Problem. The Collectivism-Individualism literature argues that there is a difference in the way that Americans and the Chinese handle conflict based on differences in culture. It is also speculated that these differences have been influenced by Confucian values. However, these positions have not been conclusively supported by empirical findings.
Method. Both the Chinese Value Survey and Thomas and Kilmann's Management-of-Differences Exercise were administered to 124 U.S. White American graduate business students and 142 Hong Kong Chinese graduate business students. Three null hypotheses were formulated. These hypotheses stated that there is no linear combination of Integration, Human-heartedness, Confucian work dynamism, and Moral discipline that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; that there is no linear combination of Competitiveness, Collaborativeness, Avoidance, and Accommodation that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; and that there is no significant canonical correlation between Integration, Human-heartedness, Work dynamism, and Moral discipline and Avoidance, Accommodation, Competitiveness, and Collaborativeness. The data were analyzed by t-test, discriminant function analysis, and canonical regression analyses.
Results. Hypothesis 1 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese male graduate business students were placed higher than the White American male graduate business students on Moral discipline. Hypothesis 2 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were placed higher than the U.S. White American subjects on Competitiveness, Accommodation, and Collaborativeness. Hypothesis 3 was rejected because those who scored higher on Moral discipline, Integration, and Confucian work dynamism tended to score higher on Avoidance and Accommodation.
Conclusion. The results of the study indicated that the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were more collectivistic than the White American subjects and could have been influenced by Confucian values more than their White American counterparts. The Hong Kong subjects employed Avoidance, rather than Competitiveness and Collaborativeness, in conflict situations. Finally, the results implied that the people who were labelled as collectivists tended to avoid conflicts.
","abstract_html":"<p>Problem. The Collectivism-Individualism literature argues that there is a difference in the way that Americans and the Chinese handle conflict based on differences in culture. It is also speculated that these differences have been influenced by Confucian values. However, these positions have not been conclusively supported by empirical findings.</p> <p>Method. Both the Chinese Value Survey and Thomas and Kilmann's Management-of-Differences Exercise were administered to 124 U.S. White American graduate business students and 142 Hong Kong Chinese graduate business students. Three null hypotheses were formulated. These hypotheses stated that there is no linear combination of Integration, Human-heartedness, Confucian work dynamism, and Moral discipline that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; that there is no linear combination of Competitiveness, Collaborativeness, Avoidance, and Accommodation that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; and that there is no significant canonical correlation between Integration, Human-heartedness, Work dynamism, and Moral discipline and Avoidance, Accommodation, Competitiveness, and Collaborativeness. The data were analyzed by t-test, discriminant function analysis, and canonical regression analyses.</p> <p>Results. Hypothesis 1 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese male graduate business students were placed higher than the White American male graduate business students on Moral discipline. Hypothesis 2 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were placed higher than the U.S. White American subjects on Competitiveness, Accommodation, and Collaborativeness. Hypothesis 3 was rejected because those who scored higher on Moral discipline, Integration, and Confucian work dynamism tended to score higher on Avoidance and Accommodation.</p> <p>Conclusion. The results of the study indicated that the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were more collectivistic than the White American subjects and could have been influenced by Confucian values more than their White American counterparts. The Hong Kong subjects employed Avoidance, rather than Competitiveness and Collaborativeness, in conflict situations. Finally, the results implied that the people who were labelled as collectivists tended to avoid conflicts.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Chiu, Randy Ki-kwan"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Counseling Psychology, Ph.D.","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Frederick A. Kosinski, Jr.","Wilfred G. A. Futcher","A.F. Stembridge"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1992,"date_issued":"1992-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"1992-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:52Z","subjects":["Philosophy","Sociology of Culture"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/277","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Frederick A. Kosinski, Jr.","Wilfred G. A. Futcher","A.F. Stembridge"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Chiu, Randy Ki-kwan"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Counseling Psychology, Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Philosophy","Sociology of Culture"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/277"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Problem. The Collectivism-Individualism literature argues that there is a difference in the way that Americans and the Chinese handle conflict based on differences in culture. It is also speculated that these differences have been influenced by Confucian values. However, these positions have not been conclusively supported by empirical findings.
