CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview

I researched a number of different topics that fell into four general areas: 1)

Hispanic/Latino demographic and statistical information and Hispanic/Latino diversity

studies including currently accepted terminology; 2) literature describing intercultural

concepts and communication styles including power distance, individualism-collectivism,

high-low-context, direct-indirect forms of communication, task-relational orientation, and

cultural influences on emotion; 3) conflict literature including intercultural conflict styles,

face theory, conflict negotiation, conflict resolution, conflict management, and crisis

negotiation; 4) Historical, political, ethnic, and socio-economic literature exploring

differences and similarities between Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, plus country-specific

information related to the above three areas.

Terminology

Inherent to Hispanic/Latino intercultural relations is understanding and respect.

Thus, it is important that culturally accepted terminology be used to show appropriate

respect for the individuals being defined. It is also important to be clear as to who is

being defined and by whom. The terms Hispanic culture and Latino culture are many

times used to make generalizations about individuals living in the United States who

come from, or have origins in, Latin America and Spain. Oboler (1995) says “the ethnic

designator Hispanic officially identifies people of Latin American and Spanish descent

living in the United States today” (italics original, p. xiii). While the word Hispanic may

be the official designator, Albert (1996) notes that Latino or Hispanic is used for persons

of Latin American origin or ancestry in the United States, but DeNeve (personal

communication, February, 2005) adds that usually Spaniards are not included in the

Hispanic/Latino category, but rather are included in the European group. Albert states

that while the term Latino is not without problems, “it seems to be currently preferred to

Hispanic by members of the culture, in part because it reflects their Latin American

origins” (p. 328). Yankauer (1987) says, “inconsistency in terminology over time has

already created complications for both researchers and government agencies” (p. 16).

Because of the lack of agreement in terminology, the terms Hispanic, Latino, and

Hispanic/Latino are used by authors, interchangeably, somewhat indiscriminately, and

sometimes without regard to nuance. For consistency and optimal inclusivity, I have

chosen, whenever possible, the designator Hispanic/Latino to reference any person of

Spanish, U.S. American, Mexican, Central American, South American or Spanish-

speaking Caribbean origin living in the United States.

Demographic Trends

The face of U.S. America is currently being transformed. According to U.S.

Census 2000, 35.3 million people identified themselves as Hispanic, a 57.9 percent

increase from 1990. The Pew Hispanic Center (2004) adds that the Census 2000 numbers

represent a 142 percent increase over the 1980 census count; Hispanic/Latinos are now

nearly 13 percent of the U.S. population. Moreover, this percentage, states Rosenfeld

(2001), will rise to about 26 percent by 2050 (p. 161). In terms of the labor force, Suro

2

and Passel (2003) say that the number of Latino workers is projected to increase by 12.6

million by 2020, while the far larger non-Hispanic labor force will increase by 11.6

million (p. 7).

These numbers not only illustrate major changes in the ethnic makeup of the

United States, but also the transformation of the Hispanic/Latino population itself. The

fastest Hispanic/Latino growth today, says Logan (2001), are among “New Latinos” (p.

1). “New Latinos,” as defined by Logan, are “people from the Dominican Republic and a

diverse set of countries in Central America (such as El Salvador) and South America

(such as Colombia)” (p. 1). Based on Census 2000 and related sources, Logan estimates

that “the number of New Latinos has more than doubled since 1990, from 3.0 million to

6.1 million (p. 1). Hence, current immigration trends and demographic shifts are not only

adding to the overall diversification of the United States, they are also creating greater

diversidad within the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, bringing diverse Hispanic/Latinos

together at increasing levels. “The New Latinos,” echoes Logan, “bring a new level of

complexity to the rapidly changing complexion of ethnic America” (p. 1).

This complexity creates a significant need for Hispanic/Latino intercultural

research. However, Hispanic/Latinos continue to be treated as one whole. Altarriba and

Bauer (1998), for example, state that “although it would be helpful to provide a typical

worldview for Cuban Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Puerto Ricans, individually,

there is no distinction among the groups’ worldviews in the literature” (p. 395). Oboler

(1995) sums up the simplification problems saying:

In the current usage by the US Census, government agencies, social institutions, social scientists, the media, and the public at large, the ethnic label Hispanic obscures rather than clarifies the varied social, and political experiences in U.S.

3

society of more than 23 million citizens, residents, refugees, and immigrants with ties to Caribbean and Central and South American countries. (p. 51)

Intercultural scholars and researchers have recognized both the internal diversity

of Hispanic/Latino culture and the need for greater research into understanding

differences between Hispanic/Latino groups. For example, Albert (1996) states that what

is needed is “a lot more work on the variations that may exist among Latin Americans

and Latino groups” (p. 331); Hayes-Bautista and Chapa (1987) recognize that “there are

vast differences between different national origin Latino groups” (p. 66); and Ting-

Toomey and Oetzel (2001) say that “with the tremendous diversities under the Latin

American label, we will do well to increase the complexity of our understanding of the

values and distinctive . . . patterns of each group” (p. 53).

Despite an acknowledged need, my literature review revealed intercultural

research that lumps Hispanic/Latinos together as one body when discussing a variety of

intercultural topics. For example, Albert (1996), Delgado (1981), Marin and Triandis

(1985), and Triandis (1983) all generalize Hispanic/Latino cultural patterns without

internal distinction. Hammer and Rogan (2000) offer similar treatment in discussing

Hispanic/Latino conflict negotiation patterns, as does Lotito (1988) when discussing

Hispanic/Latino communication patterns.

