journal of communication & culture no

:

*
2002 65
9.02% 2014 6 11.75% 274 8,989
2014
2011
1992
;
1992Pope, Kolomer, & Glass, 2012
48.5% 20.2%
16.6%2011

20112012
1992
1999

201019992006
2011

200220042001

201320122011
Gotcher,
1993
2007

conversationconformity

Five Conflict Styles
Journal of Communication & Culture No.14
Shearman & Dumlao, 2008
Dumlao & Botta, 2000; Shearman & Dumlao,
2008; Zhang, 2007integrating
compromisingcompetingavoidingobliging

Conflict Styles

Face Negotiation
TheoryTing-Toomey 1988
2.3.

other face
mutual face
Ting-Toomey, 2005

Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai, 2000; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey,
Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, Takai, & Wilcox, 2001Ting-Toomey Oetzel
2001

apologizecompromiseconsider
the otherprivate discussiontalk about the problem
avoiding facework
give ininvolve a third
partypretenddominating
facework
Hofstede2001power distance

Hofstede, 2001
Hofstede & Hofstede,
Five

Harris, Wilcox, & Stumpf, 2003

Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990

2007
Shearman

Dumlao & Botta, 2000
Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997; Shearman & Dumlao, 2008

Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997


Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990

Shearman & Dumlao, 2008obliging
Dumlao & Botta, 2000

2007

Ritchie Fitzpatrick1990

Chronback α .93.90 Likert
1 7
Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001; Aysen, Gregory, & Aviv, 2006

Fitzpatrick Ritchie
1994

facework behaviors scale 10
54
Ting-Toomey Oetzel2001

.82 α .87
.83.70
α .90.88.89.86
Likert 1 7

30
3530
53.8%6746.2%5840.0%59
40.7%1913.1%96.2%10874.5%
2416.6%53.4%32.1%21.4%
32.1%5739.3%33
22.8%2517.2%1913.1%42.8%
21.4%1812.4%45
31.0%4732.4%3524.1%
7954.5%4531.0%2114.5%
7149%7451.0%
6846.9%3121.4%42.8%
32.1%149.7%
8457.9%2920.0%
2920.0%11579.3%3020.7%

26 .50
63.1% 1

1 2 3 4 5
18
26
19
16
2
3
21
25
7
10
13
14
11
12
15
8
1
9
22
17
4
5
20
6
23
24
.808
.786
.782
.755
.744
.736
.725
.719
.715
.652
.574
.565
.517
-.058
.012
-.100
-.142
-.042
-.306
-.200
.003
-.014
.115
.075
-.024
.465
-.141
-.132
.030
-.175
-.135
-.007
-.081
-.316
-.014
.128
-.104
-.182
.014
.820
.788
.727
.724
.714
.704
.689
.673
.642
.604
-.111
.306
-.007
.022
.220
-.009
.062
-.026
-.190
.046
.144
.183
.443
.473
.246
.407
.150
.000
-.033
.096
-.077
-.052
-.008
-.250
-.167
-.237
.717
-.128
.005
-.326
.001
.071
-.336
.301
.050
-.327
-.246
.411
.198
-.044
-.301
.192
.031
-.043
.329
-.147
.176
.288
.189
.037
.068
-.140
-.171
.588
.017
.019
.207
.027
.074
.081
.040
.007
.107
-.209
.080
.094
.300
-.035
-.088
-.199
.012
.084
.173
.065
-.098
.306
-.150
-.434
.011
.061
.705
23 .50 64.7%

2
2
1 2 3 4
12
15
8
9
22
1
17
4
5
20
18
16
21
25
14
26
2
3
7
19
11
13
10
.804
.784
.727
.720
.700
.697
.689
.684
.650
.644
-.119
-.160
-.057
-.310
-.205
-.128
-.103
.032
.026
.062
.012
-.123
.115
-.099
-.027
-.327
-.114
-.413
-.007
-.284
.031
-.125
.202
.822
.802
.795
.677
.606
.563
.274
.459
.218
.489
.254
.452
.270
-.091
-.065
.149
.066
-.016
-.269
-.048
.049
.098
-.052
.275
.178
.248
.320
.181
.460
.827
.682
.679
.540
.152
.167
.513
.174
.085
.064
-.032
-.048
.082
.021
-.191
-.100
-.243
.166
.235
.058
.221
.255
.404
.129
-.066
.392
.256
.759
.619
.566
17 .50 68%
3
1 2 3 4 5
_4 .856 -.019 .102 .000 -.010
_3 .838 .028 .193 .001 .057
_49 .721 .172 .053 .014 -.487
_48 .689 .229 -.048 .046 -.339
_50 .679 .309 -.044 .082 -.402
_5 .637 .178 -.008 -.234 .268
_2 .631 .111 .070 .163 .176
_1 .526 .045 .255 .294 .263
_53 .097 .898 .182 -.041 .002
_52 .157 .888 .280 .001 .018
_51 .178 .832 .068 .236 -.088
_11 .045 .200 .843 .204 -.126
_10 .051 .147 .814 .365 -.067
_7 .303 .268 .577 -.081 .251
_8 -.035 .056 .181 .894 .115
_9 .119 .077 .186 .837 .130
_6 .050 -.002 -.051 .276 .744
6

