Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Effects of taking conflict personally on conflict management
styles across cultures
Eun joo Kim a, Ayano Yamaguchi b, Min-Sun Kim c,⇑, Akira Miyahara d
a
Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon, Seodaemun, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea
College of Foreign Studies, Reitaku University, 2-1-1 Hikarigaoka, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken 277-8686, Japan
c
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Communicology, 2560 Campus Rd., George Hall 326, Honolulu, HI 96822, United States
d
Seinan Gakuin University, Japan
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 February 2014
Received in revised form 1 August 2014
Accepted 5 August 2014
Keywords:
Cross-cultural underpinning
Independent self-construal
Interdependent self-construal
Conflict management styles
a b s t r a c t
The concept of taking conflict personally is largely underexplored by dominant conflict literature. The
purpose of this study was to test the cross-cultural predictions of the associations between self-construal,
the tendency to personalize conflict, and subsequent outcome variables such as negative feelings of being
criticized and motivation to improve. The participants were 457 undergraduates, of which 185 were
studying in Japan, and 272 were studying in the United States. The results indicated the significant
negative relation between independent self-construal and taking conflict personally. On the contrary,
interdependent self and taking conflict personally showed positive relation. In turn, taking conflict
personally indicated positive relation with participants’ conflict management style, such as motivation
to improve one’s own behaviors. Discussion of these results and their implications is provided.
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
Conflict is a struggle between communicating parties because
of the perception of incompatible goals, scarce resources, and
interference from others while achieving goals (Wilmot &
Hocker, 2001). It reflects our existing beliefs and attitudes on the
issue in question; influences our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors;
and shapes our life space. In the field of interpersonal communication, scholars have long been interested in the phenomenon of
interpersonal conflict, especially questions regarding why conflict
occurs, how people handle it, and how to intervene in conflict
(Miller & Roloff, 2014; Roloff & Soule, 2002; Wilmot & Hocker,
2001).
Most of the literature has been dedicated to the study of conflict
management styles (Hample & Dallinger, 1995; Wilmot & Hocker,
2001) and their implication for relational outcomes. Recently,
some studies have focused on people’s preferences for conflict
management styles (Kim, 2002, for review) and subsequent relational outcomes (Comstock & Buller, 1991). Several studies have
shown that the way in which people handle conflict affects their
relational outcomes: the quality of a relationship is determined
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 808 956 8317; fax: +1 808 956 3947.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.j. Kim), [email protected]
(A. Yamaguchi), [email protected] (M.-S. Kim), [email protected]
(A. Miyahara).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.004
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
by how constructively or destructively communicative parties
handle conflict situations (Comstock & Strzyzewski, 1990;
Gottman, 1994).
Effective management of conflict leads to positive relational
outcomes and contributes to a general sense of satisfaction and
well-being (Comstock & Buller, 1991). The personal experience of
conflict, however, has received relatively less scholarly attention
(Hample & Dallinger, 1995), and our understanding of interpersonal conflict is limited, especially regarding the issues of why
and how people personalize conflict and what meanings they
attribute to it. Investigating the ways in which people personalize
conflict by taking criticism personally would help us with gaining
further insights into what conflict really means to people in their
everyday life.
The purpose of this study is to examine the cultural underpinnings of the effects of taking—or not taking—conflict personally
on conflict management styles, such as negative feelings of being
criticized and motivation to improve. Relying on the independence–interdependence theory of cultural self (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 1994), we would argue that taking conflict
personally may not always be directly linked to conflict management styles in cultures that privilege independence, because such
a perception can compromise the ever-important sense of the self
as independent. In contrast, taking conflict personally is likely to be
beneficial in cultures that privilege interdependence. To investigate
this cross-cultural prediction of taking conflict personally, we
144
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
examined the conflict management styles of college students from
the two different cultures: Japan and United States.
