Conflict-resolution Of Sundanese And Chinese Children In Bandung, Indonesia.

1
Conflict-resolution of Sundanese and Chinese children in Bandung, Indonesia
Wilis Srisayekti
Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
Presented at XXIX International Congress of Psychology 2008, 20-25 July, Berlin, Germany

Abstract
This study was aimed to describe the conflict-resolution-pattern of children from two subcultures
in Indonesia, and its relationship with the mother’s value orientation toward social relation.
Subjects were 40 Sundanese children, 40 Chinese children, male and female, 9-12 year old, with
their mothers. Their recent conflict experiences of children and its resolution were gathered by
using self-report through an interview. The individualism-collectivism tendency of mother’s
values was concluded from their reactions to the hypothetical situations in vignettes. Results
indicated a similar tendency from both subcultures, both for the conflict-resolution-pattern of
children and its relationship with the mother’s value orientation.
Term of References
Conflict
Conflict (Shantz & Hartup, 1992, p.4):
 A state of resistance or opposition between (at least) two individuals.
Conflict resolution (Shantz & Hartup, 1992, p.225):
 Actions that terminate an oppositional exchange.



Thomas (1976, in fisher, 1982), two dimensions;
Assertiveness & cooperativeness
a. Assertiveness
The willingness to satisfy one own interest
b. Cooperativeness
The willingness to satisfy others’ interest
Five patterns:
1.

2

Collaborating or problem solving
Characteristics:
 Find a common interest, very cooperative, very assertive
 Children concern of both parties’ interests
Accommodating or smoothing
Characteristics:
 Very cooperative

 Low assertiveness
 Children concern of others’ interest and satisfaction more then their own

2

3

Avoiding or withdrawal
Characteristics:
 Uncooperative
 Unassertive
 Children tend to avoid conflict
 There is no conflict resolution
 They are not interested in thinking about the conflict, both for others’ and their own
interest
Compromising
Characteristics:
 Children try to find compromised solution that could satisfy both parties, but they
more concern of their own interest
Competing or forcing

Characteristics:
 Uncooperative
 Very assertive
 Children insist on their own interest on others

4

5

Value
Definitions as compiled by Schwartz & Bilsky (1987, in Smith & Schwartz, 1997):
1. It is a belief, it is not objective, and it is still an idea. Value becomes active when it blends
with feeling or emotion.
2. It is the expected goal (e.g. togetherness) and it leads to the simple objectives that support the
main goals such as equitability.
3. It is particular on the specific actions or situations. Obedience for example, is relevant at
school and work setting, sport and business settings, family and social settings.
4. It is a standard and an evaluator for behavior, people and events.
5. It depends on the interests that are related one another. A set of values builds a system of the
value’s priorities.

6. Values as well as beliefs, have cognitive, affective and behavior components.
 As a cognitive component, value is something wanted. An individual has a value if he/she
knows the right way to behave or the right reason to keep that way.
 The affective component of value makes an individual feels an emotion about something. It
makes individual to affectively oppose something; he/she agrees with others who support
him/her but disagrees with others who give negative responses to hem/her.
 Value has a behavior component when it is an intervention’s variable that leads into actions
when it is activated.
Value orientation
Based on the finding that there is a consistent relationship between individual’s values (Feather,
1995) and behavior (Schwarts, 1996, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997):



A set of value priorities is reflected on the individual’s attitudes and behavior.
This set of value priorities directs individual to behave in every situation.

3



Value orientation:
Set of value priorities that direct individual to behave and to interact with his environments in
various situations (Feather, 1995; Schwarts, 1996, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997)

Value orientation collectivism vs. individualism
Collectivism & individualism (Hofstede, 1980):




Concept of cultural level, it is not individual attribute
Some researchers use this concept to show individual differences or personal variable
individual, a level where individuals have values, norms and attitudes related to collective or
individual cultures.
Those researchers prefer to select one general dimension to differentiate individual in
collective culture from individual culture.

Main characteristics (Triandis, 1995, in Smith & Schwarz, 1997)




priority on personal interest vs. on group interest
independency, emotional bond, personal achievement vs. dependency, emotional attachment,
group achievement, cooperation

Cultural syndrome:
 patterns characterized by organized common believes, behavior, norms, values
 found in several geographical areas and certain historical periods
 constructed by several basic cultural syndrome
 exist on the individual level
General dimensions (Triandis, 1995)
no
1
2
3

dimensions
The self
Personal & community

goals
Focused cognition

4

Relationship with others

individualism
independency
independent

collectivism
dependency
dependent

Social behavior is directed by
personal behavior, need &
convention / agreements
relationship itself

Social behavior is directed
by
norms,
tasks
&
responsibility
rational analytic on loss &
benefits

