Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution strategy

Abstract

The present field study investigates how an individual’s interpersonal conflict resolution behavior is affected by the individual’s personality (assessed by the Big 5) and a situational factor (the other party’s conflict behavior), as well as how the two factors interact. A hierarchical regression analysis based on 256 student–roommate/friend dyads shows that both factors are important. Extraversion and Agreeableness were significantly related to most conflict strategies used by students. The results show that interactions between the parties in conflict situations are strongly governed by the norm of reciprocity. Finally, we found some empirical support for the interaction effect between personality and situation, suggesting that an individual’s conflict behavior is more complex than what the dispositional or the situational view may suggest.

Introduction

Conflict is an “interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 1992, p. 16). Interpersonal conflicts are one of the most important sources of distress in daily life (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989). However, interpersonal conflicts do not necessarily produce negative consequences. Many scholars have maintained that conflicts can yield various benefits (Baron, 1991, Deutsch, 1973). Whether conflicts yield negative or positive consequences depends how conflicts are resolved.

Despite their importance, the influences on individuals’ conflict behaviors are poorly understood. Extant literature on conflict tends to focus either on an individual’s personality (Antonioni, 1998, Graziano et al., 1996, Sternberg and Soriano, 1984) or situational factors (Mills and Chusmir, 1988, Putnam and Wilson, 1982, Rahim et al., 2001). This division is quite surprising, considering that most researchers now view behavior as a function of both the person and the environment (Lewin, 1935). Moreover, previous studies suggest that interactions between the person and the situation may account for as much of the variation in social behavior as the two factors considered by themselves (Bowers, 1973, Price and Bouffard, 1974). Thus, to fully understand an individual’s conflict behavior, we must examine the person, the situation, and their interaction simultaneously.

Previous research on conflict has identified four distinctive conflict resolution strategies based on two dimensions: Concern for meeting one’s own interests, and concern for meeting the other’s interests (Blake & Mouton, 1964). The first strategy, competing or dominating strategy is an attempt to satisfy one’s own concerns at the expense of the other. In accommodation or obliging strategy people neglect their own concerns to satisfy the other party’s concerns. Collaboration or integrating strategy represents an attempt to resolve conflicts in a win–win manner. Finally, an avoiding strategy allows events to take their own course. Thus, avoiding is likely to yield lose–lose outcome in which neither of the parties satisfies its concerns (Rahim, 1992, Thomas, 1992). The present study examines how an individual’s own personality and the conflict strategies used by his or her interaction partner individually and jointly shape the individual’s choice of conflict strategy. We argue that since conflicts are an interactive process between two parties, one of the most important situational factors is how the other party behaves in conflict.

Personality affects an individual’s choice of conflict strategy through various motivational, cognitive, and affective processes. For example, people with different personalities may have different motivations, and thus use different conflict strategies because they value and seek different outcomes in the conflict situation. Alternatively, people with different conflict strategies may perceive the same situation differently (Graziano et al., 1996) which in turn leads them to use different strategies. Finally, people tend to experience more positive affect when they engage in behaviors that are compatible with their personality (Diener et al., 1984, Moskowitz and Cote, 1995), and therefore may find the use of some conflict strategies more rewarding than others. Based on these general ideas, the following discussion considers ways in which the Big Five personality factors are likely to predict the use of specific conflict resolution strategies.

Among the Big Five, Agreeableness is the most relevant personality dimension in conflict research (Graziano et al., 1996). Agreeable persons are warm, generous, trusting, and cooperative. Agreeableness is characterized as a strong motivation to maintain positive relations with others (Wiggins, 1991) and as an active concern for the welfare of others (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, agreeable persons are likely to avoid conflicts (Asendorpf and Wilpers, 1998, Suls et al., 1998), forgive transgressors (McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001), and to conform to others’ demands when involved in conflicts (Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993).

Agreeable persons may also differ from disagreeable persons in their cognitive processes. Previous research suggests that agreeable persons tend to make positive attributions for otherwise provocative behaviors (Graziano et al., 1996). In addition, because people tend to experience more positive affect when they are in situations or engage in behaviors that are compatible with their personality (Diener et al., 1984, Moskowitz and Cote, 1995), agreeable persons should experience more positive affect when they engage in cooperative behaviors than competing behaviors. Thus, Agreeableness is likely to be positively related to avoiding, accommodation, and collaboration and negatively related to competing.

Extraversion is also related to social interactions. Highly extraverted individuals are characterized as sociable, assertiveness, and positive emotionality (Watson & Clark, 1997). These characteristics are thought to reflect the basic motivation to obtain rewards (Gray, 1981). Gray (1981) has argued that extraversion stems from sensitivity to reward signals. Since rewards are usually obtained by winning competition (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002), extraverts tend to use competing strategy, rather than accommodation or avoiding strategy.

To collaborate people must pursue their own concerns assertively but be willing to work together to find solutions that are satisfactory to both parties. Collaboration requires sociability and assertiveness, and extraverts have these characteristics. Extraversion is also negatively related to communication apprehension, a fear or anxiety level associated with communication (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998). Thus, extraverts are likely to share information with others, which increases the possibility of pursuing win–win solutions. Finally, previous research suggests that positive affect, which is more likely to be experienced by individuals high in extraversion, is related to pro-social behavior, such as cooperation (Cunningham, 1988, Cunningham et al., 1980).