When studies that I surveyed did specify a particular Latino national culture

group, it did so to make a comparison to a non-Hispanic/Latino group such as Condon’s

(1988) research on communication style differences between Mexicans and North

Americans. More often, however, the comparisons were made on the ethnicity level, such

as Collier’s (1988) study comparing Mexican American, European American and African

American conflict competence and negotiation patterns; Martin, Hammer, and Bradford’s

4

(1994) study on communication competence behaviors between Hispanics and non-

Hispanics; and Hecht, Ribeau, and Sedano’s (1990) study on the Mexican American

perspective on interethnic communication.

Some literature that I surveyed provides research regarding one Latin-American

culture, for example, Diaz-Royo’s (1974) study on Puerto Ricans, Queralt’s (1984) study

on Cubans, and Diaz-Guerrero and Szalay’s (1991) and Garcia’s (1996) study on

Mexicans. With the exception of non-academic travel guides offering cursory treatment

of intercultural themes, Stephenson’s (2003) book on South Americans, Lederach’s

(1991) study of the folk language of conflict resolution in Central America, Adler and

Garaitonandia Tapie’s (1998) article on Latin American communication barriers, and

Johnson, Lindsey and Zakahi’s (2002) study on Anglo American, Hispanic American,

Chilean, Mexican, and Spanish perceptions of competent communication, were the only

bodies of literature that I found that made inter-Hispanic/Latino comparisons.

Finally, while research related to intercultural conflict style and conflict resolution

abound, such as Hammer (1997) and Ting-Toomey (1985), to date, I have not identified

any research studies that measure inter-Hispanic/Latino conflict style and conflict

resolution variance containing research sample populations of discreet country origin.

Intercultural Conflict Styles

Ting-Toomey (2004) defines conflict style as “the general behavioral tendencies

used during the actual conflict negotiation process” (p. 225). Hammer (2003) adds that

conflict style “can be viewed as a stable ‘interpretive frame’ for understanding and

responding to one another’s intentions, motives, and actions” (p. 16). He adds that this

interpretive frame “is generated from the manner in which contending parties

5

communicate with one another around substantive disagreements and the manner in

which they communicate how they feel toward one another (affective or emotional

response)” (p. 16). To extend this definition, intercultural conflict style, according to

Hammer refers to “a culture group’s preferred manner for dealing with disagreements and

communicating emotion” in a given situation within a given relationship (p. 16).

The most significant body of research that I have found that makes inter-

Hispanic/Latino comparisons within the conflict arena is The Intercultural Conflict Styles

Inventory (ICS) developed by Hammer (2003). This served as a starting point for the

literature review. Hammer’s model is developed around two scales. The vertical scale

measures an individual’s communication style in terms of directness or indirectness. The

horizontal scale measures an individual’s emotional style in terms of emotional restraint

or expressiveness. Hammer explains that individuals use “different conflict resolution

strategies depending on whether their conflict communication style is more direct or

indirect” (p. 7). He lists a set of patterns that embody each style. Hammer also explains

that individuals use different conflict resolution strategies if they are “more emotionally

expressive or emotionally restrained” (p. 7). He lists a set of patterns for both emotional

expressiveness and emotional restraint (See Appendix A for more information on these

sets of patterns).

The direct-indirect scale and the emotionally expressive-restrained scale form a

quadrant with each quadrant representing a conflict style. After taking the inventory, an

individual can find out their preferred conflict style. The four conflict styles are:

Discussion, Accommodation, Engagement, and Dynamic (see Appendix B). The

Discussion style emphasizes the use of direct communication and a controlled emotional

6

response for dealing with disagreement. The Accommodation style stresses a more

indirect communication strategy and a controlled emotional response for dealing with

disagreement. The Engagement style describes a direct communication style and an

emotionally expressive response to handling disagreement. Finally, the Dynamic style

involves an indirect communication strategy and an emotionally expressive response to

disagreement.

What interested me most about these conflict styles was that in a table found on

the final page of Hammer’s (2003) Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory’s Interpretive

Guide (see Appendix C), he provides a summary of how disagreements are managed and

emotions expressed across cultures. According to this summary, Latin American

countries were placed into two separate quadrant areas. Latin American countries such as

Mexico, Peru, Costa Rica, and Argentina were placed in the Accommodation Style

quadrant area (indirect-emotional restraint). Latin American countries such as Cuba and

Puerto Rico were placed in the Engagement Style quadrant area (direct-emotional

expressiveness). Thus, according to this summary, certain Latin American individuals

have conflict styles diametrically opposite to the conflict styles of other Latin American

individuals. Therefore, members of some Spanish-speaking Latin American countries

may have opposite preferences in dealing with disagreements and communicating

emotion than those of other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. These results are

interesting given the treatment of Hispanic/Latinos as one cohesive body, who continue

to be brought together in social and work settings due to their common language, and

other related factors, such as political solidarity, and status as newly acculturating

immigrants.

7

In his ICS model, Hammer (2003) does not account for the Latin American

country placements into specific conflict style quadrant areas outlined in Appendix C.

Examination of the demographic summary of his sample population of 510 respondents

reveals few Latin Americans. Only six people (one percent) spent their formative years in

Central America. No respondents are mentioned as spending their formative years in the

Caribbean. Sixty-two people (13 percent) spent their formative years in South America.

And while 266 of the respondents (56 percent) indicated having spent their formative

years living in North America, it is unclear how many of those came from Mexico.

Overall, 71 of the 510 respondents (16 percent) indicated their cultural background as

Latin American, but no country-specific information was collected.