8 16 4
4
1 2 3 4
_4 .846 -.042 .154 .012
_3 .818 -.010 .265 .019
_49 .767 .273 -.065 .008
_48 .725 .293 -.109 .027
_50 .722 .391 -.129 .060
_5 .607 .067 .173 -.228
_2 .606 .031 .189 .177
_1 .484 -.048 .375 .328
_53 .098 .867 .241 -.052
_52 .151 .854 .341 -.001
_51 .192 .822 .091 .221
_11 .023 .262 .733 .254
_10 .024 .202 .710 .413
_7 .252 .201 .670 -.043
_8 -.054 .057 .147 .904
_9 .097 .058 .182 .854
KMO .83Bartlett
13
.60 63.7%
5 5 3 13 5
5
_19
_18
6
1 2 3 4 5
_41 .788 .218 .120 .231 .042
_43 .759 .270 .232 .094 .140
_40 .677 .227 -.001 .162 .373
_42 .668 .343 .401 .157 -.143
_30 .654 .085 .533 .275 .035
_32 .613 .219 .103 .269 .118
_31 .539 .309 .538 .351 -.059
_39 .428 .404 -.114 .350 -.011
_37 .145 .805 .137 .104 .295
_35 .214 .804 .266 .143 .017
_36 .297 .792 .292 .209 -.037
_34 .231 .616 .320 .328 -.082
_33 .486 .585 .277 .170 .029
_38 .411 .560 .165 .212 .050
_23 -.019 .230 .767 .158 .346
_22 .135 .159 .754 .302 .221
_44 .253 .303 .731 .159 .064
_45 .354 .405 .663 .207 .122
_27 .184 .248 .288 .815 .050
_26 .174 .137 .107 .786 .181
_25 .280 .211 .371 .690 -.001
_29 .358 .323 .227 .547 -.119
_24 .107 .044 .267 .033 .860
_28 .321 .060 .281 .492 .493
243132 39 20
.50 71.4%

6 5
4 5 20 7
7
1 2 3 4
_36 .840 .270 .230 .191
_35 .833 .204 .161 .187
_37 .769 .155 .115 .195
_34 .656 .176 .316 .274
_33 .631 .429 .185 .238
_38 .552 .419 .209 .149
_41 .254 .801 .275 .047
_43 .294 .783 .142 .197
_40 .184 .718 .201 .076
_42 .424 .650 .189 .267
_30 .159 .629 .314 .459
_27 .288 .156 .830 .232
_26 .125 .156 .782 .147
_25 .276 .261 .727 .267
_29 .392 .308 .568 .110
_28 .047 .357 .559 .335
_23 .219 .019 .177 .852
_22 .165 .170 .318 .803
_44 .339 .274 .176 .705
_45 .432 .377 .231 .637

α .93 13
α .90 10 α .86 8
α .82 8 α .87 5
α .83 5 α .70 3
α .90 6 α .88 5 α .89
4 α .86 5 8
8
.93
1819212526 13
.90
2022: 10
.86 12345484950 8
.82 7891011515253 8
.87 17~21 5
.83 1415164647 5
.70 121354 3
.90 33-38 6
.89 22234445 4
.86 25~29: 5

145
M=4.45, SD=1.05M=3.97, SD=1.13
M=5.22, SD=.80
M=4.39, SD=.80M=3.27, SD=.78
9

[F1,140change=44.14, R 2 =.24, p<.01]β=.49,
t=6.64, p<.01
[F1,140change= 16.17, R 2 =.10, p<.01]β=.32, t=4.02, p<.01

[F1,140change=17.26, R 2 =.11, p<.01]
β=.33, t=4.16, p<.01

MANONA Wilks’Lambda=.75, [F9,
331.14=4.73, p<.01] Pillai’s Trace=.32, [F9, 404=4.79, p<.01]

[F3,141=6.03, p<.01]
M=5.42, SD=.69M=5.51, SD=.50
M=4.82, SD=1.07
M=5.05, SD=.76
H2b
[F3,141
=3.81, p<.02]M=4.61, SD=.65
M=4.00, SD=.93
M=4.49, SD=.87M=4.39, SD=.66
H3b
[F3,141
=4.94, p<.01]M=3.61, SD=.87M=3.00,
SD=.78M=3.08, SD=.61
M=3.36, SD=.73
10
10
N=43 5.51 .50
N=35 5.05 .76
N=30 4.81 1.04
N=37 4.61 .65 3.81 *
N=43 4.39 .66
N=35 4.49 .87
N=30 4.00 .93
N=37 3.61 .87 4.94 **
N=43 3.08 .61
N=35 3.36 .73
N=30 3.00 .78
* .02
** .01
Dumlao, 2008; Zhang, 2007 H1b