In the present study, we proposed the conceptual model exploring the relationship between self-construal and conflict management styles mediated by taking conflict personally. Using
Structural Equation Modeling, we tested the conceptual model
and discussed implications for future research.
1.1. Self-construal
Self-construal was originally developed to explain cultural differences in behaviors and attitudes at individual levels. The central
difference between the two self-construals is the belief one maintains regarding how the self is related to others (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Markus and Kitayama identified self-construal
as independent and interdependent. People with independent
self-construal see themselves as separate from others. On the contrary, people with interdependent self-construal see themselves as
connected with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994).
The independent individual strives to achieve uniqueness and
self-actualization, and to express one’s own unique strengths
(Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). Demonstrating one’s
uniqueness is a critical basis of self-esteem. The cognitive consequences of independent self-construal are ‘‘low context-sensitivity,
separation and differentiation.’’ The affective consequences of
independent self-construal are ‘‘prefer socially disengaging emotions’’ (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011). In contrast, the interdependent individual is motivated to fit in and adjust themselves
to the expectations and needs of others in a relationship (Markus
& Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002).
Demonstrating one’s ability to fit into the group is the fundamental
basis of self-esteem (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011). Norasakkunkit and Kalick showed the positive relationship between
fear of negative evaluation and interdependent self-construal. In
contrast, independent self-construal showed negative relationship
between them.
Western cultures tend to have higher level of independency. In
contrast, Asian cultures have higher level of interdependency. In
terms of interdependent self, some studies reported that East Asian
people tended to show higher interdependent self-construal than
Western people (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), while other studies
reported no differences or even reversed results (Sato &
Cameron, 1999), or challenged the validity of theoretical framework of self-construal (Matsumoto, 1999).
1.2. Taking conflict personally
According to Wallenfelsz and Hample (2010), taking conflict
personally is both a stable personality trait and a temporary state.
The tendency to take conflict personally can lead the nature of conflict interaction to become destructive. Hample and Dallinger
(1995) defined taking conflict personally (TCP) as ‘‘a feeling of
being personally engaged in a punishing life event. [The person]
feels threatened, anxious, damaged, devalued, and insulted’’ (p.
306). Hample and Dallinger (1995) proposed that taking conflict
personally predisposes a person to personalize conflict, experience
stress during conflict, feel persecuted, and dislike interactions that
engender conflict. The concept of taking conflict personally complements existing literature on conflict management styles to provide a fuller understanding of interpersonal conflict because it
explains the personal experience of conflict, which is largely
underexplored by dominant conflict literature. This concept allows
researchers to explore what happens when people take conflict
personally and why such a predisposition may be formed.
Miller and Roloff (2014) reported that taking conflict personally
was positively related to avoidance and revenge motivations
toward offenders. Also they found that these relationships were
mediated by the positive link between rumination about relational
transgression and residual hurt. Hample and Cionea (2010)
reported the positive relationship between taking conflict personally and aggressiveness.
Hample (1999) has found that taking conflict personally is positively associated with an avoidant conflict management style,
communication apprehension, low self-confidence, and low ego
defense maturity. Therefore, it is noted that individuals prone to
taking conflict personally find argumentation and criticism uncomfortable, feel anxious and ashamed when criticized, and become
ego defensive in conflict situations. Conflict is perceived as repulsive and an obstacle to achieving goals. On the other hand, people
less prone to taking conflict personally find it to be positive
resource in the process of goal achievement and approach the conflictive situations. Hample (1999) states that the consequences of
taking conflict personally can be detrimental. Not only does the
inclination to do so prolong negative points in the aftermath of
conflict but it also inhibits people from developing the ability ‘‘to
manage conflict productively’’ and reduces their ability ‘‘to learn
adaptive arguing behaviors for the future’’ (p. 194). Furthermore,
taking conflict personally is related to relational dissatisfaction
and mitigate against well-being and is a contributing factor to dysfunctional and physically aggressive relationships. Such negative
consequences lead researchers to the conclusion that personalized
conflict should be avoided wherever possible, and conflict ‘‘ought
not to be taken personally’’ (p. 300, Hample & Dallinger, 1995).