4

no
1

individualism
Social patterns:
 lack
of
individual
relationship

 Independent on a certain
group
 Focused
on
personal
attributes
 Motivated
by
attractiveness, needs, rights,
agreements
 Priority on personal goals
 Rational analysis on loss &
benefits in relating with
others
 Lack of harmony:
 Argumentation will solve
problems
 Individual has his own goal
 inconsistent with the group’
s goal

 In conflict, concern only on
their own goal

collectivism
Monolithic & homogen
 Commonalities
in
thinking,
emotional & behavior
 Dependent on a certain group

No attributes

individualism

collectivism

1





2

aspects
definition

goals



Focused on collective attributes



harmony




Concern on collective goals,
Individual goal is consistent with
the group’s goal
Individual behaves as group’s
expectation, never against them



Attributes:

Self perception
Social perception
Consequences

2

Identity &
Emotion

3

Cognition

4

Motivation

Individual as basic unit of
social perception
 Individual who has a
relation
 Positive consequences of
behavior
 What they own and
experience
 Focused on ego
 Long
term,
remain
unchanged with changes in
situation
Focused on personal needs &
rights,
self
capacities&
agreements
Motive structures, a reflection
of personal needs, rights &







Group as basic unit of social
perception
A set of organized relation
between individuals
Negative
consequences
of
behavior
Obtained
from
relationship
between group’s members
Focused on others (empathy)
short term, as long as they are in
the same situation

Focused on group’s needs
Motive structures, a reflection of
acceptance & adaptation on others’

5

5

Attitude

6

Norms

7

Values

8

Social behavior

9

privacy

10

communication

11

Conflict
resolution

12

Morality

13

Responsibility

capacities, incl. survive in
social pressures (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991)
Believe
in
self-reliance,
hedonism,
competition
&
emotionally unintegrated in
group
Less consensus related with
male-female roles
Less
safety,
in
group
inharmonious
relationship,
rationalized relationship
 Behavior is independent on
the context
 More skills to face new
group & strangers
 relationship tends to be less
closer

needs
Like sociable, interdependent &
family integrity

More consensus related with malefemale roles
Incl. safety, good social relationship,
in group harmonious relationship,
personalized relationship
 Behavior is dependent on the
context
 Little skills to face new group &
strangers
 Once relationship formed, tends
to be more closer & long term
relationship
 Everyone has to mind his  Individual business is group’s
own business
business
 Respect to privacy
 Individual has freedom to
think freely
 Use ‘I’
 Use ‘we’
 focused on content
 focused on context
 Clarity of the topic
 Concern on others’ feeling
 Say what they think, even it  Avoid conflict in group
is risky for the relationship
 Read others’ mind curing
communication
 Messages
indirectly
sent,
dependent on eyes, distances,
etc.
 Less
use
obligation,  Tend
to
use
obligation,
avoidance,
integration,
avoidance,
integration,
compromising
compromising
 Less motivated to keep the  More motivated to keep the
relationship
relationship
 Less contextual
 More contextual
 Members’ welfare is less  Members’ welfare is the most
important
important
Individual is responsible for his Group is responsible for the mistakes
own behavior
done by group’s member/s

Research on individualism & collectivism (Triandis, 1995)
Indonesian & Chinese are more collective cultures

6

In Indonesia?
More than 13.000 islands, 360 ethnic groups, 250 languages
Major ethnic groups, sub cultures, empirical findings minimum
Aims of the study :
To describe the conflict-resolution-pattern of children
To show its relationship with the mother’s value orientation toward social relation
Case: sundanese & Chinese children in Bandung, Indonesia


A beginning of the study of subcultures in Indonesia

Methods
Subjects:
40 Sundanese children with 40 Sundanese mothers, 40 Chinese children with 40 Chinese
children, male and female students, primary school 4th & 5th grade, 9-11 year old.
Data collection:
Children:
 Self-report through an interview:
The children were asked to tell their recent conflict experiences and its resolution during the
last four weeks
 Coding:
Inter-rater, two psychologists
Five patterns from Thomas (1976, in fisher, 1982);
5 - Collaborating or problem solving
4 - Accommodating or smoothing
3 - Avoiding or withdrawal
2 - Compromising
1 - Competing or forcing
Mothers:
 The hypothetical situations in vignettes:
7 conflict situations (from survey):
3 (three) conflict situations in which they might be often involved in the daily life
3 (three) conflict situations in which their children might be involved with their peers
1 (one) conflict situation, neutral, in which they might not be involved directly
 The vignettes were constructed based on Shantz (1992) situations:
A state of verbal or non verbal resistance or opposition between (at least) two individuals.
The mothers were asked to tell or describe their reactions
Coding:
Inter-rater, two psychologists
The individualism-collectivism tendency of mother’s value orientation toward social relation

