Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Conflict resolution preferences of Chinese and Caucasian-American students
|uhm_ma_3146_r.pdf||Version for non-UH users. Copying/Printing is not permitted||3.65 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|uhm_ma_3146_uh.pdf||Version for UH users||3.65 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Title:||Conflict resolution preferences of Chinese and Caucasian-American students|
|Keywords:||Conflict management -- Hawaii|
Whites -- Hawaii -- Psychology
Chinese -- Hawaii -- Psychology
|Abstract:||This study examined cultural differences in conflict resolution preferences among Chinese and Caucasian-Americans inHawaii. Based on Ting-Toomey's face negotiation theory. Hofstede's cultural variability of individualism-collectivism, Hall's high-context vs. low-context, as well as Rahim and Bonoma's conflict management model, the hypotheses predicted thatAmericans will have higher preferences for dominating, integrating and compromising styles whereas Chinese will have higher preferences for obliging and avoiding styles. The sample consisted of 113 undergraduate and graduate students from Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI) was used as measurement based on the five conflict resolution styles: integrating, dominating, obliging, avoiding, and compromising. ANOVA was used to analyze the data. The results indicated that the Conflict resolution style preferred by Caucasian-American students is dominating and the one preferred by Chinese students is avoiding. This study also found that Chinese might also have a greater tendency to use both integrating and compromising styles than do most Caucasian-American students. Finally, no significant gender by ethnicity differences was found with regard to conflict resolution preferences. Implications of the findings and future research are discussed.|
|Description:||Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004.|
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-63).
v, 63 leaves, bound 29 cm
|Rights:||All UHM dissertations and theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission from the copyright owner.|
|Appears in Collections:||M.A. - Communication|
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.