In this study, we question whether conflict should not be taken
personally and taking conflict personally is inherently aversive.
Nearly every book that gives people advice on how to manage their
personal or professional conflicts urges them not to take the conflicts personally. The very ubiquity of the advice is itself evidence
that this emotional reaction is widespread and considered dysfunctional in the Western cultural context. We believe that such
a claim is based on the more independent Western culture, where
conflict is viewed as an extension of assertiveness and self-expression. Furthermore, objective reception of criticism (i.e., dissociation
from the need to protect face) is viewed as desirable within that
cultural context. In the following section, we argue that personalized conflict can be understood in different ways when these
cultural assumptions are theorized differently.
1.3. Cultural variations in taking conflict personally
We speculate that the notion of taking conflict personally runs
the risk of being a culturally insensitive concept (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 1994). In Western culture, criticism is considered
as constructive process for a reciprocal and respectful relationship,
and Americans tend to prefer more active and aggressive defenses
toward criticism. On the contrary, in eastern culture, people tend
to be vulnerable to others’ criticism and prefer more passive
defense toward criticism (Nomura & Barnlund, 1983). Asian Americans show higher levels of fear of failure, performance-avoidance
goals and anxiety than Anglo American students (Zusho, Pintrich, &
Cortina, 2005).
Imposing such a Western understanding of criticism on other
cultures, where social conformity for relational harmony is valued,
can produce erroneous conclusions about their conceptualization
of criticism, conflict, and as a result, the tendency to take conflict
personally. For example, Japanese people with higher interdependence are much more sensitive to criticism than to compliments
(Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001). The origin of this extraordinary sensitivity to criticism derives from the importance of correct
behavior in their traditional system, since an essential part of
proper behavior was to avoid being shamed and shaming others
as a result of behaving in an unacceptable manner. Being shamed
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
by a personal failure or an implied failure has traditionally been
the worst fate that could befall a Japanese person. Furthermore,
the only way the shame could be expiated was through revenge.
If revenge was impossible—and the matter was important—suicide
or ‘‘hara-kiri’’ was the only acceptable alternative (De Mente,
1990). Even in modern Japan, high-ranking executives shamed by
some failure or criticism take their own lives. If there must be criticism, it is best handled by someone of an older or higher rank than
the person being criticized, who has experience in handling such
sensitive matters.
People of different cultural orientations may personalize
conflict to a different degree, which may lead to experience of
engaging in conflict to be either positive or negative. Furthermore,
a tendency to take conflict personally may leads to different rumination about conflict. Ruminating about conflict may affect the
degree of negative feelings of being criticized as well as subsequent
motivation for improvement.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 457 students enrolled in the undergraduate
courses at Seinan Gakuin University, Japan (n = 185, 40.5%); and
students in the United States (at the University of Hawaii, Manoa
and the University of Texas, Austin, (n = 272, 59.5%). The data were
collected in different locations in order to yield greater variability
in reports of cultural orientations. Participants from Japan, Hawaii
and the mainland United States were selected, because of the considerable cultural differences between them. Japan has been
described as a collectivist culture while the United States has been
categorized as an individualistic culture.
The average age for the total participants was 20.95 (SD = 3.40),
for the Japanese sample was 19.78 (SD = .96), and for the sample in
States was 21.75 (SD = 4.16). The female participants accounted for
57.4% (n = 294) and the males comprised 42.6% (n = 192) of the
overall sample.
2.2. Procedure
The participants were recruited in compliance with the procedures for human subjects, permitted to withdraw from the study
at any time, and assured anonymity. The participants completed
a survey containing one of three scenarios: roommate, office manager, or group project (see Appendix A). The respondents were
asked to complete a series of self-report measures after reading
their respective scenarios and messages. The language in the questionnaires developed for the Japanese sample was translated and
back-translated by a bilingual professional to ensure cross-cultural
equivalence in meaning (Brislin, 1970). All participants were solicited on a voluntary basis during class period and were provided
extra credit in exchange for participation. Participants were
assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers.
