using
compromising; females were rated as predominantly using forcing. Muir’s (1991)
research, in which middle managers in the United States were studied, was intended
to corroborate Rahim’s general findings. However, she was unable to duplicate his
results—no significant differences were discovered. Likewise, no significant
differences were found between genders by Shockley-Zalabak (1981), in studying
managers at Colorado companies; or in Sternberg and Soriano’s (1984), and
Sternberg and Dobson’s (1987) research with United States college students. Such
contradictory results indicate a meta-analysis of all data on male and female conflict
style choices may reveal true differences, if they exist. Correlating gender with culture
may also prove important, given perceived gender differences within various
ethnicities indigenous to the United States, as well as in comparison with other
countries.
1.5. Organizational role
Given the history of Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid, and its origins
in analyzing company conflict, the plethora of studies exploring conflict resolution
style differences within the organizational hierarchy (superiors, peers, and
subordinates), is unsurprising (see Conrad, 1985; Harris, 1988; Mills & Chusmir,
1988; Musser, 1982; Oetzel, 1998, 1999; Rahim, 1986, 1992; Rahim & Buntzman,
1989; Renwick, 1975, 1977). Theoretically, given power differences, superiors are
generally predicted to prefer problem-solving, compromising and forcing, peers are
predicted to be less aggressive with superiors than each other, but more so with
subordinates, and subordinates are predicted to tend toward the least aggressive
styles—withdrawing and smoothing (Mills & Chusmir, 1988; Musser, 1982; Oetzel,
1999; Rahim & Buntzman, 1989; Renwick, 1975, 1977). That is, given inherent
power differences, a subordinate may not be willing to engage in any conflict style
that challenges a superior, while a superior may have more leeway to use aggressive
techniques, particularly in order to meet company production goals (Rahim &
Buntzman, 1989). Peers are considered most likely to use compromising with each
other, given the equality of power.
Research would appear to bear organizational role predictions out to a certain
extent (Mills & Chusmir, 1988; Musser, 1982; Oetzel, 1999; Phillips & Cheston, 1979;
Rahim & Buntzman, 1989). For example, Phillips and Cheston (1979) studied
business managers, and found that superiors were more likely to choose the use of
forcing with subordinates than vice versa, while compromising was the style most
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 173
likely to be chosen for use with one’s peers. Several researchers have found
subordinates to prefer the styles of withdrawing or smoothing when in conflict with
superiors, perhaps due to the risk of negative consequences such as job loss (Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Phillips & Cheston, 1979; Rahim, 1986).
However, Renwick’s (1975) research with United States business companies found
the top three styles for superiors to be problem-solving, compromising and
smoothing, contrary to theorized predictions. Renwick also measured subordinates’
conflict style rankings, finding the top three styles to be compromising, problemsolving,
and forcing. Similarly, Rahim (1983) found subordinates most likely to
prefer the use of problem-solving and forcing. Paulson’s (1986) research with middle
managers from the United States, on the other hand, found no significant
differences. Such conflicting results again indicate the need for a thorough overall
evaluation of the findings via meta-analytic techniques.
2. Method
2.1. Location of studies
In order to make a thorough assessment of studies, both published and
unpublished, utilizing instrumental derivatives of Blake and Mouton’s (1964)
Managerial Grid, electronic searches were conducted of Psychological Abstracts, the
Social Sciences Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, The International Journal of
Conflict Management and The Journal of Conflict Resolution. Search words used in
the indices included:‘‘Man agerial Grid’’; ‘‘Blake and Mouton’’; ‘‘conflict resolution
styles’’; ‘‘conflict resolution instruments’’; ‘‘mediation’’; ‘‘conflict styles’’; and the
names of all authors with instruments utilizing five styles of resolving conflict. This
initial search yielded over 3000 articles, but less than 200 could be considered
empirical studies. A thorough examination was conducted of this grouping. In
addition, ‘‘snowball sampling’’ was used:refer ences at the end of these articles were
perused to obtain additional studies (Oetzel, 1998). The search included all studies
published and non-published through 2002. Findings support the supposition that
dual concerns theory’s five-style paradigm is one of the most frequently used
theoretical paradigms in organizational conflict resolution research.
2.2. Exclusion criteria
For the purposes of this meta-analytic investigation, a research study was included
if (1) the study used dual concerns theory, the Managerial Grid, or the five conflict
resolution styles explicitly or implicitly via related instruments, (2) the conflict
resolution styles were self-reported, and (3) the study provided enough statistical
information for the calculation of an effect size, the standardized difference in scores
for two different groups, calculable from the means and standard deviations of
scores and group sizes.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
174 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
One hundred and one studies were considered for selection in the meta-analysis.
When a study’s results were presented in two publications, as determined by sample
sizes and means and standard deviations, the peer-reviewed study was included and
the other excluded (three studies). When a particular study did not provide means
and standard deviations or the equivalent, an attempt was made to contact the
author(s). Thus, studies were excluded if the authors could not be found (nine
studies), the authors did not respond to inquiries (13 studies), or the authors
responded and no longer had the data available (five studies). Studies were excluded
if they measured conflict resolution styles for a single group and did not provide the
gender or cultural composition of the group with a t-test (22 studies). Studies were
excluded if they were incompatible because they were not self-reported scores on a
Likert-type scale for conflict resolution styles that could translate to the Blake and
Mouton (1964) Managerial Grid (six studies). The factor analysis of one exemplar of
this type of excluded study, Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational Communication
Conflict Instrument (OCCI), resulted in three, rather than five styles. When
a study did not report its non-significant findings or there were unexplained
inconsistencies in sample sizes, it was excluded (seven studies). Of the excluded
studies, 45 were from journals, 17 were unpublished dissertations or theses, and three
were from book chapters.
2.3. Final data set
Thirty-six studies constituted the final meta-analysis data set. Of the included
studies, 21 were from journals, 13 were unpublished dissertations, one was a book
chapter, and one was a conference paper. These 36 studies included a total of 123
groups, for which there were two through five means and standard deviations. Five
studies reported results for pairs, providing six comparisons of either two or five
effect sizes.
2.4. Coding of studies
For each study, the conflict resolution instrument, the mean and standard
deviation for each group measured (or alternately the t-value, F-value or correlation
coefficient associated with two groups), the number of individuals in each tested
group and the number of each gender in each tested group were captured. Codings
were made for several additional elements as well, to facilitate testing possible
interactions, including type of participant (student, worker, manager, teacher,
principal) and the type of individual with whom the participant was in conflict.
The first 30 studies were coded on coding sheets by three individuals. The first five
studies were coded in common by all three coders for interrater reliability. The
means and standard deviations reported by the three coders were the same for the
five studies. The remaining studies were entered directly into either a Microsofts
Excel spreadsheet or the Microsofts Access database. Once all studies were entered
into the Microsofts Access database, the means and standard deviations were
checked against the published studies.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 175
2.5. Statistical moderators
The type of instrument used to measure conflict resolution style and the year the
study data were collected were possible moderators; however there were too few
studies to conduct a moderator analysis of them.