Botta, 2000; Zhang, 2007; Shearman & Dumlao, 2008

2007

2003
Lin & Yi, 20112002
2013
Koerner,
establish common ground

M=5.40, SD=.67M=5.07,SD =.87
[t143= -2.51, p<.02]

http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_content.aspx?sn=5060
http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_content.aspx?sn=8664&page=1
2007
33:177-187
2005
144369-382
1998
9:3-52
2012
2011—
58257-62
2014
1992
1111-12
1999
7115-28
2007
172171-179
1994
2004

53
194-6
154275-288
2002
153258-270
2008
2004
464307-328

25141-196
2011
2001
183189-198
5815-65
Blieszner, R. & Alley, J. M. (1990). Family caregiving for the elderly: An
overview of resources. Family Relations, 39, 97-102.
Dumlao, R., & Botta, R. (2000). Family communication patterns and the
conflict styles young adults use with their fathers. Communication
Quarterly, 482, 174-189.
167–179.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within
the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human
Communication Research, 20(3), 275–301.
Gotcher, J. M. (1995). Well-Adjusted and Maladjusted Cancer Patients: An
examination of communication variables. Health Communication.7(1),
21-33.
institutions, and organizations across nations. (2 nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind. (2 nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Koerner, A. F., & Cvancara, K. E. (2002). The influence of conformity
orientation on communication patterns in family conversations. Journal of
Family Communication, 2, 133-152.
A social cognitive approach. In D. Braithwaite & L. Baxter (Eds.),
Engaging theories in family communication:Multiple perspectives(pp.
50–65). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick M. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of
conversation orientation and conformity orientation of conflict in the
family. Communication Studies, 48, 59-75.
Koerner, A.F. (2013). Family conflict communication. In J. Oetzel & S.
Ting-Toomey (Eds.) The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2 nd
ed., pp. 211-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lin, J. P., &Yi, C. C. (2011). Filial norms and intergenerational support to aging
parents in China and Taiwan. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20,
109-120.
McLeod, J., & Chaffee, S. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J.
Tedeschi. (Ed.), The social influence process. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Montgomery, J. R. (1992). Gender differences in patterns of child-parent
caregiving relationships. In Dwyer, Jeffrey W. & Coward, Raymond T.
Eds., Gender, Families, and Elder Care.pp.65-83. C.A.:Sage.
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Chew, M., Harris, R., Wilcox, R., & Stumpf, S.
(2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A
cross-cultural comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S.
Americans. Journal of Family Communication, 3, 67-93.
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., &
Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural
comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Communication Monographs, 68, 235-258.
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., & Takai, J. (2000).
A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and
relative strangers. Communication Quarterly, 48(4), 397-419.
Pope, N. D., Kolomer, S., & Glass, A. P.(2012). How women in late midlife

become caregivers for their aging parents. Journal of Women and Aging,
24, 242-261.
Pyke, K. D. &Bengtson, V. L. (1996). Caring more or less: Individualistic and
collectivist systems of family eldercare. Journal of Marriage and Family,
58, 379-392.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handing interpersonal conflict.
Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2011). Family communication. (2 nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shearman, S. M. & Dumlao, R. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of
communication patterns and conflict between young adults and parents.
Journal of Family Communication, 8, 186-211.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory.
In Y.Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural
communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp.71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S.L.,&
Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, facemaintenance, and styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. The International Journal
of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural
conflict: An updatedface-negotiation theory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict
effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict
styles: Current status and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst & W. B.
Mody (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication
(2 nd
Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in
Chinese parent-child relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55(1),
113–128.

:
1 7
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.“”
6.
7.
8.“”
9.
10.
11.
12.“”
13.
14.
15.“
16.
17.
18.

20.“”
21.“/
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

1 7

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

?
4.
6.
________________
9. ?
14

14. ______________
15. ?

The Effect of Family Communication Patterns on Coping
Strategies of Child-parent Conflicts in Taiwan: In the
Context of Taking Care of Their Aging Parents
Hsiao Hsuan Huang & Chuan Chuan Cheng
Abstract
Based on the model of family communication patterns and face negotiation
theory, this study investigated the effect of family communication patterns on
adult children’s choice of strategies in coping with their child-parent conflicts in
the context of taking care of their aging parents. Self-report questionnaires were
used in this study. Snowball and purposive samplings were chosen to recruit
respondents nation-wide in Taiwan. The valid data for this study were provided
by 145 N=145 adult children who were in charge of taking care of their
aging parents.
communication patterns was positively associated with the use of integrating
facework. The adult- children from consensual and pluralistic families used
integrating facework more than those from laissez-faire families in dealing with
their child-parent conflicts. The conformity orientation of family
communication patterns was positively associated with the use of avoiding and
dominating facework. The adult- children from consensual families used
avoiding facework more than those from laissez-faire families, and used
dominating facework more than those from the pluralistic and laissez-faire
families in dealing with their child-parent conflicts. The theoretical and
practical implications of the effect of family communication patterns on
child-parent conflicts were discussed.
caregivers, child-parent conflicts

journal of communication & culture no

Documents