Exploring the Relationships between the Big Five Personality Factors, Conflict Styles, and Bargaining Behaviors Zhenzhong Ma Odette School of Business University of Windsor 401 Sunset Ave Windsor, ON Canada N9B 3P4 Tel.: 1-519-253-3000 ext 4251 Fax: 1-519-973-7073 Email: [email protected]
29
Embed
Exploring the Relationships between the Big Five ... · Exploring the Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors, Conflict Styles, and Bargaining Behaviors Abstract The
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Exploring the Relationships between the Big Five Personality Factors, Conflict Styles, and Bargaining Behaviors
behavior is a power-oriented mode, in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win
one’s one position—one’s ability to argue, one’s rank, and economic sanctions. Competitive
behavior is based only on the concerns of the competitor; it doesn’t take into consideration the
others’ interests. It might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position that you believe
is correct, or simply trying to win.
Collaborative behavior goes beyond just satisfying one’s own interests and it involves an
attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the interests of both
parties. In the process of conflict resolving, collaborative behavior might take the form of
exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, concluding to resolve some
condition which would otherwise have them competing for resources, or it might take the form
of confronting and trying to find a creative solution.
10
Compromising behavior falls on a middle ground. Compromising behavior involves splitting
the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position, with an
objective to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solutions that partially satisfy both parties,
though often neither side is completely satisfied as a result.
According to the dual-concern model of conflict styles, individuals tend to seek an
appropriate combination of pursuing their own concerns at the others’ expenses and sacrificing
their own interests to satisfy the other sides, and such combination forms different conflict styles.
In this study, I will use a buyer-seller negotiation task with integrative potentials to examine the
influence of conflict styles on bargaining behaviors and subsequent outcomes. I predict that
different conflict management styles have implications for the manner in which the negotiation
process is tackled, leading to different behavioral formats. More specifically, when negotiators
prefer a confrontational style and focus on their own concerns, such as competing and
collaborating, they will behave more aggressively and tend to fight hard to defend their own
interests, and therefore use more competitive and collaborative behaviors; when negotiators
prefer a non-confrontational style and focus on satisfying their partners’ interests, such as
accommodating or even avoiding, they will behave less contentiously and therefore use more
compromising behaviors during the negotiation process.
H6: confrontation conflict styles, including competing and collaborating styles, will be
positively related to competitive behaviors and collaborative behaviors and negatively
related to compromising behaviors during business negotiation.
11
H7: Non-confrontational conflict styles, including avoiding, accommodating, and
compromising styles, will be negatively related to competitive behaviors and collaborative
behaviors and positively related to compromising behaviors during business negotiation.
Negotiation Outcomes In the present study, three key outcome constructs will be considered:
(1) negotiator’s individual profits, (2) relationship building, and (3) negotiator’s satisfaction. The
inclusion of negotiator’s individual profits reflects the main objective of most negotiation studies.
The ultimate goal of negotiation research is to find approaches that could be used to improve
negotiator’s individual profits and to look for those factors—no matter how they are
categorized—that influence individual profits. To explore the effects of different conflict
management styles, individual profits will be measured in this study as one criterion variable.
Relationship and satisfaction as affective outcomes have been linked to functional behaviors
in a variety of settings (Churchill et al., 1990; Ma, 2004; Ma & Jaeger, 2003), and are considered
critical outcome measures of exchange relationships like business negotiation (Ruekert &
Churchill, 1984). This is especially true when integrative negotiations are crucial and long-term
relationships become more important than one-shot negotiation successes. Satisfaction and
relationship are the factors that can increase the possibility of an integrative or “win-win”
solution and that help maintain the positive relationships. Thus, it is essential to include
satisfaction and relationship building as primary negotiation outcomes.
