Social Exchange and Conflict Management Tactic Selection among Police Officers
by
Scott Boyd, B.A.
A Thesis
In
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Dr. Bolanle Olaniran
Chairperson of the Committee
Dr. Patrick Hughes
Dr. David Roach
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2007
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Mom and Dad-Thank you for being there for me despite my own reservation
towards graduate school. You encouraged and assisted me throughout the entire process
and I appreciate it more than I can possibly say. Your actions in these past two years
have shown me how much you care and respect me both academically and otherwise.
Dr. Bolanle Olaniran-Thank you for all of the support and guidance you gave me
throughout this grueling process. I know without your help I would have never been able
to complete this work. Thank you for the countless hours spent running my statistics and
working out the kinks in my thesis. I know that my work as well as my own abilities are
better for it.
Dr. Patrick Hughes-Thank you for consistently providing me with advice and aid
whenever I needed it. I know that you went over and beyond what you were required to
do as my committee member. Without your help I would have never been able to make it
through this trying process.
Dr. David Roach-Thank you for taking the time to give me direction throughout
this process in areas were I needed it most. You provided feedback and suggestion
throughout this process that helped me write the best work possible.
My friends and colleagues-Thank you for supporting and being there right beside
me during this very trying time of my life. Without you to lean on and ear to talk to I
would have never made it out alive. Most of all I appreciate the friendship you gave me
while pursuing my masters. I could not have done it without you.
ii
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT
.................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE...........................................................1
Organizational Differentials....................................................................2
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................7
Theories of Conflict........................................................................................10
Face Negotiation Theory.......................................................................10
Attribution Theory ................................................................................12
Reciprocity Theory................................................................................14
Gaming Theory .....................................................................................15
Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) ....................................17
Field Theory ..........................................................................................19
Dialectical Theory.................................................................................21
Social Exchange Theory .................................................................................22
Conflict Styles and Social Exchange..............................................................32
III. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................43
Participants .....................................................................................................43
Social Exchange Questionnaire ......................................................................43
Conflict Management Questionnaire..............................................................44
iii
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Procedures.......................................................................................................45
Analysis ..........................................................................................................47
IV. RESULTS .......................................................................................................49
V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................52
Limitations......................................................................................................59
Future Studies .................................................................................................62
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................65
APPENDICES
A. PILOT STUDY: SOCIAL EXCHANGE SURVEY ......................................79
B. SOCIAL EXCHANGE SURVEY..................................................................84
C. THOMAS-KILMANN CONFLICT MODE INSTRUMENT .......................87
iv
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
ABSTRACT
There has been a lot of research done in the areas of conflict management and
social exchange theory. However, no work has been done to understand how these two
concepts affect law enforcement officers conflicts between themselves and other officers.
This study is aimed at understanding how the underlying elements of relationship, task,
and the availability of alternatives indicative of the social exchange process as well an
officer’s demographic characteristics influence their decisions concerning conflict
management styles. In order to assess these influencing factors, 143 police officers were
surveyed utilizing both the social exchange measure created and pilot tested by the
researcher as well as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Correlations were
run to see if there were relationships between social exchange and conflict styles. Then
regression analysis was used to see if an officer’s score on the social exchange measure
could be predictive of his/her conflict style preferences. This study found no significant
relationship between social exchange and conflict management style preferences among
police officers. However, when the same analyses were run with demographic
characteristics and conflict styles, it was found that the more years of service a police
officer has the more likely they are to avoid conflict with his/her colleagues. The
implications and limitations of the study are also discussed.
v
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
LIST OF TABLES
1.1
Factor Analysis of Social Exchange Measure ...............................47
1.2
Demographic Characteristics in Study...........................................50
vi
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
Conflict is paramount, and learning to constructively function during conflict is
necessary for all organizations (King, 2004). Rahim (2002) explains that, “The
consensus among the organization theorists is that a moderate amount of conflict is
necessary for attaining an optimum organizational effectiveness” (p. 211). Because
conflict is an inevitable part of day to day life in organizations, its management is an
extremely important factor to consider for the wellbeing of an organization as a whole
(Sander & Bordone, 2005; Corpanzano, Aguinis, Shminke, & Denham, 1999). Jameson
(2004) stresses the tensions that arise when individuals perceive their goals as
incompatible, but are required to formulate a plan that meets both parties’ goals at the
same time. Over the years the word conflict has become a negative term. Companies
attempt to avoid conflict rather than manage it in a way that proves beneficial for the
firm. Due to the negativity associated with the term conflict, professionals in the practice
of conflict resolution coined the expression “conflict management” which according to
Putnam (1987), “…is often distinguished by its constructive versus destructive nature”
(p. 42). In a broad sense, conflict management “involves designing effective macro-level
strategies to minimize the dysfunction of conflict and enhancing the constructive
functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organization”
(Rahim, 2002, p. 206). One must learn to view conflict as “a social interaction between
two or more interdependent parties about issues, goals, or actions,” (Putnam, 1987, p. 42)
1
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
because conflict can then be understood as a means to enhance a firm’s productivity,
instead of presuming that it is a solely destructive (Rothwell, 2006; Fisher & Ellis, 1990).