2.6. Computational procedures
A Microsofts Access database was used to enter the data for each study. The
following data were collected:the instrument used to measure the conflict resolution
style; the gender; and the context of the culture. In order to calculate d-scores, the
means and standard deviations for each group were used or calculated, or, when
necessary, derived from the t-values, F-values, or correlations associated with
compared groups.
After all studies were entered, groups were matched to form pairs for analysis.
Three major variables were selected for further analysis:culture, gender, and
organizational role. The decisions concerning placement of groups into individualistic
and collectivistic categories were based on prior research (Elsayed-Ekhouly &
Buda, 1996; Hofstede, 1980, 1983; Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991, 2000). For
each study in which culture was included, all possible individualistic/collectivistic
culture combinations were generated, such that collectivistic cultures were the
referent group. If the cultural classification of a group was not identified, the group
was excluded. For each study in which gender was included, all possible female-male
combinations were generated, such that males were the referent group. If a group
included both genders, that group was excluded. For each study in which
organizational role was included, all possible peer-subordinate, subordinate-superior
and superior-peer combinations were generated, such that subordinates, superiors,
and peers were the referent groups for the three comparisons, respectively.
2.7. Correction of artifacts
Sampling error was calculated using Eq. (1) from Hedges and Olkin (1985):
s2
e ¼
N1 þ N2
N1N2
þ
d2
2ðN1 þ N2Þ
. (1)
The formula adjusts for differences in the sample sizes used to generate each
d-value.
Because the measurement instruments were imperfect and the differences in true
scores were sought, it was necessary to correct for unreliability. Reliability
information was available for eight of the twelve instruments in the usable studies.
Test–retest reliabilities were available for seven of the twelve instruments, accounting
for 92% of all effect sizes. Where the test–retest reliability was not available (as for
Danes, Leichtentritt, Metz, & Huddleston-Casas, 2000; Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Kim
& Kitani, 1998; Miyazaki, Moroi, & Stephan, in press; Renwick, 1977; Zammuto et
al., 1979), an estimate of the test–retest reliability was calculated based upon the item
ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
counts for the unknown instrument and the reliabilities per item for each known
instrument (see Table 1). The mean effect sizes were corrected for unreliability using
the following Eq. (2) from Hunter and Schmidt (1990):
d ¼
dk
P N1þN2
2 � �ðaÞ
, (2)
where a is the correction for the effect size and k is the number of comparisons.
3. Results
3.1. Interpreting meta-analytic results
The point of a meta-analysis is to cumulate the results of several studies in order to
determine true effects in the population. Applying meta-analytic results is not as
straightforward, however, as generalizing to the entire population because more
variables than the effect size need to be considered. Thus, additional values are
reported to aid in the interpretation of meta-analytic results. For each of the conflict
resolution styles and comparison types (culture, gender, organizational role), we
reported the mean of the observed effect size (d) and the true effect size (d) corrected
for sampling error and unreliability in the measuring instruments. The effect size is a
measure of the standardized difference between the two groups. The variability of
the effect sizes was reported in the observed and corrected standard deviations of the
effect sizes (sd and sd, respectively). The number of groups used to calculate the mean
effect size (k) is to a meta-analysis what N is to typical empirical studies; even though
the underlying studies may have hundreds of participants, a meta-analysis is based
upon k. Just as an empirical researcher is hesitant to make generalizations based
upon four participants, so meta-analysts are hesitant to generalize results when ko5.
We listed the actual number of studies from which the effect sizes were calculated (k0)
because some studies supplied more than one comparison. The N from each
empirical study is summed into PN.
Three less familiar types of measures determine degree of confidence regarding
meta-analytic results. First, when the lower and upper bounds of the credibility
interval (CV) include zero, the operation of a moderator is likely. In other words,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Test–retest reliability of conflict resolution instruments
Methodology Smoothing Withdrawing Compromising Problem-solving Forcing
CMS 0.53 0.61 0.41 0.54 0.66
MODE 0.62 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.61
ROCI-II 0.81 0.79 0.60 0.83 0.76
van de Vliert 0.66 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.81
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 177
within the particular population being studied, there are likely multiple subgroups
with distinct effect sizes. As a hypothetical example, within culture, males and
females might provide distinct subgroups. The lower and upper bounds of the second
measure, the confidence interval (CI), suggest the variability of the true effect size.
When the confidence interval includes zero, the direction of the true effect cannot be
determined. For instance, with a confidence interval including zero, there would be
no difference regarding conflict style preferences between males and females. The size
or amplitude of the third measure, the Failsafe N (Nf), is the theorized number of
contradictory effect sizes that would be required to change the results’ interpretation
from true to negligible differences between the comparison groups. In this study, a
difference of 0.20 was chosen. The criterion for Failsafe N was set to the current
number of comparisons (Nf ¼ k). Therefore, true differences existed between the
compared groups when (1) the number of compared groups exceeded three, (2) the
effect size exceeded 0.20, (3) the confidence interval did not include zero, and (4) the
Failsafe N exceeded the number of comparisons.
3.2. Culture and gender
Between 14 and 17 comparisons were used to determine differences in conflict
resolution style by culture. All conflict resolution styles except smoothing exhibited
generalizable results. Withdrawing (d ¼ �1:66) and compromising (d ¼ �1:19)
showed the largest effects, signifying that persons in collectivistic cultures tend to
choose withdrawing and compromising more than persons in individualistic cultures.
In addition, both withdrawing and compromising had credibility intervals suggesting
multiple populations, e.g., gender, were represented. Problem-solving followed the
same pattern as withdrawing and compromising, with collectivistic cultures
reporting more use than individualistic cultures. Forcing showed the opposite effect,
with persons in individualistic cultures exhibiting more forcing than those in
collectivistic cultures (d ¼ 1:13), as shown in Table 2.
Based upon a probable moderator operating in the individualistic to collectivistic
comparisons for withdrawing and compromising, the studies were divided in which
gender of respondents was reported. For gender within individualistic cultures, the
corrected effect sizes were between �0.42 and 0.73, with only one style,
compromising, showing generalizable results. In individualistic cultures, females
endorsed the use of the compromising style more frequently than males (d ¼ 0:73).
Only two studies reported conflict resolution style scores by gender for collectivistic
cultures, thus a meta-analysis was premature. Preliminary results suggested that
withdrawing was self-ascribed more by males than females in collectivistic cultures
(d ¼ �0:39) (Fig. 2).
Gender provided the greatest number of comparisons for the meta-analysis.
Between 27 and 29 comparisons were used to determine differences in conflict
resolution style by gender. As shown in Table 2, the five corrected effect sizes ranged
from �0.31 to 0.64. Smoothing and withdrawing showed essentially no effect for
gender. Compromising was reported more for females than for males (d ¼ 0:64).
Although the corrected sampling error accounted for all of the observed variance, as
ARTICLE IN PRESS
178 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
the Failsafe N indicates, it would take very few studies with contrary results to
possibly negate the findings for problem-solving (two studies) and forcing (16
studies).