2.3. Measures
Using a series of self-report measures, the respondents evaluated one of three scenarios in which either a constructive or
destructive message was provided in response. After reading the
scenario and the message, participants completed measures of
self-construals, motivation to improve, feelings, and general
demographic characteristics. The means and standard deviations
for the independent and dependent variables in the current study
are presented in Table 1.
145
2.3.1. Self-construal
The measures for Independent self-construal (IND) and Interdependent self-construal (INT) were taken using self-construal scales
(Leung & Kim, 1997). The responses to the 29 items (INT 14 items,
IND 15 items) were measured using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores
indicated a higher level of independent and interdependent selfconstrual. Cronbach’s alphas were .85 (IND) and .80 (INT).
2.3.2. Taking conflict personally
To measure the degree to which conflict is taken personally,
respondents completed the Taking Conflict Personally Scale
(Hample & Dallinger, 1995). The 8 items from direct personalization (2 items), feelings of persecution (2 items), stress reaction (2
items), and like/dislike valence (2 items) were measured using a
7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Cronbach’s alpha was .76.
2.3.3. Motivation to improve
A 3-item measure was developed to assess the motivation to
improve or change behavior after receiving the message by the
researchers. Respondents rated the degree to which hearing the
message motivated them to start looking for ways to improve their
behavior or motivated them to make an effort to change their
behavior, using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Does not motivate me to
make an effort to improve my performance, 7 = Motivates me to make
an effort to improve my performance). Cronbach’s alpha was .96.
2.3.4. Negative feelings of being criticized
A 5-item measure was created to assess the negative emotions
and feelings of the person receiving the message by the researchers. Participants reported whether the message made them feel
hurt, embarrassed, angry, or offended and whether it lowered their
self-esteem, using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Does not make me
angry, 7 = Makes me angry). Cronbach’s alpha was .70.
3. Results
3.1. Analysis plan
To establish measurement invariance, all scales were subjected
to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle,
2006), which was employed along with maximum likelihood estimation. The outcome of CFA applied to the scales used indicated
that this measurement model was an acceptable fit, except for
the chi-square test. However, the chi-square test by itself is known
to be too sensitive for model fitness test when the sample size is
fairly large (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Kline, 1998). To overcome this
weakness, many researchers have developed alternative fit index,
including the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), which are
less influenced by the sample size. RMSEA values between 0.1
and 0.08 represent a mediocre fit; values between 0.08 and 0.05
indicate a reasonable fit; and those under 0.05 signify a fit that is
close to approximating the population (Byrne, 2001). For the CFI
and TLI, values above .90 are usually considered satisfactory
(Kline, 1998).
3.2. Preliminary analysis
The means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis for the
latent variables are presented in Table 1. According to the guideline
of normality (i.e., skewness < 2; kurtosis < 4) proposed by West,
Finch, and Curran (1995), all of the indicators satisfied a normality
assumption. Descriptive statistics of indicators are presented in
146
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
relationship with taking conflict personally. The correlation matrix
was calculated by combining across three situations and two messages types (constructive and destructive) since the patterns of the
results were homogenous.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the latent variable (N = 457).
