The effects of conflict type and disputants’
hierarchy on lay third parties’ conflict frame perception and side-taking
preference
Dominik Sommer
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Type of paper: Bachelor Thesis First Supervisor: Dr. Huadong Yang
Second Supervisor: Dr. Piety R. Honnef-Runhaar
Submission Date: 15 - 04 - 2011
2
Contents
1 Abstract ... 3
2 Introduction ... 3
2.1 Definitions of Conflict, Third Party and Side-Taking ... 5
2.2 Conflict perception, frames and side-taking motives ... 5
2.3 Conflict Types and Disputants’ Status ... 6
3 Methods ... 8
3.1 Respondents ... 8
3.2 Procedure ... 10
3.3 Measures ... 10
3.4 The vignettes ... 10
3.5 Manipulation of conflict type ... 11
3.6 Manipulation of status types ... 11
3.7 Manipulation check ... 12
3.8 Frame perception ... 12
3.9 Side-taking motives ... 13
4 Results ... 14
4.1 Conflict perceptions ... 17
4.2 Side taking motive ... 18
4.3 Overview of results ... 18
5 Discussion ... 19
5.1 Limitations ... 21
5.2 Future Research... 23
6 Literature ... 24
7 Appendix ... 28
3
1 Abstract
Grounded on prior research on side taking, this bachelor thesis tries to further explore how situational factors in terms of conflict types and disputants' status influence lay third parties‘
perception and their side-taking motives. Respondents were confronted with one of four conflict vignettes that resulted from a 2x2 design and employed two conflict dimensions each (task conflict vs. relationship conflict) and (peer/peer conflict vs. authority/subordinate conflict). As dependent variables the respondents‘ perception in terms of morality, relationship and instrumental conflict-framing are employed, as well as the side-taking motivation in terms of legitimacy, relationship and self-interest.
Results reveal that the conflict-type is influential on the perception but not the status-type.
Side- taking motivation could not be sufficiently predicted by the hypothesis. Additional results were found that suggest interaction effects between conflict- and status type for legitimacy-based side-taking and morality-based perception.
2 Introduction
Conflict situations are a vital part of our entire life. We are continuously confronted with disputes and conflicts that need to be resolved. Sometimes we are involved in a conflict as neural judges to help conflict parties solving the problem. Other times we are persuaded as
―potential targets‖ by conflict parties to take sides with them. This study focuses on the question how conflicts are perceived and how this perception leads to side-taking decisions.
Imagine you are confronted with a business-related dispute between your supervisor and a fellow co-worker. Both of them want to get your support and lay out their arguments to you.
After carefully pondering the issue you reach the conclusion that your supervisors` arguments
are invalid and that your colleague is more in right. Would you take a risk to side against your
supervisor, or would you rather support him to avoid potential harm?
4
When faced with such a situation, we are all aware of the pressures that are imposed upon us.
However, we also have to take other factors into account, for example, our moral values and our relationships with disputants. So which is the most important factor that directs us for side-taking? In other words, how do people actually perceive a side-taking dilemma, and how do they make their decision which side they will support?
Former research on this issue shows that the authority differences and conflict types are important dimensions that influence the side-taking decision. To investigate this question further we use a peer/peer and an authority/subordinate conflict in the authority dimension and a task/relationship conflict in the conflict dimension. Our participants are confronted with a conflict vignette that employs those two different conflict dimensions. Via a 2x2 design four vignettes derive that are randomly assigned to our participants.
Furthermore we try to build a relationship between the frames of side-taking perceptions and the actual side-taking decisions. The findings of this study will help us get a closer look into the motives of lay third parties regarding their side-taking decision making.
The first part of this paper will consist of a brief introduction about the definition of conflict,
lay-third parties and side taking, followed by theoretical assumptions concerning perception
frames, side-taking preferences and their relationship. In the method section, the second part
of this paper, it is explained how this study was conducted, specially focusing on our
participant pool and which measures were being used. The third part will show the results
regarding the hypothesis testing. The last part discusses the implication of the findings,
shortcomings of the study and a view into future research.
5
2.1 Definitions of Conflict, Third Party and Side-Taking
Conflicts are a fundamental part of our human existence and display themselves in many forms, such as interpersonal disputes, group conflicts and even international wars. The definition used in this research stems from Rogan‘s (2006) view that conflict is ―an expressed struggle between two or more interdependent parties who perceive goal incompatibility, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in their individual goal achievement‖.
As individuals and groups we have developed certain techniques such as regulation, avoidance and resolution to cope with the conflicts and secure functional societies (Fisher, 1972). The incorporation of a third party into the conflict resolution is a common technique to solve the problem, whereas third parties can take the role as mediators or arbitrators (Shepard, 1984), hybrid third parties in combination of mediation and arbitration (Ross and Conlon, 2000), or lay-third parties (Yang, Van de Vliert & Shi, 2007).