In a second study of an additional 487 respondents, 116 people (26 percent)

indicated that they were citizens of countries other than the United States. Unlike the first

sample, Hammer (2003) did not collect information as to where respondents lived during

their formative years. Instead, he collected country of citizenship information, and

respondents were given an option as to whether to provide this information or not. Of

those respondents who did provide country of citizenship information, few respondents

indicated Latin American citizenship (Venezuela [n = 1]; Dominican Republic [n = 1];

Mexico [n = 1]; Peru [n = 1]). Neither of Hammer’s (2003) studies places specific Latin

American countries into specific conflict style categories. Hammer’s justification for

regional cultural placement (e.g., Mexico in Accommodation or Cubans in Engagement),

is based on his examination of previous literature, which is not specifically cited in his

research material on the ICS.

8

High- and Low-context Communication Patterns

I found no comparative literature that measured direct-indirect communication

style similarities and differences of different Latin American countries. Directness and

indirectness are inherent parts of Hall’s (1991) high-context and low-context

communication theory. According to Hall, high-context communication emphasizes how

intention or meaning can best be conveyed through context and nonverbal channels.

Ting-Toomey (1985) states that high-context communication refers to communication

patterns of indirect verbal mode. Hall (1976) identifies Latin American culture as high-

context and cites as examples both Mexico and Cuba. While relevant, it does not explain

the country-specific Hispanic/Latino direct-indirect distinctions that Hammer (2003)

reports.

Emotional Expressiveness and Emotional Restraint

In terms of emotional expressiveness-restraint, I identified a key cross-cultural

research study by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) of over 30,000 participants

in 49 countries. They measured, among other things, how reason and emotion play a role

in relationships between people. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner define members of

cultures that show emotion as affective and members of cultures that do not show

emotion as neutral. They say:

Members of cultures which are neutral do not telegraph their feelings but keep them carefully controlled and subdued. In contrast, in cultures high in affectivity, people show their feelings plainly by laughing, smiling, grimacing, scowling and gesturing; they attempt to find immediate outlets for their feelings. (p. 70)

Results from the 49 countries surveyed show Spain fourth, Cuba fifth, and Venezuela

seventh, in terms of emotional expressiveness. Mexico scored 26th indicating a lesser

9

degree of emotional expressiveness (p. 71). However, there is no specific link made

between emotional affectivity-neutrality and conflict.

Cultural Influence on Emotion

In order to obtain a solid understanding of the cultural influence on emotion, I

located several critical articles whose terminology and ideas have been used by

intercultural scholars in research on intercultural conflict. Ekman (1972) and Friesen

(1972) coined the term display rules to account for differences in the expression of

negative emotion, and Mesquita and Frijda (1992) added,

cultures differ in display rules and feeling rules, and these rules may apply to emotional spontaneity and expressive display in general, as well as to the feeling and displaying of emotions in particular situations or with aspect to particular types of emotion. (p. 199)

Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) validate the connection between emotion and conflict,

concluding that “cultural display rules exist in conflict which regulate displays of

aggressive or negative emotional reactions such as anger, fear, shame, frustration,

resentment, and hostility” (p. 54). Following Hammer’s (2003) placement of some Latin

American countries in different quadrant areas, one could conclude that different cultural

display rules exist between members of different Latin American countries. However,

Hammer (1997,2002, 2003) and Hammer and Rogan (1997) consistently state that

Hispanic/Latino’s control over negative emotional expression is critical to conflict

resolution (i.e., emotional restraint). Therefore, it is still unclear whether similarities and

differences exist. If they do exist, it is unclear how any potential cultural display-rule

similarities or differences (such as emotional restraint or expressiveness for members of

different Latin American countries) might affect the Hispanic/Latino conflict dynamic;

10

how they might act as conflict trigger points; or how they might cause a conflict to

escalate between two individuals. Perhaps there are measurable differences in emotional

expressiveness and restraint among members of various Latin American countries.

However, it may be that these differences are irrelevant factors to understanding

Hispanic/Latino conflict. I have not found any research to support or disprove a

relationship.

Historical Foundations for Understanding Latin American National Culture Similarities and Differences

Vaahterikko-Mejia (2001), states that “national culture, where a person has been

born, has grown up, and educated is of utmost importance in her/his decisions, value

systems, the way of perceiving the environment, the way of communicating and way of

work” (p. 24). Therefore, in order to prepare for my research, it is important to examine

similarities and differences presented in the literature, and to discuss the historical

context that serves as a baseline for exploring both commonalities and variations across

the Hispanic/Latino Diaspora.

Focusing on Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, I will introduce Latin American

historical information from colonial to modern times, tying the historical facts of the past

to cultural variables of the present-day. While this historical treatment is by no means

exhaustive, it offers a foundation for understanding some underlying influences

impacting cultural similarities and differences that exist in Latin America.

National and regional similarities and differences may be due to culturally distinct

racial and ethnic roots. History has mixed pre-colonial indigenous cultures, with

11

European and African cultures from colonial times, and present day immigrants. Lotito

(1988) says that in Latin America there are three cultural regions:

the mestizo (Indian + Spaniard) common to Mexico, Central America, and western (or Andean) South America, that of the European or primarily Caucasian population of eastern and central (non-Andean) South America, which has been increased by large immigrations from western Europe in this century [20th century], and the third of the Caribbean mulato (Indian + Spaniard + African) . . . within the Spanish-speaking Caribbean Islands. (p. 34)

Each of these three cultural/geographic regions has its own colonial history. In the

Caribbean region, according to Lotito, the indigenous died out rapidly, succumbing to

smallpox and other diseases soon after the Spanish arrival, and then Africans were

brought in as slaves to cultivate sugarcane and tobacco. The Andean countries, including

Colombia, and the central plateau regions, including Mexico, were colonized 20 to 50

years later than the Caribbean when there was more resistance to the diseases introduced

by the Spaniards. Additionally, due to the more structured lifestyles of the highly

developed indigenous populations of this area, individuals were more resistant to the

heavy labor forced upon them. Subsequently more indigenous peoples and their cultures

survived. Finally, the indigenous tribes of the east coast of South America were more

nomadic and less evolved, and the few that survived were insufficient to produce much of

a racial mix. So, except for Brazil, this region is mostly Caucasian in origin (p. 34). In the

last 100 years, according to Marin and Marin (1982), South American countries like

Argentina and Chile have received heavy European migration waves that shaped cultural

values.