Latent variable
Indicator
Mean
Standard
deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Interdependent
self-construal
INT1
INT2
INT3
4.151
4.906
4.225
.870
.892
.989
.107
.355
.155
.275
.069
.168
Independent selfconstrual
IND1
IND2
IND3
5.330
5.402
5.337
.918
.895
.842
.354
.549
.430
.461
.624
.051
Taking conflict
personally
TCP1
TCP2
TCP3
3.784
4.244
4.458
1.223
1.204
1.46
.045
.270
.061
.516
.218
.764
Motivation to
improve
IMP1
IMP2
IMP3
4.895
4.915
4.974
1.698
1.692
1.650
.682
.697
.758
.386
.361
.202
Negative feeling of
being criticized
FEEL1
FEEL2
FEEL3
4.282
4.657
3.710
1.651
1.282
1.600
.253
.337
.078
.827
.364
.588
3.3. Test of the path model
Table 1. A correlation matrix among the indicators was presented
in Table 2, shown separately for the United States and Japan. As
for the sample in the United States, taking conflict personally
showed significantly positive correlation with motivation to
improve one’s own behaviors. As for the sample in Japan, taking
conflict personally did not show any significant result. For both
sample of the United States and Japan, Interdependent self showed
significant positive correlation with taking conflict personally. On
the contrary, independent self indicated significant negative
This study hypothesized that the relation between self-construals and conflict management styles is mediated by taking conflict
personally. To test hypothesized model of the total participants,
we examined the structural model fit of the total participants in
the United States and Japan. Results indicated that the fit of the
model was good (chi square = 192.38; df = 71; p < .001;
CFI = .964; TLI = .954; RMSEA = .061). Interdependent self showed
significant positive relationship with taking conflict personally. In
turn, taking conflict personally showed significant positive
relationship with motivation to improve one’s own behaviors.
Motivation to improve one’s own behaviors showed significant
negative relation with negative feelings to be criticized.
Next, we tested the full structural model in each sample (United
Sates and Japan) constraining measurement equivalence. The
result is presented in Table 3. The fit of the model was good (chi
square = 256.65; df = 151; p < .001; CFI = .969; TLI = .962;
RMSEA = .039). Overall, analyses indicated that the model fits the
data satisfactory in both countries.
Having performed that the measurement and structural models
fit the data in both samples, we examined the equivalence of the
measurement model by constraining all measurement coefficients
and comparing the fit of this model to the fit of a baseline model in
which none of the measurement coefficients were constrained.
Table 2
Correlation matrix of observed constructs for the Japan sample (n = 185) below the diagonal and for the U.S. sample (n = 272) above the diagonal.
Variables
TCP1
TCP3
**
TCP1
TCP2
TCP3
INT1
INT2
INT3
IND1
IND2
IND3
IMP1
IMP2
IMP3
FEEL1
FEEL2
FEEL3
TCP1
TCP2
TCP3
INT1
INT2
INT3
IND1
IND2
IND3
IMP1
IMP2
IMP3
FEEL1
FEEL2
FEEL3
TCP2
.608
.549**
.366**
.268**
.108
.234**
.121
.099
.068
.041
.092
.081
.170*
.018
.236**
.486
.625**
.430
.305**
.213**
.279**
.203**
.200**
.176*
.028
.097
.068
.138
.009
.099
IND3
IMP1
.113
.172**
.115
.173**
.008
.108
.602**
.521**
.182**
.211**
.213**
.039
.044
.159**
.054
.050
.003
.118
.125
.189*
.107
.028
.095
.831**
.814**
.436**
.137
.240**
.153
.214**
.338**
.506**
.548**
.542**
.224**
.104
.224**
.160*
.048
.073
.027
.012
.036
IMP2
.141*
.190**
.204**
.040
.060
.148*
.094
.087
.050
.934**
.818**
.504**
.133
.238**
INT3
*
.261
.301**
.317**
.376**
.168*
.287**
.130
.155*
.195**
.109
.050
.059
.038
.054
.035
.151*
.124*
.075
.252**
.045
.162**
.633**
INT2
**
**
IND2
.585**
.169*
.112
.211**
.132
.041
.029
INT1
**
IND1
**
.296
.218**
.229**
.455**
.513**
.611**
.042
.104
IMP3
.170**
.197**
.196**
.086
.058
.156**
.068
.077
.009
.893**
.909**
.443**
.155*
.192**
.062
.028
.038
.129
.083
.067
.046
.072
.028
.113
.136*
.117
.280**
.114
.150*
.605**
.587**
.136
.054
.150*
.026
.011
.063
FEEL1
FEEL2
FEEL3
.088
.037
.008
.106
.027
.082
.065
.074
.002
.341**
.334**
.345**
.195**
.179**
.010
.130*
.027
.145*
.029
.040
.055
.231**
.224**
.216**
.714**
.274**
.111
.129*
.142*
.096
.171**
.096
.102
.002
.063
.074
.075
.437**
.589**
.022
.247**
.105
INT: Interdependent self-construal; IND: Independent self-construal; TCP: Taking conflict personally; IMP: Motivation to improve; and FEEL: Negative feeling of being
criticized.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
Table 3
Standardized path coefficients for U.S. and Japan.
