Conflict

Culture is always a factor in conflict, though it rarely causes conflict by itself. When differences surface between people, organizations, and nations, culture is always present, shaping perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. Our cultural background, and how we were raised, largely determines how we deal with conflict, but there are also other lesser known issues that are important to consider in this discussion as well.

Ambiguity

Ambiguity, or the confusion about how to handle or define the conflict, is often present in intercultural conflict because of the multi-layered and heterogeneous nature of culture. What appears on the surface of the conflict may mask what is more deeply hidden below. Verbally indirect, high context cultures may be reluctant to use words to explore issues of importance that verbally direct, and low context cultures need to access the nonverbal codes that are largely outside of their awareness. Just remember that knowing the general norms of a group, does not predict the behavior of a specific member of a group. Individual differences and not just culture, can be crucial to understanding conflict.

Language

Language issues can also add to the confusion. Not knowing each other's languages very well could make conflict resolution difficult, but remaining silent could also provide a needed "cooling off" period with time to think.

Name, Frame, Blame, and Tame

Communication researcher Michelle LeBaron explains another way that language impacts conflict with her name, frame, blame, and tame approach to dissecting conflict. She believes that the Western approach to conflict resolution often means labeling with language and analyzing with language the smaller component parts of an issue (name, frame, blame), before a resolution (tame) can be proposed. The Eastern approach to conflict resolution often means reinforcing all aspects of the relationship (tame), before ever discussing the issue (name, frame, blame)–if at all. In the Eastern approach, language is more of a means of creating and maintaining identity than solving a problem.

Face and Facework

The term "face" is probably known to many of us, but it's also an important concept in conflict. To lose face is to publicly suffer a diminished self-image, and saving face is to be liked, appreciated, and approved by others. Brown & Levinson use the concept of face to explain politeness, and to them politeness is value present in all societies hence the significant tie to intercultural conflict.

The term facework refers to the communication strategies that people use to establish, sustain, or restore social identity during interaction. Goffman  claims that everyone is concerned about how others perceive them.

Facework varies from culture to culture and influences conflict styles. For example, people from individualistic cultures tend to be more concerned with saving their own face rather than anyone else's face. This results in a tendency to use more direct conflict management styles. In contrast, people from collectivistic cultures tend to be more concerned with preserving group harmony and saving the other person's face during conflict by making use of a less direct conversation style to protect others or make them look good.

Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory is based on several assumptions about the extent to which face negotiated within a culture and what existing value patterns shape culture of members' preferences for the process of negotiating face in conflict situations. The Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory is not only influenced by the individual and culture, but also the relationship and the situation of the people experiencing the conflict.