7

collectivism
5 - Focused on only others’ interest and / or sacrifice their own interest
4 - Focused on others’ interest with a bit concern on their own interest
3 - Focused on the harmony between others’ interest and their own interest or behave
according to the norms
2 - Focused on their own interest with a bit concern on others’ interest
1 - Focused on their own interest, have no concern on others’ interest at al
individualism
Results
Sundanese children ( = 48)
situation
1
2
3
total

Mean

SD
3.08
2.82
2.95
8.84; 2,95

1.148
.982
1.038
2.212

Chinese children ( = 48)
situation
1
2
3
total

Mean

SD
3.50
3.47
3.39
10.37; 3,5

.952
1.006
.823
2.019

8

Sundanese mothers ( = 48),
code
situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total

Mean

SD
3.39
3.03
3.29
3.11
3.66
3.39
3.21
23.08

.547
.972
.768
.798
.745
1.001
.741
2.842

Code + intensity
situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total
(Code + intensity): 2

Mean

SD
7.78
7.06
7.00
6.85
7.77
7.21
6.49
43.97

1.028
1.284
1.431
1.267
1.181
1.373
1.464
8.793

9

situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total

Mean

SD
3.46
3.53
3.50
3.425
3.885
3.605
3.395
25.225; 3.6

1.028
1.284
1.431
1.267
1.181
1.373
1.464
6.974

Chinese mothers ( = 48),
code
situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total

Mean

SD
3.03
2.58
2.92
2.74
3.11
2.79
2.87
20.03

.434
.683
.712
.795
1.008
.811
.741
2.307

Code + intensity
situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total

Mean

SD
7.78
7.06
7.00
6.85
7.77
7.21
6.49
43.97

1.028
1.284
1.431
1.267
1.181
1.373
1.464
8.793

(Code + intensity): 2
situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
total

Mean

SD
3.39
3.345
3.17
2.70
3.41
2.83
3.08
21.985; 3.14

1.028
1.284
1.431
1.267
1.181
1.373
1.464
8.793;

10

code

Code + intensity

11

(code+intensity): 2

Relationship between the conflict-resolution-pattern of children and the mothers’ value
orientation

12
no
1
2

subcultures
Sundanese
Chinese

r
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female

.563(**)

: .465(**)

.624(**)

: .583(**)

.470(*)

: .339

-.001
.246
-.255

: .001
: .162
: -.242

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Conclusion:


Conflict resolution
Sundanese children: 2-3 compromising  avoiding or withdrawal
Chinese children : 3-4 avoiding or withdrawal  accommodating or smoothing,

the tendency of the Sundanese children toward collectivism is weaker then
the tendency of the Chinese children toward collectivism



Value orientation of social relation
Sundanese mothers
: 3-4 more collectivism
Chinese mothers
: 2-3 less collectivism
 the tendency of the Sundanese mothers toward collectivism is stronger then the
tendency of the Chinese mothers toward collectivism



The relationship between the conflict-resolution-pattern of children and the mothers’
value orientation:
Significant in Sundanese culture (total = .563(**); male =.624(**); female = .470(*))
Insignificant in Chinese culture (total = .001; male =.246; female = .255)

Discussion:


support the finding from Triandis (1995)

13


studies with more subjects

References
Bandura, A., & Walters. R. (1964). Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt,
Inehart and Winston, USA.
Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R. (2002). Cross-Cultural
Psychology: Research and Applications, 2nd edition. Cambridge: University Press,
UK.
Bond, M.H. (1988). The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology. Sage
publication, USA.
Costanzo, P.R. (1985). Theories of Social Psychology, 2nd edition. Singapore: McGrawHill.
Crain, W.C. (1980). Theories of Development, Concepts and Applications. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Fisher, R.J. (1982). Social Psychology, an Applied Approach. St. Martin’s press
Hartup, W.W. (1985) Child Development. Chicago, Illinois: Society for research in Child
Development.
Hurlock, E. (1978). Child Growth and Development, 5th edition. New York:
Mc.GrawHill.
Koentjaraningrat. (1983). Kebudayaan, Mentalitas dan Pembangunan. Jakarta: PT.
Gramedia.
Rockeach, M. (1986). The nature of Human Value. New York: Mc.GrawHill
Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Social and Personality Development, 3rd edition. Belmont:
Wadsworth, Inc.
Shantz, C.U. Hartup, W.W. (1992). Conflict in Child and Adolescence Development. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith & Schwartz. (1997), Values. Sussex: Sussex University.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Westvie Press.