Path coefficients
TCP
INT
TCP
IND
Feeling
TCP
Improve
TCP
Improve
Feeling
**
***
4. Discussion
U.S. (n = 272)
Japan (n = 185)
***
***
.349
.084
.025
.227***
.440***
.357
.219**
.135
.005
.507***
p < .01.
p < .001.
Table 4
Comparison between the baseline model and the constrained models for each path
coefficient.
*
147
Model
Ddf
Dv2
DTLI
INT ? TCP
IND ? TCP
TCP ? Feeling
TCP ? Improve
Feeling ? Improve
All constraints
1
1
1
1
1
5
.075
1.062
1.377
6.465*
.062
9.101
.001
.000
.000
.002
.001
.000
p < .05.
Then, we tested the equivalence of each path coefficient by
performing five tests in which we constrained the measurement
coefficients and additionally constrained one of the five path coefficients. Using the significance of the change in chi-square values,
we determined which path is significantly different between two
samples. The fit of the all constraints model was good (chi
square = 265.746; df = 156; p < .001; CFI = .967; TLI = .962;
RMSEA = .039). When we tested the all constraints model, only significant change in chi-square value between the United States and
Japan was the path between taking conflict personally and the
motivation to improve one’s own behaviors (Table 4). Except this
path, the other paths showed the same relationship for the participants in the United States and in Japan. That is to say, both in the
Untied States and Japan, the relationship between interdependent
self and taking conflict personally was positively significant. The
relationship between independent self and taking conflict personally, and between interdependent self and independent self were
significantly negative. The path between tacking conflict personally and negative feeling to be criticized was non significant
(Fig. 1).
To summarize, the hypothesized model was supported in both
cultures, and only one path between taking conflict personally
and motivation to improve one’s own behaviors was significantly
different between two samples.
Prior to this study, the cultural underpinnings of taking conflict
personally (TCP) had not been explored. This study investigated
the relationships among self-construals, taking conflict personally,
and negative feelings of being criticized and motivation to
improve. The result of positive relationship between the independent self and tacking conflict personally can be explained based on
the previous studies reporting that people with higher independent self are more likely to emphasize their uniqueness and originality. Also, they show low context sensitivity, and prefer socially
disengaging emotions. Therefore, within the context of an
interpersonal communication conflict, participants with higher
independent self-construal are less likely to take conflict personally. On the contrary, the relationship between the interdependent
self and tacking conflict personally can be interpreted based on the
previous studies showing that people with higher interdependent
self show high context-sensitivity, prefer socially engaging emotions, and prefer indirect communication (Cross, Hardin, &
Gercek-Swing, 2011; Kanagawa, Cross, & Markus, 2001).
The only significantly different relationship between the
participants in the United Sates and in Japan was the path between
taking conflict personally and the motivation to improve one’s own
behaviors. This result can be explained the cultural difference
between the United States and Japan. The previous studies have
shown that Asian people (or Japanese people) are highly sensitive
to information reporting their weaknesses (Heine et al., 2001),
show higher levels of fear about criticism (Zusho et al., 2005),
and tend to be vulnerable to others’ criticism (Nomura &
Barnlund, 1983). Because taking conflict personally is ultimately
a form of face work (Goffman, 1971), it might be interesting for
future researchers to replace taking conflict personally with selfvs. other-face maintenance.