The relationships between bargaining behaviors and negotiation outcomes are based on the
following rationale: Because competitive behaviors are based only on the concerns of the
competitor they are more likely to generate high individual profits and produce high satisfaction
for negotiators themselves. Converse to this, compromising behaviors are intended for an
expedient solutions with both sides giving up some interests, these behaviors are more likely to
12
lead to lower individual profits as the full potentials of the problems are not completely explored,
but given their intent to find a mutually acceptable middle position, negotiators with
compromising behaviors are likely to be more satisfied than not with the negotiation. Different
as they are, both competitive behaviors and compromising behaviors are not expected to related
to relationship building because, on the one hand, competitive behaviors might cause the other
sides to reciprocate competition, and on the other hand, compromising behaviors do not lead to
complete fulfillment of either side’s interests and an integrative solution is made impossible by
expedient compromising.
Collaborative behaviors, not like the other two types of behaviors, involve an active search
for solutions that fully satisfy the interests of both parties. As a result, a creative solution could
be found and the outcome pie is expanded from which both sides could benefit and feel satisfied,
with a good relationship established for interactions in future.
H8: Competitive behaviors will lead to higher individual profits and higher satisfaction.
H9: Compromising behaviors will lead to lower individual profits and higher satisfaction.
H10: Collaborative behaviors will lead to higher individual profits, better relationship
building and higher satisfaction.
The Mediating Effects Although there are some studies linking conflict management styles
to actual conflict resolving behaviors (Volkema & Bergmann, 1995; Kirkbride et al., 1991), few
studies have been conducted within a negotiation context and no study has directly related
individual differences in personality to conflict styles and bargaining behaviors. The current
study is intended to integrate the research on personality traits, conflict styles, and negotiation so
as to provide a complete picture of conflict management process.
13
Thus, in addition to the examination of the relationships between the Big Five personality
factors and conflict styles and the relationships between conflict styles and bargaining behaviors,
other research issues to be examined here are the mediating effects of conflict styles on the
relationship of personality traits to bargaining behaviors and the mediating effects of bargaining
behaviors on the relationship of conflict styles to negotiation outcomes. Therefore, the following
hypotheses will also be examined.
H11: Conflict styles will mediate the relationship of personality factors to bargaining
behaviors.
H12: Bargaining behaviors will mediate the relationship of conflict styles to negotiation
outcomes.
Method Participants
138 undergraduate business students from one major Canadian university in the east of
Canada were recruited via volunteer and course credit options. 55% of them were female, with
an average age of 18.5 (Minimum = 17; Maximum = 25, s.d. = 1.03). Students were randomly
paired off into same-sex pairs for a negotiation exercise.
Procedures
Student participants were told beforehand they were participating in a negotiation exercise in
which they would play the roles they were assigned to. They were instructed to be as creative as
they wanted. They were also told that this study was only for academic purpose and
confidentiality was ensured by assigning each subject a pseudo-id so that no real identities would
be collected for the final results.
14
About two weeks before the negotiation exercise, each student was given a personality
questionnaire to complete. On the day when negotiations were conducted, subjects were
randomly paired-off into buyer-seller dyads and assigned to different roles for negotiation.
Written instructions were handed out which described negotiator’s role as a buyer or seller in a
simulated business negotiation for three appliances. The instructions informed negotiators that
they were allowed to share any information with their partners as they saw appropriate, but must
not show their instructions to them. Participants had 30 minutes to read their instructions and
prepare for this negotiation. Before starting the actual negotiations, they filled out a pre-
negotiation questionnaire. Participants then had 30 minutes to negotiate an agreement. Dyads
who settled within the 30 minutes assigned were asked to complete a final written contract on the
agreed options. Finally, every one completed a post-negotiation questionnaire, which measured
negotiation behaviors and negotiation outcomes. In this study all dyads reached agreements
within 30 minutes and therefore all were used in data analysis.
Negotiation Exercise
The negotiation exercise was a variable-sum simulation similar to that used by Thompson &
Hastie (1990) and Drake (2001) with some adaptation. Negotiators were instructed to reach an
agreement on the prices for three appliances: (1) big-screen TV set, (2) digital camcorder, and (3)
laptop computer. For each appliance, the negotiator received a list of 9 possible prices to be paid
for that item, labeled "Price A", "Price B", and so on, through "Price I". Next to each price was
listed the dollar amount of profits the negotiator would earn from setting at that price.