3.3. Gender and organizational level
Several studies examined conflict style preferences among peers, subordinates, and
superiors in the workplace. Three sets of comparisons were utilized:pe ers to
subordinates, subordinates to superiors, and superiors to peers. Table 3 and Fig. 4
show the results of this meta-analysis. In general terms, in comparing conflict
resolution styles with one’s peers to one’s subordinates, withdrawing (d ¼ 0:93) and
compromising (d ¼ 1:32) were used more with peers than subordinates, and forcing
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Effect sizes for conflict resolution styles for gender and culture
Conflict resolution style d d K k0 i PN sd sd CV CI Nf
Culture (individualistic– collectivistic)
Smoothing �0.12 �0.26 14 10 7 4648 0.69 0.00 {�0.26, �0.26} {�0.26, �0.26} 4
Withdrawing �0.73 �1.66 17 11 7 5694 0.88 0.74 {�4.50, 1.18} {�1.78, �1.54} 124
Compromising �0.46 �1.19 15 9 5 5349 0.78 0.58 {�3.41, 1.02} {�1.29, �1.10} 75
Problem-solving �0.27 �0.61 17 11 7 5694 0.68 0.00 {�0.61, �0.61} {�0.61, �0.61} 35
Forcing 0.49 1.13 17 11 7 5694 0.56 0.00 {1.13, 1.13} {1.13, 1.13} 79
Gender within individualistic culture (female– male)
Smoothing 0.02 0.05 12 9 5 2626 0.14 0.00 {0.05, 0.05} {0.05, 0.05} 9
Withdrawing 0.08 0.18 11 9 5 2407 0.13 0.00 {0.18, 0.18} {0.18, 0.18} 1
Compromising 0.28 0.73 11 9 5 2407 0.23 0.00 {0.73, 0.73} {0.73, 0.73} 29
Problem-solving 0.02 0.05 11 9 5 2407 0.20 0.00 {0.05, 0.05} {0.05, 0.05} 8
Forcing �0.18 �0.42 11 9 5 2407 0.11 0.00 {�0.42, �0.42} {�0.42, �0.42} 12
Gender within collectivistic culture (female– male)
Smoothing 0.10 0.22 4 2 2 410 0.05 0.00 {0.22, 0.22} {0.22, 0.22} 0
Withdrawing �0.17 �0.39 3 2 2 227 0.05 0.00 {�0.39, �0.39} {�0.39, �0.39} 3
Compromising 0.17 0.42 3 2 2 227 0.16 0.00 {0.42, 0.42} {0.42, 0.42} 3
Problem-solving 0.41 0.92 3 2 2 227 0.14 0.00 {0.92, 0.92} {0.92, 0.92} 11
Forcing �0.17 �0.39 3 2 2 227 0.07 0.00 {�0.39, �0.39} {�0.39, �0.39} 3
Gender (female– male)
Smoothing 0.01 0.03 28 19 7 5050 0.21 0.00 {0.03, 0.03} {0.03, 0.03} 23
Withdrawing �0.01 �0.03 27 18 6 4638 0.22 0.00 {�0.03, �0.03} {�0.03, �0.03} 23
Compromising 0.25 0.64 29 19 6 4799 0.23 0.00 {0.64, 0.64} {0.64, 0.64} 63
Problem-solving 0.09 0.21 29 20 7 5203 0.29 0.00 {0.21, 0.21} {0.21, 0.21} 2
Forcing �0.13 �0.31 29 19 7 4869 0.22 0.00 {�0.31, �0.31} {�0.31, �0.31} 16
Note:Bolded figures are generalizable. d ¼ mean effect size; d ¼ corrected effect size; k ¼ number of effect
sizes in mean effect size; k0 ¼ the number of studies from which the k effect sizes were derived; i ¼ number
of Conflict Resolution instruments;PN ¼ sum of participants in each group; sd ¼ SD of mean effect size;
sd ¼ SD of corrected effect size; CV ¼ range of Credibility Interval; CI ¼ range of Confidence Interval;
Nf ¼ Failsafe N.
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 179
was reported as being used less with peers than with subordinates (d ¼ �1:17). The
wide credibility intervals for compromising and forcing suggested the presence of a
moderator, such as gender or culture; however, there were insufficient studies to
complete this analysis.
With regard to subordinates versus superiors, all of the styles appear to be
generalizable. Smoothing (d ¼ �1:51) and withdrawing (d ¼ �1:89) were endorsed
more with superiors than with subordinates. Compromising (d ¼ 1:51), problemsolving
(d ¼ 1:08), and forcing (d ¼ 0:81) are endorsed more for use with
subordinates than with superiors. All styles, with the exception of problem-solving,
have credibility intervals spanning zero, suggesting that a moderator was operating.
The styles used by respondents in conflict with superiors as compared to their
peers reflected strong results, as shown in Table 3. Only forcing failed to reach the
Failsafe N benchmark. Smoothing (d ¼ 2:84) and withdrawing (d ¼ 0:77) were
reported to be used more with superiors than with peers. The relationship was in the
opposite direction for compromising and problem-solving, as these styles were used
less with superiors than with peers (ds ¼ �3:04 and �0.68, respectively).
Compromising was the only conflict resolution style whose credibility interval
suggested a moderator was present. As Fig. 3 demonstrates, respondents preferred
smoothing and withdrawing styles when in conflict with superiors as opposed to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00
Smoothing
Withdrawing
Compromising
Problem Solving
Forcing
Corrected Effect Size
Culture (Individualistic - Collectivistic) Gender within Individualistic Culture (Female - Male)
Gender within Collectivistic Culture (Female - Male) Gender (Female - Male)
True Difference Criterion
.20 > d > -.20
Fig. 2. Corrected Effect sizes of conflict resolution styles for culture, gender within culture, and gender.
For each style, positive effect sizes indicate the first named group chose the style more frequently; negative
effect sizes indicate the second named group chose the style more frequently.
180 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
peers or subordinates. On the other hand, compromising was the style chosen for
conflict with peers, when compared with superiors or subordinates.
As noted previously, there were insufficient data to complete a meta-analysis
dividing organizational information by gender or culture. There were adequate
data to compare gender within referent organizational level for many of the
conflict resolution styles. In other words, the meta-analysis answered the question:
How do females and males differ regarding conflict resolution style with peers,
superiors, and subordinates? It is important, however, to use caution when
discussing the results because so few groups were used in the comparisons. Only
one of the comparisons met all four criteria for true differences—forcing with
superiors had an effect size of �0.70, meaning that males chose this style more than
females.
