![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
We examined intergenerational communication and conflict management styles in China. Older and younger Chinese adults were randomly assigned to evaluate one of four conversation transcripts in which an older worker criticizes a young co-worker. The young worker's communication was varied across the transcripts to reflect four conflict management styles: competing, avoiding, accommodating, and problem-solving. As expected, older participants favored the accommodating style over the problem-solving style. Young adults either preferred the problem-solving style to the accommodating style, as predicted, or judged the two styles as equally positive. The results illustrate the juxtaposition of tradition and modernization/globalization in the changing Chinese cultural context, and demonstrate how such cultural changes are reflected in interpersonal communication between the generations.
Notes
Yan Bing Zhang (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. Jake Harwood (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Arizona. Mary Lee Hummert (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. This paper is based on the first author's dissertation under the direction of Jake Harwood and Mary Lee Hummert (listed in alphabetical order). An earlier version of this paper received the 2003 Top Paper award from the Division of Communication and Aging at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Miami, Florida. Support for this research was provided by a University of Kansas Baumgartel Peace and Justice Award to YBZ and by NIH/NIA Grant 16359 to MLH. Our special thanks go to Rui Zhang and Yi Song for their assistance in data collection. Correspondence to: Yan Bing Zhang, Department of Communication Studies, 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-7574, USA.. Email: [email protected]
[1] Two one-way ANOVA results indicated that years of education were equally distributed across the conflict style conditions for both younger, F(3, \hspace{0.167em} 221) = 0.10, p > .05, and older adults, F(3, \hspace{0.167em} 214) = 0.83, p > .05. Therefore, any potential effect of education on perceptions of conflict should be minimal. This was confirmed by an initial analysis, which included years of education as a covariate in the 2 (age group) × 4 (conflict style) MANOVA on perceptions of the conflict styles. Results demonstrated that years of education did not account for significant variance in perceptions of the conflict styles, F(3, \hspace{0.167em} 432) = 2.04, {\rm \eta ^{2} = .01,} p > .05. Therefore, years of education was not included in any further analyses.
[2] In the first pilot study, young participants (N = 94, M \hspace{0.167em} age = 19.26, SD = 1.87) evaluated the realism (i.e., realistic-not realistic and believable-not believable) and the seriousness (i.e., serious-not serious) of the conflict scenarios, and the realism of the conversation scripts on 7-point bipolar scales. Participants judged the conflict scenarios (i.e., window vs. hot water) as similar and highly realistic, t(91) = 1.38, p > .05. The realism mean (M = 5.04, SD = 1.33) was significantly above the midpoint of the scale (4), one-sample t(92) = 7.54, p < .001. Participants also judged the conflict scenarios as similarly, t(91) = 1.41, p > .05, but only moderately serious. The mean of rating of seriousness (M = 4.04, SD = 1.48) was not significantly different from the midpoint of the scale, one-sample t(92) = 0.28, p > .05. Analyses also established the realism of the conversation scripts. A 2 (conflict scenario: window vs. hot water) × 4 (conflict management style: competing, avoiding, accommodating, and problem-solving) factorial ANOVA indicated that the realism of the conversation scripts was not affected by the scenario type, F(1, \hspace{0.167em} 86) = 0.38, p > .05, conflict management style, F(3, \hspace{0.167em} 86) = 2.60, p > .05, or the interaction between the two factors, F(3, \hspace{0.167em} 86) = 1.37, p > .05. Further, a one-sample t-test indicated that the mean realism score for the conversation scripts was significantly above the midpoint of the scale (M = 5.05, SD = 1.45), t(93) = 7.02, p < .001. Finally, to test the validity of the style manipulation, participants were provided with definitions of the conflict management style and asked to choose the one that matched the conversation script they had read (Canary & Spitzberg, Citation1987). The manipulation check supported the validity of the style manipulation in the conversation scripts, with an 83% agreement between the scripts and the definition selected by participants. After a few clarifications of the definitions, a second pilot study (N = 40, M \hspace{0.167em} age = 20.57, SD = 1.92) indicated 100% agreement between the conversation scripts and participants' selection of the appropriate style definition.
[3] The reliability of the dependent measures was established in two pilot studies. A third pilot study (N = 40, M \hspace{0.167em} age = 19.57, SD = 1.95) tested the reliability of a 12-item manipulation check scale. Cronbach's alphas indicated satisfactory reliabilities for the statements constituting the four conflict management style dimensions.
[4] Because two different scenarios (window and hot water) were used to operationalize the conflict management styles, preliminary analyses included scenario type as a between-subjects factor for all the analyses. No scenario type main effects were significant and only 2/50 possible interaction effects involving scenario type were significant. These effects were weak and did not change the results pattern for any hypotheses. Therefore, scenario type was excluded from the reported analyses.