Different appliances earned different profits for negotiators. For instance, sellers could
achieve a profit of $1000 for each unit of big-screen TV sets, but only $600 for laptop computers.
In addition, the profit sheets for buyer and seller differed in that some high-profit appliances for
15
buyers were low-profit appliances for sellers, and vice-versa. Thus, the opportunity for mutually
beneficial trade-off existed and both sides could compromise their least profitable item to
maximize profits on their most profitable item.
Other appliances represented incompatible goals for buyers and sellers, a zero-sum situation.
That is, each negotiator stood to make exactly the same amount of profit for that item and would
be forced to compete for a sizable share of that profit. For example, buyer and seller could both
earn $0 to $800 for digital camcorder and must split the difference to reach an agreement.
Manipulation Check
To check the role and other manipulations, each participant were asked regarding their (1)
role, (2) goal in terms profits, (3) planned opening bid in terms of prices, and (4) the amount of
profit represented by the opening bid. These questions were asked to ensure subjects understood
the instructions and the task. Few participants failed these items and the most common mistake
was a miscalculation of profits, which would be reviewed and corrected. After completing the
negotiation, participants were then debriefed and questions were answered in the discussion
period.
Measures
Personality An international personality inventory (IPI) measuring Big Five developed by
Goldberg (1999) was used in this study to measure negotiator’s personality. The IPI scale is a
50-item short-version scale that provides a brief, comprehensive measure of the five dimensions
of personality. It consists of five 10-item subscales that measure each of the five dimensions of
the Big Five: Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Sample
questions include: “I feel little concern for others,” “I don’t talk a lot,” and “I sympathize with
16
others’ feelings”. Students were asked to indicate on a one-to-five scale how accurately each
statement described him or her, where 1 = very inaccurate and 5 = very accurate.
Based on factor analysis using SPSS, the resulting scales that were used for analysis included:
9 items for neuroticism (reliability alpha = .85; M = 2.92, S.D. = 0.70, Maximum = 4.40;
Minimum = 1.00); 9 items for extraversion (reliability alpha = .86; M = 3.46, S.D = 0.69,
Maximum = 1.50, Minimum = 4.90); 10 items for conscientiousness (reliability alpha = .82; M =
3.35, S.D. = 0.64, Maximum = 4.90, Minimum = 1.10); 8 items for agreeableness (reliability
alpha = .78; M = 3.93, S.D. = 0.55, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 2.25); and 8 items for
openness (reliability alpha = .80; M = 3.66, S.D. = 0.59, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 1.63).
Conflict Styles To overcome the problem of the forced-choice response scale often used in
other studies of conflict style (Antonioni, 1998), a scale consisting of 28 items based on Rahim
and Magner’s study (1995) on conflict handling styles was used in this study. Students subjects
were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale their preferred approached when facing with conflict
situations where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The scales used in the analysis
included: 7 items for collaborating (reliability alpha = .78; M = 3.91, S.D. = 0.49, Maximum =
5.00; Minimum = 2.00); 6 items for accommodating (reliability alpha = .70; M = 3.16, S.D. =
0.54, Maximum = 4.67; Minimum = 1.33); 5 items for competing (reliability alpha = .80; M =
3.28, S.D. = 0.71, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 1.40); 6 items for avoiding (reliability alpha
= .78; M = 3.06, S.D. = 0.71, Maximum = 4.50; Minimum = 1.50); 4 items for compromising
(reliability alpha = .67; M = 3.67, S.D. = 0.54, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 2.50).
Bargaining Behaviors To measure bargaining behaviors, including competitive behavior,
collaborative behavior, and compromising behavior, three sets of questions were developed for
this purpose with items adapted from those that have been used to measure similar behaviors
17
(Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Participants were asked to assess how each statement described his
or her behaviors in the negotiation. Sample items included “I was firm in pursuing my goals
during the negotiation” and “I tried hard to win my position” or “I tried hard to find a
compromising solution” and “I attempted to work through our difference in order to solve the
problem”. Respondents were to assess the response on a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The scales used for analysis included: 6 items for competitive
behavior (reliability alpha = .83; M = 3.76, S.D. = 0.60, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 1.83); 7
items for collaborative behavior (reliability alpha = .81; M = 3.56, S.D = 0.61, Maximum = 5.00,
Minimum = 1.86); 5 items for compromising behavior (reliability alpha = .71; M = 3.83, S.D. =
0.69, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 2.00).