Putting aside the criteria for the number of comparisons, the same pattern
emerged for forcing with peers (d ¼ �1:31) and subordinates (d ¼ �0:90) vis-a` -vis
males. In addition, females chose smoothing more with subordinates (d ¼ 0:71)
than males. Finally, females were also more likely to report the use of problemsolving
with peers (d ¼ 0:63) and subordinates (d ¼ 1:37) than males (see Table 4
and Fig. 4).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Effect sizes for conflict resolution styles comparing organizational levels
Conflict resolution style d d k k0 i PN sd sd CV CI Nf
Organizational level (peers– subordinates)
Smoothing �0.09 �0.20 15 4 1 1560 1.19 1.12 {�4.49, 4.09} {�0.39, 0.00} 0
Withdrawing 0.42 0.93 15 4 1 1560 0.50 0.00 {0.93, 0.93} {0.93, 0.93} 55
Compromising 0.51 1.32 11 3 1 948 1.81 2.35 {�7.71, 10.36} {0.88, 1.77} 62
Problem-solving 0.15 0.34 15 4 1 1560 0.84 0.00 {0.34, 0.34} {0.34, 0.34} 10
Forcing �0.51 �1.17 15 4 1 1560 1.28 1.08 {�5.31, 2.98} {�1.35, �0.98} 72
Organizational level (subordinates– superiors)
Smoothing �0.68 �1.51 17 5 2 1978 1.77 2.18 {�9.89, 6.87} {�1.86, �1.16} 111
Withdrawing �0.84 �1.89 17 5 2 1978 1.37 1.11 {�6.16, 2.38} {�2.07, �1.71} 143
Compromising 0.59 1.51 4 3 2 682 0.90 1.30 {�3.50, 6.51} {1.10, 1.92} 26
Problem-solving 0.49 1.08 17 5 2 1978 0.66 0.00 {1.08, 1.08} {1.08, 1.08} 75
Forcing 0.35 0.81 17 5 2 1978 1.36 1.31 {�4.23, 5.84} {0.60, 1.02} 52
Organizational level (superiors– peers)
Smoothing 1.28 2.84 20 5 1 2412 0.81 0.00 {2.84, 2.84} {2.84, 2.84} 264
Withdrawing 0.34 0.77 20 5 1 2412 0.62 0.00 {0.77, 0.77} {0.77, 0.77} 57
Compromising �1.18 �3.04 7 3 1 1116 2.46 3.51 {�16.52, 10.44} {�3.87, �2.21} 99
Problem-solving �0.31 �0.68 20 5 1 2412 0.67 0.00 {�0.68, �0.68} {�0.68, �0.68} 48
Forcing �0.12 �0.27 20 5 1 2412 0.61 0.00 {�0.27, �0.27} {�0.27, �0.27} 7
Note:Bolded figures are generalizable. d ¼ mean effect size; d ¼ corrected effect size; k ¼ number of effect
sizes in mean effect size; k0 ¼ the number of studies from which the k effect sizes were derived; i ¼ number
of Conflict Resolution instruments;PN ¼ sum of participants in each group; sd ¼ SD of mean effect size;
sd ¼ SD of corrected effect size; CV ¼ range of Credibility Interval; CI ¼ range of Confidence Interval;
Nf ¼ Failsafe N.
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 181
4. Discussion
Although this meta-analysis was conducted with a relatively small number of
groups for comparisons from even fewer studies, it produced results that clarify and
quantify the comparative use of conflict resolution styles by culture, gender within
culture, gender, comparative organizational level, and gender within organizational
level.
Results for culture indicate individuals within a collectivistic orientation prefer
withdrawing and compromising more than those with an individualistic cultural
orientation. Second, the latter choose forcing more than the former. In all three
findings, the group means differ by more than one standard deviation, strong
evidence of true differences. The results regarding withdrawing corroborate prior
research and discussion on the subject, given that individuals within collectivistic
cultures prefer strategies that ‘‘save face’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Similarly,
compromising, in which one gives up some of one’s needs, can be understood
within the collectivistic paradigm, given that the needs of the group supercede one’s
own (Hofstede, 1980, 1983). The finding that forcing, high on concern for
production, and low on concern for others, is endorsed by individuals from
individualistic cultures by over one standard deviation, also backs up the theorized
emphasis on ‘‘me’’ as opposed to ‘‘we’’ in such cultures (Hofstede, 1980, 1983). A
final interesting result within culture concerns problem-solving. Contrary to original
theory (Blake & Mouton, 1964), collectivistic cultures prefer problem-solving more
than individualistic cultures by over half a standard deviation. This is ironic,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Peers
Peers
Peers
Peers
Peers
Subordinates
Subordinates
Subordinates
Subordinates
Subordinates
Superiors
Superiors
0.00 Superiors Superiors Superiors
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Smoothing Withdrawing Compromising Problem-Solving Forcing
Conflict Resolution Style
Relative Effect Size (Corrected)
Fig. 3. Corrected effect sizes of conflict resolution styles for comparison of organizational level.
182 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
considering Blake and Mouton’s contention that ‘‘[m]anagers from South America
and Japan identify themselves as the least likely to possess the 9, 9 [problem-solving]
style’’ (Dena, 1994, p. 33). In fact, collectivistic cultures are more concerned with
creating a ‘‘win-win’’ situation.
Regarding gender comparisons, the results indicate differences in the self-reported
use of compromising and forcing; however, compromising is the only style for which
differences in gender exceed the study criteria for true differences. Females report
using compromising more than males by a sizable margin (over half a standard
deviation). Such results support societal notions in the United States concerning
gender differences, where females may be more likely than males to give up part of
their own needs in order to compromise (Kolb, 1993; Ting-Toomey, 1986). That
there are no differences between females and males in reported use of smoothing and
withdrawing, however, is contrary to popular notions that females are more willing
to smooth over conflict or withdraw from it altogether.
When gender and culture are analyzed together, results indicate, as in the results
for gender alone, that compromising is used more frequently by females in both
individualistic and collectivistic cultures, although the difference is greater for
individualistic females (three-quarters of a standard deviation). In addition, both
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Effect sizes for conflict resolution styles for gender within organizational level (females–males)
Conflict resolution style d d k k0 i PN sd sd CV CI Nf
Peers
Smoothing 0.14 0.31 6 3 1 656 0.14 0.00 {0.31, 0.31} {0.31, 0.31} 3
Withdrawing 0.04 0.08 6 3 1 656 0.26 0.00 {0.08, 0.08} {0.08, 0.08} 4
Compromising 0.15 0.38 1 1 1 137 0.00 0.00 {0.38, 0.38} {0.38, 0.38} 1
Problem-Solving 0.29 0.63 2 2 1 290 0.35 0.37 {�0.80, 2.06} {0.45, 0.81} 4
Forcing �0.57 �1.31 2 2 1 290 0.02 0.00 {�1.31, �1.31} {�1.31, �1.31} 11
Subordinates
Smoothing 0.32 0.71 2 2 1 249 0.16 0.00 {0.71, 0.71} {0.71, 0.71} 5
Withdrawing �0.23 �0.52 2 2 1 249 0.00 0.00 {�0.52, �0.52} {�0.52, �0.52} 3
Compromising �0.34 �0.87 1 1 1 96 0.00 0.00 {�0.87, �0.87} {�0.87, �0.87} 3
Problem-Solving 0.63 1.37 2 2 1 249 0.03 0.00 {1.37, 1.37} {1.37, 1.37} 12
Forcing �0.39 �0.90 2 2 1 249 0.17 0.00 {�0.90, �0.90} {�0.90, �0.90} 7
Superiors
Smoothing 0.10 0.22 7 4 1 1437 0.27 0.00 {0.22, 0.22} {0.22, 0.22} 1
Withdrawing �0.05 �0.11 7 4 1 1437 0.22 0.00 {�0.11, �0.11} {�0.11, �0.11} 3
Compromising 0.07 0.18 6 3 1 1284 0.17 0.00 {0.18, 0.18} {0.18, 0.18} 1
Problem-Solving 0.17 0.37 7 4 1 1437 0.34 0.00 {0.37, 0.37} {0.37, 0.37} 6
Forcing �0.31 �0.70 6 3 1 1095 0.24 0.00 {�0.70, �0.70} {�0.70, �0.70} 15
Note:Bolded figures are generalizable. d ¼ mean effect size; d ¼ corrected effect size; k ¼ number of effect
sizes in mean effect size; k0 ¼ the number of studies from which the k effect sizes were derived; i ¼ number
of Conflict resolution instruments; PN ¼ sum of participants in each group; sd ¼ SD of mean effect size;
sd ¼ SD of corrected effect size; CV ¼ range of credibility interval; CI ¼ range of confidence interval;
Nf ¼ failsafe N.
