Conflict
Dani Pumfery
Introduction
Upon preparing to study abroad in another country, students may be informed of the basics of the culture they are preparing to be immersed in. They may learn what kinds of traditions are practiced there. They may learn other things such as how the locals dress, the layout of the home, and what kind of food is offered there. However, elements of a culture run much more deeply than food, clothing, and rituals. Many students have experienced culture shock because communication, for some reason, may not have gotten across as intended, or has failed altogether. This failure to communicate effectively can lead to interpersonal cultural conflict.
Conflicts occur on an everyday basis between people from different cultures. As a college student, you may experience or have experienced studying abroad and immersing yourself in a culture vastly different from your own. Future careers in fields such as business and politics may involve communicating with people of different cultures.
Intercultural conflict is most frequently attributed to intercultural misunderstanding and miscommunication (Ting-Toomey, 323). Interacting with people of another culture without being aware of the factors that can lead to misunderstanding may make you prone to culture shock and communication breakdown, as well as feelings of embarrassment and alienation.
With that being said, how can we lessen the likelihood of intercultural conflict? Focusing on both American and Saudi Arabia’s culture, I will devote this section to highlight certain cultural factors that may lead to intercultural conflict, in the hopes that it will in turn aid you in resolving intercultural conflict or even avoiding it entirely.
Reasons for Conflict
Individualism Collectivism, and Power Distance
The United States favors the individual over the group. In contrast to the individualistic culture of the United States, Saudi Arabia is a collectivistic, high-context culture. Collectivism refers to the power and interests of the group, while individualist cultures are the opposite—the interests of the individual prevail. Saudi Arabia is part of the majority of the world’s cultures that value the interests of the group rather than the interests of the individual (Hofstede, 289). According to the Individualism Index Values (IDV) out of 50 countries and 3 regions, the United States topped the chart, while Saudi Arabia fell into the 26/27 rank (Hofstede, 291).
In a school setting, speaking up in class is not emphasized. A student who grew up in a collectivist environment and views him/herself as part of a group will hesitate to speak up in class unless a teacher addresses him or her directly. The classroom setting is teacher-centered with little two-way communication. Saudi Arabian culture has a high power distance, meaning that there is a hierarchy of power, and people of different levels of authority are viewed as unequal.
Due to the power distance being at a high level, confrontation between people of different authority levels is indirect. Dana Al-Dakhil, a student at Effat University in Saudi Arabia, gives an example of a time where a conflict happened between her and an instructor. According to Al-Dakhil, if there is a conflict between an instructor and a student, there will be someone of a higher authority who will intervene and advise the student. There is always a strict boundary between students and teachers. However, if the conflict is between two students, they spend some time apart to “cool down” before addressing the issue again. “We will talk about it and try to fix it with respect and love because at the end we are all brothers and sisters,” she says. The less distance between people of different levels of authority, the more direct the confrontation.
Context
What is cultural context, exactly? Context is background information on something in particular, and cultural context can take the form of not just one’s words, but nonverbal cues or social roles and positions. Because of the emphasis that Saudi Arabian culture puts on the group rather than the individual, the context for exchanging information is much lower than that of the United States.
According a Dana Al-Dakhil, people in low-context cultures such as Saudi Arabia are less governed by reason than by intuition or feelings. Words are not as important as context, which in the cultural sense might include the speaker’s tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, posture, and even the person’s family history and status. In the workplace and in business interactions, developing trust is an important first step when making transactions.
Al-Dakhil also gives an example of a comparison between low-context and high-context cultures. She tells of a Japanese manager explaining his culture’s communication style to an American. The manager said, “We are a homogeneous people and don’t have to speak as much as you do here. When we say one word, we understand ten, but here you have to say ten to understand one.” High-context communication tends to be more indirect and more formal. “Flowery” language, humility, and elaborate apologies are typical.
Tamara Al-Harkan adds to that, saying;
[Saudi Arabia is a] high context culture where we depend on body language, tone of voice, eye movement and facial excretions rather than the actual words when having a conversation. For example, if I’m planning a gathering and want to conform it with my friend... They will say that they will come on time but I know from the tone of their voice and facial excretions that they will be late (reading between the lines).
