Suchergebnisse

Sixty‐six male Japanese students verbally interacted with a confederate opponent, who expressed unreasonable requests politely or impolitely. Half of the participants was pressed to respond immediately, while the other half was not. Personality variables were found to determine the participants' responses to the conflict in interactions with the situational variables; that is, verbal aggressiveness increased hostile responses only when the confederate behaved in an impolite manner, and self‐monitoring increased integrative responses only when the participants were not pressed to respond quickly.

Investigates personality factors that influence reactions to conflict, drawing on pretask scale & experimental data from 66 male Japanese undergraduates who verbally interacted with a confederate opponent. The confederate expressed unreasonable requests politely or impolitely, & 50% of the participants were pressed to respond immediately. Results indicate that participants' response to the conflict was influenced by an interaction of personality & situational variables; ie, verbal aggressiveness increased hostile responses only when the confederate behaved impolitely, & self-monitoring increased integrative responses only when the participants were not pressed to respond quickly. 2 Tables, 2 Figures, 1 Appendix, 44 References. Adapted from the source document.

This study employed a scenario method to test the hypotheses of the multiple goals theory. One hundred and seven Japanese students were asked to read the scenarios that described a conflict between two people and to consider themselves as the one of whom an economic cost was unreasonably requested by the other. Four situational variables (resource cost, familiarity between the two persons, the other person's manner, and the other person's tactic) were presented in the scenarios. In addition, a set of scales to measure four different goals (relationship, identity, justice, and resource) were included, as well as two types of mitigative tactics (integrative and appeasing), and two types of confrontational tactics (assertive and aggressive). A basic hypothesis of the theory—that social goals would be activated even in resource conflicts—was supported. It was also found that familiarity activated relationship goals, which increased mitigative tactics and compliance, but decreased confrontational tactics, and that a resource cost activated resource goals, which increased both mitigative and confrontational tactics, but decreased compliance.

To test the hypotheses of multiple goals theory, 107 Japanese students were asked to read scenarios that described a conflict between two people & to consider themselves as the one of whom an economic cost was unreasonably requested by the other. Four situational variables (resource cost, familiarity between the two persons, the other person's manner, & the other person's tactic) were presented in the scenarios. In addition, scales were used to measure four different goals (relationship, identity, justice, & resource), two types of mitigative tactics (integrative & appeasing), & two types of confrontational tactics (assertive & aggressive). A basic hypothesis of the theory -- that social goals would be activated even in resource conflicts -- was supported. It was also found that familiarity activated relationship goals, which increased mitigative tactics & compliance, but decreased confrontational tactics, & that a resource cost activated resource goals, which increased both mitigative & confrontational tactics, but decreased compliance. 9 Tables, 28 References. Adapted from the source document.