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 183
individualistic and collectivistic males choose forcing more than their female
counterparts (nearly half a standard deviation for each). This reinforces the idea that
males are more likely to use aggressive tactics in order to achieve their own ends
(Kolb, 1993; Ting-Toomey, 1986). Interestingly, collectivistic males report preferring
withdrawing and collectivistic females report preferring problem-solving. However,
the results regarding collectivistic cultures are very tentative.
With regard to organizational role, patterns of difference are stronger than for
culture or gender. Employees endorse the use of smoothing as a conflict resolution
style more with superiors than with peers by nearly three standard deviations. Such
results corroborate current literature:The more power or status another worker has
in a job situation as compared to the respondent, the more likely the respondent’s
own goals will be sacrificed in order to preserve the relationship when conflict arises
(Kahn et al., 1964; Phillips & Cheston, 1979; Rahim, 1986). Compromising shows an
equally strong effect, in that the style is preferred more with one’s peers than one’s
superiors (three standard deviations). This backs up organizational theory
concerning the sharing of power, ‘‘whereby both parties give up something to make
a mutually acceptable decision’’ (Rahim & Buntzman, 1989, p. 197). That is, peers
would seem more likely to compromise and ‘‘share’’ with each other, than with
superiors, who have greater power.
Employees report using the withdrawing conflict style more with peers than with
subordinates by almost a standard deviation. This also supports literature and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Smoothing
Withdrawing
Compromising
Problem Solving
Forcing
Corrected Effect Size
Gender Peers (Females - Males) Gender Subordinates (Females - Males)
Gender Superiors (Females - Males) Gender (Female - Male)
True Difference Criterion
.20 > d > -.20
2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50
Fig. 4. Corrected effect sizes of conflict resolution styles for gender by organizational role of referent.
184 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
research; simply, workers in conflict with peers may be more concerned with negative
outcomes than when in conflict with subordinates, given that the latter have less
power and status (Kahn et al., 1964; Phillips & Cheston, 1979; Rahim, 1986; Rahim
& Buntzman, 1989). Similarly, employees report preferring the forcing conflict style
more with subordinates than with peers by over a standard deviation. As past
research indicates, the lower the status of the other worker versus oneself, the less
inclined an employee will be to use passive styles, and the greater the inclination to
endorse the use of aggressive conflict styles (Rahim & Buntzman, 1989). Somewhat
weaker results indicate forcing is used less with peers than with subordinates. This is
again in keeping with organizational modes of behavior. As Lee (1990) states,
employees in conflict ‘‘tend to use different influence tactics, depending upon the
relative status of the agent and target. More often assertive [forcing, problemsolving]
tacticsywere used to influence subordinates rather than peers or superiors’’
(p. 331).
Regarding gender across organizational role, the pattern of females choosing
problem-solving more than males and males choosing forcing more than females is
maintained regardless of organizational role. Kolb (1993) notes:‘‘[T]here are
significant differences in the ways men and women approach negotiation and the
styles they use in searching for an agreement [in the workplace]’’ (pp. 138–139; see
also Soto-Fulp, 1996).
4.1. Limitations
First and foremost, a significant number of studies could not be included for
analysis due to insufficient information. In fact, two-thirds of the studies using selfreport
conflict resolution style instruments were not viable. The five-style paradigm,
upon which the ‘‘old guard’’ of conflict resolution theory and subsequent
instruments are based, achieved its zenith during the 1970s and early 1980s.
Historically, this era preceded the advent of stringent statistical standards in
measurement and publication of study results. Thus, many of the studies did not
publish the means and/or standard deviations for style preferences, which are the
necessary statistics for a meta-analytic calculation. Second, there are some
indications that the five-style paradigm has become outdated, as several interesting,
rigorous studies from the more recent past have employed newer evolutions of
conflict resolution self-report instrumentation (Knapp, Putnam, & Davis, 1988;
Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Sternberg & Soriano, 1984; Thomas, 1988; Trubisky et
al., 1991; van de Vliert & Hordijk, 1989; van de Vliert et al., 1995). As van de Vliert
et al. (1995) indicate, it is entirely possible that the five styles are too parsimonious to
realistically represent the continuum of conflict resolution strategies. In addition, van
de Vliert et al. argue that conflict styles may operate together, rather than discretely:
‘‘Rather than a single behavior [resulting from one conflict style], handling conflict is
a conglomeration of behavioral components’’ (p. 271; see also Elangovan, 1998;
Musser, 1982; Volkema & Bergmann, 1995). Researchers have also critiqued the
validity and distinctness of each style. Van de Vliert and Hordijk (1989) found that
‘‘the social-psychological consequences of compromising and problem-solving tend
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 185
to be the same, however different the behaviors may be’’ (p. 681). That is, there may
not be a solid justification for viewing compromising as a strategy equally
differentiated from the other four styles.
Social desirability is important to mention when discussing self-report instruments,
due to the invalid assumption ‘‘that cognition is [necessarily] associated with
choice of [conflict] style’’ (Sorenson et al., 1999, p. 26; see also Cosier & Ruble, 1981;
Drake, Zammuto, & Parasuraman, 1981; Elangovan, 1998; Kabanoff, 1987; Musser,
1982; Putnam & Wilson, 1982; Thomas & Kilmann, 1975). That is, what a
respondent reports for preference regarding conflict resolution style may be far
different from the style utilized in real-life situations. With regard to another selfreport
instrument, the Argumentativeness Scale, Nicotera (1996) states,
[S]ince the act of argument is sanctioned more for men than women, women
answering the scale may be reluctant to rate themselves as argumentative. Such
reluctance may or may not reflect their actual level of trait argumentativeness.
(p. 25)
Similarly, females filling out a self-report conflict resolution instrument may be
less inclined than males to report using conflict styles considered ‘‘unfeminine,’’ such
as forcing. Instead, females may self-report preferring styles that emphasize a
relational perspective, such as smoothing and compromising (Ting-Toomey, 1986).
However, their actual behavior may not mirror such societal mores.