Also, in formal conversation, verbal directness can be viewed as rude and pushy. Therefore, one will rarely hear “no” or “yes” directly. In an instance when a Saudi says “yes,” they may mean “possibly.” Instead of saying an outright “no,” people may give ambiguous answers such as “we’ll think about it,” or “we’ll look in to this.” Sometimes, people will remain silent to communicate a negative message. In short, it is best to use an indirect approach with conversation in Saudi Arabia (Katz, 2010).
People in low-context cultures, such as the United States, take words at face value and pay little to no attention to implicit messages. Because the United States greatly values individualism, self-assertion is also valued. From the point of view of someone from a collectivist culture, utilizing the concept of self-assertion promotes individual differences, which would in turn promote conflict and disruption to group harmony.
Ethnocentrism
What happens when these differences don’t sit right with someone, and they don’t hesitate to express their feelings toward these differences? Sarah Melbari provides an example of ethnocentrism with a first-hand account. First of all, Melbari is of Indian descent, and there are some people in Saudi Arabia who do not look upon Indians and people of Indian heritage in a favorable light. According to Melbari, they do not respect successful Indian people who live there, feeling that people of Indian descent do not deserve their success. A close friend of Melbari’s came up to her one day and started insulting her because of her Indian heritage, telling her that she isn’t worthy of what she has. This is an example of ethnocentrism, the belief that other ethnicities are inferior to one’s own.
According to Ting-Toomey, “Our ethnocentric lenses push us to judge the behavior of another culture evaluatively and negatively. Ethnocentrism creates biased attributions and expectations in intercultural conflict” (331). In communicating cross-culturally, it is crucial that we look past cultural biases. This can be accomplished by demonstrating sensitivity to other cultures, as well as doing research that may prove biases wrong.
Communication
Emotional display
Different cultures have norms pertaining to emotional display in different places. Saudis usually speak quietly and gently. While at a restaurant, people keep conversations at a quiet level. Loudness can be regarded as impolite. In formal settings, Saudis smile occasionally, and show positive emotions as long as they do so in a controlled fashion (Katz, 2010).
Also, physical proximity and use of body language is important. When speaking, people stand close to each other and maintain eye contact. Even though gestures are usually more restricted than other Arab countries, physical contact is common. Men typically greet each other by hugging and kissing. Men from the United States who are unaware of this common greeting may be uncomfortable. Backing away can be a sign of disrespect. To avoid conflict, it is important to familiarize yourself with formal greetings in Saudi Arabian culture.
Approach or Avoidance?
Between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the decision of whether to approach conflict head on or avoid it varies greatly. The United States favors direct approach and confrontation with whomever there is a conflict with. Avoidance and the failure to “stand up for one’s self” are viewed as a sign of weakness and submission. According to Ting-Toomey, in individualistic cultures such as the United States, conflict is resolved effectively if all parties are open and honest with one another, and if a satisfactory solution is met (Ting-Toomey, 327). In other words, conflict resolution in the United States relies on problem-solving and puts little emphasis on context.
Hamamura describes the approach motivation as follows.
“…the goal of securing positive information about the self. People who are self-enhancing work towards securing a positive self-view and largely ignore, or discount, information that would threaten this conception. According to this view, approach motivations are integral in Westerners’ attempts to build upon the self-resource that they tend to prioritize: namely, self-esteem (9).
In a collectivist cultures such as Saudi Arabia, the avoidance motivation is more likely to be used. Hamamura contrasts the approach motivation with the avoidance motivation, addressing the issue of face. “There are few opportunities for people to increase their face because the amount of face that people can claim is determined by their position in the social hierarchy” (9).
In summary, face is something that is difficult to gain and maintain, and easy to lose (Hamamura, 9). Therefore, in collectivist cultures, people may use the avoidance motivation in regards to addressing conflict.
Time
Different cultures have different perceptions of time, and how to utilize it. There are two categories of time, monochronic (M-time) and polychronic (P-time). In monochronic cultures, time is perceived like money: it is something that can be saved, spent, wasted, and lost. Monochronic time is very linear and concentrates on one thing at a time.
American culture fall under the M-time category. Americans are given deadlines and are expected to follow them strictly for almost every single activity. At school, students are expected to show up to class on time and can be penalized for being late. At the very least, they miss valuable class time. At work, employees and employers are expected to show up on time. In short, showing up late to something is viewed as disrespectful to whomever set the time, and lateness makes people look irresponsible (Ting-Toomey, 328).