The focus of this research lies on the lay-third party because it received little attention by the scientific community so far (Yang, Li, Wang, & Hendriks, 2011). The lay-third party generally received no prior training in conflict management, feels no obligation to solve the problem and has the tendency to take side with one of the conflict parties (Yang, Van de Vliert, Shi 2007, Van de Vliert, 1981).
2.2 Conflict perception, frames and side-taking motives
The perception of a conflict plays an important role in conflict handling (Sillars,
Roberts,Leonard, & Dun, 2000). Perception is described as a process which includes the
intake of external stimuli and their processing according to individual cognitive schemata
(Rogan, 2006). Mental representations are formed which include all aspects of the conflict,
such as the issue attributes of the conflict parties and motives concerning the conflict situation
(Pinkley, 1990). These representations are named conflict frames. Mainly a frame consists of
6
perceptual sets or orientations that lead to focus on some characteristics of a conflict. They guide the information-selection of an individual before and during a conflict situation. The frame enhances the perception of certain aspects of a problem while neglecting others (Rogan, 2006). Furthermore the frame leads to a different evaluation regulated by it. The process of framing is automatic and subconscious. People are in general not aware of the specific frame (Levy, 1998).
The first objective of this research is to identify the conflict frames in which lay- third parties perceive a side-taking conflict. Based on Rogan‘s work on conflict framing, in which six categories are proposed, we emphasize three of them; morality, relationship and instrumental because they fit well with lay third parties‘ side-taking situations.
The first dimension is morality which refers to the participant‘s perception of the parties‘
argument as reasonable, fair or morally correct. The second dimension is relationship, which refers to the participant‘s perception of the relationship between himself and the conflicting parties; and the third dimension is instrumental, which describes the perception of possible sanctions or gratification for himself or the conflict parties.
The second objective of the research is to establish a relation between the perceived conflict frames and the side-taking motives. Yang et al. (2011) have identified three motives when it comes to side-taking: Justice, relationship and self-interest. These motives are congruent with the three types of conflict frames mentioned above. We contrast these two measures to find out whether the conflict frames can predict the side-taking motivation.
2.3 Conflict Types and Disputants’ Status
We first propose that lay third parties‘ conflict frames and their side-taking motives are
influenced by the conflict type. The conflicts in literature are divided into task- and
7
relationship- conflict. The former refers to a perception of disagreements about task related issues such as viewpoints, opinions and ideas. The latter refers to a perception of interpersonal issues such as dispute, insults and annoyance (Simons & Peterson 2000).
Task conflict is content-related and it leads to a better understanding and enables generative conflict management (Putnam 1994). Relationship-conflict on the other hand is context- related and concerns more personal and emotional aspects of a conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This leads to interpersonal stress and particular conflict behaviors which hinders conflict parties to engage in constructive problem-solving. (Evan 1965).
We assume that task and relational conflicts are important factors for perception framing and side-taking motivation. The focus of task conflicts highlights the factual concerns, and elicits perception in a moral-based conflict frame.
By contrast, relationship conflicts centre on affective interpersonal issues and that lead to perception in relationship-based conflict frames. We therefore hypothesize that:
H1: A task conflict activates lay third parties to engage in the moral-based dimension to frame it.
H2: A relationship conflict activates lay third parties to engage in the relationship-based dimension to frame it.
We further assume that the influence of conflict types on lay third parties‘ conflict frames and
side-taking motives are further adjusted by disputants` status. In the condition that the lay
third-parties perceive the conflict parties as having an equal status (peer/peer conflict), they
will have more energy available to focus on the tasks and therefore the link between conflict
task and moral perception frames and justice-based side-taking motive will be reinforced.
8
In the condition that the lay- third parties perceive the conflict parties` statuses as unequal (authority/subordinate conflict) they will have to pay extra attention on this circumstance.
Yang & Van de Vliert (2011) argue that under this circumstance, that lay third parties may be especially attentive to who has a high-status in the conflict and who can provide rewards or sanctions to them. Then the instrumental conflict frame is activated and self-interest based side-taking is motivated. Therefore we hypothesized:
H3: A non hierarchy (peer to peer) relationship between disputants strengthens the link between task conflict and the moral-based conflict frames, and just-based side-taking motive.
H4: A hierarchical (supervisor to peer) relationship between disputants stimulates the instrumental conflict frame and the self-interest based side-taking, no matter in a task or in a relationship conflict.