Some researchers in conflict resolution eschew the implicit assumption that
conflict can and/or should be resolved, arguing that in many cases, conflict
‘‘resolution’’ may only be a temporary solution, leaving deeper issues unresolved.
Thus the idea of full agreement may not be realistic and in fact, in many
circumstances, conflict resolution engagement may not produce long term successful
results or generate cooperative work relationships (Rubin, 1993).
4.2. Conclusion
In conclusion, within conflict resolution research, the five-style paradigm as
created by Blake and Mouton (1964) and developed into self-report instruments by a
number of researchers, appears to yield significant, if limited, results regarding
differences among cultures, between genders, and among organizational roles, when
tested via meta-analytic techniques.
In a very practical sense, understanding cultural background and how this affects
preferences regarding conflict resolution style may create greater understanding and
less conflict in the workplace, as well as in communities at large. For example, a
client of the first author who supervises nursing staff in a large, diverse hospital
setting received several complaints from other staff members about a Chinese-born
nurse. This nurse would react with disapproval and withdrawal when emergency
situations necessitated the use of conflictual barked orders. A deeper grasp of
cultural differences enabled the supervisor and all of the health workers to better
understand each other’s behavior; this in turn allowed for greater respect and a more
cohesive work environment.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
186 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
Future research may wish to concern itself with the creation of a statistically
rigorous conflict resolution instrument that will measure conflict behavior, rather
than simply self-reported conflict style preferences. In addition, research contrasting
respondents’ own interpretation of conflict style versus perception by others of their
conflict style is important. Often, an individual’s perception of their style of resolving
conflict may be far different from the receiver’s perception. For example, consider
the following conversation within a peer mediator focus group:
Peer Mediator 1:‘‘[We] were accused of not understanding her [an African
American woman in mediation]. The other person was white, the rest of us were
white, how could we understand her, [yet] part of how I saw her, my perception,
was that she was a very powerful woman. And she was—even and including her
body language. And she intimidated this white woman.’’
Peer Mediator 2:‘‘We gave her feedback that [her behavior] was aggressive and
she told us, ‘No, in fact, I’m passive.’’’
Peer Mediator 1:‘‘In her culture she is [passive], but in our culture she is a very
powerful woman.’’ (Holt, 2000, p. 64)
Research specifically concerning conflict resolution styles may thus wish to include
an emphasis on perceptions and actual behavior, as a means of updating the five
style paradigm. Such research is vital, given its potential for creating greater
understanding among cultures, between genders and within organizations.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Deniz Ones of the University of Minnesota
Department of Psychology for her guidance on analyzing data and David Saez for
help with initial coding of the studies.
Appendix. Citation, number of groups contributed, and comparisons made for studies
included in meta-analysis
Nbr of groups Comparisons Citation
15 a,b,c,d Algert, N.E. (1998). Peer conflict:Simi larities
and differences among three adolescent
groups. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University, 1998/1999). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 59(12), 4356A.
2 a Camp, O.H. (1984). The conflict
management styles and selected
characteristics of directors in a national
network of volunteer staffed crisis
intervention centers. (Doctoral dissertation,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 187
University of Pittsburgh, 1984/1985).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(11),
3405A.
3 a,c,i,l Campbell, G.M. (1993). Secondary school
principals and conflict-handling styles.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of
Houston, 1993/1994). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 54(8), 2813A.
9 e,f,g Cardona, F. (1995). A comparative study of
the styles of handling interpersonal conflict
among students, faculty, and administrators.
(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1995/1996). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 57(2), 521A.
2 a Chanin, M.N., & Schneer, J.A. (1984). A
study of the relationship between Jungian
personality dimensions and conflict-handling
behavior. Human Relations, 37(10), 863–879.
2 a Content, S.H. (1986). Conflict management
styles of principals in elementary and
secondary schools. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1986).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(6),
1942A.
4 a Corcoran, K.O. (1997). Deficits in conflict
style, attachments, social self-efficacy, and
perspective taking of parenting skills
training. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Oregon, 1997/1998). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58(9), 5188B.
2 a Danes, S.M., Leichtentritt, R.D., Metz,
M.E., & Huddleston-Casas, C. (2000).
Effects of conflict styles and conflict severity
on quality of life of men and women in family
business. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 21(3), 259–286.
4 a,b,c,d,j,m Dena, Z.M. (1994). A comparison of conflict
management styles of Hispanic and Anglo
administrators in elementary and secondary
schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
La Verne, Pennsylvania, 1994/1995).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3),
773A.
2 b Elsayed-Ekhouly, S.M., & Buda, R. (1996).
Organizational conflict:A comparative
ARTICLE IN PRESS
188 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
analysis of conflict styles across cultures. The
International Journal of Conflict
Management, 7(1), 71–80.
2 a,j,m Fenlon, M.J. (1997). The impact of
management practices, climate, and conflict
resolution styles on individual adjustment
and expressions of motivation. (Doctoral
dissertation, Columbia University, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(4),
2164B.
8 a,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m Frederickson, J.D. (1997). Assessing the
validity of the Rahim Organizational
Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II). (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1997/
1998). Dissertation Abstracts International,
58(7), 3961B.
2 b Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O.,
Pearson, V.M.D.S., & Villareal, L. (1997).
Preferred styles of conflict resolution:Mexico
and the United States. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 661–677.
2 a Johnson, A.K. (1997). Conflict-handling
intentions and the MBTI:A construct
validity study. Journal of Psychological Type,
43, 29–39.
2 a,c Kearns, W.P. (1980). The development of a
marriage enrichment program on conflict
management for recently married couples.
(Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1980). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 41(3), 1087A.
2 b Kim, M.-S., & Kitani, K. (1998). Conflict
management styles of Asian- and Caucasian-
Americans in romantic relationships in
Hawaii. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 8(1), 51–68.
3 e,f,g Lee, C.-W. (1990). Relative status of
employees and styles of handling
interpersonal conflict:An experimental study
with Korean managers . The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 1(4),
327–340.
1 a Mills, J. & Chusmir, L.H. (1988). Managerial
conflict resolution styles:Wo rk and home
differences. In E. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 189
family: Theory, research, and applications
(special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 3(4), 303–316.
2 b Miyazaki, C., Moroi, E., & Stephan, W.G.
(in press). Preferences for styles of conflict
resolution:A comparison of Japan and the
US Manuscript submitted for publication.
2 a,c Nelson, D.T. & Lubin, B. (1991).
Performance of state legislators on the
Conflict MODE Instrument. Organization
Development Journal, 9(1), 79–80.
2 b Oetzel, J. (1998). The effects of self-construals
and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles.
Communication Reports 11(2), 133–144.
2 b Ozcelik, S. (2001, February). The relationship
between culture and the conflict resolution
Styles: A Survey Method at ICAR (Institute
for Conflict Analysis and Resolution), Paper
presented at the Old Dominion University
Graduate Research Conference ‘‘Global
Changes in the 21st Century,’’ Norfolk, VA.
