Conflict Style Associations with Cooperativeness, Directness, and Relational Satisfaction: A Case for a Six-Style Typology

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Past research has been inconsistent in identifying the number and type of conflict styles individuals perceive themselves to use. Many typologies of conflict styles are built on the premise that level of cooperation versus competition, as well as directness versus indirectness, underlie various conflict styles. Grounded in a communication perspective, the present study uses dyadic data from 256 romantic couples to examine how self-reported tendencies to use each of six conflict styles—collaborating, compromising, competitive fighting, yielding, avoiding, and indirect fighting—associate with how (un)cooperative and (in)direct partners generally perceive actors to be during conflict, as well as how relationally satisfied both members of the dyad are. The associations that emerged suggest each of the six styles has a unique profile, that a comprehensive typology of conflict styles should include indirect fighting as well as a more neutral avoiding style, and that compromising is a weak form of collaborating that is lower in cooperativeness and directness.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalNegotiation and Conflict Management Research
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

    typology
    Communication
    dyad
    Conflict style
    communication

    Keywords

    • conflict
    • conflict style
    • interpersonal communication
    • interpersonal conflict
    • relational satisfaction

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Communication
    • Strategy and Management

    Cite this

    @article{a091abce65c446798e654b500881c469,
    title = "Conflict Style Associations with Cooperativeness, Directness, and Relational Satisfaction: A Case for a Six-Style Typology",
    abstract = "Past research has been inconsistent in identifying the number and type of conflict styles individuals perceive themselves to use. Many typologies of conflict styles are built on the premise that level of cooperation versus competition, as well as directness versus indirectness, underlie various conflict styles. Grounded in a communication perspective, the present study uses dyadic data from 256 romantic couples to examine how self-reported tendencies to use each of six conflict styles—collaborating, compromising, competitive fighting, yielding, avoiding, and indirect fighting—associate with how (un)cooperative and (in)direct partners generally perceive actors to be during conflict, as well as how relationally satisfied both members of the dyad are. The associations that emerged suggest each of the six styles has a unique profile, that a comprehensive typology of conflict styles should include indirect fighting as well as a more neutral avoiding style, and that compromising is a weak form of collaborating that is lower in cooperativeness and directness.",
    keywords = "conflict, conflict style, interpersonal communication, interpersonal conflict, relational satisfaction",
    author = "Laura Guerrero",
    year = "2019",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1111/ncmr.12156",
    language = "English (US)",
    journal = "Negotiation and Conflict Management Research",
    issn = "1750-4708",
    publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Conflict Style Associations with Cooperativeness, Directness, and Relational Satisfaction

    T2 - A Case for a Six-Style Typology

    AU - Guerrero, Laura

    PY - 2019/1/1

    Y1 - 2019/1/1

    N2 - Past research has been inconsistent in identifying the number and type of conflict styles individuals perceive themselves to use. Many typologies of conflict styles are built on the premise that level of cooperation versus competition, as well as directness versus indirectness, underlie various conflict styles. Grounded in a communication perspective, the present study uses dyadic data from 256 romantic couples to examine how self-reported tendencies to use each of six conflict styles—collaborating, compromising, competitive fighting, yielding, avoiding, and indirect fighting—associate with how (un)cooperative and (in)direct partners generally perceive actors to be during conflict, as well as how relationally satisfied both members of the dyad are. The associations that emerged suggest each of the six styles has a unique profile, that a comprehensive typology of conflict styles should include indirect fighting as well as a more neutral avoiding style, and that compromising is a weak form of collaborating that is lower in cooperativeness and directness.

    AB - Past research has been inconsistent in identifying the number and type of conflict styles individuals perceive themselves to use. Many typologies of conflict styles are built on the premise that level of cooperation versus competition, as well as directness versus indirectness, underlie various conflict styles. Grounded in a communication perspective, the present study uses dyadic data from 256 romantic couples to examine how self-reported tendencies to use each of six conflict styles—collaborating, compromising, competitive fighting, yielding, avoiding, and indirect fighting—associate with how (un)cooperative and (in)direct partners generally perceive actors to be during conflict, as well as how relationally satisfied both members of the dyad are. The associations that emerged suggest each of the six styles has a unique profile, that a comprehensive typology of conflict styles should include indirect fighting as well as a more neutral avoiding style, and that compromising is a weak form of collaborating that is lower in cooperativeness and directness.

    KW - conflict

    KW - conflict style

    KW - interpersonal communication

    KW - interpersonal conflict

    KW - relational satisfaction

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064486148&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064486148&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/ncmr.12156

    DO - 10.1111/ncmr.12156

    M3 - Article

    JO - Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

    JF - Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

    SN - 1750-4708

    ER -