This variety in indigenous, African, and European cultures, say Archer and Fitch

(1994), exerts strong influence on Latin America. The influential elements, says Lotito

(1988), include religion, values, patterns of interaction and linguistic blending.

12

The Catholic Church has had a strong influence on Latin America and was a

primary vehicle for disseminating European culture to indigenous populations during the

conquest of (what would become) Latin America by the Spaniards. During colonialism,

says Stephenson (2003), the Catholic Church played an important role in expanding the

power of the Caucasian conquerors by disseminating spiritual concepts and values (p.

33). Today, Roman Catholicism is the primary religion of Latin America and the Catholic

Church’s influences are present down to Latin Americans’ cultural core. Colina-Diez

(2004) refers to Latin America as the “Catholic continent” and says that Latin America’s

400 million Catholics make up 42 percent of all Catholics in the world (p. 1). Ibero-

Catholic cultural influences include, according to Queralt (1984), the primacy of family

and fatalistic acceptance. Foster (2002) adds that the traditions of the Roman Catholic

hierarchy still play a powerful role in Latin America in determining decision-making

authority in social, civic, and workplace settings through rigidly prescribed formal rules.

However, Catholic influences are stronger in some Latin American countries than in

others. For example, Catholicism, says Vaahterikko-Mejia (2001), has the least influence

in Cuba. Unlike other regions of Latin America, the Caribbean region has strong African

religious influence. Cramer (2000) says that in Cuba, Santeria is a widely held belief,

especially among black residents and Queralt adds that Santeria rose out of the

combination of African slave and Spanish Catholic religious beliefs and rituals during the

colonial period (p. 117).

Unlike the Cuban Afro-European cultural union typified by Santeria, Mexican

culture, according to Foster (2002), is a combination of pre-Colombian indigenous

beliefs, Roman Catholicism, and modern European secular elements (p. 13). Foster states

13

that in Mexico, the racial and cultural mixture, know as la raza (race), is one of the

primary distinctions between Mexico, of which most Mexicans are very proud, and much

of the rest of Latin America (p. 13). Pride in la raza has included, according to

Stephenson (2003), the open incorporation of the indigenous presence into mainstream

Mexican culture and society. Stephenson adds that Mexico is distinct from the rest of

Latin America because this open incorporation has not happened to the same extent

elsewhere in Latin America (p. 12).

While Mexicans may not reject their indigenous roots, hierarchical distinctions

along racial lines are found in Mexico as in other parts of Latin America. During the

colonial period, says Stephenson (2003)

People of mixed ancestry were positioned in the middle tiers of the hierarchical social structure – between the Caucasians at the top and the Native Americans and Africans at the bottom. After independence, and even into the contemporary period, this social placement has generally continued. (p. 29)

The patron system is an historical example of class inequality. Archer and Fitch (1994)

note that from the colonial period to the very recent past, the patron system, which

unequally linked plantation owners to tenant workers, has left a legacy throughout Latin

America that clearly distinguishes the needs of the middle and upper classes from lower

status persons (p. 79). However, in contrast to this, Foster (2002) asserts that Cuba’s

recent history, namely the Cuban Revolution, continues to color the Cuban value system.

Foster states that formal Latin traditions from the conquest were rejected by the

Revolution, and there is an egalitarian and respectful informality that permeates

relationships. In contrast, in Colombia, according to Foster, and in Mexico, according to

DeNeve (personal communication, February, 2005), hierarchy and power are still rigidly

determined. They say that the Churches in Colombia and in Mexico are especially

14

conservative and tied to the privileged class. In Cuba, titles are not typically critical. In

contrast, Foster says that Colombia is perhaps the most formal, most reserved, and most

closely related with the traditions of fifteenth-century “conquistador” Spain. This is

largely due to the fact that Spain set up its first viceroy in the New World in what became

Bogotá, the current capital of Colombia.

Stark contrasts between African-influenced Cuba, and Roman Catholic/Colonial-

influenced Colombia can also be seen in terms of communication style and conflict style.

Foster (2002) reports that in Colombia, the importance of hierarchy requires careful

speech, and “speaking one’s mind, especially at work, is done carefully” (p. 96). Foster

says the only exception to this would only be with one’s most trusted friends. In contrast,

Queralt (1984) reports that Cubans treat one another informally, even when not

acquainted, and he attributes their informal sociability and gregariousness to Cuban black

cultural roots (p. 118). Finally, Kochman (1981) notes a link between the “high-keyed:

animated, interpersonal, and confrontational” (p. 18) African-American conflict style

pattern to that in Cuba, saying that the African-American patterns and perspectives have

also been found among blacks in the Caribbean (p. 14).

Hispanic/Latino Value Orientation Similarities

In general, the literature consistently shows that Hispanic/Latinos have an

interpersonal orientation. Albert (1996) considers the interpersonal orientation as the

meta-orientation of Latin Americans that permeates many facets of life such as patterns

of communication, the value of respect and harmony in relationships, and behavior in the

workplace. Several value orientations help to frame the interpersonal orientation,

including collectivism and high-context communication.