Available: http://www.geocities.com/
tatarkirim/culture1.html
4 g,h,j,k,m Persico, J. (1986). Levels of conflict, worker
performance, individual conflict styles, type
of work, organizational characteristics and
the external environment of the organization.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1986/1987). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 47(12), 4371A.
2 a,c Pritchard, B. (1985). The relationship
between managerial experience and conflict
management styles of men and of women in
community college administration. (Doctoral
dissertation, Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, 1985/1986). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46(9), 2510A.
2 a,c Rahim, M.A. (1992). Table C.4, Collegiate
reference group norms of five styles of
handling interpersonal conflict with
superiors, subordinates, and peers. In:M.A.
Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict in
organizations. 2nd ed. (p. 191)
6 a,c Renwick, P.A. (1977). The effects of sex
differences on the perception and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
190 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
management of superior-subordinate
conflict:An exploratory study.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 19, 403–415.
2 a Shockley-Zalabak, P.S. (1981). The effects of
sex differences on the preference for
utilization of conflict styles of managers in a
work setting:An exploratory study. Public
Personnel Management Journal, 10, 289–295.
4 a Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D.D.
(1984). Sex differences in conflict style
preferences. Communication Research
Reports, 1(1), 28–32.
4 e,f,g Sorenson, R.L., Morse, E.A., & Savage, G.T.
(1999). A test of the motivations underlying
choice of conflict strategies in the dualconcern
model. The International Journal of
Conflict Management, 10(1), 25–44.
4 h,k Soto-Fulp, S. (1996). Conflict resolution
styles:Eth nic and gender differences.
(Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State
University, 1996/1997). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 57(7), 4787B.
5 b Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Tribusky, P.,
Yang, Z., Kim, H.S., Lin, S.-L., & Nishida,
T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance and
styles of handling interpersonal conflict:A
study in five cultures. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4), 27
4 b Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K.K., Shapiro,
R.B., Garcia, W., Wright, T.J., & Oetzel,
J.G. (2000). Ethnic/cultural identity salience
and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups.
International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24, 47–81.
2 b Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S. & Lin, S.-L.
(1991). Influence of individualismcollectivism
and self-monitoring on conflict
styles. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 15, 65–84
4 f Utley, M.E., Richardson, D.R., &
Pilkington, C.J. (1989). Personality and
interpersonal conflict management.
Personality and Individual Differences, 10(3),
287–293.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 191
2 f van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., &
Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict
with a subordinate or a superior:
Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2),
271–281.
3 a,c Zammuto, R. F., London, M. & Rowland,
K. M. (1979). Effects of sex on commitment
and conflict resolution. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(2), 250–252.
Note. Comparisons:a: Gender (Female–Male); b:Culture (Individualistic–Collectivistic); c:Gender within
Individualistic Culture (Female–Male); d:Gender within Collectivistic Culture (Female–Male); e:
Organizational Level (Peers–Subordinates); f:Organizat ional Level (Subordinates–Superiors); g:
Organizational Level (Superiors–Peers); h:Gender Peers; i:Gender Subordinates; j:Gender Superiors;
k:Gender Peers Individualistic; l:Gender Subordinates Individualistic; m:Gender Superiors
Individualistic.
References
Agee, M. L., & Kabasakal, H. E. (1993). Exploring conflict resolution styles:A study of Turkish and
American university business students. International Journal of Social Economics, 20, 3–14.
Algert, N. E. (1998). Peer conflict:Similar ities and differences among three adolescent groups. (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1998/1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(12), 4356A.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX:Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1970). The fifth achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6,
413–426.
Blumberg, H. H. (1998). Peace psychology after the cold war:A selective review. Genetic, Social, and
General Psychology Monographs, 124(1), 5–37.
Cardona, F. (1995). A comparative study of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict among students,
faculty, and administrators. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1995/1996). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 57(2), 521A.
Chua, E., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution style in low- and high-context cultures.
Communication Research Reports, 4(1), 32–37.
Conrad, C. (1985). Strategic organizational communication: Cultures, situations, and adaptation. New
York:CBS College Publishing.
Content, S. H. (1986). Conflict management styles of principals in elementary and secondary schools.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47(6), 1942A.
Cosier, R. A., & Ruble, T. L. (1981). Research on conflict-handling behavior:An experimental approach.
Academy of Management Journal, 24, 816–831.
Danes, S. M., Leichtentritt, R. D., Metz, M. E., & Huddleston-Casas, C. (2000). Effects of conflict styles
and conflict severity on quality of life of men and women in family business. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 21(3), 259–286.
Dena, Z. M. (1994). A comparison of conflict management styles of Hispanic and Anglo administrators in
elementary and secondary schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, Pennsylvania, 1994/
1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3), 773A.
Drake, B. H., Zammuto, R. F., & Parasuraman, S. (1981). Five conflict styles? Factor structure and
social desirability issues underlying the Conflict MODE Instrument. Paper presented at the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
192 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
13th Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, Boston, MS, November,
pp. 406–408.
Dubinskas, F. A. (1992). Culture and conflict:The cultural roots of discord. In D. M. Kolb, & J. M.
Bartunke (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes (pp. 187–208).
London:Sage.
Duryea, M. L. (1992). Conflict and culture: A literature review and bibliography. Victoria, BC, Canada:
University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution.
D’Silva, M. U., & Whyte, L. O. (1998). Cultural differences in conflict styles:Vietnam ese refugees and
established residents. Communication Abstracts, 21(3).
Elangovan, A. R. (1998). Managerial intervention in organizational disputes:Testing a prescriptive model
of strategy selection. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 301–335.
Elsayed-Ekhouly, S. M., & Buda, R. (1996). Organizational conflict:A comparative analysis of conflict
styles across cultures. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(1), 71–81.
Firebaugh, G., & Davis, K. (1988). Trends in anti-black prejudice, 1972–1984:Region and cohort effects.
American Journal of Sociology, 94, 251–272.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. New York:Penguin.
Gabrielidis, C. A., Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Pearson, V. M. D. S., & Villareal, L. (1997). Preferred
styles of conflict resolution:Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6),
661–677.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice:Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational
Review, 47(4), 481–517.
Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1996). Divine signs: Connecting spirit to community. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA:Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S. (1996). The
influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication
styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
Hall, J. (1969). Conflict management survey: A survey of one’s characteristic reaction to and handling conflict
between himself and others. Canoe, TX:Teleometrics International.
Harris, W. H. (1988). Self-actualization levels and conflict management styles of middle and junior high
school principals in Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, 1988/
1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(10), 2874A.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Hayes, B. K. (1992). Context-dependent
variation in social stereotyping:I. The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and
frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(1), 3–20.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., Eggins, R. A., Nolan, M., & Tweedie, J. (1998).
When do stereotypes become really consensual? Investigating the group-based dynamics of the
consensualization process. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 755–776.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions:A research-based theory of cultural differences
among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, XIII(1–2), 46–74.
Holt, J. L. (2000). Impact of gender, organizational role, and multicultural status on conflict resolution
style preference. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2000/2001). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61(8), 4457B.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Kabanoff, B. (1987). Predictive validity of the MODE Conflict Instrument. Journal of Applied Psychology,
72(1), 160–163.