Contrary to what many Westerners believe, the perception of time in Saudi Arabia is actually changing. According to Sarah Melbari, a student at Effat University, both she and her family follow a more monochronic schedule. She believes that people should honor the time by starting things and accepting things at a certain time. She also tells about the instructors she has at school, and how the teaching styles of her instructors vary in terms of perception of time. In addition to her Saudi professors, she also has an instructor from South Africa and one from Egypt. Her Saudi instructors followed a more polychronic time system, accepting late assignments and lateness to class. For those who aren’t knowledgeable of cultural time systems and how Saudi Arabia views time, this could be problematic and become a potential catalyst for conflict.
Attribution of Meaning
Now that we’ve discussed when and how conflict should be resolved, we will examine the who—or rather, the people themselves involved in the conflict.
Liu and Zhao define attribution theory in terms of conflict resolution.
The purpose of the attribution theory is to explain how people make causal explanations and how they answer questions beginning with "why?" Attribution theory describes the processes of explaining events and the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations. The theory deals with the information they use in making causal inferences, and with what they do with this information to answer causal questions (Liu and Zhao, 187).
We all have a need and a drive to explain the world around us (Liu and Zhao, 187). In doing so, we resort to internal and external attribution. For instance, you may find yourself formally greeting people in Saudi Arabia. They may stand very close to you, and may even give you a hug and a kiss. Say this catches you off guard and you back from them, and they are offended. Who are you going to attribute the conflict to? If you use internal attribution, you may think to yourself, “I should have done more research. I should have spoken up in class and asked questions about what to expect in Saudi Arabia, especially during the part where they talked about greetings. I’m so inconsiderate and ignorant! I’m such a horrible person!”
On the other hand, you may use external attribution in handling the conflict. You may blame the locals, and perhaps think things like, “they should have known that I’m American, and that’s unacceptable where I come from. America’s one of the most influential countries in the world, they should at least know that much about our culture! And our professor should have put more emphasis on what to expect!” The list of potential thoughts goes on.
The above examples, I do admit, are a bit of an exaggeration. However, there is nonetheless truth to them. Americans tend to address mistakes under the self-serving bias, or “blaming other people and avoiding personal recrimination” (Liu and Zhao, 187). In practicing the self-serving bias, people “will also make attributions to defend what [they] perceive as attacks and threat” (Liu and Zhao, 187). In dealing with conflict, we must be aware of what factors contributed to the conflict, and be careful not to address them in a biased manner.
Conclusion
In dealing with conflict, we must have cultural competence. According to Ting-Toomey, the puzzle of competence in intercultural communication has three primary pieces, which are knowledge, motivation, and skill.
“Knowledge,” in this case, refers to in-depth understanding of cultural phenomena and the roles they play in intercultural conflict. One must be aware of the assumptions of interdependent (collectivistic) cultures, and independent (individualistic) cultures. Knowledge of the norms, context levels, and perceptions of time across cultures can help you in managing any group-based differences. Being aware of your own biases can help you work through conflict while minimizing the risk of it escalating.
“Motivation” is defined as “our cognitive and affective predispositions with regard to communicating with people who are different from us” (Ting-Toomey, 333). To have “motivation,” we must have an open mind-set and suspend judgment of behavior that we deem to be unfamiliar or unusual. Ethnocentrism can cloud our judgment; therefore, mindfulness is key.
Finally, it is important to develop different skills, such as interaction skills, trust-building skills, and in some cases, face management skills for intergroup conflicts among those of interdependent cultures.
Competence requires that we know the do’s and don’ts of a culture, as well as the reasons as to why that is. Intercultural conflict is a very complex thing, but understanding the factors that can contribute to intercultural conflict can make a big difference in resolving and even preventing conflict while staying overseas long-term.
References
Katz, L. (2010). “Negotiating International Business – Saudi Arabia.” Negotiating International Business - The Negotiator’s Reference Guide
to 50 Countries Around the World. http://www.globalnegotiationresources.com/cou/SaudiArabia.pdf
Hamamura, T. (2008). “Approach-Avoidance Motivation Across Cultures.”
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/1012/ubc_2008_fall_hamamura_takeshi.pdf?sequence=1
Liu, L., Zhao E. Research into Culture Difference of Attribution Theory. http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/200911/2007qyczhy1z4a2.pdf
Ting-Toomey, S. (2002). Intercultural Conflict Competence. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experience and Contexts (Second ed., pp. 323-335). McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2002). I, We, and They. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experience and Contexts (Second ed., pp. 289-300). McGraw-Hill.
