To begin with, the research will administer a number of questionnaires to several participants in various different national cultures asking them to give a description of interpersonal conflict. After administering the questionnaires, the major findings of the this study came as follows; cultural individualism collectivism revealed direct and indirect effects on conflict styles, self-face and other-face related positively with independent self construal. Additionally, self-face related positively with conflict styles that are dominant and other-face related positively with integrating and avoiding styles, and finally, face accounted for all of the total variance explained (Littlejohn and Foss 172). However, it is worth noting that, face dominated and avoided some of the variances explained when considering face concerns, cultural individualism- collectivism, and self-construal.
According to Stella, conflict earns the meaning, a perceived and actual incompatibility of values, processes, expectations, and outcomes between two or more parties over relational or substantive matters. In this research, a number of investigations make maximum use of the face negotiation theory. With reference to face negotiation theory, the author argues that face is an explanatory mechanism for management different styles of conflict within different cultural groups. Face is a representation of a claimed sense of a positive image of an individual in the context of social interaction. The general tendencies of patterned responses to conflict in a variety of antagonistic interactive situations refer to styles of managing conflicts. Face negotiation theory has strength whereby, it provides an explanatory and organized framework for behavior conflicts (Littlejohn and Foss 175). Nevertheless, the underlying assumption that face is an explanatory mechanism for conflict behavior has no previous tests. Prior investigations did not measure face directly but rather used face post hoc in explaining the relationship between conflicts and variables of culture. Hence, this research sought to incorporate testing the assumption that face is the explanatory mechanism for the relationship between culture and conflict management style as well. Research findings shows that, face negotiation theory provides a decisive framework of explanation for describing differences and similarities in face and face work during times of conflict. Concisely, the face negotiation theory argues that, in all cultures, people try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations. In addition, the concept of face becomes problematic especially in situations where there is uncertainty such as conflict or embarrassment circumstances (Littlejohn and Foss 191). This happens when situated identities of communication respond to questioning. Individual level variables, variability of culture, as well as variables of situation influence