15

Collectivism

Hispanic/Latino cultures have been found to be consistently collectivistic in

nature. Hofstede (1991) defines collectivist societies as those in which “people from birth

onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s

lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (p. 260).

Triandis (1995) adds that collectivism promotes relational interdependence, in-group

harmony, and in-group collaborative spirit. Hofstede found high collectivistic index

values in Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and

Peru (p. 53).

Collectivistic harmony also extends to conflict situations. Ting-Toomey (1999)

states that for collectivists, the masking of negative emotions is critical to maintaining a

harmonious front during conflict. In the context of traditional Hispanic/Latino

Americans’ conflict practices, Garcia (1996) and Padilla (1981) note that tactfulness and

consideration of others’ feelings are considered to be important norms in interpersonal

confrontation situations. Tactfulness and consideration of others’ feelings are conveyed,

says Ting-Toomey (1999), through the use of accommodating and other-concern face-

work rituals (p. 217). Ting-Toomey also discusses collectivist norms for conflict

resolution. She says conflict is effectively resolved when both parties help to attain

mutual face saving while reaching a consensus on substantive issues between them. In

addition, a conflict is appropriately managed when both sides acknowledge the

expectations of the relevant in-groups and give honor and attention to the in-groups’

needs. To collectivists, continues Ting-Toomey, a conflict solution has group-based and

long-term implications (p. 220).

16

Connectedness

Tied to Hispanic/Latino collectivism is the importance of having and maintaining

connections. Archer and Fitch (1994) discuss the Colombian phenomenon palanca

(literally, a lever; interpersonally, a connection) (p. 83). In using a palanca, Colombians

use “a relationship like a tool to obtain some objective” in order to “transcend scarcity

and/or rules” (p. 84). Archer and Fitch state that palancas rest fundamentally on an

interpersonal connection between a provider and a beneficiary with the provider being at

an equal or higher status than the beneficiary (p. 85). However, they say, some degree of

confianza (hope, trust, familiarity, confidentiality), must be created in order to seek the

benefits of the connection. Other authors report on similar concepts in other Latin

American countries. DeNeve (personal communication, February, 2005) reports the

presence of palancas in Mexico as very common, especially in politics. According to

Lederach (1991), in Costa Rica the concept of connections is called patas (literally feet;

symbolic of using a connection for an action-based purpose), enchufe (plug-in) in Spain,

and cuello (literally neck; symbolically, the connection between head and heart) in

Honduras and throughout Central America.

Connectedness has important connotations for conflict resolution in Latin

America. Lederach (1991) researched conflict resolution in Central America and found

that conflicts are always viewed as being embedded in the social network. In his

observation, he found that “the single most important characteristic affecting both the

understanding and resolution of conflict is a person’s network (p. 168). Lederach states

that the best Central American term for describing conflict is estamos bien enredados (we

17

are all entangled), built around the Spanish word red (fisherman’s net). He adds that this

image

is one of knots and connections, an intimate and intricate mess. A net, when tangled, must slowly and patiently be worked through and undone. When untangled it still remains connected and knotted. It is a whole. A net is also frequently torn leaving the holes that must be sewn back together, knotting once again the separated loose ends. (p. 168)

This is an excellent metaphor for better understanding the conflict resolution process for

Hispanic/Latinos including the use of a third-party intermediary in the resolution process.

Extending the metaphor, Lederach explains that many times a third person, el tercero (the

third) is the connector between the separated loose ends that helps sew the net back

together. Their connection, unlike a mediator, is based on a personal relationship, not a

professional function or written contract. Lederach says that an individual will go to

someone in his or her network with whom he or she has confianza and who, also has

confianza with the other entangled person (p. 177). Lederach explains that el tercero

serves as un consejero (trouble-shooter, go-between) between the individuals (p. 169). In

summary, successful resolution, says Lederach, reaffirms that Latin Americans are part of

a larger whole.

Simpatía

In Hispanic/Latino cultures a concept called simpatía embodies the harmonious

spirit of collectivism. Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, and Betancourt (1984) say that simpatía

refers to

a permanent personal quality where an individual is perceived as likable, attractive, fun to be with and easygoing. An individual who is simpático shows certain levels of conformity and an ability to share in others feelings, behaves with dignity and respect toward others, and seems to strive for harmony in interpersonal relations. (p. 1363)

18

According to Alum and Manteiga (1977), for Cubans, being antipatico (unlikable,

unwitty, disagreeable) is “the worst of all cultural sins” (p. 12) and ignoring simpático,

add Triandis et al, leads to stress and discomfort. Triandis et al. say that simpatía “implies

a general avoidance of interpersonal conflict and a tendency for positive behaviors to be

emphasized in positive situations and negative behaviors to be de-emphasized in negative

situations” (p. 1363). Hispanic/Latinos manage this through the use of high-context

communication and avoidance strategies.

19

Avoidance

Another manner in which many Hispanic/Latinos maintain harmony is by

masking negative feelings. This is done through avoidance. Mexican Nobel Laureate,

Octavio Paz (1985) writes, “The Mexican . . . seems to me to be a person who shuts

himself away to protect himself: His face is a mask and so is his smile. Everything serves

him as a defense: silence and words, politeness and disdain, irony and resignation” (p.

29).

A general survey of the literature uncovers avoidance as a conflict management

strategy for collectivists including Hispanic/Latinos. Ting-Toomey (2004) states that

avoiding facework emphasizes the preservation of relational harmony by not directly

dealing with the conflict up front (p. 227). Triandis et al. (1984) report that the value that

Hispanics and Latin Americans place on the avoidance of negative behaviors such as

criticizing, insulting, fighting etc. has also been widely documented including Diaz-Royo

(1974) Fitzpatrick (1971), and Madsen (1972) (p. 1364). In particular, Stephenson

(2003), says that South American Spanish-speakers are usually quite careful in their

conversations not to bring up anything that might be construed by another as personally

offensive or hurtful in order to avoid a potentially explosive situation, even if such

avoidance leads to greater complications later (p. 63). Diaz-Guerrero (1975), states that

Mexicans seem to feel that the best way to resolve problems is to modify oneself rather

than to modify the physical, interpersonal, or social environment (xviii).