Method. Both the Chinese Value Survey and Thomas and Kilmann's Management-of-Differences Exercise were administered to 124 U.S. White American graduate business students and 142 Hong Kong Chinese graduate business students. Three null hypotheses were formulated. These hypotheses stated that there is no linear combination of Integration, Human-heartedness, Confucian work dynamism, and Moral discipline that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; that there is no linear combination of Competitiveness, Collaborativeness, Avoidance, and Accommodation that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; and that there is no significant canonical correlation between Integration, Human-heartedness, Work dynamism, and Moral discipline and Avoidance, Accommodation, Competitiveness, and Collaborativeness. The data were analyzed by t-test, discriminant function analysis, and canonical regression analyses.
Results. Hypothesis 1 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese male graduate business students were placed higher than the White American male graduate business students on Moral discipline. Hypothesis 2 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were placed higher than the U.S. White American subjects on Competitiveness, Accommodation, and Collaborativeness. Hypothesis 3 was rejected because those who scored higher on Moral discipline, Integration, and Confucian work dynamism tended to score higher on Avoidance and Accommodation.
Conclusion. The results of the study indicated that the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were more collectivistic than the White American subjects and could have been influenced by Confucian values more than their White American counterparts. The Hong Kong subjects employed Avoidance, rather than Competitiveness and Collaborativeness, in conflict situations. Finally, the results implied that the people who were labelled as collectivists tended to avoid conflicts.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Cross-Cultural Study of the Collectivism-Individualism Paradigm: the Influence of Confucian Values on the Conflict-Handling Behavior of Male Graduate Business Students in Hong Kong and the United States"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Frederick A. Kosinski, Jr.","Wilfred G. A. Futcher","A.F. Stembridge"],"dc:creator":["Chiu, Randy Ki-kwan"],"dc:description.abstract":["Problem. The Collectivism-Individualism literature argues that there is a difference in the way that Americans and the Chinese handle conflict based on differences in culture. It is also speculated that these differences have been influenced by Confucian values. However, these positions have not been conclusively supported by empirical findings.
Method. Both the Chinese Value Survey and Thomas and Kilmann's Management-of-Differences Exercise were administered to 124 U.S. White American graduate business students and 142 Hong Kong Chinese graduate business students. Three null hypotheses were formulated. These hypotheses stated that there is no linear combination of Integration, Human-heartedness, Confucian work dynamism, and Moral discipline that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; that there is no linear combination of Competitiveness, Collaborativeness, Avoidance, and Accommodation that significantly discriminates between the two sample groups; and that there is no significant canonical correlation between Integration, Human-heartedness, Work dynamism, and Moral discipline and Avoidance, Accommodation, Competitiveness, and Collaborativeness. The data were analyzed by t-test, discriminant function analysis, and canonical regression analyses.
Results. Hypothesis 1 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese male graduate business students were placed higher than the White American male graduate business students on Moral discipline. Hypothesis 2 was rejected because the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were placed higher than the U.S. White American subjects on Competitiveness, Accommodation, and Collaborativeness. Hypothesis 3 was rejected because those who scored higher on Moral discipline, Integration, and Confucian work dynamism tended to score higher on Avoidance and Accommodation.
Conclusion. The results of the study indicated that the Hong Kong Chinese subjects were more collectivistic than the White American subjects and could have been influenced by Confucian values more than their White American counterparts. The Hong Kong subjects employed Avoidance, rather than Competitiveness and Collaborativeness, in conflict situations. Finally, the results implied that the people who were labelled as collectivists tended to avoid conflicts.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/277"],"dc:subject":["Philosophy","Sociology of Culture"],"dc:title":["A Cross-Cultural Study of the Collectivism-Individualism Paradigm: the Influence of Confucian Values on the Conflict-Handling Behavior of Male Graduate Business Students in Hong Kong and the United States"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Counseling Psychology, Ph.D."],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:52Z"}