This positive relationship between taking conflict personally
and the motivation to improve one’s own behaviors in the United
States is the unique finding in the present study. Previous studies
have shown that taking conflict personally tends to be related with
negative factors such as avoidance, revenge motivations toward
offenders (Miller & Roloff, 2014), inhibiting people to manage conflict productively, relational dissatisfaction, and mitigating against
well-being (Hample & Dallinger, 1995).
This research has several limitations. First, the three locations
chosen for this study are very different indeed, and therefore do
provide a basis for tentative generalizations. However, the fact that
only three locations were studied means the generalizations must
be recognized as tentative. Similarly, the choice of participants
exclusively from university environment in each culture restricts
the external validity of the findings. A wider variety of different
Fig. 1. The measurement and path constrained model for Japan and U.S. except for the path from TCT to Improve. ⁄⁄p < .01, ⁄⁄⁄p < .001. Note: For the path coefficient from TCP
to Improve, both estimates for U.S. and Japan were presented. The dotted line indicates the significant difference between U.S. and Japan (left side of the slash is for U.S.). Chisquare = 265.746; df = 156; p < .001; CFI = .967; TLI = .962; RMSEA = .039.
148
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
populations with differing linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds should be investigated.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion we have shown that the effect of taking conflict
personally on motivation to improve one’s own behaviors is mediated by cultural difference between the United States and Japan.
That is to say, American people show significantly higher tendency
to improve one’s own behaviors when they confront others’ criticism. Also, we found that interdependent self is negatively related
to taking conflict personally, whereas independent self is positively
related to it.
The outcome of conflicts depends in a large part on how participants perceive them. Understanding the relationship between TCP
and cultural orientations is an important step in understanding
the cultural underpinnings of the perceptions of conflict. Understanding TCP within cultural contexts should enrich our understanding of how people of different cultural groups may
experience similar conflict events quite differently. The much
abused terms, such as ‘‘communication breakdown,’’ or ‘‘cross-cultural miscommunication’’ can often be attributed to different perception regarding the conflict situations. For instance,
‘‘communication breakdown’’ in conflict situations typically occurs
because interaction partners disagree about the social appropriateness of one another’s conflict strategies and what inferences she/he
makes about conflict handling behavior.
Viewing conflict as a cultural behavior helps explain why disputes over seemingly similar issues can be handled so dissimilarly
in different cultures. In the era of the multicultural society, cultural
diversity in perceptions of conflict management styles is being recognized, understood, and appropriately used in organizations, and
interpersonal settings. Given that cross-cultural interactions are
burgeoning, there has never been such a sore need for knowledge
about conflict in different cultures. Continuous conceptual refinement on perceptions of conflict situations and the tendency to personalize conflicts will yield the further understanding of the crosscultural conflict communication processes.
6. Limitations
This research has several limitations. First, the three locations
chosen for this study are very different indeed, and therefore do
provide a basis for tentative generalizations. However, the fact that
only three locations were studied means the generalizations must
be recognized as tentative. Similarly, the choice of participants
exclusively from university environment in each culture restricts
the external validity of the findings. A wider variety of languages
and of different populations with differing linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds should be investigated. Second, we used a
undergraduate-student sample. Due to the homogeneous characteristics of high intelligence, generalization of this result to all populations would be limited.
Acknowledgement
‘‘This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2011-3271-B00535)’’.
