Intercultural Conflict

Running head: INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE STUDENT TRAINING

Intercultural Exchange Student Training

Colin P. Steele

Department of Human Communication

California State University, Fullerton

Submitted to: Dr. Tenzin Dorjee

HCOM 522

Dec. 10th 2014

1

INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE STUDENT TRAINING

Intercultural Exchange Student Training

With the expansion of modern technology and travel, educational exchange

programs are increasingly growing. As a result universities value large international

student exchange programs because it is associated with cultural diversity. These large

programs often have significant impacts on the students, teachers, and staff. This two-part

research literature review will first serve as a foundation for the exploration of conflict

resolution styles of exchange students and instructors. The second part of this review will

explore the association between cultural conflict styles and teaching/student training.

Rationale

With rising conflicts among the international society, conflict resolution is not

only desirable but is a necessity for survival of cultures and nations. There is a constant

need for international conflict management. Furthermore, sub-culture conflict resolution

is immensely important for the success and growth for diverse communities. Residing

between cultures is a large gap in meanings, values, and behaviors. Since there is a large

gap between cultural meanings, values, and behaviors, personal interactions between two

people of different cultures are often misconstrued and rapidly escalate into conflict

situations. Therefore, understanding cultural values, beliefs and meanings are critical for

understanding and resolving intercultural and cross-culture conflicts. Intercultural

conflict often stems from differences in cultural values and communication practices,

“Intercultural conflict often starts with different expectations concerning appropriate or

inappropriate conflict behavior in a conflict scene” (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, p. 1).

Communication serves as the key to resolving conflict, especially intercultural conflicts.

Communication provides a working channel to help facilitate discussions between the

2


conflicting parties. This working channel of communication provides an opportunity for

mutual understanding to transpire. As a result of communication, conflicting parties are

more likely to engage in collaborative behaviors and dialogs that yield satisfactory

conflict management.

The exponential growth of cultural diversity in social environments, work and

education, stimulates research to explore this fascinating area. With the expansion of

cultural diversity, individuals often are in contact with other individuals from different

cultural backgrounds (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2013). The increase of cultural diversity

increases intercultural research and studies in an attempt to understand these intercultural

encounters. Majority of studies focus specifically on cross culture conflict management

within the work environment (Tinsley & Brett, 2001; Yu & Chen, 2008). There is an

increasing need for sensitivity to other cultures as diversity expands. However, there is

limited research on conflict management within the educational environment, especially

with international students (Yu & Chen, 2008).

In coming students at the university level often experience a multitude of new

experiences, which include interacting and communicating with other individuals from

different cultures. Higher education exchange programs provide incoming students with

experience that help develop a worldview and craft a wider cultural lens. The diversity of

higher education allows students to develop intercultural sensitivity that increases

communication competency. The interaction with different individuals from different

cultures offers opportunities for students to learn different cultural perspectives. Students

from a host culture are able to experience a different perspective within a diverse

classroom environment. Students from different cultures experience the host culture

3


perspective within a diverse classroom environment. This diversity allows for the

expansion of cultural sensitivity within education. Students learn cultural sensitivity

through culturally diverse peer interactions within the classroom. The expansion of

culture sensitivity and intercultural conflict management is only established through

theory driven training (Ting-Toomey, 2007). Students and faculty need training to help

facilitate and maintain a learning conducive environment.

Educators from other disciplines and campus staff might not have the resources or

understanding of intercultural conflict styles. For example, mathematic instructors or

other “hard science” instructors might not have the personal skills to handle complex

conflict situations where as a communication instructor or other social sciences

instructors are more likely to have more basic understanding in diverse conflict

management. Furthermore, non-structure university staff might not have adequate

training necessary to handle intercultural conflict situations. Therefore the following

literature review will provide an analysis of theoretical frame works to help instructors

and other campus staff facilitate adjustments for intercultural exchange students. The

analysis will focus on cultural frameworks (individualistic/collectivistic) and conflict

styles (patterned responses to conflict).

