Conflict style and interdependent orientation

楊源夢(mèng)潔

Abstract

In this article， we suppose that people who are more connected with each other are prefer avoid the conflicts. People who are aggressive are more likely disconnected with others. We make two questionnaires and set one experiment to test 32 peoples strategies while dealing conflicts. In the experiment there are two conditions， one is their roles（recruiter/candidate）， one is write down five people who are connected or not. Ac-cording to our data， we foundour data is a little bit confusing， but still， compare to people who will to compromise at some levels， we can see that people who acted more aggres-sive did isolated from crowd.

Introduction

As social animal， human live together and also rely on each other. We learn to cooperate， socialize which is not an easy thing to do. Even nowadays， we are still learning. How to communicate with other person， what are they think， why they do that. During the pro-cess of socializing， conflicts happen all the time， different people with various personali-ties all have own ways to solve the problem. Also people always measure their own be-havior after dealing the conflict. We believe that there some relationship between their conflict style， their own evaluation， and result. Our perception is that people who always connect to others more are acting more avoiding during socializing

In this case of study， we gather 32 high school students， and ask them to answer the con-flict survey first， then test them both the Recruiter case. lastly， they fill the post negotiate perception questionnaire. We analyze their actual final score with conflicts styles and post negotiation perception separately.

Limitations in this study are two. First， we dont gather enough people to get involved in the experiment， so the data may not accurate enough. Secondly， during filling the survey， not all of them do it carefully， causing the result directly.

Literature review

The article describes self-construal， face work， and conflict styles among cultures in online learning environments. In order to study this they conduct face-to-face or email interviews of participants from six cultural groups. This study addresses the following questions： 1. How do individuals of different cultures reinforce lacework in online envi-ronments？ 2. Do the conflict styles of online learners differ among different cultures？ 3. Is self-construal related to conflict style in online learning environments？

In this case， they use quantitive research paradigm and emergent design， and the research questions were answered by both face-to-face and online interviews. Researchers ex-pected more participants from more collectivist learning cultures and more individualistic cultures would like to answer in terms of self. However the result of study did not support this expectation. Another result id concern on conflict behavior during online discus-sions . The Anglo Americans had more conflict styles associated with independent self- construal， but they also exhibited behaviors as- societal with interdependent self-construal.

Method

In a laboratory study， we ask 32 people who are all high school students from different grades to answer the conflict survey. Ten of them were asked to write down five friends who are disconnected， the rest of them were asked to write down five friends who are connected. Then they have to answer ten questions about what they will do if conflicts happen. After filling the survey， we put 32 people in a case named “New Recruit” and gave them two different roles which are job candidate and job recruiter. In the case， can-didates has to negotiate with recruiters about eight issues of concern（Bonus， job assign-ment， vacation time， starting date， moving expenses coverage， salary， location）. Eight is-sues are separately， there are five alternatives for each of the issueswhich has a different degree of importance to then， as indicated by the magnitude of the number of points you could gain or lose. As recruiters， they have to reach an agreement with candidates on all eight concerns mentioned above. The discussion lasted 30 minutes， all them them reach an agreement. We then give them a questionnaire to evaluate their own behavior which is also the last part of our experiment. While analyzing the data， we classify the conflict surveys result into five categories， which are dominating， integrating， compromising， avoid， accommodation. Our hypothesis is that people who are more connected with each other are prefer avoid the conflicts. People who are aggressive are more likely discon-nected with others.

Results

We performed a 1 way anova on just recruiters. the factor was whether they thought about interconnected or connected networks.We looked at their conflict styles， their post-negotiation perceptions， and finally， their actual scores.

Conflict styles.

We found a significant effect of avoid （p=.03）， that is， when people thought about their interconnected， more likely to avoid others. Potential trend on accommodation as well. more likely to accommodate. These are the more other focused styles of conflict， and this follows predictions. More interconnection， more focused on interconnected others and needs.

No differences on others styles.

Post negotiation perceptions

Significant effect where they felt others shared more when they were in interdependent network. p=.01 which follow our hypothesis. Significant effect where they felt they were more competitive when they thought about interdependent network p<.03. Contrary to predictions， we expected more accommodating/avoiding styles in dealing with others.

Marginal effect on perception of how well they did where people who have connect net-works thought they did somewhat better p<.10.

Actual scores

Students were correct in this perception p<.10. Interesting， the effect is that they compet-ed more and claimed more value for themselves. Interdependent prime did NOT cause them to create more joint value for the group asmight be expected to occur when they ha-ve their close relationships in mind.

楊源夢(mèng)潔

年齡：18歲

城市：四川成都

就讀學(xué)校：Norwich Free Academy

年級(jí)：Senior

未來(lái)申請(qǐng)目標(biāo)專業(yè)：教育管理

本來(lái)生活中我們最常接觸到的，最需要花時(shí)間與精力去經(jīng)營(yíng)的就是人際關(guān)系。如何與不同的人用不同的交往方式相處？自己在這個(gè)過(guò)程中又是怎樣的表現(xiàn)？你認(rèn)為的自己和事實(shí)上你傳達(dá)出來(lái)的自己是否相同？這些問(wèn)題讓我覺(jué)得非常有趣。于是我決定做這個(gè)方面的課題。在做研究的過(guò)程中，我也遇到一些煩惱，比如數(shù)據(jù)一直收不齊，數(shù)據(jù)分析師不會(huì)操作軟件，結(jié)果與預(yù)想有較大的差距等。一開始很難接受，但是導(dǎo)師Tanya一直陪著我們，很耐心地指導(dǎo)我們，告訴我們結(jié)果與假設(shè)存在不同是非常正常的，最后終于有了這篇研究報(bào)告。但是我自知這個(gè)文章有諸多不足，不夠完整不夠?qū)I(yè)。我希望以后的自己會(huì)因?yàn)檫@次經(jīng)歷變得更優(yōu)秀。