Upon preparing to study abroad in another country, students may be informed of the basics of the culture they are preparing to be immersed in. They may learn what kinds of traditions are practiced there. They may learn other things such as how the locals dress, the layout of the home, and what kind of food is offered there. However, elements of a culture run much more deeply than food, clothing, and rituals. Many students have experienced culture shock because communication, for some reason, may not have gotten across as intended, or has failed altogether. This failure to communicate effectively can lead to interpersonal cultural conflict.
Conflicts occur on an everyday basis between people from different cultures. As a college student, you may experience or have experienced studying abroad and immersing yourself in a culture vastly different from your own. Future careers in fields such as business and politics may involve communicating with people of different cultures.
Intercultural conflict is most frequently attributed to intercultural misunderstanding and miscommunication (Ting-Toomey, 323). Interacting with people of another culture without being aware of the factors that can lead to misunderstanding may make you prone to culture shock and communication breakdown, as well as feelings of embarrassment and alienation.
With that being said, how can we lessen the likelihood of intercultural conflict? Focusing on both American and Saudi Arabia’s culture, I will devote this section to highlight certain cultural factors that may lead to intercultural conflict, in the hopes that it will in turn aid you in resolving intercultural conflict or even avoiding it entirely.
Reasons for Conflict
Individualism Collectivism, and Power Distance
The United States favors the individual over the group. In contrast to the individualistic culture of the United States, Saudi Arabia is a collectivistic, high-context culture. Collectivism refers to the power and interests of the group, while individualist cultures are the opposite—the interests of the individual prevail. Saudi Arabia is part of the majority of the world’s cultures that value the interests of the group rather than the interests of the individual (Hofstede, 289). According to the Individualism Index Values (IDV) out of 50 countries and 3 regions, the United States topped the chart, while Saudi Arabia fell into the 26/27 rank (Hofstede, 291).
In a school setting, speaking up in class is not emphasized. A student who grew up in a collectivist environment and views him/herself as part of a group will hesitate to speak up in class unless a teacher addresses him or her directly. The classroom setting is teacher-centered with little two-way communication. Saudi Arabian culture has a high power distance, meaning that there is a hierarchy of power, and people of different levels of authority are viewed as unequal.
Due to the power distance being at a high level, confrontation between people of different authority levels is indirect. Dana Al-Dakhil, a student at Effat University in Saudi Arabia, gives an example of a time where a conflict happened between her and an instructor. According to Al-Dakhil, if there is a conflict between an instructor and a student, there will be someone of a higher authority who will intervene and advise the student. There is always a strict boundary between students and teachers. However, if the conflict is between two students, they spend some time apart to “cool down” before addressing the issue again. “We will talk about it and try to fix it with respect and love because at the end we are all brothers and sisters,” she says. The less distance between people of different levels of authority, the more direct the confrontation.
Context
What is cultural context, exactly? Context is background information on something in particular, and cultural context can take the form of not just one’s words, but nonverbal cues or social roles and positions. Because of the emphasis that Saudi Arabian culture puts on the group rather than the individual, the context for exchanging information is much lower than that of the United States.
According a Dana Al-Dakhil, people in low-context cultures such as Saudi Arabia are less governed by reason than by intuition or feelings. Words are not as important as context, which in the cultural sense might include the speaker’s tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, posture, and even the person’s family history and status. In the workplace and in business interactions, developing trust is an important first step when making transactions.
Al-Dakhil also gives an example of a comparison between low-context and high-context cultures. She tells of a Japanese manager explaining his culture’s communication style to an American. The manager said, “We are a homogeneous people and don’t have to speak as much as you do here. When we say one word, we understand ten, but here you have to say ten to understand one.” High-context communication tends to be more indirect and more formal. “Flowery” language, humility, and elaborate apologies are typical.
Tamara Al-Harkan adds to that, saying;
[Saudi Arabia is a] high context culture where we depend on body language, tone of voice, eye movement and facial excretions rather than the actual words when having a conversation. For example, if I’m planning a gathering and want to conform it with my friend... They will say that they will come on time but I know from the tone of their voice and facial excretions that they will be late (reading between the lines).
Also, in formal conversation, verbal directness can be viewed as rude and pushy. Therefore, one will rarely hear “no” or “yes” directly. In an instance when a Saudi says “yes,” they may mean “possibly.” Instead of saying an outright “no,” people may give ambiguous answers such as “we’ll think about it,” or “we’ll look in to this.” Sometimes, people will remain silent to communicate a negative message. In short, it is best to use an indirect approach with conversation in Saudi Arabia (Katz, 2010).