Literature Review

Defining Culture

Intercultural conflicts stem from a difference in culture expectations in dealing

with the ebb and flow of everyday life, including conflict management. Based on cultural

backgrounds, meanings, values, behaviors, individuals from different cultures operate

with different psychosocial frameworks. Therefore, when individuals from different

4


cultures are confronted with a conflict there often is a major difference between

expectations in conflict strategies and conflict resolution. The reasons for this disconnect

between conflict expectations and resolution strategies stem from culture. According to

Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) culture is a habit of life that is cultivated through sharing

a communal sense of identity and belonging. Culture encompasses all aspects of a

community. These aspects include myths, traditions, stereotypes, verbal/nonverbal

language, beliefs, and values. Most importantly, “Cultural values refer to a set of

priorities that guide desirable or undesirable behaviors or fair or unfair actions” (Ting-

Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, p. 10). Culture is operationally defined as the collective beliefs,

norms, and values that a particular group of individuals share.

Cultural values and priorities shape and reinforce a person’s social and

psychological working framework within a culture through enculturation. Learned

cultural norms are especially significant with conflict strategies and conflict resolutions.

Cultural syndrome is a term that describes the patterns, roles, values, and beliefs that is

formed around a theme (Triandis, 2000). Triandis (2000) argues that miscommunication

is often cased by cultural differences, “Conflict is greater when the two cultures are very

different than when they are similar” (Triandis, 2000, p.145). He states numerous cultural

dimensions that potentially spark conflict. These dimensions include cultural distance,

language, religion and living standards. Furthermore, cultural distance contributes to

social structure and basic family structure (Triandis, 2000). The intensity of intercultural

conflict depends on the differences in culture. Cultural distance (language, values,

beliefs) leads to miscommunication and intercultural conflict.

5


Face Negotiation Theory (Ting-Toomey, 1998) provides a theoretical framework

to understand conflict resolutions through facework. A key assumptions that is critical for

this review is the concept of individualism – collectivism in relation to power distance.

The universal concept of face is a metaphor for self-identity and self-concept that

individuals ascribe themselves. The concept of face is the ego or honor of an individual.

The “face” consists of two integral categories of internal moral face and external social

face (Ting-Toomey, 1998). When individuals feel that their face is threatened the

individual participate in facework, which is the communicative behavior of negotiating,

protecting, and maintaining self-identity. Ting-Toomey (1998) argues that facework is a

universal phenomenon but implementation of facework varies between cultural

frameworks and contexts. The concept of face influences conflict resolution behaviors

however conflict resolution behaviors are potentially different depending on cultural

behaviors in maintaining or negotiating identity or honor. The key dimensions of the

theory provide a solid foundation to develop skills necessary to resolve intercultural

conflict situations. Knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction skills are the key dimensions

to contribute to successful intercultural conflict resolution.

Knowledge is necessary for both parties involved in conflict. Knowledge of

cultural perspectives and conflict styles contribute to positive or mutual conflict

satisfaction, “To manage intercultural facework competently, we must take other people’s

cultural perspectives and assumptions concerning ‘‘self’” and hence, ‘‘face’’, into

consideration” (Ting-Toomey, 1998, p.188). Understanding different cultural

perspectives lends to the overall success of conflict management and resolution.

6


Furthermore to enhance conflict resolution satisfaction both parties must engage in

mindfulness.

Mindfulness is the proactive engagement in multiple visions in understanding

multicultural conflict interactions. Developing mindfulness and cultural sensitivity

requires individuals to engage in new and unfamiliar conflict situations. These conflict

situations forces individuals to expand mindfulness if they desire a satisfying resolution

to the conflict. Face Negotiations Theory provides a foundation to develop mental

flexibility. The foundations consist of first, viewing behavior in a new context, second,

view situation in different perspectives, third, rethink the situation through different

cultural contexts, and finally, create new understandings of behaviors (Ting-Toomey,

1998).

The last core dimension presented in Face Negotiation Theory is interaction skills

or communication skills. Developing cultural sensitivity and mindfulness contributes to

developing and engaging in effective and appropriate communication skills such as

“mindful listening, mindful observation, facework management, trust building, and

collaborative dialogue” (Ting-Toomey, 1998, p. 204). Cultural sensitivity and

mindfulness helps ease conflict tensions. These core dimensions are essential for mutual

satisfaction of conflict results between exchange students and instructors. However,

understanding the general cultural frameworks is also critical for the success for any

conflict resolution.