However, individual organizational environments vary and thus conflict
management strategies may also vary. Would a person in a medical field handle conflict
differently than a person involved in a negotiation? Or do law enforcement officers
operate under a variety of constructs that make that environment different than most other
types of organizational contexts?
These questions will be discussed in the following sections beginning with the
distinguishing characteristics of law enforcement organizations. Following this section
will be the literature review which will consist of a description of police culture and an
overview of theories utilized in conflict management research and why social exchange
theory emerges as the most complete theory for the purposes of this study. Finally, the
literature review will finish by examining some of the important research done on
conflict management and conflict management tactics. Through these efforts, the review
of the literature hopes to set the foundation for a study analyzing the conflict management
tactics by police officers using motivation based on the social exchange theory.
Organizational Differentials
The evolution of organizational hierarchy has left leadership flatter and less
clearly defined (Susskind, 2004). The workplace environment has become increasingly
more difficult because of conflict (Susskind, 2004). In fact, conflict is not only common,
but also inevitable (Sander & Bardone, 2005). However, effective means of handling
conflict in organizations is necessary for employees to be proficient in their daily tasks
2
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
(Myers & Larson, 2005; Gross, Guerro & Alberts, 2004; Harrison & Morrill, 2004; Grau
& Grau, 2003). At the same time, not all organizations are the same. For example, law
enforcement agencies contain elements of general organizations in terms of structure and
superior-subordinate relationships but with a couple of distinguishing characteristics such
as a paramilitary leadership structure, contact with gore and trauma, and workplace
guidelines designed by individuals unfamiliar with law enforcement makes conflict
occurrence even more likely and its management different from those of traditional
organizations.
First of all, police departments operate under a different form of leadership than
most other organizations. Officers are required to function under highly defined rule
systems and guidelines described as a paramilitary leadership style (Johnson & Cox III,
2004/2005; Hassel, Zhoa & Macquire, 2003; Parenti, 1999; Reiter, 1999; Goodall, 1992).
Because law enforcement officers are under such high scrutiny by the public, it is
necessary that they perform under strict operational guidelines (Johnson & Cox III,
2004/2005). Stepping outside of protocol can potentially lead to the police department
losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Police officers’ decisions are guided by the
rules of law established specifically to further the goals of the police department
(Chapell, MacDonald, & Manz, 2006; Johnson & Cox III, 2004/2005; Reiter, 1999).
While traditional organizations also have rules, they are more normative guidelines,
whereas, police organizations have highly structured rule systems and require strict
adherence that can ultimately influence the conflict management tactics of its employees.
For instance, approaches/recommendations for conflict management in traditional
3
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
organizations, as presented in most conflict research, may not transfer to police
organizations. Thus the organizational differences make police departments prime
organizations for study in conflict management research. For example, police officers in
lower ranking positions do not have as much freedom to disagree with a superior. The
officer is operating under a defined hierarchy that emphasizes obedience. Superiors
expect accommodation from their subordinates and subordinates are trained to accept the
competing conflict styles of their superiors. While many other organizations may invite
discussion on decisions, police agencies restrict opposition. For this reason, a deeper
understanding of conflict management in police organizations is necessary. Furthermore,
conflict research stipulates that the best method for handling conflict is contingent on
contextual factors. “The usefulness and appropriateness of a particular conflict-handling
strategy is dependent on a complex set of situational circumstances” (Callanan, Benzing,
& Perri, 2006, 4). In other words, there is no single method for functioning in conflict,
but different styles are best in certain contexts. Therefore, one aim of this study is to
provide law enforcement officers with an understanding of conflict management and
perhaps shed light on the benefits of other conflict management strategies deemed less
acceptable by a patriarchal leadership system.
Secondly, aside from the pressures derived from a paramilitary leadership style,
police officers must confront stresses that further differentiate them from most other
organizations. They are in the unique position of being called to operate and rationally
function despite the gore and death that are inevitable in their jobs (Sheehan, Everly &
Langlieb, 2004; Patterson, 2003). In fact, Sheehan et al. (2004) further state that there are
4
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
a few jobs that are characteristically stressful because of their inclination to encounter
extremely traumatic situations and police officers like military personnel are some of the
few (Sheehan, Everly & Langlieb, 2004). Karlsson and Christianson (2006) interviewed
eleven police officers involved in a manhunt for a mass murderer who killed 7 civilians.
All of the officers involved had vivid memories of both the shootings and the hunt.
Officers assigned to the incident struggled through visual and auditory memories of the
event up to nine years after it occurred. Police officers are required to get their hands
dirty. This group of men and women who must function despite what they have
witnessed creates a unique context in which to study conflict. Gore, trauma, and the
resulting stress are an inevitable part of a police officer’s life. These things never go
away. However, more research into the area of conflict management among police
officers could potentially provide insight for officers to become more efficient at
managing conflict at work and give them the necessary tools to discern the most
appropriate conflict management style.
Lastly, law enforcement officer’s rules and guidelines are rarely dictated by the
crime management necessity of their community but by the political climate of their area
(Jihong & Hassel, 2005; Manning, 2005; Hassel, Zhao & Macquire, 2003; Goodall,
1992). “The rules and norms are impersonal, with a great many instructions and very
little individual input” (Ortega, Brenner, & Perri, 2007, p. 39). Police officers need a
structured system of regulations that meets their individual needs. However, they must
settle for a generalized system designed by politicians who lack the adequate
understanding necessary to meet the needs of that particular department. “Local political
5
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
culture constitutes a significant factor in explaining variation among law enforcement
agency practices” (Zaho, Hi, & Lovrich, 2006). Police officers consistently have to
accept regulation that is not focused on making their jobs safer or more efficient but
rather in accordance with local political agenda making an officer’s work even more
stressful than it is already. Stress creates a volatile atmosphere where conflicts become
increasingly likely. Further study is needed to discover how officers manage `conflict
with one another in the face of the added stress from bureaucratic structure and
disruption.
This study will focus solely on inter-departmental conflict between officers. It is
extremely important for organizational members to become efficient at functioning
through conflict in order to reach the highest level of effectiveness (Rothwell, 2004;
Rahim, 2002; Fisher & Ellis, 1990). There is also a major goal in the literature about
conflict between officers and their colleagues. Specifically, the present study can help
inform police officers’ in their selection of conflict management strategies with their
colleagues as a result of cost/reward analysis operating under the highly stressful nature
of their jobs and the highly structured organizational environment where they work.
Given that peace officers must make decisions everyday concerning conflict, it is
important to understand what motivates their decisions and response to conflict.
6
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Law enforcement has a very distinct culture that warrants examination. “Culture
is a set of human-made objective and subjective elements that in the past have increased
the probability of survival and resulted in satisfactions for the participants in an
ecological niche” (Triandis, 1994, p. 22). Police culture is not simplistic (Bellingham,
2000). “The unique nature of law enforcement has always fostered a distinct subculture
that often pushes law enforcement officers (LEOs) to accept unique cultural tenets that
are quite different from those held by average citizens” (Woody, 2005, p. 525). First,
officers are noted as competitive. “Within law enforcement, for example, there is often a
focus on the number of arrests made, cases solved, or crimes prevented, a tendency that is
exacerbated by interdepartmental rivalries” (Webster & Lyubelski, 2005, p. 91). The
competitive nature of police is simply one trait of the dominate personality known as a
type A personality found in police officers defined by control, self-discipline, tough
poise, and low anxiety (Ritter, 2007; Lorr & Strack, 1994). This idea describes a person
who would prefer to dominate when conflict arises. These characteristics are necessary
for working in a law-enforcement capacity but they also have drawbacks where conflict
is concerned. A police officer is required to be both assertive and aggressive in order to
do his/her job and it becomes difficult for an officer to transition into a more cooperative
or collaborative mindset when the context calls for it. While type A personality makes a
police officer equipped at enforcing the law, it can also make functioning in conflict with
7
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
his/her fellow officers difficult. It is important to come to a better understanding of
conflict management in a law enforcement contexts so that officers can be better able to
utilize the traits of an assertive personality on the streets in conjunction with a more
cooperative tactic with fellow officers.