People in low-context cultures, such as the United States, take words at face value and pay little to no attention to implicit messages. Because the United States greatly values individualism, self-assertion is also valued. From the point of view of someone from a collectivist culture, utilizing the concept of self-assertion promotes individual differences, which would in turn promote conflict and disruption to group harmony.
Ethnocentrism
What happens when these differences don’t sit right with someone, and they don’t hesitate to express their feelings toward these differences? Sarah Melbari provides an example of ethnocentrism with a first-hand account. First of all, Melbari is of Indian descent, and there are some people in Saudi Arabia who do not look upon Indians and people of Indian heritage in a favorable light. According to Melbari, they do not respect successful Indian people who live there, feeling that people of Indian descent do not deserve their success. A close friend of Melbari’s came up to her one day and started insulting her because of her Indian heritage, telling her that she isn’t worthy of what she has. This is an example of ethnocentrism, the belief that other ethnicities are inferior to one’s own.
According to Ting-Toomey, “Our ethnocentric lenses push us to judge the behavior of another culture evaluatively and negatively. Ethnocentrism creates biased attributions and expectations in intercultural conflict” (331). In communicating cross-culturally, it is crucial that we look past cultural biases. This can be accomplished by demonstrating sensitivity to other cultures, as well as doing research that may prove biases wrong.
Communication
Emotional display
Different cultures have norms pertaining to emotional display in different places. Saudis usually speak quietly and gently. While at a restaurant, people keep conversations at a quiet level. Loudness can be regarded as impolite. In formal settings, Saudis smile occasionally, and show positive emotions as long as they do so in a controlled fashion (Katz, 2010).
Also, physical proximity and use of body language is important. When speaking, people stand close to each other and maintain eye contact. Even though gestures are usually more restricted than other Arab countries, physical contact is common. Men typically greet each other by hugging and kissing. Men from the United States who are unaware of this common greeting may be uncomfortable. Backing away can be a sign of disrespect. To avoid conflict, it is important to familiarize yourself with formal greetings in Saudi Arabian culture.
Approach or Avoidance?
Between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the decision of whether to approach conflict head on or avoid it varies greatly. The United States favors direct approach and confrontation with whomever there is a conflict with. Avoidance and the failure to “stand up for one’s self” are viewed as a sign of weakness and submission. According to Ting-Toomey, in individualistic cultures such as the United States, conflict is resolved effectively if all parties are open and honest with one another, and if a satisfactory solution is met (Ting-Toomey, 327). In other words, conflict resolution in the United States relies on problem-solving and puts little emphasis on context.
Hamamura describes the approach motivation as follows.
“…the goal of securing positive information about the self. People who are self-enhancing work towards securing a positive self-view and largely ignore, or discount, information that would threaten this conception. According to this view, approach motivations are integral in Westerners’ attempts to build upon the self-resource that they tend to prioritize: namely, self-esteem (9).
In a collectivist cultures such as Saudi Arabia, the avoidance motivation is more likely to be used. Hamamura contrasts the approach motivation with the avoidance motivation, addressing the issue of face. “There are few opportunities for people to increase their face because the amount of face that people can claim is determined by their position in the social hierarchy” (9).
In summary, face is something that is difficult to gain and maintain, and easy to lose (Hamamura, 9). Therefore, in collectivist cultures, people may use the avoidance motivation in regards to addressing conflict.
Time
Different cultures have different perceptions of time, and how to utilize it. There are two categories of time, monochronic (M-time) and polychronic (P-time). In monochronic cultures, time is perceived like money: it is something that can be saved, spent, wasted, and lost. Monochronic time is very linear and concentrates on one thing at a time.
American culture fall under the M-time category. Americans are given deadlines and are expected to follow them strictly for almost every single activity. At school, students are expected to show up to class on time and can be penalized for being late. At the very least, they miss valuable class time. At work, employees and employers are expected to show up on time. In short, showing up late to something is viewed as disrespectful to whomever set the time, and lateness makes people look irresponsible (Ting-Toomey, 328).