Negotiation Outcomes The economic negotiation outcome, i.e., individual profit, was the
actual amount of agreement reached during the simulation. Negotiators’ satisfaction with
negotiation was measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 3 items, where 1 = very dissatisfied and
5 = very satisfied, with reliability alpha = .88 (M = 3.81, S.D = 0.92, Maximum = 5.00,
Minimum = 1.00). Relationship building was also measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 4
items, with 1 = to the least extent the relationship has been improved and 5 = to the greatest
extent the relationship has been improved (reliability alpha = .88; M = 3.87, S.D = 0.91,
Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 1.00).
Analysis
A hierarchical regression analysis using SPSS was conducted for each dependent variables
by first entering the control variables, role and work experience as the first block, then the
independent variables (i.e., personality factors for conflict styles, and conflict styles for
bargaining behaviors) as the next block.
18
Results Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations among the Big Five personality
factors, conflict styles, negotiation process, and negotiation outcomes. In general, the bivariate
correlations reflect expected relations and provide confidence that the measures functioned
properly for the effects tested in this study.
------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------
Figure 2 represents the results of regression analysis, which support most of the hypotheses
proposed in this study. For the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict
styles, Hypothesis 1 predicts neuroticism will be negatively related to non-confrontational style,
which was partially supported with the negative relationship between neuroticism and
compromising style found in this study, meaning that people high in neuroticism are less likely
to have a compromising preferences for conflict handling, but the predicted positive relationship
between neuroticism and competing or avoiding was not supported in this study. It is easy to
understand that neuroticism as an indicator of emotional instability may not have a strong
relationship with either competing, collaborating or accommodating, but it is interesting to notice
that neuroticism is not related to avoiding either. As is discussed with a high level of existent
anxiety and depression, people high in neuroticism are expected to find conflict threatening and
should try to avoid it. This relationship is worth more efforts in future studies.
------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here -------------------------------
Hypothesis 2 predicts extraversion will be positively related to confrontational styles
including competing and collaborating and negatively related to such non-confrontational style
19
as avoiding. This was supported in this study, implying that extroverts are more likely to have a
competing or collaborating preferences for conflict handling while less likely to choose avoiding
style to approach conflict situations. The proposed negative relationship between extraversion
and compromising and accommodating, however, was not supported, which suggests no strong
relationship between extraversion and the use of compromising or accommodating style.
In support of the prediction on agreeableness and its impact on conflict styles, agreeableness
was found positively related to compromising and negatively related to competing style, which
supported Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 5 was also supported in this study, consistent with the view
of today’s literature on conscientiousness which states that conscientiousness usually is not
related to any specific behavioral preferences in conflict situation (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Ma
& Jaeger, 2003).
Contrary to the prediction of Hypothesis 4, openness was not found related to any of the
conflict styles studied here. The reason could be that open-mind people show strong ability of
adjustment and adaptation towards conflict situation, and this flexibility leads people to quickly
adjust their tactic and strategy preferences according to different situations, as argued by the
contingency approach. As a result, openness is not consistently related to any specific conflict
style due to its situational flexibility.
For the relationship between conflict styles and bargaining behaviors, the results of this
study showed that competing style and collaborative style led to more competitive behaviors
during business negotiation and collaborating style predicted more collaborative behaviors in
negotiation, while avoiding was negatively related to the use of competitive behavior, which
partially supported Hypothesis 6 and 7. This findings support the validity of conflict styles as
predictors of actual bargaining behaviors. Collaborating style showed a positively relationship,
20
instead a negative one as predicted, with compromising behavior, which is interesting in that
people with collaborating preferences for conflict handling may sometimes focus more on their
concerns for others’ needs and thus are willing to find an expedient solution mutually acceptable
to both sides instead of actively pushing the others to reach an win-win solution, which is often
more demanding and difficult to achieve.