3 Methods
3.1 Respondents
We invited about 320 people via social networks, e-mail lists and instant messengers to participate in our online study, of which 101 filled in the questionnaire. After we deleted invalid or missing values, 92 data remained for the final analysis. All participants were Germans, and their age was between 17 and 44 (M=23). Table 1 shows the demographic information of the 92 remaining participants.
Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
N % Cumulative %
N 92 100 100
9 Gender
Male 50 54.3 54.3
Female 42 45.7 100.0
Age
17-20 13 14.1 14.1
21-25 66 71.8 85.9
26-44 13 14.1 100.0
Mean 23.23
SD 3.69
Level of education
High school 25 27.2 27.2
Vocational school 25 27.1 54.3
Bachelor 34 37.0 91.3
Master 2 2.2 93.5
Doctor 1 1.1 94.6
Other 5 5.4 100.0
Origin
Germany 89 96.7 96.7
other 3 3.3 100.0
First Language
Germany 91 98.9 98.9
other 1 1.1 100.0
10
3.2 Procedure
The scenarios used in this study were originally developed in English by our supervisor, Dr.
Huadong Yang and his colleagues. They were translated into German by the researchers and back-translated by a certificated translator. The back-translated version was compared with the original version to assure a semantic proximity. After some minor changes were made a final version was created and used in this study.
The surveys were conducted via the online survey-webpage http://thesistools.nl. Participants could only access to the survey after they filled in a valid username and password which was sent out in our invitation email. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four different scenarios. Data collection took place from 17th July till 10th September 2010.
3.3 Measures
A two (conflict types: task versus relationship) x two (status types: peer-peer versus peer- authority) between-group design was conducted in this study. Four different vignettes were created and each participant read one of the four vignettes.
3.4 The vignettes
The vignettes describe a story about a side-taking dilemma faced by a player in a basketball school team. This player, in the role of a lay third party, is confronted with a conflict situation between another two members (or between a member and coach). The conflict escalates into a situation that this player has to make a decision of with whom he/her is going to support.
The vignettes begin with ―You are a member of your school‘s basketball team. On behalf of
your school you are participating in an important basketball match. There are 10 members in
your team, 5 starters and 5 substitutes‖
11
The conflict arises because one of the starters got injured and is unable to take part in the next game: ―Because one of the starters is unable to join the next match due to injury, it is required to select a player from the substitutes. The focus of the selection is on player A and player B who have an equivalent ability level.‖
The two conflict parties in each scenario are introduced as ―Arka‖ and Barka‖. These names were chosen purposely because of their gender and cultural neutrality.
3.5 Manipulation of conflict type
The task conflict was manipulated by representing the following episode: ―Arka favors A because A is able to stand out and help the whole team in the critical time with his outstanding individual skill and scoring ability. While Barka is in favors of B, who is good at creating opportunities and team building‖. In the relationship conflict, participants read the episode as follows: ―Last year, Arka and Barka had some conflicts. This caused distrust between them and now they have conflicting opinions on many topics. They even don‘t greet each other anymore. Arka frowns upon the superior attitude of Barka while Barka feels Arka acts rigid and unreasonable‖.
3.6 Manipulation of status types
In the equal-status condition the parties were introduced as teammates, thus a relationship of
peer-peer was constructed. In the unequal-status condition Arka was assigned with the role of
the coach and Barka with the role of a teammate, thus a relationship of supervisor-peer
relationship is constructed.
12
3.7 Manipulation check
We used an array of items to test whether the respondents actually understood the experiment manipulation. The items were measured using a five-point Likert Scale (―1‖ = ―strongly disagree‖, whereas ―5‖ = ―strongly agree‖).
The conflict situation was checked by item s3 (e.g., ―On the issue of selecting player A or B, Arka has a different opinion from Barka.‖). The conflict type was assessed by four items.
Two questions refer to the task-conflict (―The different opinions between Arka and Barka are due to their difference of analyzing the problem‖; ―The disagreement between Arka and Barka is task related‖. r =.25 α =.40) and two questions refer to the understanding of the relationship-conflict (―Arka and Barka have a problem with their personal relationships‖ and
―Arka and Barka don't like each other‖. r =.87 α =.93)
Furthermore two items were used to affirm the respondents‘ comprehension of the status (―In this situation, Arka and Barka have an equal status in the team‖, ―In this situation, the relationship between Arka and Barka is a superior-subordinate relationship‖ r= .75 α = .86)
3.8 Frame perception
Three types of conflict perceptions were measured by adopting Rogan`s (2006) scale on conflict framing. Rogan identified six conflict framing categories and we chose three of them which fit the purposes of side-taking.
The first dimension is morality. Six questions were used to inquire if the respondents
perceived the conflict according to this frame. (―The dilemma is about who is right and who is
wrong‖, ―Selecting a suitable player is the key issue in this dilemma‖, ―I concern about whose
opinion is more applicable‖,‖ I concern about the differences of the substitute players‘
13
abilities‖, ―In this dilemma, the factual concerns (e.g., who is more in the right) is more important than the relational concern (e.g., who is close to me)‖, ―In my opinion the two disputants (Arka and Barka) argue their points based on factual concerns.‖ The first question was deleted to receive a higher alpha coefficient of .64.
The second dimension is relationship. Relationship-framing was inquired by three questions:
―I concern about the relationship between Arka and Barka in the dilemma‖, ―The relationship between Arka and barka will influence my decision‖, ―In my opinion this disagreement in nature is about relationship (e.g. Arka likes A or Barka likes B, or Arka and Barka do not like each other‖) The reliability analysis showed an alpha of .65.
The third dimension is instrumental. The instrumental frame was tested by six questions:
―One of the parties (Arka or Barka) could lose face in this dilemma‖, ―I could imagine that one party will harm the other in the future‖, ―I have a feeling that one party is threatened by the other‖, ―I am concerned what I can gain or lose from this disagreement‖, ―I wonder whether my interests will be harmed in this dilemma‖ and ―I concern whether our team‘s interests will be harmed in this dilemma‖. Alpha amounts to α = .69.
3.9 Side-taking motives
The side-taking motives were assessed by three dimensions: legitimacy-based, relationship- based and self-interest-based side-taking.
The first dimension, legitimacy-based side-taking motive was measured by three items (―I
will support the party whose arguments sound right to me‖, ―I will agree with the party who
recommends a better fitting player‖, ‖ Right or wrong is the most important consideration for
my side-taking decision.‖ After item two was deleted, the reliability test showed a Cronbach`s
Alpha of .51
14
Relationship-based side-taking was assessed by three items as well (―I will take side with the party who is closer to me‖, ―I will support Arka (or Barka) based on who is my friend‖, ―I will consider the relationship I have with Arka and Barka when taking sides‖); Cronbach`s Alpha reached a value of .82.
Self-interest was scrutinized by two directions: reward-approaching and sanction-avoiding.
The former is assessed by three items (―I will consider what benefit I can get from taking sides with Arka or Barka, ―I will choose the party who can reward me in the future‖, ―What I can gain is one of the important considerations for me to choose sides‖). Cronbach`s Alpha is .79. The latter was assessed by also three items (―I will have to agree with Arka (or Barka) if I know Arka (or Barka) will punish me for the consequences, ―I choose Arka‘s (or Barka‘s) side because I´m afraid to offend Arka (or Barka)‖, ―If Arka or (Barka) puts pressure on me, I will have to agree with him/her‖), α = .89.
4 Results
The 92 respondents were randomly assigned to the four scenarios which delivered the following arrangement: 21 in task conflict/equal status, 27 in task conflict/unequal status, 20 in relationship conflict/equal status and 24 in relationship conflict/unequal status.
A manipulation check scale is used to identify whether the respondents perceived the independent variables task- and relationship conflict and the general issue as intended.
Item s3 is used to check on the general understanding of the conflict issue: “On the issue of selecting player A or B, the opinions of Arka and Barka are agreed”. This item shows a high mean (M=4.71, SD=.46) which is a clear indicator for an understanding of the general issue.
Three respondents were excluded from the research because we decided to employ a strict
rule that demands a score of three or higher on this item.
15
For task conflict we employed two items s4/s5 ―The different selections of Arka and Barka are due to the different perspectives to analyze the problem” and “The differences between Arka and Barka are problem-related”. Item s5 was deleted due to its statistical incoherence it in assessing the conflict-type. We suspect the ambiguous wording of the item to be accountable for this. The remaining item s4 shows a significant difference across the four scenarios (F (3,88) = 3.59, p <.02).
The manipulation check for the status-type consists of items s1 and s2 “In this situation, Arka and Barka have an equal status in the team‖ and “In this situation, the relationship between Arka and Barka is a superior-subordinate relationship”. Analysis shows significant differences across scenarios F(3,88) = 38.77 , p < .00). A contrast test shows that the means between the two status-type scenarios (teammate/teammate and coach/team member) are significantly different: (Mean
CT= 3.89 , SD
CT= .74 ; Mean
TT= 1.92 SD
TT= 1.00; t(92)= - 16.25 p < 0.00; F(1,91)= 116.63, p<0.00)
The comprehension of the relationship conflict is assessed by items s6 and s7: “Arka and Barka have a problem with their personal relationships” and “Arka and Barka don't like each other”. Analyses shows significant differences across the four scenarios F(3,88) = 37,39, p
< .00). A comparison between the means of the task conflict situation shows significantly higher ratings for the task conflict items (Mean
T= 4.10, S
DT= .88; Mean
R= 3.45, S
DR= 1.28;
t (91) = -13.63, p <00; F(1,90) = 8.12, p < .00).
16
Table 2 Mean and SDs of Perceptions and Side taking motives across the four Scenarios
Scenario Task
conflict/equal status
Task-
conflict/unequal status
Rel-
conflict/equal status
Rel-
conflict/unequal status
N 21 27 20 24
Means/SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Conflict Perceptions
Morality 4.0 .75 4.0 .64 2.7 .83 2.7 .96
Relationship 2.3 1.1 1.9 .79 2.7 1.1 2.8 1.0
Instrumental 2.9 .76 2.7 .83 3.6 .51 3.2 .67
Side-taking motives
Legitimacy- based
3.8 .91 4.1 .74 3.5 .84 3.9 .78
Relationship- Based
2.5 .77 2.3 .82 2.3 .91 2.5 .87
Self-interest based
2.1 .71 1.9 .66 2.0 .73 1.9 .62
17
Table 3 ANOVA Analysis
Dependent Variable Conflict Type Status Type Interaction a) Conflict perceptions
Morality .000** .889 .748
Relationship .002** .286 .672
Instrumental .000** .539 .104*
b) Side-taking motives
Legitimacy based .126 .691 .059*
Relationship based .692 .188 .924
Self-interest based .661 .693 .469
A descriptive analysis of the demographic variables, conflict perception and side-taking motives was conducted. An ANOVA and correlation analysis showed that the demographic variables do not correlate significantly with any of the dependent variables.
4.1 Conflict perceptions
Table 3 shows ANOVA analyses of the perception frames affected by conflict types and disputants‘ status. The three types of perceptions were all significantly affected by conflict types, but not by the status of disputants. A closer look in Table 2 shows that the perception of morality in the task conflict scenarios were significantly higher than in the relationship conflict scenarios (M
task-equal= 4.0, SD = 75; M
task-unequal= 4.0 , SD = .64; M
relationship-equal= 2.7, SD = 1.1; M
relationship-unequal= 2.7, SD = 0.9; F = 68.13, p < .01 ). This result is in line with hypothesis 1.
For the perception of the relationship, the results showed that this frame was perceived
in the relationship conflict scenario significantly higher than in the task conflict scenario:
18
M
task-equal= 2.3, SD = 1.1; M
relationship-unequal= 1.1; M
task-unequal= 1.9, SD = .79; M
relationship-equal= 2.7, SD = 1.1; M
relationship-unequal= 2.8, SD = 1.0; F = 10.10, p < .01. This is in line with hypothesis 2.
The results also showed that disputants‘ status had no effect on third party‘s three types of conflicts perception. However, the interaction effect between conflict type and disputants‘
status showed a marginal significance on the instrumental perception ( F = 2.96 p = .104) It suggests that in a relationship conflict disputants‘ status had a stronger effect on third parties‘
instrumental perception of conflict than in a task conflict (See Table 2).
4.2 Side taking motive
Table 3 shows the ANOVA analysis for the side-taking motives affected by conflict- and status type. No significant results could be found which would be in line with our hypothesis.
Therefore hypothesizes 3 and 4 have to be rejected.
However, we found another unexpected interaction effect between task- and status conflict for the side taking motive. Legitimacy based side-taking shows a marginal significant value for interaction (F
(1,90)= 3.65, p > .05). A closer look into Table 2 shows that the participants were more inclined to argue in terms of Legitimacy in an unequal relationship conflict. These findings will be further evaluated in the discussion.
4.3 Overview of results
The respondents seem to have understood the general problem and perceived the manipulated variables. Some constructs show a low reliability, which will be further inquired in the discussion.
Hypothesis testing shows support for two of the four hypotheses.
19
Hypothesis 1 was supported. Results suggest that a task conflict activates the morality-based perception frame.
Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. A relationship conflict activates the relationship-based
perception frame.
Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed. In the peer/peer conflicts participants show no different perception of the conflict as in the authority/subordinate conflicts. Morality based side-taking is not activated. Nonetheless an interaction effect was found which will be inquired in the discussion.
Hypothesis 4 was not confirmed. A supervisor/subordinate relationship activates instrumental-framed perception only in the task-conflict. A self-interest based side-taking decision is not evoked.
5 Discussion
This research tries to identify whether disputants` status and conflict situation have a joint effect on the conflict frame perception and on the motives of side taking decisions. Conflict vignettes were used to manipulate participants` perception of a conflict situation towards these independent variables. With help of this method we intended to get the participants involved into the conflict so that realistic reactions occur.
The results suggest that the conflict scenarios are perceived according to the frames we
hypothesized. The task conflict scenarios strengthen the moral-based framing and the
relationship conflict scenarios strengthen the relationship-based framing. This indicates that
the conflict types influence third parties‘ conflict framing. As pointed out earlier in this paper
a conflict framed in relationship- terms might not always enhance problem solving outcomes,
especially when the relationship of the conflict parties are strained or even hostile. A good
advice for conflict parties would therefore be trying to avoid using arguments that amplify the
potential threat of a relationship-conflict.
20
Despite the disconfirmed main effect concerning the status- type conflict, we detected some unexpected outcomes. The perception of the instrumental frame was significantly influenced by the task conflict but not by the relationship conflict. Furthermore a weak interaction effect between task- and relationship conflict on the instrumental frame was found (F
(1, 90)= 2.96 p
> .05). A closer look into Table 2 reveals that the means of using instrumental frame in the equal-status scenarios are higher than those in the unequal- status scenarios. To further inquire these interesting results we look deeper into the instrumental frame. It consists of two dimensions; reward-approaching and sanction-avoiding. The reward-approaching dimension reflects possible losses or wins for the lay third-party and the sanction-avoiding dimension reflects possible sanction-behavior between the conflict parties. Both dimensions are represented by three items each (see Methods). A further statistical analyze with SPSS shows that both dimensions separately have a valid Cronbach`s Alpha of .69 for Sanction and .65 for Self-interest.
An ANOVA analysis furthermore shows that the self-interest dimension accounts for the interaction- effect of the instrumental frame (F
(1, 90)= 6.12 p > .05), but not the sanction dimension (F
(1,90)= 0.08 p < .05). We can therefore conclude that the instrumental perception frame is strengthened in an equal- status conflict as lay third- parties perceive the situation more in self-interest dimension involving possible gains and losses for themselves and their team, rather than in a sanction dimension which accounts for possible losses of one of the
conflict party.
A practical implication of these results would include the advice for a conflict-party to frame a peer-conflict in terms of possible wins and losses for the lay third- party to enhance the perception in terms of the instrumental frame.
Another interaction effect was found in the side-taking motivation between conflict-type and
status type legitimacy-based side-taking motivation (F
(1, 90)= 3.65, p < .05). Figure 1 reveals
that the effect of task (or relationship) conflict on the legitimacy based side-taking motives
depends on the status of the conflict parties.
21
Figure 1 Interaction effects of Conflict types and disputants’ status on Legitimacy Based Side-Taking
The mean scores of legitimacy–based side-taking in the unequal conditions are somewhat higher than in the equal condition. They are highest in the task-conflict/coach-team-member scenario. This might lead to the conclusion that an unequal status conflict is able to foster legitimacy-based site-taking motivation if the conflict is task-related. A subordinated party would be well advised to argue in terms of morality in such a situation. Accordingly a supervisor should try to stretch the importance of his status and position to weight his arguments.
5.1 Limitations
The scope of this study lies on the side taking decisions of lay third parties. As already pointed out in the introduction, side-taking is not the only conflict handling procedure available to third- parties (e.g. mediation, arbitration). We did not offer participants an alternative so they might be biased towards a conflict handling procedure that they would not employ in real life.
The second limitation of this research derived from the sampling method. We used convenience sampling inquiring acquaintances via social networks and email to participate.
The deriving population consists mainly of German students and therefore turns out to be not
22
a representative sample. The results of this study might be not generalizable to the whole population.
The third limitation stems from the method of conflict- vignettes to simulate conflict situations. Although some researchers claim that this tool is useful for assessing side taking decisions (Barter & Renold, 2000), some doubts emerged after reviewing the results. Our respondents showed significant results in the perceptual frame for instrumentality as they perceived the peer/peer conflict as less threatening/rewarding than the authority/subordinate conflict. This effect could not be found in the side-taking motivation. As Yang et al. (2007) have pointed out the self-interest motive is highly prevalent and a good indicator for siding decisions. We therefore suspect that the vignettes were not able to get our respondents really involved into the conflict presented to them. In this sense, a real-life side-taking dilemma might elicit different reactions. Another possible explanation could be social desirability, which is regarded as common bias in personality and conflict research (Randall & Fernandes, 1982). As Kenneth & Kilman (1975) pointed out social desirability can strongly account to conflict handling decisions especially in self-reported questionnaires. Anonymity seems not to reduce this effect. The low means on the self-interest items in the side-taking motive may be an indicator that participants wanted to be perceived as morally and ethically above-board.
We therefore advise to include a social desirability scale in future research to check to what extent social desirability biases respondents reactions to side-taking scales.
A fourth point relates to the reliability of some of the constructs used in this study. Several
researchers suggest that a Cronbach‘s Alpha of at least .60 (George & Mallery, 2003) should
be reached to achieve adequate reliability. Others claim that at least .70 should be handled as
threshold criteria (Cortina, 1993). Several constructs in this research do not meet these
premises. The legitimacy-based-motive construct in our research rates at .51. The
manipulation check of the conflict type achieves only .40, which is clearly below the
threshold. A low reliability may compromise the results of hypothesis-testing and
interpretations should be handled with caution. For future research we suggest to use methods
like pre-testing to validate the constructs and items in advance to achieve reliability as high as
possible
23
5.2 Future Research
Researchers on this topic would be well advised to account for the limitations and short- comings of this research. Alternatives to conflict-vignettes should be inquired to maximize the immersion of the participants into the conflict situation. Data measurement, in form of surveys, has some disadvantages like artificiality and sparse relation to a real-like situation.
We therefore suggest an experimental design which allows participants to engage in real side-
taking decisions.
Future research should also take different status- and conflict types in account. We achieved
to show an interaction effect of conflict and status but failed to identify the underlying reason
for that. Different statuses and conflicts might elicit different reactions and therefore broaden
our knowledge of side-taking.
24
6 Literature
Barter, C. & Renold, E. (2000). ―I wanna tell you a story‖: Exploring the application of vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(4), 307–323.
Cortina, C.M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98-104
Rogan, R. G. (2006). Conflict Framing Categories Revisited. Communication Quarterly, 54 (2), 157— 173
Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7, 37-46.
Putnam, L. L. (1994). Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 285-299.
T. L. Simons & R. S. Peterson (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, Vol. 85, No. 1, 102-111
M. J.Gelfand, L.H. Nishii, K.-I. Ohbuchi, M. Fukuno, K. M. Holcombe, and N. Dyer (2001) Cultural Influences on Cognitive Representations of Conflict: Interpretations of Conflict Episodes in the United States and Japan, Journal of Applied Psychology 2001. Vol. 86, No.
6, 1059-1074
25
Fisher R. J. (1972). Third party consultation: a method for study and resolution of conflict, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 16, No.1 1972
Ford, R., & Johnson, C. (1998). The Perception of Power: Dependence and Legitimacy in Conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 16-32.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sillars, A. L., Roberts, L. J., Leonard, K. E., & Dun, T. (2000). Cognition during marital conflict:
The relationship of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 479–
502.
Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 117–126.
Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L., and Gaeth, Gary J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 149–188.
Randall, D. M. & Fernandes, M. F. (1982). The social desirability response bias in ethics
research; Journal of Business Ethics Volume 1 / 1982 - Volume 99 / 2011
26
Thomas. K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The Social Desirability Variable in Organizational Research: An Alternative Explanation for Reported Findings; Academy of Management Vol. 18, No. 4, Dec., 1975
Yang, H., Li, C., Wang, Q., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2011). What motivates lay third parties to take sides in a conflict? Examining the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and side‐taking motives. European Journal of Personality, 25 (1), 65-75.
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., & Shi, K. (2005). Siding in a Workplace Dispute in China: The Impact of Legitimacy, Sanction, and Guanxi. International Journal of Cross Cultural Side- Taking – The Effects of Conflict Type and Disputants‘ Hierarchy
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., & Shi, K. (2007). Interpersonal relationship and lay third parties‘
side-taking preference: A crosscultural study among Chinese and Dutch. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 38, 438–457.
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., & Shi, K. (2009). How lay third parties weigh legitimacy and sanctions in a siding dilemma: A study among Chinese and Dutch employees. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 214–232.
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., Shi, K., & Huang, X. (2008). Whose side are you on? Relational-
orientations and their impacts on side-taking among Dutch and Chinese employees. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 713–731.
27
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of
intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605
28
7 Appendix
Einleitung
Sehr geehrte Testpersonen,
Erst einmal möchten wir uns herzlich für deine Teilnahme an unserer Untersuchung bedanken. Das Ausfüllen des Fragebogens dauert etwa 20 Minuten.
Der Fragebogen enthält ein Szenario bei dem du dich in die Rolle eines Mitglieds eines Basketballteams hineinversetzen musst. Zwei deiner Teammitglieder (Arka und Barka) haben unterschiedliche Meinungen, was die Spielerauswahl betrifft. Du musst deine ehrliche Meinung zum Sachverhalt darlegen und einen der beiden Streitparteien unterstützen. Dabei ist es wirklich wichtig, dass du dich so gut es geht in die Rolle eines Mitglieds des Basketballteams hineinversetzt.
Bevor du nun den Fragebogen ausfüllst, wollen wir dich noch einmal daran erinnern, dass sich die Ergebnisse unserer Untersuchung auf die Genauigkeit deiner Angaben gründen. Daher bitten wir dich deine wahren Gefühle und Gedanken auszudrücken. Beantworte die Fragen dementsprechend. Dabei gibt es keine „richtigen― oder „falschen― Antworten.
Bitte beantworte die Fragen gemäß deiner eigenen persönlichen Einschätzung.
Hast du Probleme beim Ausfüllen des Fragebogens, was Verständnis oder Einschätzungen angeht, wähle die naheliegendste Möglichkeit.
Der Fragebogen ist anonym. Bitte fülle ihn daher frei und unabhängig aus. Alle Antworten werden ausschließlich für unsere wissenschaftliche Arbeit verwendet und für nichts anderes. Weiterhin werden wir die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Bögen nicht individuell auswerten, sondern lediglich im Verband mit dem gesamten Datensatz. Daher brauchst du dir keine Sorgen über eventuelle Datenschutzprobleme machen.
Falls du weiterhin an unserer Untersuchung oder den Ergebnissen interessiert bist, bitte kontaktiere uns unter folgender Email-Adresse: f.vos@student.utwente.nl oder d.sommer@student.utwente.nl
Vielen Dank für deine Unterstützung!
29
Im Moment fühle ich mich…..
Nun folgt die Beschreibung des Szenarios.
Du bist Mitglied eines Schul-Basketball Teams. Arka und Barka sind beide Spieler in deiner Mannschaft.
Sie haben unterschiedliche Meinungen im Bezug auf die Spielerauswahl für das kommende Spiel. Bitte versuche dich sich so gut wie möglich in die Rolle eines Mannschaftsmitglieds hinein zu versetzen (auch emotional!). Bedenke bitte, dass du dich für eine der beiden Parteien (Arka oder Barka) entscheiden musst und dessen Entscheidung im Bezug auf die Spielerauswahl unterstützt.
Nach der Beschreibung des Szenarios folgen einige Fragen über deine Wahrnehmungen und wie du das Problem erfahren hast.
Bevor du mit dem Ausfüllen des Fragebogens beginnst, würden wir gerne deine momentane Gemütsverfassung erfahren. Bitte umzirkel die entsprechende Zahl die zu deinem
momentanen emotionalen Zustand passt (Pro Reihe jeweils nur eine Zahl an)! Basierend auf dem Bild
30
Du bist ein Mitglied des Schul-Basketball Teams. Im Namen deiner Schule nimmst du an einem wichtigen Basketballspiel teil.
Deine Mannschaft besteht aus 10 Spielern: 5 Stammspieler und 5 Auswechselspieler. Einer der Stammspieler hat sich kurzfristig verletzt und kann am nächsten Spiel nicht teilnehmen. Nun muss ein Auswechselspieler für ihn einspringen.
Zur Auswahl stehen Spieler A und Spieler B, die von ihrer Begabung her gleichwertig sind.
Die Stammspieler Arka und Barka haben nun eine unterschiedliche Meinung darüber, welcher Auswechselspieler nun im Match antreten soll. Arka ist für Spieler A, da dieser über hervorragende individualle Fähigkeiten verfügt und sehr gut punkten kann. Derweil unterstützt Barka Spieler B, der einen sehr guten Teamgeist hat und hervorragend im Eröffnen von Chancen ist.
Arka und Barka sind nicht mit der Einschätzung des jeweils anderen einverstanden.
Das Spiel wird jeden Augenblick beginnen. Als Stammspieler ist Deine Entscheidung sehr wichtig. Du musst dich nun für eine Seite entscheiden. Wen unterstützt Du? Arka oder Barka?
Nachdem du dieses Dilemma gelesen hast, wie fühlst du dich? Bitte umkreise die entsprechende
Zahl die zu deinem momentanen emotionalen Zustand passt (Pro Reihe jeweils nur eine Zahl
an)!
31
Hierunter findest du eine Liste von Worten die Emotionen beschreiben. Nachdem du nun mit dem Dilemma konfrontiert wurdest, würden wir gerne wissen in wie weit du die folgenden Emotionen erlebt/wahrgenommen hast. Wenn du es überhaupt nicht
wahrgenommen hast, umkreise “1“, wenn du es sehr stark wahrgenommen hast, umkreise
„5“
Habe es überhaupt
nicht wahrgenommen
