conflict dynamics profile technical guide · popular press accounts such as how to win friends...

Conflict Dynamics Profile 360 Certification Materials © Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College | All rights reserved. No portion of this guide may be reproduced without permission.

CONFLICT DYNAMICS PROFILE®

TECHNICAL GUIDE

Sal Capobianco, Ph.D. Mark H. Davis, Ph.D. Linda A. Kraus, Ph.D.

© 2017 Eckerd College

1


I. INTRODUCTION

The goal of this report is to provide a general overview of the technical factors associated with the Conflict Dynamics Profile® or CDP, particularly its development and its psychometric and normative properties. The content and conventions for the presentation of data have been guided by Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, 1985).

Conflict in life is inevitable. Whether in the workplace, home or social gatherings, conflict results from the inescapable fact that people have different (and sometimes opposing) goals, needs, desires, responsibilities, perceptions, and ideas. Despite our best efforts to prevent conflict, we will undoubtedly find ourselves in disagreements with other people. We cannot prevent it entirely, nor would we want to, since some kinds of conflict can be productive.

For our purposes, conflict refers to any situation in which people have incompatible interests, goals, principles, or feelings. This is, of course, a broad definition and encompasses many different situations. Conflicts could arise, for instance, over a long-standing set of issues, differences of opinion about strategy or tactics in the accomplishment of some business goal, incompatible beliefs, competition for resources, and so on. Conflicts can also result when one person acts in a way that another individual sees as insensitive, thoughtless, or rude. A conflict, in short, can result from anything that places individuals in opposition to one another.

Particularly important to our conceptualization is the idea that conflict is dynamic. That is, conflict is an active process (often) with a beginning, middle, and end; a process with energy and force, capable of movement and change. Conflict may proceed slowly at times, then suddenly and quickly move in a different direction. Because this process revolves around social interaction, how and where this process leads depends on the participants. One's responses to a provocation can determine whether a conflict moves in a beneficial or harmful direction.

Although conflict is inevitable, this is not necessarily bad, as some kinds of conflict can be beneficial. Conflict that focuses on ideas, rather than on the personalities and shortcomings of the people involved, can result in creativity and productivity, teamwork and improved group relations. Conflict that focuses on people, on the other hand, can escalate rapidly and unpleasantly, and have quite detrimental and far-reaching effects. The goal then is to try to manage conflict in such a way that its useful functions can develop while minimizing or avoiding entirely the more "toxic" forms. What largely separates useful conflict from destructive conflict is how the involved individuals respond when the conflict occurs. Thus, while conflict itself is inevitable, ineffective and harmful responses to conflict can be avoided, and effective and beneficial responses to conflict can be learned. This proposition is at the heart of the Conflict Dynamics Profile® and the accompanying development guide, Managing Conflict Dynamics: A Practical Approach.

2


Origins of the CDP.

To a considerable degree, the Conflict Dynamics Profile® was developed in response to the approach taken by a number of existing measures. Such instruments as the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974), Negotiating Styles Profile (Glaser & Glaser, 1996), and Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories (Rahim, 1983) are all based on a model similar to or derived from that of Blake and Mouton's (1964, 1970) theoretical model, which argues that conflict style results from one’s standing on two underlying dimensions: a desire to satisfy one’s own needs and a desire to satisfy the other person’s needs. As a result, the constructs measured by those instruments (avoidance, accommodation, compromise, collaboration, and competition) are fundamentally defined in terms of ultimate goals, such as avoiding conflict or winning a negotiation.

The Conflict Dynamics Profile®, on the other hand, is explicitly based on a behavioral orientation. That is, rather than try to identify conflict “styles” which represent a combination of behavior, personality, and motivation that can be difficult to change – we made the decision to focus exclusively on the behaviors people typically display when faced with conflict. We made this choice for two reasons. First, focusing on specific sets of behaviors would allow detailed examination, and subsequently greater understanding, of how people typically respond to conflict. Second, an explicit behavioral approach, we believed, would provide especially useful information to individuals whose goal is to change.

Because we do not focus on personality and motivation, but only on how people act, we take the optimistic position that people can change their behavior for the better. That is, people can change the way they respond to conflict, and the more people know, the better equipped they will be to change. Specifically, the more they know about how they act before, during, and after conflict, what sets them off most easily, and what responses to conflict are especially harmful in their own organization, then the better equipped and (it is hoped) motivated they will be to change.

Theoretical Background

To begin the process of developing the CDP, we carried out a review of the relevant literature by focusing on four approaches to conflict management:

➢ Investigations of conflict in organizations which have gone beyond the style-based approach toexamine how conflict naturalistically develops in both positive and negative ways (Amason,1996; Feeney & Davidson, 1996; Sessa, 1996; van de Vliert Euwema, & Huismans, 1995).

➢ Conflict in interpersonal rather than business or work relationships as studied by socialpsychologists who have examined the constructive and destructive ways of handlinginterpersonal conflict (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Gottman, 1994; Berry& Willingham, 1997).

➢ Popular press accounts such as How to Win Friends & Influence People (Carnegie, revisededition, 1981), Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 1981), and Negotiating for Dummies (Donaldson &

3


Donaldson, 1996) which offer highly specific and useful advice with regard to effectively resolving conflict situations.

➢ Popular press writings – and books on managerial advice – which offer suggestionsregarding situations and circumstances likely to evoke conflict in the first place (Bramson,1981, 1992; Glass, 1995; Davis, Skube, Hellervik, Gebelein, & Sheard, 1992).

Two key findings emerged from our examination of these sources. First, it is clear that distinctions can be made among types of conflict and it is possible to have conflict that is useful rather than harmful. Cognitive conflict is the type that focuses on ideas, rather than personalities. It is the kind of conflict that can at times result in creativity and productivity. While cognitive conflict tends to increase arousal, the affect associated with it is positive, and it should be positively related to good group functioning, or at worst, should be unrelated to functioning. Affective conflict, on the other hand, is the type that focuses on people, not on ideas. This is the kind of conflict that can escalate rapidly and unpleasantly. It increases arousal, but the affect associated with it is negative. Affective conflict is negatively related to good group functioning. Thus, conflict is generally most beneficial when the emphasis is on issues and problem-solving, and it is most detrimental when focused on personalities and competition. The goal of conflict management then is to minimize the occurrence and escalation of harmful (affective) conflict while allowing the useful forms of (cognitive) conflict to unfold.

The second finding to emerge from our examination of the literature is that behavioral responses to conflict can be important shapers of the course that conflicts may take. Specifically, responses made in the early stages of conflict can determine whether a conflict becomes cognitive or affective. Constructive responses have the effect of not escalating the conflict further. They tend to reduce the tension and keep the conflict focused on ideas rather than personalities. Destructive responses, on the other hand, tend to make things worse; they do little to reduce the conflict and allow it to focus on personalities.

Responses to conflict also differ in terms of how active or passive they are. Active responses are those in which the individual takes some overt action in response to the conflict or provocation. Such responses can be either constructive or destructive; what makes them active is that they require some overt effort on the part of the individual. Passive responses, in contrast, do not require much in the way of effort from the person. In fact, they typically involve the person deciding to refrain from some kind of action. Again, passive responses can be either constructive or destructive; that is, they can make things better or they can make things worse. Given then that responses can be either constructive or destructive, and either active or passive, we view responses to conflict as falling into one of four categories: Active-Constructive, Passive-Constructive, Active-Destructive, and Passive-Destructive.

The distinctions between types of conflict and types of responses to conflict led us to develop a model of conflict.

4


The Dynamic Conflict Model

The starting point for the model (see Figure 1) is a precipitating event – something that sets the stage for a conflict to develop. This event could be anything: a single behavior by another person which is upsetting or frustrating, a long-standing set of issues between people, a difference of opinion about strategy or tactics in the accomplishment of some business goal, and so on. The precipitating event can be anything that places the interests of individuals in opposition to one another.

PRECIPITATING EVENT/HOT BUTTONS INITIATE CONFLICT

CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSES

ACTIVE Perspective Taking (PT) Creating Solutions (CS)

Expressing Emotions (EE) Reaching Out (RO)

PASSIVE Reflective Thinking (RT) Delay Responding (DR)

Adapting (AD

TASK-FOCUSED CONFLICT Focus on task and problem solving

Positive affect Tension decreases

Group functioning improves

CONFLICT DEESCALATES

DESTRUCTIVE RESPONSES

ACTIVE Winning at all Costs (WI)

Displaying Anger (DA) Demeaning Others (DO)

Retaliating (RE)

PASSIVE Avoiding (AV) Yielding (YL)

Hiding Emotions (HE) Self-Criticizing (SC)

PERSON-FOCUSED CONFLICT Focus on personalities

Negative affect Tension increases

Group functioning derailed

CONFLICT ESCALATES

Figure 1. The Dynamic Conflict Model The presence of a precipitating event sets into motion the dynamics of conflict, but the end

result of that process is still to be determined. One of the biggest influences on how things unfold, we argue, will be the behavioral responses (Active-Constructive, Passive-Constructive, Active-Destructive, and Passive-Destructive) of the people in the conflict. Constructive responses, both active and passive, will on average tend to prevent precipitating events from developing into emotional, person-oriented conflicts. In contrast, destructive responses – especially active ones – will on average tend to exacerbate the situation and thus make it more likely that an emotional, person-oriented conflict will result.

5


One's behavioral responses to provocation, which can determine whether the potential conflict evolves in either the cognitive or affective direction, can also play a role later in the conflict sequence. That is, after a conflict develops in one or the other general direction, it can also "change course" depending on the behaviors which occur later. For example, a situation can begin as a cognitive conflict with controllable levels of arousal and centered on some non-personal issue, but destructive responses during this phase could change the direction of this sequence and lead to affective conflict instead. A misinterpreted statement or a hasty response that should have been inhibited can engage personal feelings in a way that is not helpful to the resolution of the matter at hand.

Alternatively, it is possible that a dispute that started out as an affective conflict could be "reined in" by careful behavioral work and transformed into a less destructive cognitive conflict. For example, if at least one party to the affective conflict can begin inhibiting his or her destructive responses (an admittedly difficult task), and begin substituting constructive ones, then the affective conflict is denied the fuel it needs to perpetuate itself. In this sense, affective conflict can be thought of as a kind of "fire" – destructive acts are the fuel needed to burn and constructive acts are like the wet blankets that dampen the conflagration. The goal of successful conflict management is to remove fuel and add water to a volatile situation.

Another important feature of our behavioral approach to conflict is the concept of Hot Buttons – those situations and individuals that are especially annoying, frustrating or upsetting. An individual’s Hot Buttons can be thought of as the kinds of people or behaviors that are especially likely to serve as precipitating events for that person. When pushed, Hot Buttons can provoke one into starting or escalating a conflict. The "hottest" Hot Buttons (that is, those that are most upsetting) will be the ones most likely to evoke a quick and automatic set of destructive responses, while the "cooler" Buttons are more likely to evoke a mixture of responses that include some constructive behaviors. By understanding and examining the links between provocation and response, it becomes easier to control one's behavior.

6


Conflict Dynamics Profile®

Drawing upon theoretical work, academic research, and popular press writings as well as the Dynamic Conflict Model, we developed the Conflict Dynamics Profile®, a multi-rater instrument designed to help individuals better understand the way they typically respond to conflict and to help them improve those areas that are most problematic.

The way in which the CDP does this is by measuring an individual's behavior from several different vantage points. First, the CDP asks the individual (self) to describe how s/he thinks s/he responds before, during, and after conflict. Second, the CDP asks other people – specifically, one's boss, peers, and direct reports how they see the individual responding before, during, and after conflict. The purpose of asking the same questions of many different people is to highlight any differences that may exist between the way an individual sees his/her behavior and the way one's friends and colleagues see it. Because this design describes the full panorama of one's behavior, it is referred to as a 360 or multi-rater instrument.

The Conflict Dynamic Profile® provides a complete "conflict profile" by providing feedback on:

• What provokes an individual (Hot Buttons).

• How that individual perceives the way s/he typically responds to conflict.

• How others view that individual as responding to conflict.

• How the individual responds before, during, and after conflict (Dynamic ConflictSequence).

• Which responses to conflict have the potential to harm one's position in his/her particularorganization (Organizational Perspective on Conflict).

Table 1 outlines these and other features of the CDP Feedback Report.

7


Table 1. Guide to the CDP Feedback Report.

Active-Constructive Response Profile

Four ways of responding to conflict which require some effort on the part of the individual and which have the effect of reducing conflict: Perspective Taking, Creating Solutions, Expressing Emotions and Reaching Out.

Passive-Constructive Response Profile

Three ways of responding to conflict which have the effect of dampening the conflict, or preventing escalation, but which do not require any active response from the individual: Reflective Thinking, Delay Responding, and Adapting.

Active-Destructive Response Profile

Four ways of responding to conflict which through some effort on the part of the individual have the effect of escalating the conflict: Winning at All Costs, Displaying Anger, Demeaning Others, and Retaliating.

Passive-Destructive Response Profile

Four ways of responding to conflict which due to lack of effort or action by the individual cause the conflict to either continue or to be resolved in an unsatisfactory manner: Avoiding, Yielding, Hiding Emotions, and Self-Criticizing.

Scale Profile How one’s typical responses during conflict are viewed by his/her boss, peers, and direct reports.

Discrepancy Profile The particular responses to conflict on which one’s self-perceptions and those of others differ most markedly.

Dynamic Conflict Sequence How constructively and destructively one responds to conflict before it begins, after it is underway, and after it is over.

Organizational Perspective on Conflict

The particular responses to conflict which are especially discouraged in one’s organization; regularly engaging in these responses can have severe negative effects on one’s career.

Hot Buttons Profile The types of people and situations most likely to irritate the individual and provoke conflict.

Developmental Feedback Direct comments about one’s responses to conflict from his/her boss, peers, and direct reports.

Developmental Worksheets Two worksheets to aid the individual in identifying his/her clearest opportunities for development.

8


II. ITEM SELECTION AND SCALE CONSTRUCTION

The Conflict Dynamics Profile® is the result of two years of development and revision. Three preliminary versions were developed, administered, analyzed, and revised in order to produce the current CDP. Item analyses and factor analyses were carried out on each version of the instrument, and based upon these analyses, items and item sets were deleted, added, or in some cases combined in order to produce a cleaner and more psychometrically sound instrument.

The rating scales used in the CDP are straightforward. Respondents indicate the frequency of occurrence of a particular Response to Conflict along a five-point rating scale continuum (1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost Always). For Hot Buttons, respondents indicate, again along a five-point continuum, the degree to which they are upset by a particular individual or situation (1=Not At All, 2=A Little, 3=Moderately, 4=Considerably, 5=Extremely). A three-point rating scale is used for the Organizational Perspective on Conflict; respondents indicate the kind of effect a particular response to conflict would have on a person's career in their organization (No Negative Effect, Moderately Negative Effect, and Severely Negative Effect).

Version 1. Drawing upon the theoretical work, research, and popular press writings described earlier, we created the first version of the Conflict Dynamics Profile® in the spring of 1998. We wrote 97 items designed to tap 20 different possible Responses to Conflict as well as 116 items tapping 17 Hot Buttons. Table 2 charts the scale construction process of the Responses to Conflict while Table 3 does the same for the Hot Buttons. This first version of the instrument was then administered to a convenience sample of 160 undergraduates, continuing education students, and college staffers.

9


Tab

le 2

. Co

nst

ruct

ing

the

CD

P R

esp

on

ses

to C

on

flic

t sc

ales

.

VER

SIO

N 1

V

ERSI

ON

2

VER

SIO

N 3

V

ERSI

ON

4

Act

ive

-Co

nst

ruct

ive

A

ctiv

e-C

on

stru

ctiv

e

Act

ive

-Co

nst

ruct

ive

A

ctiv

e-C

on

stru

ctiv

e

Gat

her

Info

rmat

ion

4

P

ersp

ecti

ve T

akin

g 4

P

ersp

ecti

ve T

akin

g 4

P

ersp

ecti

ve T

akin

g 4

C

reat

ing

Solu

tio

ns

6

Cre

atin

g So

luti

on

s 4

C

reat

ing

Solu

tio

ns

4

Cre

atin

g So

luti

on

s 4

O

pen

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

5

O

pen

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

4

O

pen

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

5

Ex

pre

ssin

g Em

oti

on

s 5

R

each

ing

Ou

t 5

R

each

ing

Ou

t 5

R

each

ing

Ou

t 4

R

each

ing

Ou

t 4

A

ccep

t R

esp

on

sib

ility

3

R

epai

rin

g Em

oti

on

s 5

R

epai

rin

g Em

oti

on

s 5

R

esp

ecti

ng

the

Oth

er

4

Res

pec

tin

g th

e O

ther

5

Pas

sive

-Co

nst

ruct

ive

P

assi

ve-C

on

stru

ctiv

e

Pas

sive

-Co

nst

ruct

ive

P

assi

ve-C

on

stru

ctiv

e

Ref

lect

ive

Thin

kin

g 6

R

efle

ctiv

e Th

inki

ng

4

Ref

lect

ive

Thin

kin

g 5

R

efle

ctiv

e Th

inki

ng

4

Tact

ical

Avo

idan

ce

6

Del

ay R

esp

on

din

g 4

D

elay

Res

po

nd

ing

4

Del

ay R

esp

on

din

g 5

A

ccep

tan

ce

6

Acc

epta

nce

4

A

ccep

tan

ce

4

Ad

apti

ng

5

Co

ntr

olli

ng

Emo

tio

ns

5

Esta

blis

h D

ista

nce

5

A

dap

tin

g 5

Act

ive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Act

ive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Act

ive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Act

ive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Win

nin

g at

all

Co

sts

6

Win

nin

g at

all

Co

sts

5

Win

nin

g at

all

Co

sts

4

Win

nin

g at

all

Co

sts

4

Dis

pla

yin

g A

nge

r 6

D

isp

layi

ng

An

ger

5

Dis

pla

yin

g A

nge

r 4

D

isp

layi

ng

An

ger

4

Dem

ean

ing

Oth

er

7

Dem

ean

ing

Oth

er

5

Dem

ean

ing

Oth

er

5

Dem

ean

ing

Oth

er

4

Ret

alia

tin

g 3

R

etal

iati

ng

5

R

etal

iati

ng

4

Ret

alia

tin

g 4

C

riti

cize

Oth

er

3

Exp

ress

Op

po

siti

on

4

Pas

sive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Pas

sive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Pas

sive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Pas

sive

-De

stru

ctiv

e

Tota

l Avo

idan

ce

5

Tota

l Avo

idan

ce

4

Avo

idin

g 4

A

void

ing

4

Tota

l Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

3

Yi

eld

ing

5

Yiel

din

g 4

Yi

eld

ing

4

Wit

hd

raw

al

4

Hid

ing

Emo

tio

ns

4

Hid

ing

Emo

tio

ns

4

Hid

ing

Emo

tio

ns

4

Inte

rnal

izin

g 6

Se

lf-C

riti

cizi

ng

4

Self

-Cri

tici

zin

g 4

Se

lf-C

riti

cizi

ng

4

Sto

new

allin

g 4

St

on

ewal

ling

5

Sto

new

allin

g 4

To

tal N

um

be

r o

f It

em

s 9

7

Tota

l Nu

mb

er

of

Ite

ms

90

To

tal N

um

be

r o

f It

em

s 7

7

Tota

l Nu

mb

er

of

Ite

ms

63

10


Table 3. Constructing the CDP Hot Buttons scales.

VERSION 1 VERSION 2 VERSION 3 VERSION 4

Unreliable 6 Unreliable 4 Unreliable 4 Unreliable 4

Expertise 7 Overly-Analytical 4 Overly-Analytical 4 Overly-Analytical 4

Unappreciative 7 Unappreciative 4 Unappreciative 5 Unappreciative 4

Aloof 5 Aloof 4 Aloof 5 Aloof 4

Intrusive 7 Untrusting 5 Micro-Managing 4 Micro-Managing 4

Self-Centered 7 Self-Centered 5 Self-Centered 5 Self-Centered 4

Abrasive 8 Abrasive 4 Abrasive 4 Abrasive 4

Dishonest 7 Untrustworthy 5 Untrustworthy 4 Untrustworthy 4

Hostile 6 Hostile 4 Hostile 4 Hostile 4

Bad Attitude 5 Arrogant 5

Passive 8 Passive 4

Competitive 6

Autocratic 7

Communication 8

Critical 8

Inflexible 7

Unfair 7

Total Number of Items

116 Total Number of Items



36

11


To evaluate the adequacy of our efforts to create items, we carried out a series of factor analyses. Our strategy in regard to the Responses to Conflict was to separately examine the four domains of Active-Constructive, Passive-Constructive, Active-Destructive, and Passive-Destructive responses. Therefore, separately for each domain, we carried out a principal components analysis (oblique rotation) on the items intended to reflect the behavior set within that domain. For example, the Active-Constructive domain was represented by 27 items intended to tap six different behavioral responses. The number of items in the other three domains ranged from 22 to 25, and the number of intended behavioral responses ranged from four to five. A similar series of factor analyses (principal components analysis, oblique rotation) was conducted on the 17 Hot Buttons and the five to eight items intended to reflect each one.

Not unexpectedly, the factor analyses revealed that some of the intended sets fared better than others. In some cases, dimensions expected to emerge from the factor analyses performed as anticipated; in other instances, the expected dimensions failed to appear at all. Sometimes items from two different anticipated dimensions loaded together to form a single construct; other times, items from a single anticipated dimension split apart to form separate dimensions. Subsequently, based on the results of these analyses, as well as an examination of individual item characteristics, we then prepared the second version of the CDP.

Version 2. Based on the insights provided by the factor analyses of the CDP Version 1, we combined some of the original intended dimensions, split apart others, and generally attempted to produce dimensions which more closely resembled those suggested by the analyses of the first sample. Revising or dropping some items as well as writing several new ones subsequently led to the second version of the CDP. This version, containing 90 items designed to tap 20 Responses to Conflict (see Table 2) and 48 items aimed at tapping 11 Hot Buttons (Table 3), was then administered in the fall of 1998 to 263 adult workers from 13 different organizations and companies.

To evaluate the adequacy of the second version of the CDP, we carried out a series of factor analyses. Our strategy in these analyses paralleled that employed in Version 1: separate principal components analyses (oblique rotation) on the Hot Buttons as well as on the items reflecting the Responses to Conflict sets within the four domains of Active-Constructive, Passive-Constructive, Active-Destructive, and Passive-Destructive responses. The number of items falling into the four response domains ranged from 17 to 27, and the number of intended behavioral responses within each domain ranged from four to six.

As in the analyses of Version 1, some dimensions that we had expected to emerge from the factor analyses performed as anticipated, while others did not. In general, however, the results of these analyses began to suggest the Responses to Conflict and Hot Buttons that were most strongly and consistently reflected in the workplace. Based on these results then, we created a third version of the CDP that focused more narrowly on a smaller number of dimensions.

12


Version 3. For the third version of the CDP, we combined some of the intended dimensions from the second version, dropped others, revised and re-wrote items as we continued in our goal to produce scales that would accurately reflect the life experiences of our respondents. Version 3, containing 77 items designed to tap 18 Responses to Conflict (Table 2) and nine Hot Buttons assessed by 39 items (Table 3), was then administered throughout the winter of 1998-99 to 354 adult workers. To evaluate the adequacy of the third version of the CDP, we again carried out a series of factor analyses paralleling those previously described.

A majority of the intended dimensions clearly emerged from these analyses, strengthening our conclusions as to the most stable and important Hot Buttons and Responses to Conflict. However, as in earlier factor analyses, a few inconsistencies also emerged. Two scales intended to be separate from one another instead merged into a single factor, while a handful of other dimensions emerged only partially or not at all. In general, however, the results of these analyses reinforced our conclusions as to which dimensions were most strongly and consistently reflected in the lives of working adults. Based upon these results, we created the final version of the Conflict Dynamics Profile®.

Final version. In most cases, decisions about the particular items and scales making up this final version were based solely on the factor analyses conducted on the Version 3 data. However, in a few instances, items or scales were included in the final version despite their failure to emerge clearly from the Version 3 analyses. First, in the Version 3 factor analysis of the Active-Destructive domain – and in contrast to all earlier analyses – the items tapping the Displaying Anger and Demeaning Other dimensions loaded together on a single factor rather than splitting into two factors. Given their separation in earlier analyses, and the substantive distinction that we believe exists between them, we retained both scales in the final version of the CDP. Second, for three of the Responses to Conflict scales – Expressing Emotions, Delaying Responding, and Adapting – we were not entirely satisfied with the items making up these measures. Therefore, in addition to the three items for each scale that were acceptable, we wrote two new items for each construct; consequently, these three scales consist of five items rather than four. Finally, in the Hot Buttons analyses of the Version 3 data, two scales that had emerged in previous analyses – Aloof and Abrasive – did not so clearly emerge for this version. However, given the earlier findings, and our belief that there was value in including these dimensions, these two scales were retained for the final CDP version. To reiterate, however, in the vast majority of cases, decisions about final item inclusion were based solely on the result of the Version 3 analyses.

At the present time, the final version of the CDP has been completed by over 2000 individuals (and their bosses, peers, and/or direct reports). Factor analyses based on the responses of this group strongly support the psychometric structure of the CDP. Separately for each of the four Responses to Conflict domains, principal components analysis using oblique rotation, and specifying the intended number of factors (either three or four),were carried out; in each case the results almost perfectly replicated the intended pattern of item loadings. In the case

13


of the Hot Buttons items, the factor analyses also largely supported the factor structure. Five of the nine Hot Button scales were perfectly or substantially reproduced by the factor analyses; in addition, items from two somewhat similar scales (Untrustworthy and Unreliable) loaded on a single factor, as did the items from two other similar scales (Self-Centered and Abrasive). See Tables 4 and 5 for scale definitions and factor loadings for items making up the final version of the CDP.

14


Table 4. CDP Responses to Conflict scale definitions and mean factor loadings based on data from 9318 working adults.

Scale Name Defined as Responding to Conflict By N

Items Mean Factor Loading Perspective Taking (PT) Putting one's self in the other person's position and trying to

understand his/her point of view. 4 0.83

Creating Solutions (CS) Brainstorming with the other person, asking questions, and trying to create solutions.

4 0.59

Expressing Emotions (EE) Talking honestly with the other person and expressing one's thoughts and feelings.

5 0.75

Reaching Out (RO) Reaching out to the other person, making the first move, and trying to make amends.

4 0.74

Reflective Thinking (RT) Analyzing the situation, weighing the pros and cons, and thinking about the best response.

4 0.72

Delay Responding (DR) Waiting things out, letting matters settle down, or taking a "time out" when emotions are running high.

5 0.62

Adapting (AD) Staying flexible and trying to make the best out of the situation.

5 0.61

Winning at All Costs (WI) Arguing vigorously for one's own position and trying to win at all costs.

4 0.66

Displaying Anger (DA) Expressing anger, raising one's voice, or using harsh, angry words.

4 0.73

Demeaning Other (DO) Laughing at the other person, ridiculing his/her ideas, and using sarcasm.

4 0.7

Retaliating (RE) Obstructing or retaliating against the other person, and trying to get revenge later.

4 0.76

Avoiding (AV) Avoiding or ignoring the other person, and acting distant and aloof.

4 0.76

Yielding (YL) Giving in to the other person in order to avoid further conflict.

4 0.81

Hiding Emotions (HE) Concealing one's true emotions even though feeling upset. 4 0.7

Self-Criticizing (SC) Replaying the incident over in one's mind later, and criticizing one's self for not handling it better.

4 0.76

15


Table 5. CDP Hot Buttons scale definitions and mean factor loadings based data from 9318 working adults.

Scale Name Defined as Becoming Especially Irritated

with People Who: N Items

Mean Factor Loading

Unreliable Are unreliable, miss deadlines, and cannot be counted on.

4 0.78**

Overly-Analytical Are perfectionists, overanalyze things, and focus too much on minor issues.

4 0.61

Unappreciative Fail to give credit to others or seldom praise good performance.

4 0.79

Aloof Isolate themselves, do not seek input from others, or are hard to approach.

4 0.53

Micro-Managing Constantly monitor or check up on the work of others.

4 0.83

Self-Centered Are self-centered or believe they are always correct.

4 0.53*

Abrasive Are arrogant, sarcastic, and abrasive. 4 0.38*

Untrustworthy Exploit others, take undeserved credit, or cannot be trusted.

4 0.36**

Hostile Lose their tempers, become angry, or yell at others.

4 0.73

* Items from these two scales loaded on the same factor.** Items from these two scales loaded on the same factor.

16


The final version of the Conflict Dynamics Profile® is divided into three sections which vary depending on which questionnaire one is completing: Self comprises 114 items while Respondents (i.e., boss, peers, and direct reports) contains 80 items. The first section (63 items) taps fifteen Responses to Conflict by having respondents answer ten or so questions at a time in response to six different stems denoting circumstances that exist early, during, or late in a conflict episode. Thus, in addition to providing a more detailed context within which people can answer the questions, the CDP provides the basis for specific feedback about the person’s typical behavior before, during, and after conflict (Dynamic Conflict Sequence).

Another section assesses the Organizational Perspective on Conflict, that is, the kinds of conflict-related behaviors within one's particular organization that have the most negative effect on an individual's career. Respondents indicate the kinds of conflict-related behaviors that are viewed most negatively by their particular organization. The fifteen items correspond to each of the fifteen Responses to Conflict scales of the CDP.

Unlike the two aforementioned sections, the 36 items assessing the nine Hot Buttons are completed only by the target individual and not by his/her boss, peers, and direct reports. This is because it seemed like a very difficult task for other people to answer with any authority about the kinds of people and situations which most irritate and upset the target person.

Finally, the form completed by one's boss, peers, and direct reports asks two open-ended questions regarding the individual's approach to conflict (Developmental Feedback). These items are included to capture any additional insights that the 360 evaluation process can provide about the target individual.

17


III. RELIABILITY

Internal Reliability

The internal reliability (alpha) coefficients for the fifteen Responses to Conflict scales appear in Table 6. The first column depicts the reliabilities (for self-ratings) for 9318 working adults who completed the final version of the CDP. The other three columns contain reliability data for the bosses, peers and direct reports of these individuals.

Table 6. Internal reliability of CDP Responses to Conflict scales based on data from 2374 working adults and their raters.

Self (N=9318)

Boss (N=8780)

Peers (N=33,275)

Direct Reports

(N=24,474)

PT 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.88

CS 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.81

EE 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.84

RO 0.78 0.84 0.84 0.84

RT 0.78 0.86 0.86 0.87

DR 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.65

AD 0.71 0.82 0.83 0.82

WI 0.65 0.75 0.75 0.69

DA 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.81

DO 0.72 0.81 0.82 0.8

RE 0.78 0.85 0.86 0.86

AV 0.76 0.79 0.8 0.79

YL 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83

HE 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.61

SC 0.78 0.72 0.70 0.66

18


As Table 6 indicates, internal reliability estimates are for the most part quite acceptable, with alpha coefficients exceeding .70 over 80% of the time, and exceeding .80 over 50% of the time. Moreover, the fact that most of the scales consist of only four items makes the size of these coefficients somewhat more impressive.

Table 7 depicts the internal reliability for the nine Hot Buttons scales, based on the responses of the same 2374 working adults mentioned previously. As with the Responses to Conflict scales, the reliabilities range from acceptable to very good.

Table 7. Internal reliability of CDP Hot Buttons scales based on data from 9318 working adults.

Unreliable 0.86

Overly-Analytical 0.74

Unappreciative 0.86

Aloof 0.70

Micro-Managing 0.86

Self-Centered 0.75

Abrasive 0.71

Untrustworthy 0.76

Test-Retest Reliability

To determine the stability of the 15 Responses to Conflict scales, 83 undergraduate students completed that portion of the CDP at two time points; the interval between the two administrations ranged from 77 to 91 days. As displayed in Table 8, scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were significantly and positively correlated for each scale; the lowest test-retest value was .43, and the highest was .73, with a mean value of .64. This pattern suggests that the tendency to display specific behavioral responses to conflict is at least somewhat stable over a period of weeks. However, the fact that the two lowest associations were found for scales in the Active-Destructive domain (Demeaning Other and Retaliating) is worth noting. Relative to most of the other CDP dimensions, both of these are low-frequency behaviors. One possibility is that this infrequency may contribute to the somewhat lower temporal stability of these dimensions. Simply put, the evidential basis on which respondents make their self-judgments at any given time may be smaller and less stable for those dimensions. Alternatively, of course, it may be that these behaviors simply are less stable over time, perhaps more under the influence of features of the particular conflict episode (e.g., the kind of provocation; prior relationship with the other party).

19


IV. VALIDITY

Social Desirability

One way in which to evaluate the validity of a new instrument is to examine its relations with measures of social desirability. Table 8 displays the relationship between the fifteen Responses to Conflict and two measures of social desirability – subscales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1988). The Self-Deception scale of this instrument is designed to tap overly-positive self-perceptions, and is made up of items assessing a person’s inflated views of his or her judgment and rationality. The Impression Management scale, in contrast, is designed to tap a concern for how one comes across to others, and is made up of items that measure overly-positive claims about overt behaviors of which others would be aware.

Table 8. Correlations of CDP Responses to Conflict scales with measures of social desirability (N = 137 undergraduates).

BIDR Self-Deception

BIDR Impression Management

PT 0.18* 0.03

CS 0.21* 0.07

EE 0.23** 0.04

RO 0.03 0.04

RT 0.23** 0.14

DR 0.12 0.21*

AD 0.23** 0.21*

WI 0.04 -0.07

DA -0.07 -0.19*

DO -0.06 -0.06

RE -0.22** -0.25**

AV -0.21* -0.10

YL 0.04 0.01

HE -0.12 0.08

SC -0.13 0.05

*p <.05 **p < .01

20


Although there were some significant correlations between the CDP scales and the BIDR scales, they were for the most part not large, hovering around .20 or so. Thus, it does not appear that the CDP has serious problems with social desirability. It also appears that scores on the CDP scales were somewhat more associated with an inflated view of the self (Self-Deception) than with a conscious desire to appear admirable in the eyes of others (Impression Management).

It is important to note that although the data here are quite acceptable, social desirability concerns are of somewhat less importance with a multi-rater instrument such as the CDP. After all, the point of asking peers and bosses and direct reports to complete the measure is to overcome inaccuracies in self-perceptions – such as a desire to appear in a desirable light.

Scale Inter-correlations

A second means by which to evaluate the validity of an instrument such as the CDP is by examining the relations of its subscales to one another. Table 9 displays the inter-relationships among self-ratings on the fifteen Responses to Conflict for 2398 working adults; several features of the table are worth noting. First, inter-correlations among scales within the same general domain (e.g., Active-Constructive) were always positive in sign, statistically significant, and substantial in size. Inter-correlations within the two “active” domains (mean r for the four Active-Constructive scales was .45, and for the four Active-Destructive scales was .43) were slightly higher than for the two “Passive” domains (mean r for both the Passive-Constructive and Passive-Destructive scales was .34).

21


Ta

ble

9.

Inte

r-co

rrel

atio

ns

of

CD

P R

esp

on

ses

to C

on

flic

t sc

ales

(N

= 9

31

8 w

ork

ing

adu

lts)

.

PT

CS

EE

RO

R

T D

R

AD

W

I D

A

DO

R

E A

V

YL

HE

Pe

rsp

ect

ive

Tak

ing

(PT)

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Cre

atin

g So

luti

on

s (C

S)

.56

**

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Exp

ress

ing

Emo

tio

ns

(EE)

.3

4**

.5

2**

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Re

ach

ing

Ou

t (R

O)

.46

**

.51

**

.45

**

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Re

fle

ctiv

e T

hin

kin

g (R

T)

.57

**

.57

**

.27

**

.38

**

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

De

lay

Re

spo

nd

ing

(DR

) .2

1**

.0

4*

-.1

3**

.1

4**

.3

0**

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

Ad

apti

ng

(AD

) .4

4**

.4

3**

.1

8**

.4

3**

.4

8**

.2

7**

-

- -

- -

- -

-

Win

nin

g at

All

Co

sts

(WI)

-.

21

**

-.1

0**

.0

6**

-.

16

**

-.1

8**

-.

20

**

-.1

9**

-

- -

- -

- -

Dis

pla

yin

g A

nge

r (D

A)

-.3

1**

-.

24

**

.07

**

-.1

7**

-.

40

**

-.2

0**

-.

30

**

.42

**

- -

- -

- -

De

me

anin

g O

the

rs (

DO

) -.

30

**

-.3

2**

-.

13

**

-.2

9**

-.

37

**

-.0

7**

-.

27

**

.36

**

.53

**

- -

- -

-

Re

talia

tin

g (R

E)

-.2

5**

-.

31

**

-.1

8**

-.

28

**

-.2

7**

-.

05

* -.

23

**

.37

**

.42

**

.55

**

- -

- -

Avo

idin

g (A

V)

-.2

8**

-.

46

**

-.3

5**

-.

35

**

-.2

7**

.2

2**

-.

21

**

.17

**

.28

**

.41

**

.44

**

- -

-

Yie

ldin

g (Y

L)

-.0

9**

-.

26

**

-.3

1**

-.

08

**

-.1

8**

.2

7**

.0

8*

-.0

3**

.1

1**

.2

0**

.1

8**

.3

4**

-

-

Hid

ing

Emo

tio

ns

(HE)

-.

09

**

-.2

5**

-.

54

**

-.1

7**

-0

.02

.31

**

.08

**

-.0

9**

-.

10

**

.06

* .1

4**

.3

5**

.3

8**

-

Self

-Cri

tici

zin

g (S

C)

-.1

2**

-.

24

**

-.2

4**

-.

08

**

-.1

8**

.1

0**

-.

07

**

.13

**

.20

**

.20

**

.19

**

.33

**

.31

**

.34

**

*

*p <

.00

1

22


With regard to correlations across domains, the scales in the Active-Constructive and Passive-Constructive domains were almost all positively correlated with one another, and in most cases these associations were substantial (mean r = .28). In contrast, there was considerably more variety in the associations found between scales in the Active-Destructive and Passive-Destructive domains. Some of these associations were close to zero, and the mean r was only .14. Thus, it appears that constructive responses of any kind tend to be associated with constructive responses of every kind, while the relationships between differing forms of destructive responding are somewhat more varied.

Relations between Self-Ratings and Ratings by Others

Another method by which to evaluate the validity of the CDP scales is to compare the way that test-takers rate themselves with the ratings made by bosses, peers, and direct reports. If the scales are valid indicators of the intended constructs, then self- and other-ratings should tend to be positively and significantly correlated. Table 10 displays these correlations for over 2000 working adults who were also rated by bosses, peers, and/or direct reports. Ratings by multiple peers of a single test-taker were averaged together to produce a mean peer rating for each scale; a similar process was carried out for ratings by multiple direct reports of a single test-taker. In almost all cases, only a single boss rated the test-taker; when multiple boss ratings were collected, however, these were also averaged for each scale.

23


Table 10. Correlations between self-ratings working adults and others’ ratings for CDP Responses to Conflict scales.

Self-Boss (N=7773)

Self-Peers (N=8709)

Self-Direct Reports

(N=7256)

PT 0.18** 0.21** 0.17** CS 0.14** 0.16** 0.14**

EE 0.18** 0.21** 0.18** RO 0.17** 0.19** 0.16**

RT 0.16** 0.20** 0.17** DR 0.11** 0.17** 0.15** AD 0.14** 0.16** 0.14**

WI 0.19** 0.24** 0.19** DA 0.27** 0.33** 0.32** DO 0.19** 0.22** 0.20** RE 0.11** 0.15** 0.11**

AV 0.12** 0.16** 0.13** YL 0.16** 0.20** 0.15** HE 0.17** 0.20** 0.16** SC 0.14** 0.17** 0.13**

**p < .001

24


As the table reveals, each of the 45 correlations were positive in sign and statistically significant, thus supporting the validity of the 15 Responses to Conflict scales. For the most part, associations between self-ratings and ratings by others were roughly equivalent across rater category (boss, peers, and direct reports) and behavior category (Active-Constructive, Passive-Constructive, Active-Destructive, and Passive-Destructive). One exception to this general pattern was the finding that agreement regarding Active-Destructive behavior was slightly stronger than for the other three categories.

Relations with Other Conflict Measures

A third means by which to evaluate the validity of a new instrument is to compare it to existing measures of the same construct. Accordingly, correlations between the fifteen Responses to Conflict scales and scores on two existing conflict measures, the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI) and the Negotiating Styles Profile (NSP), appear in Table 11. These values come from two different sets of respondents: 122 undergraduate students who completed both the TKI and NSP, and 146 working adults who completed the TKI.

25


Tab

le 1

1. C

orr

elat

ion

s b

etw

een

CD

P R

esp

on

ses

to C

on

flic

t sc

ales

an

d t

he

TKI a

nd

NSP

su

bsc

ales

(N

= 1

22

un

der

grad

uat

e st

ud

ents

an

d 1

46

wo

rkin

g ad

ult

s).

Co

llab

ora

te

Acc

om

mo

dat

e

Co

mp

rom

ise

D

efe

at

Wit

hd

raw

Stu

de

nts

A

du

lts

Stu

de

nts

A

du

lts

Stu

de

nts

A

du

lts

Stu

de

nts

A

du

lts

Stu

de

nts

A

du

lts

NSP

TK

I TK

I N

SP

TKI

TKI

NSP

TK

I TK

I N

SP

TKI

TKI

NSP

TK

I TK

I P

T 0

.21

* 0

.05

-0

.03

0.2

0*

0.2

2*

0.1

5

0.0

8

-0.0

30

.15

-0

.12

-0.1

5-0

.21

*0

.12

-0

.04

-0.0

2C

S 0

.20

* 0

.22

* 0

.17

*0

.13

0

.09

-0

.14

0.0

3

-0.0

20

.26

**

-0.2

0*

-0.1

6-0

.15

0.0

2

-0.0

6-0

.11

EE

0.0

8

0.2

6**

0

.12

-0.0

20

.08

-0

.04

-0.1

0-0

.02

0.1

4

-0.1

5-0

.13

0.0

0-0

.18

*-0

.13

-0.2

2**

RO

0

.23

**

0.0

7

0.0

20

.29

**0

.27

**

0.1

8*

0.2

5**

0

.07

0

.11

-0

.33

**

-0.3

3**

-0

.23

**0

.08

0.0

5-0

.05

RT

0.0

4

0.1

2

0.1

10

.08

0.1

9*

0.0

7-0

.04

-0.0

40

.15

-0

.23

*-0

.20

*-0

.23

**0

.08

0.0

1-0

.05

DR

-0

.02

-.2

3*

-0.0

50

.24

**0

.32

**

0.1

20

.24

**

0.0

7

0.0

9

-0.1

6-0

.28

**

-0.3

1**

0.3

0**

0.2

2*

0.2

2**

AD

0

.21

*0

.00

-0

.12

0.1

70

.30

**

0.2

4**

0

.17

-0

.05

0.0

4

-0.3

2**

-0

.32

**

-0.2

0*

0.1

30

.19

*0

.08

WI

-0.1

0-0

.09

0.0

0-0

.10

-0.3

3**

-0

.21

*-0

.10

-0.0

5-0

.17

*0

.37

**

0.4

2**

0

.48

**

-0.1

1-0

.13

-0.2

0*

DA

0

.02

0.1

1-0

.05

-0.0

6-0

.37

**

-0.0

7-0

.06

0.0

3-0

.18

*0

.33

**

0.2

5**

0

.18

* -0

.13

-0.1

00

.07

DO

-0

.06

-0.1

70

.03

-0.1

5-0

.27

**0

.05

0

.04

0.0

9-0

.24

**0

.36

**

0.2

5**

0

.16

* -0

.07

0.0

1-0

.05

RE

-0.1

8-0

.20

*-0

.02

-0.1

6-0

.28

**

-0.0

50

.01

0.0

4-0

.19

*0

.40

**

0.3

9**

0

.16

-0

.05

-0.1

10

.07

AV

-0

.06

-0.2

4*

-0.0

7-0

.07

-0.0

70

.01

0

.06

-0.0

2-0

.23

**0

.27

**

-0.2

0*

0.0

1

0.1

8*

0.0

40

.27

**Y

L -0

.06

-0.2

4*

-0.0

90

.18

*0

.24

**

0.2

2**

0

.09

-0.1

10

.05

-0.0

1-0

.14

-0.2

8**

0.3

4**

0

.27

**

0.2

7**

H

E -0

.08

-0.2

7**

-0.1

20

.13

0 .2

0*

0.1

3

0.1

10

.00

-0.0

8-0

.11

-0.1

3-0

.13

0.3

3*

0.2

4**

0

.24

**

SC

0.2

2*

-0.0

6-0

.02

0.1

70

.10

-0

.01

0.1

5-0

.11

-0.2

3**

0.0

0-0

.07

0.1

00

.15

0

.15

0

.14

*p <

.05

*

*p

< .0

1

26


Predictably, the Active-Constructive responses (PT, CS, EE, RO) displayed their most consistent associations (which are relatively modest) with the dimensions of collaboration and accommodation – both of which reflect a concern for meeting the needs and interests of the other party. There were also some negative associations between Active-Constructive responses and the conflict style emphasizing the defeat of the other.

The Passive-Constructive responses (RT, DR, and AD) displayed some of their strongest associations (which are negative in sign) with the “defeat” conflict style; those who act in Passive-Constructive ways were less likely to try and prevail over the other person. In addition, the Passive-Constructive behaviors were associated with a greater tendency to accommodate the other person, and also to withdraw from conflict. Thus, one way to think about these Passive-Constructive responses is that while they can be associated with helpful responding (inhibit “defeat”), they may also be associated with a tendency to avoid engagement with the other person.

As expected, the Active-Destructive responses (WI, DA, DO, and RE) displayed their strongest association with the “defeat” style; those who possess that style are more likely to display anger, demean the other, and so forth. Active-Destructive responses were more sporadically associated with lower accommodation and compromise scores. Interestingly, these Active-Destructive responses were almost completely unrelated to collaboration and withdrawal. One implication of this is that people can possess an unpleasant set of conflict behaviors (angry, demeaning) yet still have a desire to collaborate, or to withdraw from conflict. This may reinforce the idea that Active-Destructive responses are simply a set of behaviors that can be changed; they do not necessarily imply that the person is opposed to a collaborative approach to conflict resolution.

In contrast to the Active-Destructive scales, the Passive-Destructive scales displayed relatively little association with the defeat style, and stronger associations with the withdrawal style. Both the Yielding and Hiding Emotions scales displayed consistent positive associations with the withdrawal style, and to some degree with accommodation; the Avoiding scale displayed similar but weaker associations. What all of these associations suggest is that Passive-Destructive responses — especially Yielding and Hiding Emotions — are associated with a lower willingness to engage the other person. In contrast, the Self-Criticizing scale is, for the most part, not associated with any of the five conflict styles; this scale seems to tap something largely unrelated to the dimensions captured by the TKI and NSP.

Relations with Broad Personality Measures

An additional kind of validity comes from comparing the CDP to a broad measure of personality to see how strongly related particular responses to conflict are with general personality domains. This was tested in two ways. First, a sample of 266 undergraduate students completed the 15 Responses to Conflict scales from the CDP and a widely-used measure of personality, the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) which taps 5 broad dimensions of personality. Table 12 displays these associations.

27


Table 12. Correlations between CDP Responses to Conflict scales and the NEO-PI scales (N = 266 undergraduates).

Extraversion Agreeableness Openness Neuroticism Conscientiousness

PT 0.24** 0.28** 0.27** -0.08 0.13

CS 0.43** 0.25** 0.25** -0.21** 0.12

EE 0.42** -0.02 0.10 -0.13 0.12

RO 0.26** 0.40** 0.13 0.01 0.16*

RT 0.19* 0.29** 0.23** -0.15 0.30**

DR -0.19* 0.41** 0.22** 0.00 0.17*

AD 0.26** 0.37** 0.24** -0.18* 0.09

WI 0.10 -0.40** -0.06 -0.01 -0.08

DA 0.07 -0.42** -0.21** 0.12 -0.07

DO -0.02 -0.39** -0.26** 0.10 -0.15

RE -0.07 -0.47** -0.28** 0.10 -0.06

AV 0.39** -0.07 -0.11 0.33** -0.09

YL -0.11 0.22** -0.07 0.20** -0.04

HE 0.39** 0.28** -0.04 0.36** 0.06

SC -0.10 0.22** -0.12 0.44** 0.08

*p < .05 **p < .01

28


The four Active-Constructive scales were consistently related to the personality dimension of extraversion, and to a slightly smaller degree were positively related to agreeableness and openness. The Passive-Constructive scales were also positively related to agreeableness and openness, but were more weakly and inconsistently related to extraversion. Thus, in comparison to more active responses, constructive responses that are essentially passive in nature are somewhat less associated with an outgoing personality.

With regard to the destructive responses, the Active-Destructive scales were strongly and negatively related to agreeableness, and were somewhat less strongly negatively related to openness. The Passive-Destructive scales, almost alone among the other CDP scales, were consistently related to the personality dimension of neuroticism. In addition, these passive-destructive responses to conflict were also somewhat negatively associated with extraversion, and were modestly positively related to agreeableness.

One finding worth noting is that agreeableness was by far the personality dimension most consistently related to conflict behaviors. Higher scores on agreeableness were associated with higher scores on all the constructive scales, both passive and active, and were somewhat positively associated with Passive-Destructive responses as well. In contrast, the Active-Destructive responses were substantially and negatively associated with dispositional agreeableness. All other personality dimensions were more selectively associated with conflict responses, virtually always in predictable ways.

Thus, the personality “portrait” which emerges from these associations is this: Active-Constructive responses are most common among people who are extraverted, agreeable, and open; the same is true of Passive-Constructive responses, although the link to extraversion is not as strong; Active-Destructive responses are most common among people who are low in agreeableness and openness; and Passive-Destructive responses are most common among those high in neuroticism, low in extraversion, and somewhat agreeable.

The second broad personality measure to which the CDP scales were compared is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers, 1962). A sample of 88 undergraduate students completed both measures, and the resulting associations are displayed in Table 13. Several features of this table merit attention.

29


Table 13: Correlations between CDP Responses to Conflict scales and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (N = 88 undergraduates).

Extraversion/ Introversion

Sensing/ Intuition

Thinking/ Feeling

Judging/ Perceiving

PT -0.28** 0.01 0.15 -0.22*

CS -0.36** -0.02 0.26* -0.08

EE -0.44** -0.02 0.20 -0.13

RO -0.12 -0.08 0.31** -0.23*

RT -0.20 0.08 0.11 -0.12

DR 0.23* 0.07 0.21* -0.20

AD -0.14 0.06 0.18 -0.02

WI 0.03 0.12 -0.30** 0.28**

DA -0.06 -0.01 -0.22* 0.15

DO -0.04 -0.13 -0.16 0.13

RE 0.04 0.00 -0.27* 0.11

AV 0.40** -0.07 -0.06 0.00

YL 0.00 -0.11 0.36** -0.16

HE 0.53** -0.08 0.07 0.06

SC 0.16 -0.16 0.18 -0.11

*p < .05 **p < .01

30


First, it is apparent that two MBTI dimensions — Extraversion/Introversion and Thinking/Feeling — displayed the strongest and most consistent relations with CDP scales. Individuals scoring toward the “extraverted” end of the former dimension tended to score higher on perspective taking, creating solutions, and expressing emotions; they also tended to score lower on avoiding, hiding emotions, and delay responding. Thus, extraversion was associated with a set of generally constructive responses to conflict, many of which reflected a tendency to engage the other person.

Those scoring toward the “feeling” end of the Thinking/Feeling continuum also tended to display a constructive set of responses to conflict; they reported higher levels of creating solutions, reaching out, and delay responding, and lower levels of winning at all costs, display anger, and retaliating. Thus, people who base judgments more on personal values than impersonal analysis tended to react to conflict more constructively.

In contrast, the other two MBTI dimensions displayed markedly weaker associations with CDP scales. In the case of the Sensing/Intuition dimension there were no significant correlations at all, and there were only three for the Judging/Perceiving dimension. Those who scored toward the “judging” end of the continuum tended to score higher on perspective taking and reaching out, and to score somewhat lower on winning at all costs. Thus, a preference for a planned, orderly way of life was modestly associated with more constructive responding to conflict.

Relations with Related Constructs

A final kind of validity comes from comparing the CDP scales with measures of related constructs, which they should be related to on theoretical grounds. Tables 14, 15, and 16 display the correlations between the 15 CDP Responses to Conflict scales and three other questionnaires for a sample of 82 undergraduate students who completed all of the measures.

31


Tab

le 1

4. C

orr

elat

ion

s b

etw

een

Res

po

nse

s to

Co

nfl

ict

scal

es a

nd

th

e B

uss

-Du

rkee

Ho

stili

ty s

cale

s (N

= 8

2 u

nd

ergr

adu

ates

).

Ass

ault

In

dir

ect

Ho

stili

ty

Irri

tab

ility

N

ega

tivi

sm

R

ese

ntm

en

t Su

spic

ion

V

erb

al

Ho

stili

ty

Gu

ilt

PT

-0.2

5*

-0.1

7-0

.18

-0.2

4*

-0.2

3*

-0.1

2-0

.12

0.1

4

CS

-0.3

1*

*-0

.18

-0.3

6*

*-0

.21

-0.2

5*

-0.2

9*

*-0

.11

0.0

4

EE

-0.0

8-0

.09

-0.3

3*

*-0

.08

-0.2

7*

-0.2

6*

0.2

4*

-0.0

4

RO

-0

.36

**

-0.1

9-0

.35

**

-0.2

0-0

.22

*-0

.39

**

-0.0

70

.10

RT

-0.2

9*

*-0

.34

**

-0.2

5*

-0.1

9-0

.25

*-0

.27

*-0

.30

**

0.0

4

DR

-0

.36

**

-0.3

2*

*-0

.13

-0.1

0-0

.17

-0.3

7*

*-0

.25

*0

.02

AD

-0

.43

**

-0.4

1*

*-0

.51

**

-0.1

1-0

.43

**

-0.4

4*

*-0

.15

0.0

9

WI

0.4

7*

*

0.2

0

0.2

2*

0

.52

**

0

.20

0

.24

*

0.3

7*

*

-0.0

9

DA

0

.51

**

0

.39

**

0

.37

**

0

.43

**

0

.34

**

0

.28

*

0.5

4*

*

0.0

1

DO

0

.27

*

0.2

9*

*

0.3

3*

*

0.3

2*

0

.31

**

0

.27

*

0.2

0

-0.1

3

RE

0.5

2*

*

0.2

9*

*

0.4

7*

*

0.4

1*

*

0.3

9*

*

0.5

4*

*

0.3

0*

*

0.0

2

AV

0

.14

0

.12

0

.27

*

0.2

9*

*

0.2

3*

0

.26

*

-0.0

20

.00

YL

-0.1

30

.03

0

.08

-0

.26

*0

.04

0

.02

-0

.22

*0

.23

*

HE

-0.0

8-0

.02

0.2

9*

*

0.0

50

.18

0

.18

-0

.29

**

0.2

7*

SC

0.0

50

.06

0.2

7*

0

.16

0.3

6*

*

0.2

2*

-0

.11

0.3

4*

*

32


T

able

15

. Co

rrel

atio

ns

bet

wee

n C

DP

Res

po

nse

s to

Co

nfl

ict

scal

es a

nd

CO

PE

Scal

e o

f C

op

ing

(N =

82

un

der

grad

uat

es).

Act

ive

C

op

ing

Pla

nn

ing

Sup

pre

ss

Co

mp

eti

ng

Act

ivit

ies

Re

sist

ant

Co

pin

g

See

k In

stru

m.

Sup

po

rt

See

k Em

otn

l.

Sup

po

rt

Po

siti

ve

Re

intr

p.

Gro

wth

A

cce

pta

nce

Tu

rn t

o

Re

ligio

n

Focu

s/

Ve

nti

ng

Emo

tio

ns

De

nia

l

Be

hav

iora

l D

ise

nga

ge-

me

nt

Me

nta

l D

ise

nga

ge-

me

nt

PT

0 .2

3*

0.3

1**

0

.20

0

.20

0

.24

* 0

.24

* 0

.33

**

0.1

5

0.1

3

0.1

6

0.1

1

-0.1

20

.02

CS

0.3

1**

0

.36

**

0.2

0

0.3

4**

0

.41

**

0.4

9**

0

.51

**

0.2

6*

0.2

2*

0.2

1

0.0

2

-0.2

6*

-0.0

1

EE

0.1

9

0.2

8*

0.0

6

0.1

1

0.3

6**

0

.60

**

0.4

5**

0

.18

0

.04

0

.41

**

-0.0

9-0

.20

-0.0

6

RO

0

.17

0

.35

**

0.0

8

0.1

1

0.4

3**

0

.49

**

0.3

9**

0

.11

0

.06

0

.31

**

-0.2

2*

-0.3

0**

-0.0

8

RT

0.4

4**

0

.57

**

0.2

3*

0.2

2*

0.3

2**

0

.29

**

.27

* 0

.18

0

.22

* -0

.02

-0.1

8-0

.29

**-0

.16

DR

0

.03

0

.17

0

.14

0

.08

0

.26

* 0

.07

0

.20

0

.24

* 0

.11

-0

.01

-0.0

80

.02

0.0

7

AD

0

.24

* 0

.34

**

0.1

1

0.1

6

0.2

8*

0 .2

8*

0.4

7**

0

.44

**

0.1

2

-0.0

9-0

.40

**-0

.41

**-0

.08

WI

0.2

6*

0.1

5

0.1

4

0.2

4*

0.0

1

-0.0

8-0

.01

0.0

6

-0.0

7-0

.03

0.0

8

-0.0

10

.17

DA

-0

.06

-0.1

00

.06

0

.11

0

.05

0

.04

-0.0

6-0

.03

0.0

40

.24

*0

.15

0

.24

*0

.19

DO

-0

.15

-0.1

30

.12

0

.06

-0

.09

-0.1

5-0

.34

**-0

.10

-0.0

1-0

.07

0.1

5

0.3

2**

0.2

3*

RE

-0.0

6-0

.20

0.0

4

-0.0

5-0

.21

-0.2

8**

-0.3

3*

-0.1

40

.08

-0.1

40

.15

0

.32

**0

.18

AV

-0

.18

-0.2

10

.04

-0

.09

-0.1

5-0

.31

**-0

.21

-0.0

60

.04

-0

.14

0.0

5

0.2

9**

0

.31

**

YL

-0.2

5*

-0.1

7-0

.13

-0.0

10

.15

0.1

5-0

.02

0.0

1-0

.04

0.0

3 0

.27

* 0

.46

**

0.0

8

HE

-0.0

5-0

.10

0.0

9-0

.04

-0.2

0-0

.35

**-0

.14

0.0

10

.06

-0.1

70

.09

0

.14

0

.13

SC

0.0

70

.08

0.1

4-0

.01

0.0

6-0

.01

0.1

0-0

.01

-0.0

60

.11

0.0

3

0.0

1

0.1

5

*p <

.05

**

p <

.01

33


Table 16. Correlations between CDP Responses to Conflict scales and the Emotional Regulation scales (N = 82 undergraduates).

Rehearsal Emotional Inhibition

Benign Control

Aggression Control

PT -0.14 -0.22* 0.14 0.21

CS -0.36** -0.49** 0.23* 0.24*

EE -0.38** -0.61** 0.22* -0.06

RO -0.35** -0.46** 0.24* 0.29**

RT -0.14 -0.19 0.37** 0.34**

DR -0.21 -0.02 0.30** 0.47**

AD -0.42** -0.31** 0.32** 0.40**

WI 0.24* 0.01 -0.22* -0.51**

DA 0.24* 0.01 -0.36** -0.62**

DO 0.20 0.17 -0.36** -0.30**

RE 0.38** 0.30** -0.38** -0.50**

AV 0.23* 0.42** -0.14 0.01

YL 0.03 0.01 -0.11 0.22*

HE 0.39** 0.54** -0.12 0.26*

SC 0.39** 0.23* -0.20 0.01

*p < .05 **p < .01

Table 14 contains the correlations between CDP scales and sub-scales from the Buss-Durkee hostility measure (1957), a widely-used measure tapping individual differences in hostility, aggression, and conflict-related responses.

Table 15 displays correlations with the sub-scales from Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub’s (1989) COPE scale, a measure of different coping strategies that people can use to deal with stressful events. Some of these strategies rely on actively confronting the problem (Active Coping, Planning, Seeking Social Support); some rely on restraining oneself (Suppression of Competing Activities, Restraint Coping); some rely on accepting the stressor (Acceptance, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth); and some rely on denying or disengaging (Denial, Behavioral Disengagement, Mental Disengagement).

34


Table 16 displays correlations with the four sub-scales of Roger and Najarian’s (1989) measure of emotional control. These four scales measure ways in which individuals respond to emotion-arousing stimuli in their lives: through rehearsal (continuing to think about the event afterwards), emotional inhibition (concealing emotional responses from others), benign control (control of minor impulsive behaviors), and aggression control (control of aggressive responses).

As the tables reveal, in each case quite predictable and understandable relations were found between each of these measures and the CDP Responses to Conflict scales. In particular, it can be noted that:

➢ The four Active-Constructive scales were generally negatively associated with measures ofdispositional hostility (especially physical aggression) and were consistently positivelyassociated with coping responses that involve seeking social support and making active effortsto find solutions. Active-Constructive responses were also negatively related to a tendency toconceal emotional reactions from others and to ruminate over negative emotional experiencesafter the fact.

➢ The three Passive-Constructive scales were also generally negatively associated withdispositional hostility and were sporadically related to constructive coping responses. Passive-Constructive responses were also substantially and positively related to the tendency to controlone’s emotional and behavioral responses to provocation, especially aggressive ones.

➢ The four Active-Destructive scales displayed strong and consistent positive associations withalmost all of the measures of dispositional hostility and displayed very few relations withconstructive coping responses; the strongest associations were between Active-Destructivescales and a tendency to cope by behaviorally disengaging from the situation. High scores onActive-Destructive scales were also substantially negatively correlated with the tendency tocontrol one’s emotional and behavioral responses.

➢ The four Passive-Destructive scales displayed a somewhat more varied pattern of associationswith the validity scales. The Avoiding and Yielding scales were not highly correlated with manyof the dispositional hostility measures but were significantly associated with coping strategiesinvolving behavioral and mental disengagement from the problem. Hiding Emotions and Self-Criticizing, on the other hand, were somewhat associated with hostility-related irritability andguilt, essentially unrelated to any coping strategy, and substantially positively correlated withmeasures of ruminative thinking and emotional inhibition.

35


V. GENDER DIFFERENCES

The question of gender differences in conflict behaviors can be approached in two fundamental ways: first, do men and women differ in terms of how they see themselves, and second, are men and women viewed differently by other people? The first issue is addressed by testing for gender differences in self-reports, and the second issue is addressed by examining the view of test-takers held by bosses, peers, and direct reports. Both approaches are taken in the data appearing in Table 17.

Table 17. CDP Responses to Conflict ratings by self and others as a function of test-taker’s (self) gender for 9318 working adults.

Self Boss Peers Direct Reports

Men (5339)

Women (3757)

Men (4352)

Women (3316)

Men (4873)

Women (3686)

Men (4281)

Women (2866)

PT 3.41 3.46*** 3.28 3.39*** 3.28 3.40*** 3.34 3.45***

CS 3.72 3.69* 3.65 3.68 3.72 3.76*** 3.83 3.88***

EE 3.39 3.42* 3.44 3.47* 3.48 3.55*** 3.52 3.62***

RO 3.58 3.64*** 3.41 3.45** 3.37 3.44*** 3.47 3.54***

RT 3.87 3.83*** 3.80 3.83 3.81 3.85*** 3.94 3.97*

DR 3.05 3.17*** 3.03 3.10*** 2.99 3.05*** 2.99 3.01*

AD 3.69 3.70 3.67 3.70 3.64 3.70*** 3.72 3.78***

WI 2.65 2.47*** 2.75 2.67*** 2.81 2.71*** 2.79 2.72***

DA 2.00 1.96*** 1.86 1.77*** 1.90 1.82*** 1.82 1.76***

DO 1.70 1.63*** 1.68 1.59*** 1.72 1.62*** 1.61 1.54***

RE 1.56 1.43*** 1.53 1.46*** 1.60 1.53*** 1.54 1.50***

AV 2.18 2.28*** 2.05 2.10*** 2.02 2.05** 1.90 1.90

YL 2.30 2.45*** 2.33 2.33 2.25 2.27* 2.09 2.08

HE 2.78 2.78 2.66 2.68 2.60 2.61 2.55 2.54

SC 3.28 3.47*** 2.82 2.89*** 2.68 2.79*** 2.55 2.59***

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

36


This table displays the mean scores for 9218 working adults (5238 men and 3956 women) on the 15 CDP scales, not only for self-reported behavior but also for the perceptions of all three rating groups. As the table reveals, men and women tend to describe themselves in slightly different ways on the CDP. Men describe themselves as being more likely to retaliate, to demean others, and to try to win at all costs; they also describe themselves as more likely to engage in reflective thinking during a conflict. Women, on the other hand, describe themselves as more likely to express their emotions, delay responding, avoid the other person, yield to the other person, and criticize themselves afterwards. However, it is also important to consider how big and meaningful these differences between men and women are; with a sample size of over 2000, even very small differences can be statistically significant.

Thus, it is useful to also consider effect size–an indicator of the true magnitude of the difference that is not influenced by sample size. When viewed in this way, it is clear that the differences between men and women on the CDP are not large at all. A typical rule of thumb with the type of effect size measure used here (r) is that values of .50 are considered large, values of .30 are considered moderate, and values of .10 are considered small. The largest effect size for sex differences on self-reported behavior (self-criticizing) was only .12, clearly indicative of a modest difference.

The same general pattern found for the self-ratings also appears when evaluations by others are considered. Bosses, peers, and direct reports described men and women differently — to various degrees — on the 15 CDP scales. In general, men were perceived as more likely to display Active-Destructive responses to conflict and women were perceived to engage in more constructive responses. Again, however, these differences are extremely small, with even the largest of them (peers’ ratings on the Self-Criticizing scale) having an effect size of only .14. Thus, although people vary quite a bit in how they respond to conflict — some handle it extremely well and some extremely poorly — these results indicate that this variation is not determined very much by the gender of the individuals.

Table 18 displays the self-ratings of these same working adults for the nine Hot Button scales. Several significant gender differences were found, with women more likely to report being upset than men by Unreliable, Unappreciative, Untrustworthy, Abrasive, Hostile, and Micro-Managing co-workers. As with the sex differences previously reported, the size of these differences was small, with the largest effect size (for Micro-Managing) only .14.

37


Table 18. Self-ratings on CDP Hot Buttons scales as a function of gender for 9318 working adults.

Men (N=5238)

Women (N=4080)

Unreliable 3.92 4.01***

Overly-Analytical 2.33 2.35

Unappreciative 3.10 3.22***

Aloof 2.89 2.89

Micro-Managing 2.77 2.96***

Self-Centered 3.14 3.15

Abrasive 3.30 3.39***

Untrustworthy 4.04 4.13***

Hostile 3.67 3.85***

***p < .001

38


VI. DEVELOPMENT OF NORMS

Much of the CDP Feedback Report is based on the use of standardized scores, in which an individual’s scores on a scale (either self-rated or rated by others) are compared to the scores of the general population. As a result, it was necessary to develop norms for all of the CDP scales, and this process continues in an ongoing fashion; CDP norms are updated periodically as the database increases in size.

Table 19 displays the current population means and standard deviations for each of the 15 Responses to Conflict scales, separately for reports by self, boss, peers, and direct reports. Table 20 displays the population means and standard deviations for the nine Hot Buttons scales.

For more information about the CDP psychometrics, please see the article by Mark H. Davis, Sal Capobianco, and Linda A. Kraus titled “Measuring Conflict-Related Behaviors: Reliability and Validity Evidence Regarding the Conflict Dynamics Profile,” published in Educational and Psychological Measurement August 2004 64: 707-731, doi:10.1177/0013164404263878.

39


Table 19. Mean population scores and standard deviations for CDP Responses to Conflict scales for rating by self and others based on data from 9318 working adults and their raters.

Self (N=9,355)

Boss (N=8,944)

Peers (N=34,110)

Direct Reports (N=25,074)

PT 3.43 (.75) 3.32 (.74) 3.32 (.76) 3.37 (.81)

CS 3.71 (.59) 3.66 (.68) 3.73 (.70) 3.85 (.74)

EE 3.40 (.69) 3.46 (.71) 3.50 (.72) 3.56 (.75)

RO 3.61 (.61) 3.42 (.68) 3.39 (.71) 3.49 (.75)

RT 3.85 (.59) 3.81 (.70) 3.82 (.72) 3.95 (.75)

DR 3.10 (.49) 3.06 (.52) 3.02 (.54) 2.99 (.57)

AD 3.70 (.52) 3.68 (.63) 3.66 (.66) 3.74 (.69)

WI 2.57 (.60) 2.72 (.75) 2.77 (.78) 2.78 (.78)

DA 1.98 (.61) 1.83 (.69) 1.87 (.71) 1.81 (.72)

DO 1.67 (.56) 1.65 (.66) 1.68 (.69) 1.59 (.67)

RE 1.51 (.53) 1.51 (.61) 1.57 (.68) 1.54 (.69)

AV 2.22 (.66) 2.07 (.69) 2.04 (.72) 1.90 (.73)

YL 2.36 (.65) 2.32 (.67) 2.27 (.69) 2.08 (.70)

HE 2.78 (.64) 2.67 (.63) 2.61 (.64) 2.54 (.65)

SC 3.36 (.77) 2.85 (.63) 2.73 (.63) 2.57 (.63)

40


Table 20. Mean population scores and standard deviations for CDP Hot Buttons scales (N=9318 working adults).

Unreliable 3.93 (0.73) Overly-Analytical 2.31 (0.66)

Unappreciative 3.11 (0.80)

Aloof 2.84 (0.66)

Micro-Managing 2.84 (0.83)

Self-Centered 3.14 (0.76)

Abrasive 3.29 (0.74)

Untrustworthy 4.07 (0.68)

Hostile 3.68 (0.77)

41


REFERENCES

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

American Psychological Association (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC.

Berry, D. S., & Willingham, J. K. (1997). Affective traits, responses to conflict, and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 564-576.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1970). The fifth achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, 413-426.

Bramson, R. M. (1981). Coping with difficult people. New York: Anchor Books.

Bramson, R. M. (1992). Coping with difficult bosses. New York: Fireside Books.

Buss, A., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 4, 343-349.

Carnegie, D. (1936; revised 1981). How to win friends & influence people. New York: Pocket Books.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Davis, B. L., Skube, C. J., Hellervik, L. W., Gebelein, S. H., & Sheard, J. L. (1992). Successful manager's handbook: development suggestions for today's managers. Personnel Decisions International.

Donaldson, M. C., & Donaldson, M. (1996). Negotiating for dummies. Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.

Feeney, M. C., & Davidson, J. A. (1996). Bridging the gap between the practical and the theoretical: An evaluation of a conflict resolution model. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2, 255-269.

42


Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.

Glaser, R. & Glaser, C. (1996). Negotiating style profile (revised edition). King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development, Inc.

Glass, L. (1995). Toxic People: 10 ways of dealing with people who make your life miserable. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gottman, J., with Silver, N. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail . . . and how you can make yours last. New York: Fireside

Myers, I. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Vancouver, British Columbia: Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Roger, D., & Najarian, B. (1989). The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring emotion control. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 845-853.

Rusbult, C., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.

Sessa, V. I. (1996). Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 101-115.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument. New York: Xicom.

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281.

43


AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES

Sal Capobianco, Ph.D. is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College and a retired Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida. Sal’s research interests are in organizational behavior, particularly the characteristics of effective leaders and the psychological variables underlying group functioning. He received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University and his M.A. from the University of Kansas.

Mark H. Davis, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and Senior Research Fellow at the Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is the author of over 45 articles and chapters in the area of Social Psychology as well as a book, Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Mark is also a consulting editor for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and his B.A. in Psychology and Political Science from the University of Iowa.

Linda A. Kraus, Ph.D. is a consultant to non-profit organizations and small businesses and a Senior Research Fellow at the Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College. She has conducted research on a wide range of topics related to human services and published articles on workplace conflict, social relationships, and personal well-being. Linda has extensive experience in teaching, training, and curriculum development. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Indiana University and her M.A. in Sociology and B.A. in Psychology from East Carolina University.

conflict dynamics profile technical guide · popular press accounts such as how to win friends...

Documents