To our surprise, accommodating and compromising styles didn’t predict any behavior types
in this study, meaning that even though people may believe accommodating or compromising
styles preferable in some situations, these preferences do not manifest in actual bargaining
process. This may reflect the actual reluctance of involved parties to give up some interests in
order to find a middle ground position (compromising style), not to mention selflessly satisfying
the others’ interests as requested by accommodating style.
The relationships between bargaining behavior and negotiation outcomes, including
individual profits, satisfaction with negotiation, and relationship building were strongly
supported in this study, consistent with the predictions of Hypothesis 8, Hypothesis 9, and
Hypothesis 10, with an except that collaborative behavior was not found related to either
individual profits or satisfaction. But collaborative behavior has a strong positive relationship
with relationship building, which reflects its emphasis on long-term orientation. In other words,
even though working collaboratively for a creative solution so as to expand the pie will lead to
better relationship for future businesses (as predicted in Hypothesis 10), this value-adding
process (or value creation) doesn’t guarantee that individual negotiators will get a larger share
from the final expanded profits. Future research should closely examine the impact of
collaborative behaviors on individual profits.
21
Finally, the mediating effects of conflict styles on the relationship of personality traits and
bargaining behaviors and the mediating effects of bargaining behaviors on the relationships
between conflict styles and negotiation outcomes were tested using the standard approach of
testing mediating effects. First, the relationships between independent variables and mediating
factors were tested. Second, the relationship between mediating factors and dependent variables
were tested. Third, controlling for the effects of mediating factors, the relationships of
independent variables to dependent variables were examined. If these relationships were
weakened, then we could conclude the mediating factors did mediate the impact of independent
variables on dependent variables, and if these relationships became zero, it could be concluded
that the impact was fully mediated. The results from this study showed that conflict styles fully
mediated the impact of the Big Five personality factors on bargaining behaviors. Bargaining
behaviors also fully mediated the impact of conflict styles on negotiation outcomes, consistent
with the predictions in Hypothesis 11 and 12.
Discussion
One of the major contributions of this study is the empirical evidence it provides for a
relationship between a fundamental personality structure, i.e., the Big Five, and the characteristic
mode of conflict handling in a negotiation context and for a relationship between conflict styles
and different bargaining behaviors. The findings from this study indicate that a positive
relationship exists between extraversion and competing, between extraversion and collaborating,
and between agreeableness and compromising, as well as a negative relationship between
extraversion and avoiding, between neuroticism and compromising, and between agreeableness
and competing. Moreover, this study also supports a positive relationship between competing
and collaborating styles and competitive behaviors, between collaborating style and collaborative
22
and compromising behaviors, as well as a negative relationship between avoiding style and
competitive behaviors. These findings suggest that extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism
are three most important personality factors in the Big Five that predict conflict styles and that
collaborating, competing and avoiding are three most important conflict styles that predict actual
bargaining behaviors with negotiation contexts.
The results from this study have important implications for both theorists and practitioners
alike in conflict management area. From a theoretical perspective, this study attempts a complete
investigation on the framework that integrates personality factors, conflict styles, and bargaining
behaviors and outcomes. The current literature on conflict and conflict management does not
lack the studies examining the relationship between personality and conflict styles or studies
examining the relationship between conflict styles and their corresponding behaviors, but few
studies have tried to examine these phenomena in a contextually rich situations such as
negotiations, the most used conflict resolution format, and even fewer attempt to integrate
various studies in this area. This study takes the first step of examining the integrated
relationship between personality factors, conflict preferences, and bargaining behaviors and
outcomes. The results from this study provide empirical evidence for the Big Five personality
factors as valid predicators of conflict preferences and for conflict styles as indicators of
behavioral patterns in actual conflict resolving process, which will enrich our understanding of
the relationship between personality, conflict styles, and their impact in conflict situations.