Understanding different cultural frameworks and how cultures operate within

these frameworks allow communicators to navigate intercultural communication

situations and contribute to productive conflict resolution. Aforementioned

7


communication competence stems from understanding different cultures through

developing cultural sensitivity and mindfulness. To expound the knowledge of cultural

frameworks and specific conflict management patterns, researchers applied the dual

concern model with individualistic – collectivistic cultural frameworks to measure

preferred conflict management styles. Conceptualizing culture as a habit of life (Ting-

Toomey, & Oetzel, 2001) understanding conflict patterns (habits) will provide a general

prediction of managing intercultural conflict. Cia and Fink (2002) found that

individualistic and collectivistic cultures favor different conflict styles. Individualistic

cultures are considered low context cultures, which normally engage in, dominate

conflict styles whereas collectivist cultures are considered high context cultures that

normally engage in accommodating conflict styles (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai,

& Lucca, 1988) Consequently, high context cultures tend to have higher concerns for the

community in relation to individual concerns. Contrary to high context cultures or

collectivistic cultures, low context cultures have higher concerns for individual interests

in relation to community concerns (Triandis et al., 1988).

Cia and Fink (2002) argue that the framework of collectivistic/individualistic

concepts is the primary lens for analyzing conflict styles. The researchers argue that past

studies and research clump cultural conflict styles together based on concepts as

collectivist or individualistic styles. Placing cultures into distinct categories

(individualist/collectivistic) does not account for flexibility in conflict management

styles. Current research suggests that specific conflict styles are not exclusively inherent

to a specific culture. Research from Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin, and

Nishida, (1991) shows that China is more avoidant than Japan, yet both cultures are

8


considered high context collectivistic cultures as cited in (Cia & Fink, 2002). Therefore,

Cia and Fink (2002) used individualistic and collectivistic conflict styles as an individual

variable and not as an assumption based on cultural origins. The researches measured

participants using the original individualism-collectivism (INDCOL) scale developed by

Hui and Triandis (1986) to determine how participants identified to specific cultural

frameworks. The researchers conducted a study on 188 graduate students from 31

different countries. The study consisted of measuring the individual attitudes and

behaviors using a likert-type scale methodology to determine if the individual associated

with individualistic or collectivistic frameworks. These results were based on the

individual association with individual/collectivistic and not with assumed cultural origins.

As a result the researchers found that individualist and collectivistic ascribed to different

conflict styles. The findings suggests individuals prefer specific conflict management

styles, the five conflict styles used, avoiding, dominating, accommodating,

compromising, and collaborating, the researchers found that each style holds different

meanings in different cultures. Different individuals from different cultures ascribe

different meanings to conflict and how to manage conflict within their specific cultural

framework. The styles used to resolve conflict differ from cultural to cultural therefore

the general cultural frameworks cannot provide sufficient descriptions of cultural conflict

styles. However, understanding cultural frameworks help guide research. Furthermore it

is critical to understand conflict styles as a competent communicator, especially within

the context of education and therefore this knowledge is useful in providing a general

overview of conflict styles to both international exchange students and faculty.

9


Conflict Styles

To provide sufficient accommodation for exchange students, understating cultural

differences in cultural conflict resolution styles is critical for educators. Training faculty

and exchange students about different cultural frameworks and conflict styles will help

facilitate more satisfactory conflict outcomes. In recent years studies focus on cross

culture communication and conflict management (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998; Cia &

Fink, 2002; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, 2013). The dual concern model Figure 1

establishes a foundation on how individuals resolve conflict. The dual concern model is

based on Blake and Mouton (1979) cited by Carnevale and Pruitt (1992). The dual

concern model resents five categories that explain individual’s level of concern from self

and other within the conflict. The five categories correlate with conflict styles.

Figure 1: Dual Concern Model

The avoidant category encompasses low concern for satisfactory conflict

outcomes for others and low concern for satisfactory conflict outcome for the individual.

10


Avoiding conflict situations is the primary style associated with this category. Avoidant

style includes sidestepping potential conflict situations. Consequently, the avoidant style

is collectively viewed as unproductive in dealing with conflict from a western

perspective. However, in certain cultures avoiding is viewed as saving face or facework.

The dominant conflict style contains individuals with low concern for satisfactory

conflict outcome for others and a high concern for satisfactory conflict outcome for the

individual. This style traditionally incorporates individualistic cultures. The dominant

(completion) style of conflict resolution is highly concerned with outcomes that involve

the self. Therefore, the dominant style is usually not prevalent with cultures that identify

with collectivistic framework.

Opposite from the dominant style is the obliging (accommodating) style that

categorizes individuals with a high level of concern for others in conflict and a low

concern for personal or self-outcome. This conflict style is associated with collectivistic

cultures due to the nature of group interdependence. Consequently, this conflict

resolution style accommodates only one party and can lead one-sidedness. The dominant

style is likely to take advantage of accommodation and leads to power imbalance within

the conflict.

The compromising style has a moderate concern form both the other’s outcome

along with the self-outcome. The conflict style of integrating or collaborative style

involves high concern for the other and for the self-outcomes in the conflict (Cia & Fink,

2002). Since these dimensions are primarily related to cultural dimensions, providing

training to faculty and international exchange students will help promote satisfactory

conflict outcomes between both groups.

11


Intercultural Learning Environment

Sojourners often find themselves in a state of shock when experiencing a new

cultural context for the first time (Zhou, Jindal-Snape, Topping, & Todman, 2008)

“‘Shock’ stems from inherently stressful life changes, so people engaging in cross-

cultural encounters need to be resilient, adapt, and develop coping strategies and tactics”

(p. 65). Often times exchange students are balancing between acculturation, and

integration within the host culture (Zhou et al, 2008). Experiencing a new culture causes

anxiety due to the lack of security; therefore exchange students usually gravitate towards

others from their cultural groups to help cop with culture shock (Otten, 2003). The

clustering of exchange students does not enhance their cultural diversity because there is

no quality interaction with the host culture. Group vitality contributes to the explanation

of this phenomenon. Individuals usually gravitate towards other individuals from their

same cultural group to maintain group vitality. Through this natural occurring

phenomenon intercultural students do not gain or enhance cultural diversity.

Identity Management Theory (IMT) suggests that identity is formed and

maintained through social groups such as cultural groups. Since assimilation into a new

culture requires a certain among of identity shift, exchange students are more likely to

stay within their cultural groups due to familiarity (Otten, 2003; Kim, 2005). Zhou et al

(2008) provides an overview of Social Identity Theory in relation to explaining one’s

behaviors during interactions. The ability to explain one’s self and the behaviors requires

a general understanding of the host culture (Zhou et al, 2008). Otten (2003) argues that

the goals of intercultural exchange programs are not achieved and that students and

teachers do not have the skills necessary to negotiate through conflict situations. This is

12


primarily correlated with lack of understanding or limited recourses on part of staff and

instructors, “It is the individual teacher who has to deal with the effects of institutional

structures and balance it with the needs of an internationalized and globalized education”

(Otten 2003, p. 16). Teachers often experience first hand the importance of conflict

resolutions in intercultural exchange student conflicts.

Instructors are mostly the only faculty that are in direct contact with exchange

students and Otten (2003) argues that if teachers do not engage in diversity classroom

instruction the theoretical purpose of exchange programs are futile, “Not only the social

environment but also classroom interaction and academic work assignments tend to stay

monocultural, monodisciplinary, and monolingual if teachers fail to make use of diversity

as a resource in the classroom” (Otten, 2003, p. 14). Teachers and instructor of a host

country facilitate and engage in different conflict resolution strategies that are different

from sojourn student’s cultures.

Exchange students usually receive some type of information on the particular host

culture that is associated with decreasing levels of anxiety (Lombard, 2014), however,

instructors and other staff are unprepared and lack knowledge of the particular exchange

student’s culture. When conflict situations arise, such as disagreements on grades, and

classroom participation, the conflict styles of the respected parties are completely

different and contribute misunderstandings or dissatisfaction with conflict outcome.

Applying Face Negotiation Theory’s key dimensions to the educational and classroom

environment will enhance satisfactory conflict outcomes. The knowledge dimension will

provide both exchange students and faculty basic understanding of major cultural

frameworks. Knowing basic cultural frameworks such as individualism and collectivism

13


(I-identity and We-identity) will develop the ability to identify these major frameworks.

Furthermore knowledge of major cultural frameworks will provide basic skills for

engaging to competent intercultural facework. Through this knowledge both parties will

more likely engage in mindfulness and rethink conflict situations through different

cultural perspectives. Providing the knowledge of student and teacher expectations is

important. Zhou et al (2008) state that different cultures view students and instructors

with different perspectives. Establishing basic knowledge with contribute to smoother

transitions and student/teacher interactions. As a result of knowledge and mindfulness

exchange students and instructors will practice communicative skills such as mindful

listening and address conflict matters in a collaborative manner. Overall Face Negotiation

Theory dimensions provide a solid foundation for developing competent conflict

management and resolution communicative skills.

Research Trends and Future Direction

The research in intercultural conflict resolution is primarily directed towards

workplace environments (Betancourt, Green, Carrillo, & Park, 2005; Yu & Chen, 2008;

Gullekson, Tucker, Coombs, & Wright, 2011). Although the educational environment

falls within the category for some individuals, little research is directly associated with

exchange students and instructor conflict resolution. Since there is limited research and a

lack of intercultural interactions (Otten, 2003) future research within conflict

management needs to focus on developing awareness of different conflict styles within

the educational environment. Furthermore since research shows that international

exchange students experience uncertainty and culture shock (Otten, 2003; Zhou et al.

2008) providing a seminar or training will contribute to the success of reducing

14


uncertainty and culture shock. Suggestions for training programs are offered by Ting-

Toomey (1998) using Face Negotiation Theory as a foundation.

Future research needs to fill the gap between conflict management and the

relationship between international exchange students and faculty. Through the

implementation of Face Negotiation Theory (Ting-Toomey, 1998) future research can

analyze the effectiveness of FNT (Ting-Toomey, 1998) in relation to conflict resolutions

through pedagogical adaptions within international student higher education. The

following research questions will help provide a focus on research that will help fulfill

the gap in research:

R1: Will providing intercultural training to staff and exchange students produce

satisfactory conflict management outcomes.

R2: Are there conflict satisfaction differences between those who receive

intercultural conflict management train and those who do not receive intercultural

conflict management.

Methodology

To measure if satisfactory conflict outcomes are related to intercultural training a

quantitative based study will measure respondents at the end of the semester for Spring

2015. The purpose of this study is find if a difference in conflict out-come satisfaction

between groups who receive intercultural training and groups who do not receive

intercultural training.

Participants

Faculty and international students at California State University, Fullerton will

serve as participants in this study. International students and instructors consist of the

15


interested population for this study. Both present a particularly interesting population

because international students often face difficulties in resolving conflict with instructors

of the host culture. Likewise, instructors face difficult situations in managing conflict

with students from different cultural frameworks.

The sample will consist of volunteers from different disciplines. According to

demographic data at California State University, Fullerton, there are over 2,122

international students from 85 different countries. There are 957 newly admitted students

for Fall 2014. These 957 students will be the primary focus demographic. Since new

incoming international students might not have previous experience with the host culture,

these students are more likely to experience higher levels of conflict during the first

semesters of their education. Faculty from major disciplines for California State

University will be contacted and asked to participate in the study. Appendix A shows

current international student demographic by education level and appendix B shows

current international student demographic by program.

Analysis

The participants will be randomly placed into two groups. The controlled (group 1) will receive

intercultural conflict training based on Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (2007) intercultural training design.

Faculty and international students that receive intercultural conflict training will be in separate groups.

Group 2 will not receive any intercultural conflict training. At the end of the semester a likert-type survey

will ask participants from both groups to rate conflict resolution satisfaction in Appendix C (Conflict

Outcome Satisfactory Measure) with an expected alpha score between .85 and .90. A

simple t-test will analyze the data to determine the differences between the means of both groups. The

differences in means will answer both RQ: 1 and RQ: 2.