People high in Neuroticism are anxious, emotionally unstable, easily embarrassed, and depressed (Wiggins, 1996). According to Gray (1981), such characteristics of neurotic persons stem from heightened sensitivity to punishment cues and negative events. Since neurotic persons tend to pay more attention to negative events than emotionally stable persons, neurotic persons are likely to react more negatively to interpersonal conflicts (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999).

High anxiety and emotional instability also make neurotic persons less able to control their impulses (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Since collaboration and accommodation strategies require effortful analysis and complex problem solving (Barry & Friedman, 1998) and/or emotional stability, neurotic persons are less likely to use these two strategies. Rather, when experiencing conflicts, neurotic persons are likely to attack the other party (competing) or avoid the conflicts altogether (Antonioni, 1998, Moberg, 2001).

Conscientiousness is associated with being industrious, disciplined, and responsible. The strong achievement motivation of conscientious persons suggests that they are less likely to use accommodation and avoiding strategies because these strategies may not allow them to achieve their goals (Digman and Takemoto-Chock, 1981, Piedmont et al., 1991). Strong achievement motivation may lead highly conscientious individuals to pursue a competing strategy because they tend to be better prepared and, thus outperform the other party in conflict situations.

However, conscientious persons also have high integrity (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Competing strategies allow them to achieve their goals, but only at the expense of the other. Thus, highly conscientious persons may prefer collaboration strategies, which allow both parties to satisfy their own concerns. As discussed above, to the extent that collaboration strategy requires effortful analysis, highly conscientious persons are more able to pursue collaboration than less conscientious persons.

Openness to Experience is the most cognitive dimension of the Big Five. Persons with high Openness tend to be imaginative, original, adventurous, and thoughtful. These characteristics of Openness reflect an individual’s complex structure of consciousness (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Openness also includes needs for variety and novelty (Maddi and Berne, 1964, McCrae and Costa, 1997). Persons with high openness are not only able to access and process more thoughts, feelings, and impulses, they are also motivated to seek out new and varied experience (McCrae & Costa, 1997). This suggests that open persons may be more likely to engage, rather than avoid conflicts.

Openness is especially critical to resolving conflicts constructively. Open persons are “unorthodox, free-thinking, and prone to flout convention” (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 825). Previous research suggests that most people assume all conflicts are win–lose, even though most conflicts involve win–win opportunities (Bazerman & Neale, 1983). Openness should help overcome such a bias, and enable people to see opportunities for collaboration that others would miss. Open persons are also more receptive to the other party’s perspective than closed persons (Gurtman, 1995), and thus, they may be more accommodating and less competing.

In sum, the foregoing suggests the following hypotheses.

• Agreeableness will be positively associated with avoiding, accommodation, and collaboration and negatively associated with competing.

• Extraversion will be positively associated with competing and collaboration, and negatively associated with accommodation and avoiding.

• Neuroticism will be positively associated with competing and avoiding, and negatively associated with collaboration and accommodation.

• Conscientiousness will be positively associated with collaboration and competing and negatively associated with accommodation and avoiding.

• Openness to Experience will be positively associated with collaboration and accommodation and negatively associated with avoiding and competing.

Conflict does not occur in a vacuum. Thus, an individual’s decision to use a particular conflict strategy is likely to be constrained by situational factors (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). One of the most important situational factors is the conflict strategy used by the other party. Because conflict is an interactive process involving two individuals or social units, people may adjust their conflict behaviors based on the other party’s conflict behaviors (Knapp et al., 1988, Thomas, 1992).

In this paper, we argue that the interactions between the parties involved in conflict are strongly governed by the norm of reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity dictates that if one party receives something from the other party, that party returns something equivalent (Gouldner, 1960). This norm is so strong and universal that some scholars have argued that reciprocating is a nearly instinctive response (Brett et al., 1998, Hoffman et al., 1998). The norm of reciprocity suggests that individuals are likely to adopt the same conflict strategy used by the other party.

• Thus, we expect that an individual’s use of one conflict strategy will be positively associated with the extent to which the other party uses the same conflict strategy.

Interactional researchers have argued that an individual’s personality will predict social behavior better in “weak” situations than in “strong” situations (Mischel, 1977). In strong situations, the individual’s behavior is constrained by situational demands and there is little ambiguity about the most appropriate response. Consequently, the parties involved in a given conflict will tend to behave similarly, suggesting a weaker personality effect where situations are strong. By contrast, “weak” situations are unstructured and ambiguous. Since a wide variety of behavior may be considered appropriate in “weak” situations, people are more likely to choose behaviors consistent with their personality (Mischel, 1977, Secord and Backman, 1965).

In a conflict situation, the situation is “strong” for one party when there is little ambiguity about the other party’s conflict strategy. When the other party clearly exhibits a certain conflict strategy, the norm of reciprocity prescribes responding with the same conflict strategy. When the other party does not demonstrate a discernable conflict strategy, however, an individual is likely to behave in a way that is consistent with his or her personality.

Openness may be an exception to the above discussion. As we discussed above, open persons are unorthodox and unconventional. That is, open persons may not think to mirror the other party’s conflict strategy. This suggests that the choice of conflict strategy may be less strongly affected by the other party’s conflict strategy for those who are high in Openness. These considerations lead to the following hypotheses.

• The effects of personality on choice of conflict strategy will be weaker when the other party scores high on a conflict strategy than when he or she scores low.

• However, the effect described in H7a will be less true for individuals who are high in Openness to Experience than for individuals who are high on other personality dimensions.