Appendix A. Conflict scenarios
1. Roomate situation
Imagine you moved into an off-campus house with three other
friends, each of whom you have known for 2 years. You and your
roommates each have a private bedroom, while you all share a living room and kitchen. Since your personal computer is in your bedroom you do a good deal of studying there. Sometimes you or your
roommates have people over for parties on weekends, but you
have an informal agreement to limit entertaining during the week
so that people can study. However, over the past 2 months, one of
your roommates (Person A) has frequently had friends over and
played music loudly during the week. Talking to your other roommates, you found that that person has also had noisy weeknight
parties when they were at home. The person has certainly been
noisier than your other roommates on weeknights.
2. Office manager situation
Suppose that after graduation you were hired as an assistant
manager. The manager often leaves you in charge of the office
where you work. Imagine that a friend of yours (Person A) also is
an employee at this office. Her/his work is satisfactory in most
respects, but s/he has constantly been 5–10 min late returning
from lunch when you are left in charge. Moreover, s/he is rarely
late when the manager is present. The other employees nearly
always return from lunch on time, regardless of whether you or
the manager is in charge. In other words, the other employees
manage to be punctual, yet the person A is repeatedly tardy when
the manager is gone and you are in charge.
Today that person returned from lunch 30 min late. You feel
obligated to talk with person A, since the manager recently mentioned
the importance of employees being on time.
3. Group project situation
Imagine that you are involved in a group project in one of your
classes. The class is required for your major and it is important that
you get a good grade. The final grade will depend to a great extent
on how well the group project turns out. You were designated by
the course instructor to be the leader of the group.
One group member (Person A) has been causing some problems. From the start of the group project, s/he has seldom attended
group meetings on time and has entirely skipped one meeting
without calling anyone. Talking to people who have been in
courses with that person in prior terms, you found that s/he sometimes skipped class meetings in the past. Among the members of
your group, s/he is the only person who is creating this problem.
Suppose the group project is due in 2 weeks. The same group
member (Person A) has again skipped today’s meeting in which
the group planned to put together the final draft of its report next
week. As group leader you decide to talk to person A about the
situation.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [computer program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Comstock, J., & Buller, D. B. (1991). Conflict strategies adolescents use with their
parents: Testing the cognitive communicator characteristics model. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 10, 47–59.
Comstock, J., & Strzyzewski, K. (1990). Interpersonal interaction on television:
Family conflict and jealousy on prim time. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 34, 263–282.
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where
of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142–179.
De Mente, B. L. (1990). Etiquette guide to Japan. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle
Publishing.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the social order. New York:
Basic Books.
E.j. Kim et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 143–149
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital
processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. (2010). Taking conflict personally and its connections
with aggressiveness. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression,
and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 372–387).
Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict
personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument.
Communication Quarterly, 43, 297–319.
Hample, D. (1999). The life space of personalized conflicts. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural differences in selfevaluation Japanese readily accept negative self-relevant information. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 434–443.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal
need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.
Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (2001). ‘‘Who am I?’’ the cultural
psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
90–103.
Kim, M. S. (2002). Non-Western perspectives on human communication: Implications
for theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Leung, T., & Kim, M. S. (1997). A revised self-construal scale. Department of Speech,
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–252.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications
for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
568–579.
149
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and
Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289–310.
Miller, C., & Roloff, M. E. (2014). When hurt continues: Taking conflict personally
leads to rumination, residual hurt and negative motivations toward someone
who hurt us. Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 193–213.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize
influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–323.
Nomura, N., & Barnlund, D. (1983). Patterns of interpersonal criticism in Japan and
the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 1–18.
Roloff, M. E., & Soule, K. P. (2002). Interpersonal conflict: A review. In M. L. Knapp &
J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sato, T., & Cameron, J. E. (1999). The relationship between collective self-esteem and
self-construal in Japan and Canada. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4),
426–435.
Wallenfelsz, K. P., & Hample, D. (2010). The role of taking conflict personally in
imagined interactions about conflict. Southern Communication Journal, 75,
475–487.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Cortina, K. S. (2005). Motives, goals and adaptive patterns
of performance in Asian American and Anglo American students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 15, 141–158.