The results of this study also have implications for conflict practitioners. Organizations may
begin to use Big Five personality assessment to help make decisions about selection, promotion
and training for improvement in conflict resolution skills. For instance, the practices in training
on conflict management have been ignoring the impact of personality, and thus are less effective.
23
With the knowledge of the relationship between personality and conflict styles, training could
help individuals understand why and how their own personality is related to a preference for a
particular style of handling conflicts. Similarly, with a better understanding of the relationship
between conflict styles and actual behaviors and outcomes in conflict situations, individuals will
understand how their preferences in conflict handling affect their behaviors and the resulting
outcomes, and therefore are more able to increase their self-awareness and more able to self-
adjust their behaviors, making it possible for individuals to learn the behaviors required for
integrative solutions.
As with any research project, this study has some limitations. The use of same source
responses might have contributed to common method variance. This study, however, was
designed to control for this variance in ways recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986), by
administering questionnaires at different times and in different places together with reverse scale
formats. The high reliability alphas also provide support for the scales used in this study.
Another limitation is the use of student sample. The analysis of this study was based on
student samples and the student sample might be different from the general population samples.
This being said, however, one could argue that while the student samples may not be perfectly
representative, it is still valuable for its exploratory nature of this study, and the results provide
insightful directions for advanced studies. The issue to be addressed in future research is to use
professional negotiators and real negotiation situations to examine the relationship between
personality, conflict styles, and bargaining behaviors. Difficult as it may be, results from such
studies will greatly contribute to negotiation scholarship. Using different samples will also
increase the external validity of similar studies.
24
REFERENCES Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict
management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-27. Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative
negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345-359. Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Churchill, G., Walker, O., & Ford, N. (1990). Sale Force Management (3rd edition). Homewood,
IL: Irwin. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetland: A reply to Block.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216-220. Drake, L. (2001). The culture-negotiation link: Integrative and distributive bargaining through an
inter-cultural communication lens. Human Communication Research, 27(3), 317-349. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Goldbeg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe v.7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Greenhalgh, L., Nelsin, S. A., & Gilkey, R. W. (1985). The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 9-33.
Jones, R. E., & Melcher, B. H. (1982). Personality and the preferences for the modes of conflict resolution. Human Relations, 35, 649-658.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, E. J. (1975). Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as a reflection of Jungian Personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37, 971-980.
Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, F. Y., and Westwood, R. I. (1991). ‘Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behavior: cultural and psychological influence’, Organization Studies, 12(3), 365-389.
Lewicki, R. J., & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Lewicki, R. J., Litterer, J. A., Minton, J. W., and Saunders, D. M. (1994). Negotiation (2nd
edition). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Ma, Z. (2004, August). West Meets Muslim: Comparing Canadian and Pakistani Conflict Styles
in Business Negotiations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. (2003). Exploring individual differences in Chinese negotiation styles. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Meeting, Administrative Science Association of Canada, 24(8), 81-102.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's 'Adequate taxonomy': Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Coates, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumflex and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.
25
Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict handling and personality dimensions of project management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 1135-1143.
Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the five factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 258-285.
Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47-68.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organization (2nd edition). Westport, CT: Praeger. Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic.
Ruekert, R., & Churchill, G. (1984). Reliability and validity of alternative measures of channel member satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 226-233.
Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A., and Savage, G. T. (1999). ‘A test of the motivations underlying choice of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1), 25-44.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). ‘Conflict and conflict management’, In M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K. W., and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Thompson, L. (1990). ‘Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues’, Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-532.
Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Judgment tasks and biases in negotiation. In B. H. Sheppard, M. H. Bazerman, & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 31-54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Volkema, R. L., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 5-15.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal behavior: Theoretical frontiers. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674-687.
Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management, Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 199-209.
Wall, J. A. (1985). Negotiation: Theory and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.
Wall, J. A., & Blum, M. W. (1991). Negotiations. Journal of Management, 17, 273-303. Womack, D. F. (1988). ‘Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Survey’, Management
Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 321-349.
26
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations