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. Collaborating or problem solving Characteristics:

 Find a common interest, very cooperative, very assertive  Children concern of both parties’ interests

2 Accommodating or smoothing Characteristics:

 Very cooperative  Low assertiveness

(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

4 Compromising Characteristics:

 Children try to find compromised solution that could satisfy both parties, but they more concern of their own interest

5 Competing or forcing Characteristics:  Uncooperative  Very assertive

 Children insist on their own interest on others

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):

(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 dimensions individualism collectivism

1 The self independency dependency

2 Personal & community goals

independent dependent

3 Focused cognition Social behavior is directed by personal behavior, need & convention / agreements

Social behavior is directed by norms, tasks & responsibility

(4)

no aspects individualism collectivism

1 definition Social patterns: Monolithic & homogen  lack of individual

relationship

 Commonalities in thinking, emotional & behavior

 Independent on a certain group

 Dependent on a certain group  Focused on personal

attributes

 Focused on collective attributes

 Motivated by

attractiveness, needs, rights, agreements

 Priority on personal goals  Rational analysis on loss &

benefits in relating with others

 Lack of harmony:  harmony

 Argumentation will solve problems

2 goals  Individual has his own goal

 inconsistent with the group’ s goal

 Concern on collective goals,  Individual goal is consistent with

the group’s goal  In conflict, concern only on

their own goal

 Individual behaves as group’s expectation, never against them Attributes:

No attributes individualism collectivism

1 Self perception _ Individual as basic unit of social perception

 Group as basic unit of social perception

Social perception  Individual who has a relation

 A set of organized relation between individuals

Consequences  Positive consequences of behavior

 Negative consequences of behavior

2 Identity & _ What they own and experience

 Obtained from relationship between group’s members

Emotion _ Focused on ego  Focused on others (empathy)

 Long term, remain unchanged with changes in situation

 short term, as long as they are in the same situation

3 Cognition Focused on personal needs & rights, self capacities& agreements

Focused on group’s needs

4 Motivation Motive structures, a reflection of personal needs, rights &

(5)

capacities, incl. survive in social pressures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

needs

5 Attitude Believe in self-reliance, hedonism, competition & emotionally unintegrated in group

Like sociable, interdependent & family integrity

6 Norms Less consensus related with male-female roles

More consensus related with male-female roles

7 Values Less safety, in group

inharmonious relationship, rationalized relationship

Incl. safety, good social relationship, in group harmonious relationship, personalized relationship

8 Social behavior  Behavior is independent on the context

 Behavior is dependent on the context

 More skills to face new group & strangers

 Little skills to face new group & strangers

 relationship tends to be less closer

 Once relationship formed, tends to be more closer & long term relationship

9 privacy _ Everyone has to mind his own business

 Respect to privacy

 Individual business is group’s business

 Individual has freedom to think freely

10 communication  Use ‘I’  Use ‘we’

 focused on content  focused on context

 Clarity of the topic  Concern on others’ feeling  Say what they think, even it

is risky for the relationship

 Avoid conflict in group

 Read others’ mind curing communication

 Messages indirectly sent, dependent on eyes, distances, etc.

11 Conflict

resolution  Less use obligation,_{avoidance, integration,} compromising

 Tend to use obligation, avoidance, integration, compromising

 Less motivated to keep the relationship

 More motivated to keep the relationship

12 Morality _ Less contextual  More contextual

 Members’ welfare is less important

 Members’ welfare is the most important

13 Responsibility Individual is responsible for his own behavior

Group is responsible for the mistakes done by group’s member/s

(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_{& 5}th_{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

(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 Mean SD

1 3.08 1.148

2 2.82 .982

3 2.95 1.038

total 8.84; 2,95 2.212

Chinese children ( = 48)

situation Mean SD

1 3.50 .952

2 3.47 1.006

3 3.39 .823

(8)

Sundanese mothers ( = 48),

code

situation Mean SD

1 3.39 .547

2 3.03 .972

3 3.29 .768

4 3.11 .798

5 3.66 .745

6 3.39 1.001

7 3.21 .741

total 23.08 2.842

Code + intensity

situation Mean SD

1 7.78 1.028

2 7.06 1.284

3 7.00 1.431

4 6.85 1.267

5 7.77 1.181

6 7.21 1.373

7 6.49 1.464

total 43.97 8.793

(9)

situation Mean SD

1 3.46 1.028

2 3.53 1.284

3 3.50 1.431

4 3.425 1.267

5 3.885 1.181

6 3.605 1.373

7 3.395 1.464

total 25.225; 3.6 6.974

Chinese mothers ( = 48),

code

situation Mean SD

1 3.03 .434

2 2.58 .683

3 2.92 .712

4 2.74 .795

5 3.11 1.008

6 2.79 .811

7 2.87 .741

total 20.03 2.307

Code + intensity

situation Mean SD

1 7.78 1.028

2 7.06 1.284

3 7.00 1.431

4 6.85 1.267

5 7.77 1.181

6 7.21 1.373

7 6.49 1.464

total 43.97 8.793

(Code + intensity): 2

situation Mean SD

1 3.39 1.028

2 3.345 1.284

3 3.17 1.431

4 2.70 1.267

5 3.41 1.181

6 2.83 1.373

7 3.08 1.464

(10)

code

(11)

(code+intensity): 2

(12)

1

Sundanese

Total

.563(**) : .465(**)

Male

.624(**) : .583(**)

Female

.470(*) : .339

2

Chinese

Total

-.001 : .001

Male

.246 : .162

Female

-.255 : -.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:

(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, 2

nd

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, 2

nd

edition

. Singapore:

McGraw-Hill.

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, 5

th

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,

3

rd

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.