20

In a study comparing the conflict resolution styles of Mexican-American and

Anglo-American children, Kagan, Knight and Martinez-Romero (1982) found that “the

early response of Mexican children [to conflict] is very predominantly a non-conflict

response” (p. 55). However, they found that “they then develop away from that

orientation and increase both mediated and direct conflict” (p. 55). Kagan et al. explain

that the implication of their study’s results is that the Mexican American children,

compared to Anglo-American children are less likely to create a conflict, but are equally

likely to respond to conflict with conflict or mediated conflict.

High-Context Communication

In general, Latin American cultures’ communication patterns have been found to

be high-context, and as mentioned above, high-context communicators use an indirect as

opposed to direct communication style. Hall (1991) says that high-context transactions

are more on the feeling, intimate side where little information is explicit and coded (p.

61). Paz (1985) provides a literary translation of this concept. He writes that the

Mexican’s “language is full of reticence, of metaphors and allusions, of unfinished

phrases, while his silence is full of tints, folds, thunderheads, sudden rainbows,

indecipherable threats. Even in a quarrel he prefers veiled expressions to outright insults”

(p. 42). By protecting an individual from the emotional discord that conflict triggers, a

high-context, indirect communication strategy promotes harmonious relationships

important to collectivists. According to Olsen (1978), in any system, conflicts occur

primarily for either “instrumental” or “expressive” reasons (p. 308). Olson says that

instrumental conflict is marked by “opposing practices or goals,” and expressive conflict

stems mainly from “desires for tension release, from hostile feelings” (p. 308). Ting-

21

Toomey (1985) states, “high-context culture individuals have a much more difficult time

in objectively separating the conflict event (i.e., instrumental conflict) from the affective

domain (i.e., expressive conflict). For them, the conflict issue and the conflict person are

the same, hardly separable from each other” (p. 78). So, high-context strategies are used

to indirectly address conflict while maintaining harmony. Alum and Manteiga (1977)

provide an example. They say that “Cubans’ hostility is more often than not channeled

through jokes and wit, which everyone is expected to accept in good sport as a sign of

being simpático” (p. 12). This is an example of how Hispanic/Latinos may be able to

avoid negative communication while still addressing the conflict, albeit indirectly.

Hispanic/Latino Value Orientation Differences

Having looked at many cultural values and behaviors that are common among

Hispanic/Latinos, now we must look at cultural values and behaviors that differ among

Hispanic/Latinos. The identification of Hispanic/Latino differences, such as inter-ethnic

conflict style differences, are useful in many ways including explaining some reasons

affecting inter-ethnic conflict in the United States. However, greater fidelity is called for

in order to identify possible causative Hispanic/Latino conflict variables. In thinking of

Hispanic/Latino conflict, several questions come to mind. First, are some Hispanic/Latino

groups more likely to create conflict than others? Second, if Hispanic/Latinos are, in

general, more likely to choose a non-conflict response (i.e., avoidance) than a conflict

response, what are the factors that trigger a conflict response? Third, is conflict more or

less likely in certain contexts than in others? Fourth, if resolution involves mediation,

what does the mediation process look like? Below, I discuss an important

Hispanic/Latino value orientation difference that I have identified, through discussions

22

with informants, as crucial to the Hispanic/Latino conflict dynamic, which helps to begin

to shed light on some of these questions.

Power Distance

Hofstede (1991) defines power distance as “the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power

is distributed unequally” (p. 28). Dahl (1957) defines power as the ability to influence the

behavior of others, often due to the control of resources. Hofstede measured power

distance variance across 53 countries in a study of middle managers working for a large

multinational company. Of those countries surveyed, Guatemala ranked second, Mexico

fifth, Venezuela sixth, Ecuador eighth, Brazil 14th, Colombia 17th, El Salvador 18th, Peru

21st, and Uruguay 26th. However, not all Latin American countries scored high in power

distance. Argentina’s 35th, and Costa Rica’s 42nd ranking indicate low power distance

values. Additionally, according to Cramer (2000) Cuba has a low power distance value.

So while Hofstede’s power distance index shows high values for many Latin American

countries, unlike his collectivism index, his power distance index shows a wide degree of

power distance variance.

There is a strong link between power distance, hierarchical status, class, and

behavior. According to Schwartz (1994), in hierarchical cultures social structure is

differentiated by ranks as opposed to being flat, and Brett (2003) says that in hierarchical

cultures, social status implies social power. In terms of class, Garcia (1996) says that

class position includes implications of such things as educational level, financial

standing, and social influence; and according to Hofstede (1991), “in most societies,

social class, education level, and occupation are closely linked” (p. 28). The important

23

distinction to be made between hierarchy, class, status, and power distance is that while,

according to Hofstede, “there is inequality in any society” (p. 23), “power distance

reflects the range in which various countries handle the fact that people are unequal” (p.

24). In high power distance countries, individuals accept hierarchical and class

differences and their own and others’ status within it.

In order to describe the individual’s place within a power distance culture, the

term vertical self-construal is used. Ting-Toomey (1999) says that “individuals who

emphasize vertical self-construal would prefer formal, asymmetrical interactions (i.e.,

differential treatment), with due respect to people with high-status positions, titles, and

the special occasion” (p. 208). Oetzel et al. (2001) add that members of large power

distance cultures make clear distinctions between lower and higher status individuals.

