All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A cross-cultural comparison of the relationship between ICA, ICMS and assertiveness/cooperativeness tendencies
Unformatted Document Text:  Cross-cultural ICA, ICMS and Assertiveness/Cooperativeness 21 5 Accommodation 1.0 .34** -.29** .49** 6 Collaboration 1.0 .12 .55** 7 Assertiveness 1.0 .15 8 Cooperativeness 1.0 *p<.05, ** p<.01, where a positive (+) correlation indicates a negative (-) relationship and vice versa only for ICA. Table 3 shows that there were significant differences between the U.S. and Korean students in ICA (t(314)=9.79, p<.0001), avoidance (t(314)=-5.67, p<.0001), accommodation (t(314)=-4.96, p<.0001), competition (t(314)=.2.13, p<.03), compromise (t(314)=3.07, p<..002), collaboration (t(314)=-2.32, p<.02), and assertiveness (t(314)=5.62, p<.0001). Because higher scores in ICA indicate lower levels of ICA, the means of ICA for two countries were interpreted in reverse. That is, when comparing the ICA scores between the U.S. and Korea, while U.S. students showed lower ICA (M=15.03), Korean students reveal higher ICA (M=2.15). In ICMS, while Korean students used avoidance style more frequently (M=17.10) than did U.S. students (M=14.53), U.S students used competitive style more frequently (M=13.95) than did Korean students (M=13.09). While U.S. students used compromise strategy (M=17.86) more frequently than did Korean students (M=16.98), they used accommodation (M=15.00) and collaboration (M=18.51) strategies less often (M=15.00) than did Korean students (M=16.94, M=19.24 in turn). In assertiveness, U.S. students were more assertive (M=2.93) than Korean students (M=-1.26). However, no significant differences between the U.S. and Korea were found in cooperative intercultural conflict management tendency. Table 3 Mean ICA and ICMS between U.S. and Korea

Authors: Hong, Jongbae.
first   previous   Page 21 of 36   next   last



background image
Cross-cultural ICA, ICMS and Assertiveness/Cooperativeness
21
5 Accommodation
1.0 .34** -.29** .49**
6 Collaboration
1.0 .12 .55**
7 Assertiveness 1.0 .15
8 Cooperativeness
1.0

*p<.05, ** p<.01, where a positive (+) correlation indicates a negative (-) relationship
and vice versa only for ICA.
Table 3 shows that there were significant differences between the U.S. and
Korean students in ICA (t(314)=9.79, p<.0001), avoidance (t(314)=-5.67, p<.0001),
accommodation (t(314)=-4.96, p<.0001), competition (t(314)=.2.13, p<.03), compromise
(t(314)=3.07, p<..002), collaboration (t(314)=-2.32, p<.02), and assertiveness
(t(314)=5.62, p<.0001). Because higher scores in ICA indicate lower levels of ICA, the
means of ICA for two countries were interpreted in reverse.
That is, when comparing the
ICA scores between the U.S. and Korea, while U.S. students showed lower ICA
(M=15.03), Korean students reveal higher ICA (M=2.15). In ICMS, while Korean
students used avoidance style more frequently (M=17.10) than did U.S. students
(M=14.53), U.S students used competitive style more frequently (M=13.95) than did
Korean students (M=13.09). While U.S. students used compromise strategy (M=17.86)
more frequently than did Korean students (M=16.98), they used accommodation
(M=15.00) and collaboration (M=18.51) strategies less often (M=15.00) than did Korean
students (M=16.94, M=19.24 in turn). In assertiveness, U.S. students were more assertive
(M=2.93) than Korean students (M=-1.26). However, no significant differences between
the U.S. and Korea were found in cooperative intercultural conflict management
tendency.
Table 3 Mean ICA and ICMS between U.S. and Korea


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 21 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.