Kagan, S., Knight, G., & Martinez-Romero, S. (1982). Culture and the development of conflict resolution
style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 43–59.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 193
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, P. R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:Wiley.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1978). Four perspectives on conflict management:An attributional
framework for organizing descriptive and normative theory. Academy of Management Review, 3,
59–68.
Kim, M.-S., & Kitani, K. (1998). Conflict management styles of Asian- and Caucasian-Americans in
romantic relationships in Hawaii. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 8(1), 51–68.
Kliman, J., & Llerena-Quinn, R. (2002). Dehumanizing and rehumanizing responses to September 11
(Abstract). Journal of Systemic Therapies, 21(3), 8–18.
Knapp, M. L., Putnam, L. L., & Davis, L. J. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflict in organizations:
Where do we go from here? Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 414–429.
Kolb, D. M. (1993). Her place at the table:Gender and negotiation. In L. Hall (Ed.), Negotiation:
Strategies for mutual gain (pp. 138–150). London:Sage.
Kozan, M. K. (1990). Relationships of hierarchy and topics of conflict management styles:A comparative
study. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Theory and research in conflict management (pp. 174–187). New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Lagao, M. L. (1996). Cultural differences of managers’ conflict resolution styles. (Master’s thesis,
California State University, Long Beach, California, 1996/1997), Masters Abstracts International,
35(3), 903.
Lee, C. W. (1990). Relative status of employees and styles of handling interpersonal conflict:An
experimental study with Korean managers. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(4),
327–340.
Lee, H. O., & Rogan, R. G. (1991). A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict management
behaviors. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 181–199.
Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party
intervention:A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 209–252.
Mills, J., & Chusmir, L. H. (1988). Managerial conflict resolution styles:Work and home differences. In:
Goldsmith, E. (Ed.), Work and family: Theory, research, and applications (special issue). Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 3(4), 303–316.
Miyazaki, C., Moroi, E., & Stephan, W.G. (in press). Preferences for styles of conflict resolution:A
comparison of Japan and the US Manuscript submitted for publication.
Muir, B. O. (1991). Managerial conflict resolution as a function of role status and gender. (Master’s thesis,
California State University, Long Beach, California, 1991/1992). Masters Abstracts International 30(1), 149.
Musser, S. J. (1982). A model for predicting the choice of conflict management strategies by subordinates
in high-stakes conflicts. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 257–269.
Nelson, D. T., & Lubin, B. (1991). Performance of state legislators on the conflict MODE instrument.
Organization Development Journal, 9(1), 79–80.
Nicotera, A. M. (1996). An assessment of the argumentativeness scale for social desirability bias.
Communication Reports, 9(1), 23–35.
Oetzel, J. G. (1998). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles.
Communication Reports, 11(2), 133–144.
Oetzel, J. G. (1999). The influence of situational features on perceived conflict styles and self-construals in
work groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 679–695.
Paulson, A. D. (1986). Organizational space as a determinant of conflict resolution modes used by middle
managers. (Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986). Masters Abstracts
International, 24(4), 423.
Pearson, V. M., & Stephan, W. G. (1998). Preferences for styles of negotiation:A comparison of Brazil
and the US. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 67–83.
Phillips, E., & Cheston, R. (1979). Conflict resolution:What works? California Management Review, 21(4),
76–83.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts:Reliabil ity
and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon, & N. E. Doran (Eds.), Communication yearbook,
vol. 6 (pp. 629–652). Beverly Hills:Sage.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
194 J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196
Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories: Professional manual. New York:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1986). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 126(1), 79–86.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT:Praeger.
Rahim, M. A., & Blum, A. A. (Eds.). (1994). Global perspectives on organizational conflict. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with
subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 123(2),
195–210.
Renwick, P. A. (1975). Perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 444–456.
Renwick, P. A. (1977). The effects of sex differences on the perception and management of superiorsubordinate
conflict:An exploratory study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19,
403–415.
Rubin, J. Z. (1993). Some wise and mistaken assumptions about conflict and negotiation. In J. W. Breslin,
& J. Z. Runbin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice, (2nd ed.) (pp. 3–12). Cambridge, MA:Program
on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Schuman, E. (2002). Combatting terrorism:An immodest proposal (Abstract). Psychology & Education:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39(2), 43–45.
Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1981). The effects of sex differences on the preference for utilization of conflict
styles of managers in a work setting:An exploratory study. Public Personnel Management Journal, 10,
289–295.
Smith, L., & Haar, J. (1990). An assessment of conflict-handling and personality characteristics of project
management personnel in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
5(3), 61–76.
Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A., & Savage, G. T. (1999). A test of the motivations underlying choice of
conflict strategies in the dual-concern model. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1),
25–44.
Soto-Fulp, S. (1996). Conflict resolution styles:Ethnic and gender differences. (Doctoral dissertation, New
Mexico State University, 1996/1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(7), 4787B.
Sternberg, R. J., & Dobson, D. M. (1987). Resolving interpersonal conflicts:An analysis of stylistic
consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 794–812.
Sternberg, R. J., & Soriano, L. J. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(1), 115–126.
Stockard, J., & Lach, D. (1989). Conflict resolution:Sex and gender roles. In J. B. Gittler (Ed.), The annual
review of conflict knowledge and conflict resolution, Vol. 1 (pp. 69–99). New York:Garland Publishing
Inc.
Sweeney, B., & Carruthers, W. L. (1996). Conflict resolution:History, philosophy, theory, and educational
applications. School Counselor, 43(5), 326–344.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago:Rand-Mc Nally.
Thomas, K. W. (1988). The conflict-handling MODES:Toward more precise theory. Management
Communication Quarterly, 1, 430–437.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY:
Xicom, Inc.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in organizational research. An
alternative explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 741–752.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Conflict communication styles in black and white subjective cultures.
In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic Communication: Current research (pp. 75–88). Beverly Hills,
CA:Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles:A face negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Holt, C.J. DeVore / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 165–196 195
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 conflict:A study in five cultures. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4), 275–296.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000).
Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S.-L. (1991). The influence of individualism-collectivism and selfmonitoring
on conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65–84.
van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a
superior:Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271–281.
van de Vliert, E., & Hordijk, J. W. (1989). A theoretical position of compromising among other styles of
conflict management. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 681–690.
Volkema, R. J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in
interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 5–15.
Yinger, J. M. (1994). Ethnicity: Source of strength? Source of conflict?. Albany:State University of New
York Press.
Zammuto, R. F., London, M., & Rowland, K. M. (1979). Effects of sex on commitment and conflict
resolution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 227–231.
Further reading
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management
styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336–355.
Brubaker, D., & Verdonk, T. (1999). Conflict transformation training in another culture:A case study
from Angola. Mediation Quarterly, 16(3), 303–314.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park,
CA:Sage.
Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1992). Social comparative context and illusory
correlation:Testing between in-group bias and social identity models of stereotype formation.
Australian Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 97–102.
Richardson, J. (1995). Avoidance as an active mode of conflict resolution. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 1(4), 19–25.
Ting-