Ting-Toomey provides an excellent example of this. She states that in small power

distance cultural situations, children can contradict their parents and speak their own

minds, while in large power distance cultural situations, children are expected to obey

their parents. She adds that the value of respect between unequal status members in the

family is taught at a young age.

Power Distance and Conflict

Power Distance affects the conflict dynamic between individuals of higher and

lower status. Leung (1997) says that “conflict between members of different social ranks

is likely to be less frequent in hierarchical than egalitarian cultures (p. 303). However, it

cannot be assumed that this is due to mutual good feeling and good behavior. For

example Brown and Levinson (1987, as quoted in Oetzel et al., 2001, p. 241) proposed

that “the more power individuals have, the less polite they are,” and Lim and Bowers

24

(1991) found that the more power an individual had, the less likely they were to use

tactful facework.

Facework, according to Ting-Toomey (2004) refers to “the specific verbal and

nonverbal behaviors that we engage in to maintain or restore face loss and to uphold and

honor face gain” (p. 218). Ting-Toomey has proposed a number of different facework

strategies, some of which are more prevalent in certain cultures than others. Ting-

Toomey has identified three facework strategies: dominating (e.g., aggressive behaviors),

avoiding, and integrating (e.g., compromising). In a cross-cultural study investigating

face and facework during conflicts across four national cultures, Oetzel et al. (2001)

found that power distance had small, positive effects on avoiding and dominating

facework. They said that while dominating and avoiding facework are seemingly

contradictory, “it may be due to the power individuals feel they possess. If people have

power, they can do what they want” (p. 254). Triandis et al. (1984) also acknowledge this

seeming contradiction to harmoniousness and simpatía. They say that deviations from the

simpatía script may be moderated in the case of a high-status person, who can engage in

more superordinate behaviors, without rejection from others, because of the operation of

the power distance script. Thus, while “good behavior” and being simpático may be

salient goals for Hispanic/Latino relationships, the power distance script launders “bad

behavior.” Its allowance maintains relational harmony while managing and limiting

vertical conflict.

While power distance limits a lower status individual’s ability or willingness to

participate in conflict with a higher status individual, it is likewise a systemic tool

available to lower status individuals as a vehicle for managing and resolving conflicts

25

with other individuals of equal status. Ting-Toomey (2004) explains that in many

collectivistic, high power distance cultures, conflict is often managed by a third party

mediator from a high-status position, and therefore has a credible reputation. However,

Lederach (1991) discusses the third-party intervention process for Central Americans as

informal and tied to a person’s interpersonal network, noting that confianza is a necessary

component that ties the third party to both parties in conflict. However, Lederach states

that confianza takes place between only a select few in the network, and is reserved for

intimate friends and family. Thus, it is unclear whether there is a connection between

power distance and third-party mediation.

Power Distance and Respeto

The everyday enactment of power distance is infused into the very core of

Hispanic/Latino cultures through the very rules of the Spanish language. Garcia (1996)

explains that the Spanish pronoun usted is the formal application of the English pronoun

you, while tú is the informal application of the same pronoun. In a study on the usage of

tú and usted by Covarrubias (2002), participant explanations of usted systematically co-

occurred with references to the concept of respeto (respect). Garcia (1996) says that

respeto is the Latin American version of Ting-Toomey’s (2004) notion of face.

Covarrubias (2002) defines respeto as

(1) respecting another person’s rights; (2) acknowledging persons based on their

age, rank, social, and/or economic standing; (3) protocol; (4) obedience to

authority; (5) speaking in well-mannered ways (i.e., no cursing or swearing); and

(6) not injuring or insulting another person. (p. 89)

26

This definition begins to show the dynamic, complex aspects of respeto, which is only

partially akin to the English equivalent – respect. Covarrubias states that the concept of

respeto transcends the meaning of a single term to encompass a broader culture-sensitive

system about the meaning and function of speech. Covarrubias labels this meaning

system the Code of Respeto.

Code of respeto.

By deploying the word usted in conversation, the Code of Respeto is activated.

The Code of Respeto has several connotations as noted in the definition. Garcia (1996)

categorizes the use of usted into three areas: (1) It implies a power distance element

indicative of class maintenance, (2) it creates a status difference that is based on implicit

worth, and (3) it reinforces a contextual boundary to a relationship by imposing an

implicitly formal communication environment.

First, the Code of Respeto implies a power distance element indicative of class

maintenance. Through the use of tú or usted during conversation, according to Garcia

(1996), “relational players are always aware of their hierarchical position in a

relationship” (p. 146) where one person assumes the lower status position and the other

assumes the higher status position. For example, a subordinate in the workplace might

address his or her superior using the pronoun usted while the superior would respond

using tú. Garcia explains, “these interactions not only reinforce a power relationship but

also impose a status of inequality” (p. 147). From this perspective, Garcia says

The high-class individual is allowed to disagree with much more frequency and force than people who are members of lower classes. For example, this cultural latitude enables high class persons fervently to refute arguments posed by lower class individuals, interact (almost at will) more frequently with people who

27

belong to a perceived lower class, interrupt private conversations without fear, and generally impose a personal will on the immediate environment. (p. 149)

Garcia’s statement is in accord with the conclusions stated above by Brown and Levinson

(1987, as quoted in Oetzel et al., 2001), Lim and Bowers (1991), Oetzel et al. (2001), and

Triandis et al. (1984) regarding behavior and power distance.

Second, the Code of Respeto creates a status difference that is based on implicit

worth. In this case, Garcia (1996) explains that higher class is granted to people with

tangible resources, such as to elders for their experience, to teachers for their willingness

to share knowledge, and to doctors for their medical expertise.

