Suchergebnisse

"Herrschaftsform und Konfliktverhalten sind eng miteinander verknüpft. Auf der dyadischen Analyseebene kommt die Forschung zu einem robusten Ergebnis: Demokratien führen seit 1816 keine Kriege gegeneinander. Im Gegensatz dazu stehen die empirischen Erkenntnisse auf der monadischen Ebene. Demokratien sind demnach ähnlich häufig in militärische Konflikte und Kriege verwickelt wie nichtdemokratische Regime. Mehr noch: militärische Interventionen in laufende militärische Konfrontationen sind ein besonderes Konfliktmuster demokratischer Staaten im internationalen System, das von der Forschung zum demokratischen Frieden bislang systematisch vernachlässigt worden ist. Verbunden ist dies mit der Problematik, dass sich spätestens seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts ein neues Legitimations- und Begründungsmuster für die Anwendung von Gewalt durch Demokratien abzeichnet: Kriege und Interventionen im Namen der Menschenrechte und mit dem Ziel der Demokratisierung, die normativ über die unterstellte friedensstiftende Wirkung von Demokratien nach außen gerechtfertigt werden. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegende Analyse sind angesichts dieser Entwicklungen ernüchternd. Demokratien greifen nicht nur wie andere Herrschaftstypen auch auf das Mittel der Gewalt zurück, Demokratisierung als außenpolitische Strategie und handlungsanleitendes Leitmotiv erhöht sogar in vielen Fällen das Risiko des Krieges und die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Kriegsbeteiligung einzelner demokratischer Staaten." (Autorenreferat)

Dyadic data were used to examine associations between attachment, relational satisfaction, and perceptions of conflict style in adult child–parent relationships. Several actor effects emerged; secure attachment was associated with more collaborating and compromising, dismissive attachment was associated with less collaborating and more indirect fighting and avoiding, and preoccupied attachment was associated with more competitive and indirect fighting. There were also partner effects. Individuals were more likely to report using collaborating and compromising if their partner (parent or child) was secure, and more likely to report indirect fighting if their partner was dismissive. Four actor by partner interactions surfaced. Preoccupied individuals reported more collaborating when their partners were secure and less compromising when their partners were dismissive. Dismissive individuals reported less yielding if their partner was preoccupied. Secure individuals reported less competitive fighting if their partner was fearful. The data also demonstrated that for actor effects, the collaborating style mediated a positive association between secure attachment and relational satisfaction. For partner effects, there were direct associations between a parent's attachment security and a child's relational satisfaction as well as between one's partner's reported use of collaborating and one's own relational satisfaction. These and other findings are discussed in terms of their implications for work on attachment and conflict.

Based on a sample of parents (N = 148) of 4‐ to 7‐year‐olds (N = 74, M = 5.76 years), this study adapted a widely used, self‐report measure of couples' dyadic conflict behavior to include reports of couples' conflict behavior in the child's presence (triadic conflict) to examine their additive and interactive associations with child maladjustment. Significant interaction effects suggested that higher levels of triadic psychologically aggressive conflict were associated with higher levels of child externalizing (b = .134, p = .024) and internalizing (b = .189, p < .001) problems, but only if levels of dyadic psychological aggression were average or higher. When levels of couples' dyadic psychological aggression were low, levels of child presence did not relate to child behavior. Predictors of triadic psychological aggression included parental involvement (b = .266, p = .003), parent–child functioning (b = −.288, p = .042), and marital adjustment (b = −.346, p < .001).

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating roles of materialism and self-esteem in explaining how family conflict leads to adolescent compulsive buying. Despite the importance of family as a primary socialization agent, scant research has focused on how family conflict impacts adolescents' attitudes and behaviors as consumers.


Design/methodology/approach
A survey of 1,289 adolescents was conducted in a public high school in the Midwestern USA. Regression analyses were used to assess the mediating roles of materialism and self-esteem on the relationship between family conflict and compulsive buying. Additionally, gender was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between family conflict and the two mediating variables.


Findings
Results showed that family conflict increased adolescent materialism and lowered self-esteem. Gender moderated the relationship between family conflict and self-esteem with a more pronounced effect for females than males. Materialism and self-esteem were significantly related to compulsive buying. Family conflict had a significant indirect effect on compulsive buying through materialism for females and through self-esteem for both male and female.


Research limitations/implications
Findings suggest that family conflict impacts compulsive buying through its impact on both materialism and self-esteem. Future research is needed to explain why adolescents use compulsive buying as a coping mechanism for family conflict. Then, whether such behavior leads to improved well-being.


Practical implications
Results suggest that adolescents use compulsive buying to cope with family conflict. The study's focus on family conflict, not simply divorce, expands its implications to all households, intact or not.


Originality/value
This study created a new model of family conflict's impact on adolescent consumers' attitudes and behavior.

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate the effects task conflict has on agreement seeking behavior and interpersonal conflict. In addition, it seeks to examine the moderating role of trust on the effects of agreement seeking behavior and interpersonal conflict on the styles of handing conflict, namely, avoidance, collaboration, and third party intervention.Design/methodology/approachUsing a structured survey instrument, this paper gathered data from 252 senior executives from Mainland China and analyzed these using the regression technique to see how interpersonal trust between executives moderates the relationship between conflict and conflict response mechanisms. The study also investigates the relationship between task and relationship conflict as well as agreement‐seeking behavior among Chinese executives in Mainland China.FindingsResults show that the presence of interpersonal trust among executives affects the conflict responses for the benefit of organization. The results show that task conflict in top management teams is positively related to relationship conflict and negatively related to agreement‐seeking behavior. The data support the view that intra‐group trust moderates the relationship between agreement‐seeking behavior and collaborating responses such that high‐trust groups will have greater collaboration than low‐trusting teams. Results also support that intra‐group trust moderates the relationship between agreement‐seeking behavior and third party responses such that high‐trust groups will have greater third‐party responses than low‐trusting teams.Research limitations/implicationsSelf‐report measures may have some inherent social desirability bias. Despite this potential weakness, this study examines Chinese executives and therefore provides insights into top management team literature.Practical implicationsThis study contributes to both practicing managers as well as to strategic management literature. This study suggests that administrators need to focus on interpersonal trust while dealing with the outcomes of task and relationship conflict.Originality/valueAlthough the study is related to Chinese executives, the findings from the study, that task conflict has its affect on interpersonal conflict and agreement‐seeking behavior, contribute to the strategic decision making literature.

PurposeThis paper aims to compare style and behavior-focused individual difference measures in their ability to uniquely predict naturally occurring conflict acts.Design/methodology/approachPrimary participants (and a friend of their choosing) completed a style measure and a behavior-focused measure about the primary participants and reported on the occurrence of a variety of conflict actions over a 60-day period.FindingsFor self-ratings and friend ratings, both the style measure and the behavior-focused measure were significantly related to the occurrence of conflict acts. However, the unique effect of the behavior-focused measure was stronger than that of the style measure.Research limitations/implicationsThe data were collected from college students, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. The measure of conflict acts was based on recall, which may also be subject to error and bias. In terms of implications, the findings strongly suggest that behavior-focused instruments are superior to style measures in predicting everyday conflict acts.Practical implicationsBecause the behavior-focused individual difference measure was a better predictor of actual behavior than the style measure, investigators interested in such prediction may want to seriously consider using such measures.Originality/valueLittle research exists regarding the relative predictive abilities of style measures and behavior-focused measures; this paper provides some of the first such evidence.