CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

1. CONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE 21
identity is likely to be a fundamental need that traverses national cultures
(thus producing affective or value-based conflicts). Finally, differences in
viewpoints are perhaps inevitable regardless of the national culture conflict,
suggesting that our third source of conflict—cognitive conflict—is also
a universal antecedent of conflict.
At the same time, although these are likely broad universal sources of
conflict, cross-cultural variation exists in the specific triggers of conflicts
within each category. For example, what is perceived to be a threat to
one’s values can clearly vary across national cultures. Shteynberg, Gelfand,
and Kim (2005) argued that conflict processes are “sparked” or
initiated when core cultural focal concerns are violated, and thus, different
events elicit conflict in different cultural contexts. Consistent with this,
they found that violations to rights were perceived to be much more
harmful and incited anger to a much greater degree in the United States,
whereas violations to duties and face caused much more harm and
incited anger to a greater degree in Korea. Individuals can project their
values onto identical situations and perceive different “cultural slights”
that are salient in their own cultural contexts. For example, Gelfand and
colleagues (2001) found that identical conflict situations were perceived
differently in the United States and Japan: Americans perceived conflicts
to be more about winning and violations to individual rights, whereas
Japanese perceived the same conflicts to be about compromise and violations
to duties and obligations.
The processes that lead to value conflicts can also vary across cultures.
For example, self-serving biases and self-enhancement—processes we
have argued are facilitating factors in value conflicts—have been found to
be more pronounced in individualistic cultures as compared with collectivistic
cultures (Gelfand et al., 2002; see also Heine, Lehman, Markus, &
Kitayama, 1999). Other self-processes—such as self-esteem and self-concept
clarity, previously discussed—may also play a more powerful role in
the production of conflict in individualistic cultures. On the other hand,
given that individuals in collectivistic cultures focus on group identity,
group-level constructs—group enhancement, group esteem, group concept
clarity—will play a more powerful role in the elicitation of conflict
in collectivistic cultures. This is consistent with research that has shown
that samples from collectivistic cultures are much more competitive in
intergroup or outgroup negotiations (Chen & Li, 2005; Probst, Carnevale,
& Triandis, 1999; Triandis et al., 2001).
We would also argue that although resource and cognitive-based conflicts
are likely universal, there is likely cultural variation in the nature
and extent of these antecedents. Given that individuals are socialized to
develop, express, and affirm their own ideas and seek to maximize their
own outcomes in individualistic cultures, resource and cognitive-based
conflicts might be more rampant at the individual level in these contexts.
By contrast, in collectivistic cultures, individuals are socialized to subject
their own interests and opinions to the group (and in high-power distance