Third, the Code of Respeto reinforces a contextual boundary to a relationship by

imposing an implicitly formal communication environment. Respetuoso (respectful)

speech is highly formalized. Covarrubias (2002) says that Code of Respeto speech

maximizes the deployment of honorific and professional titles, minimizes the use of

colloquial language, virtually eliminates many types of joking, underscores

communicative decorum, and generally excludes personal topics. This formal

environment, according to Garcia (1996), “impedes the development of an intimate

relationship” (p. 150). In summary, the Code of Respeto implies distance in relationships.

For closer relationships (i.e., with less power distance), the Spanish pronoun tú is used to

convey friendship, informality, equal status and intimacy. In using tú, the Code of

Confianza is activated.

Code of confianza.

The Code of Confianza is active when both participants in a relationship refer to

each other using the pronoun tú, enabling the creation and maintenance of friendship and

family relationships. As the more informal address, the use of tú, says Covarrubias

28

(2002), “minimizes the use of professional and honorific titles, includes the use of

various types of nicknames, [and] facilitates the use of colloquial language” (p. 102).

She explains that participants who use tú, and who therefore speak with confianza (hope,

trust, familiarity, confidentiality), can self-disclose, ask for favors, criticize one another’s

personal failings, express frankness, speak confidentially, and joke (p. 99). So while in

vertical, high power distance relationships, only the higher status individual is able to

express him or herself fully, openly, and more directly, in low power distance confianza-

present relationships, both individuals are potentially able to express themselves fully,

openly, and more directly. This distinction may have implications for one’s conflict style,

and points towards the mutability of one’s style to fit a particular conflict within a

particular relationship dynamic. Additionally, the misinterpretation or misuse of the Code

of Confianza and the Code of Respeto may even trigger a conflict.

Conflict Trigger-Points

Several definitions help provide the link between codes, misinterpretation, and

conflict. Codes, as Philipsen (1992) notes, are socially constructed systems; Nadler,

Nadler, and Broome (1985) define culture as a system of socially created and learned

standards for perceiving and acting shared by members of an identity group. Therefore,

codes are a reflection of the culture in which they are used. Returning to the basic

assumptions of conflict mentioned in the introduction, Lindsley and Braithwaite (1996)

state that “conflict may occur based on different cultural perspectives of what constitutes

communication competency. Vaahterikko-Mejia (2001) adds that conflicts are normally

results of incompatibilities and misunderstandings, where one party has violated

another’s normative expectations. Therefore, if two Spanish-speaking individuals from

29

different cultures have different normative expectations for the uses of the Codes of

Respeto and Confianza, or are even unaware of their existence, conflict may arise.

Garcia (1996), Covarrubias (2002) and Condon (1988) all speak of the harsh

effects that result from not acknowledging power distance. Condon says that to make

light of a professional person’s title is to challenge his or her dignity. Garcia comments

that a person who does not acknowledge class difference (i.e., by using tú instead of

usted) will be perceived as “irrespetuoso” (one who lacks respect) (p. 146). And

according to the majority of participants interviewed by Covarrubias (2002), the

excessive or inappropriate use of tú is described as ser confianzudo (to be presumptuous

or insolent) (p. 99). Garcia adds that misuse of the terms tú and usted can result in an

unintentional verbal attack on another. Finally, Covarrubias says that perceived

mismanagement of codes can even lead to social sanctions ranging from personal

discomfort to, at least in abstract terms, the dismissal of a worker. As these reports

suggest, misuse and misunderstanding of power distance can lead to serious

consequences and may trigger, at the very least, tension and stressingredients inherent

to conflict.

The power distance script and its expectations vary quite markedly across Latin

American countries as Hofstede’s (1991) research shows. But Albert (1996) says that the

“knowledge of how power distance is enacted in various Latin American cultures in

different settings and in different roles is most important (italics original, p. 336). The

literature by Garcia (1996), Covarrubias (2002), and Condon (1988) that I cite to explain

respeto and confianza is based on Mexicans and none of the researchers extend their

conclusions to include all Hispanic/Latinos. But, Fitch’s (1998) discussion of respeto,

30

based on research of Colombians, draws similar conclusions. This thesis explores power

distance variance in Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba and whether it is enacted through the

Codes of Respeto and Confianza, or otherwise. It also explores whether power distance

variance and expectations create conflict potential in inter-Hispanic/Latino relations.

Literature Summary and Conclusions

This literature review makes it clear that Hispanic/Latinos value relationships,

value positive behaviors, and devalue negative behaviors in order to maintain

harmonysometimes through avoidance behaviors. However, the literature provides

evidence that for Hispanic/Latinos, relationships are not only important with each other,

but to each other (i.e., power distance). This thesis explores whether context is a salient

determinant to the Hispanic/Latino conflict dynamic. Power distance and its vehiclesthe

Codes of Respeto and Confianza, provide a crucial context within which conflicts occur.

Subsequently, they are highly influential as determinants for deciding (1) who might be

involved in conflict with whom, (2) who might display aggression or react with

avoidance, (3) who might use indirect or direct communication, (4) the range of

emotional expressiveness allowed, (5) the instrumental boundaries of the given conflict,

(6) where a conflict might occur and (7) how a conflict might be resolved and by whom.

More over, the misuse, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of these codes, or

unconscious-conscious incompetence with these codes, may trigger conflict, or at

minimum, lead to tension and stress. By studying Colombian, Mexican, and Cuban

conflict management and conflict resolution strategies, and the factors that trigger

conflict with other Hispanic/Latinos, I will be able to further explore these ideas.

31