Contrary to what many Westerners believe, the perception of time in Saudi Arabia is actually changing. According to Sarah Melbari, a student at Effat University, both she and her family follow a more monochronic schedule. She believes that people should honor the time by starting things and accepting things at a certain time. She also tells about the instructors she has at school, and how the teaching styles of her instructors vary in terms of perception of time. In addition to her Saudi professors, she also has an instructor from South Africa and one from Egypt. Her Saudi instructors followed a more polychronic time system, accepting late assignments and lateness to class. For those who aren’t knowledgeable of cultural time systems and how Saudi Arabia views time, this could be problematic and become a potential catalyst for conflict.
Attribution of Meaning
Now that we’ve discussed when and how conflict should be resolved, we will examine the who—or rather, the people themselves involved in the conflict.
Liu and Zhao define attribution theory in terms of conflict resolution.
The purpose of the attribution theory is to explain how people make causal explanations and how they answer questions beginning with "why?" Attribution theory describes the processes of explaining events and the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations. The theory deals with the information they use in making causal inferences, and with what they do with this information to answer causal questions (Liu and Zhao, 187).
We all have a need and a drive to explain the world around us (Liu and Zhao, 187). In doing so, we resort to internal and external attribution. For instance, you may find yourself formally greeting people in Saudi Arabia. They may stand very close to you, and may even give you a hug and a kiss. Say this catches you off guard and you back from them, and they are offended. Who are you going to attribute the conflict to? If you use internal attribution, you may think to yourself, “I should have done more research. I should have spoken up in class and asked questions about what to expect in Saudi Arabia, especially during the part where they talked about greetings. I’m so inconsiderate and ignorant! I’m such a horrible person!”
On the other hand, you may use external attribution in handling the conflict. You may blame the locals, and perhaps think things like, “they should have known that I’m American, and that’s unacceptable where I come from. America’s one of the most influential countries in the world, they should at least know that much about our culture! And our professor should have put more emphasis on what to expect!” The list of potential thoughts goes on.
The above examples, I do admit, are a bit of an exaggeration. However, there is nonetheless truth to them. Americans tend to address mistakes under the self-serving bias, or “blaming other people and avoiding personal recrimination” (Liu and Zhao, 187). In practicing the self-serving bias, people “will also make attributions to defend what [they] perceive as attacks and threat” (Liu and Zhao, 187). In dealing with conflict, we must be aware of what factors contributed to the conflict, and be careful not to address them in a biased manner.
Conclusion
In dealing with conflict, we must have cultural competence. According to Ting-Toomey, the puzzle of competence in intercultural communication has three primary pieces, which are knowledge, motivation, and skill.
“Knowledge,” in this case, refers to in-depth understanding of cultural phenomena and the roles they play in intercultural conflict. One must be aware of the assumptions of interdependent (collectivistic) cultures, and independent (individualistic) cultures. Knowledge of the norms, context levels, and perceptions of time across cultures can help you in managing any group-based differences. Being aware of your own biases can help you work through conflict while minimizing the risk of it escalating.
“Motivation” is defined as “our cognitive and affective predispositions with regard to communicating with people who are different from us” (Ting-Toomey, 333). To have “motivation,” we must have an open mind-set and suspend judgment of behavior that we deem to be unfamiliar or unusual. Ethnocentrism can cloud our judgment; therefore, mindfulness is key.
Finally, it is important to develop different skills, such as interaction skills, trust-building skills, and in some cases, face management skills for intergroup conflicts among those of interdependent cultures.
Competence requires that we know the do’s and don’ts of a culture, as well as the reasons as to why that is. Intercultural conflict is a very complex thing, but understanding the factors that can contribute to intercultural conflict can make a big difference in resolving and even preventing conflict while staying overseas long-term.
References
Katz, L. (2010). “Negotiating International Business – Saudi Arabia.” Negotiating International Business - The Negotiator’s Reference Guide
to 50 Countries Around the World. http://www.globalnegotiationresources.com/cou/SaudiArabia.pdf
Hamamura, T. (2008). “Approach-Avoidance Motivation Across Cultures.”
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/1012/ubc_2008_fall_hamamura_takeshi.pdf?sequence=1
Liu, L., Zhao E. Research into Culture Difference of Attribution Theory. http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/200911/2007qyczhy1z4a2.pdf
Ting-Toomey, S. (2002). Intercultural Conflict Competence. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experience and Contexts (Second ed., pp. 323-335). McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2002). I, We, and They. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experience and Contexts (Second ed., pp. 289-300). McGraw-Hill.