16


Discussion

The focus of this study has limitations that relate to generalization of cultural

frameworks and conflict styles. Analyzing the link between cultural training and

satisfactory conflict outcomes might not factor in unique cultural perspectives. Training

will focus on broad concepts such as individualism/collectivism, power dynamics, and

conflict styles (Table 1). These broad concepts might not specifically explain each

intercultural conflict management style or preferred method, however, as Ting-Toomey

(1998) providing training in key areas of knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction will

promote cultural sensitivity. Respondent bias or accurate self-report is a limitation with

the self-reported measure of conflict outcome. The location is potentially a limitation

since the study will be conducted in a western cultural environment. This study is limited

to California State University, Fullerton and cannot account for other institutes or other

diverse locations outside CSUF. Furthermore, this focus of this study is to find a potential

difference between those who receive intercultural training and those who do not receive

intercultural training and conflict outcomes. If a relationship is found between

intercultural training and satisfactory conflict outcomes, future research should conduct a

more qualitative based research to find out which training programs might contribute to

higher levels of conflict satisfaction.

With the increase in cultural diversity within the educational system,

understanding different cultural perspectives are vital for the success of resolving

conflicts. This study is a starting point to understand conflict between faculty and

international students. Further research among different universities in different countries

will contribute knowledge how international students in non-western countries adapt with

17


intercultural training through a different perspective or framework.

18


References

Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Park, E. R. (2005). Cultural competence

and health care disparities: key perspectives and trends. Health affairs, 24(2),

499-505.

Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and meditation. Annual Review Of

Psychology, 43(1), 531.

Cia, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualist and

collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67.

Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. (1993). Identity management theory. In R. L. Wiseman &

J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 112-131).

Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Gullekson, N. L., Tucker, M. L., Coombs Jr, G., & Wright, S. B. (2011). Examining

intercultural growth for business students in short-term study abroad programs:

Too good to be true?. Journal of Teaching in International Business,22(2), 91-

106.

Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In

W. B.Guykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375-

400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lombard, C. A. (2014). Coping with anxiety and rebuilding identity: A psychosynthesis

approach to culture shock. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,27(2), 174-199.

10.1080/09515070.2013.875887

Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of

Studies in International Education, 7(1), 12-26. doi: 10.1177/1028315302250177

19


Ting-Toomey, S. (2007), Intercultural conflict training: Theory-practice approaches and

research challenges. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3),

255-271.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H.S., Lin, S.L., & Nishida, T.

(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A

study of five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–292.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework Competence in intercultural conflict:

An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 22, 187-225

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2013). Culture-based situational conflict model: An

update and expansion. In Otezel J. G. and Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.). The Sage

handbook of conflict communication, 2nd, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G., (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Tinsley, C. H., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Managing workplace conflict in the United

States and Hong Kong. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 85(2), 360-381.

Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2).

145-152. doi: 1080/002075900399448

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).

Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup

relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323.

Yu, T., & Chen, G. M. (2008). Intercultural sensitivity and conflict management styles in

20


cross-cultural organizational situation. Intercultural Communication Studies,

17(2), 149-161.

Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of

culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies

in Higher Education, 33(1), 63-75.

21


Appendix A

International Students by Level Data from California State University, Fullerton F2014

Freshman59120%

Sophomore1585%

Junior47516%

Senior60421%

Grad/PB,110238%

International Students by Level

22


Appendix B

International Enrollment by College Data from California State University, Fullerton

F2014

23


Appendix C

Conflict Outcome Satisfactory Measure (McCroskey, 1966; McCroskey, &

Richmond, 1989; McCroskey, & Richmond, 1996).

Directions: On the scales below, please indicate your feelings about "communication

conflict outcomes during the semester.” Numbers "1" and "7" indicate a very strong

feeling. Numbers "2" and "6" indicate a strong feeling. Numbers "3" and "5" indicate a

fairly week feeling. Number "4" indicates you are undecided or do not understand the

adjective pairs themselves. There are no right or wrong answers. Only circle one number

per line.

1) Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad

2) Wrong1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Right

3) Harmful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial

4) Fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unfair

5) Wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foolish

6) Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive

Scoring:

Reverse code: 1, 3, & 4

24

Documents

Intercultural Conflict