Police officers have a very unique relationship with their fellow officers. They
are extremely loyal to one another (Woody, 2005; Poaline III, 2003). If an officer has to
decide between siding with the public or their colleagues they will choose their colleague
(Woody, 2006). When studying police culture it is imperative to realize the magnitude of
the cohesion within the ranks of a police department. Conformity to a standard of loyalty
is not merely suggested but required to move within the ranks of a career in law
enforcement (Woody, 2005). There is a very rigid standard for unity between officers
(Frewin & Tuffin, 1998). Police work is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world
(Bartol & Bartol, 2004). An officer is expected to support their partner on the streets as
well as in the office. This holds true in conflict as well further substantiating law
enforcement organizations as a front runner in the need for conflict management
research. The literature states that officers would be prone to accommodate their partners
in any circumstance even if accommodating is not the most effective means for handling
the conflict. For example, perhaps one’s partner violates protocol in making an arrest in
such a way as to jeopardize the case in court. The typical response of the partner would
be to back up their fellow officer even though their actions were inappropriate and may
even hurt them (Woody, 2005). Addressing conflict management within law
enforcement can provide insight into the benefits of other styles despite the tendency to
8
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
accommodate based on the undying loyalty among fellow police officer. For example,
police officers may in certain situations see the benefit of other conflict management
styles, such as confronting their partners about protocol violations as an effective one
rather than simply maintaining an attitude of accommodation that stresses status quo.
One of the most difficult aspects of police culture is the amount of stress one must
deal with on a day to day basis. Ansel (2000) suggests that a police officer has one of the
most stressful jobs worldwide. Law enforcement work does very little for one’s home
life. Police officers are required to be ready to do their jobs 24 hours a day 7 days a
week (Webster & Lyubelski, 2005). This pressure leads to high amounts of stress and
family problems. When the job is about saving and protecting others, it can be a difficult
to simply turn it off when the shift is over. “Police officer stress leads to negative
attitudes, burnout, loss of enthusiasm and commitment (cynicism), increased apathy,
substance abuse problems, divorce, health problems and many other social, personal, and
job-related problematic behaviors” (Lumb & Breazeale, 2003, p. 91). In fact, officers
who work in larger cities have been noted to suffer a 75% divorce rate (Came, 1989).
Even more severe are the suicide rates among police officers. In each of the past 3 years
there have been 450 suicides among police officers across the country (Ritter, 2007).
Police culture is one marked by stress and the problems it causes. It is clear that such a
culture lends itself to conflict. Thus, this study, by focusing on conflict management
among police officers might shed some light into patterns of conflict management and
perhaps methods for overcoming challenges.
9
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
After considering the organizational uniqueness of law enforcement agencies, the
literature reveals several key concepts about conflict management that are important to
understand in this study. First an overview of some of the prominent theories governing
the study of conflict management will be examined for their merit in an attempt to
discover the theory that best fits this study. Secondly, the five conflict management
methods of integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising will be
discussed. Finally, one of the theories will be used to understand how it can help in
uncovering the motivation that guides conflict management style selection.
Theories of Conflict
Conflict management has a vast history in research. Over the years a variety of
theoretical perspectives have emerged to explain the phenomena of conflict and people’s
responses to conflict. In order to better understand conflict management research in the
field of communication studies, it is important to examine some of the prominent theories
underlying conflict management.
Face Negotiation Theory
Before beginning an overview of face negotiation theory, it is important to look at
the work that inspired it performed by Brown and Levinson’s (1987) known as politeness
theory. Politeness theory suggests that “every speech act is potentially face-threatening
to an aspect to the hearer’s or the speaker’s face” (Terkourafi, 2004, p. 119).
Furthermore, people are concerned with face in all human interactions (Wilson, Kim, &
Meischke, 1991). In essence, politeness is employed in an effort to achieve a goal of
some kind (Johnson, Rolof, & Riffee, 2004; Morgan, Wilson, Aleman, Anastasiou, Kim,
10
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
& Oetzel, 2003; Dlali, 2001). Individuals negotiate face concerns when they are
interacting with others including conflict. From this theoretical perspective face
negotiation theory emerged.
Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face negotiation theory has been used by many scholars to
further explain conflict management (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Kim, Lee, Kim, & Hunter,
2004; Siira, Rogan & Hall, 2004; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Wright & Orbe, 2003;
Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, & Masumoto, 2000). Face negotiation theory stipulates
that a person’s actions in a conflict are guided by one of two influences: self-construal
and position in the organizational hierarchy (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Selfconstrual is a person’s concern for themselves versus their concern for others. When
someone has a high concern for self-face they are more inclined to utilize a dominating
technique in conflict situations while one who is more concerned with the other’s face
will prefer alternative techniques including obliging, compromising, avoiding, and
collaborating to handle the conflict (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel, Meares,
Myers, & Lara, 2003). On the other hand, an individual’s position in an organization is
also predictive of conflict tactic selections. A subordinate is going to be more likely to
use more accommodating methods for handling conflict when they are interacting with
their superiors because maintaining an effective working relationship with their boss is
likely to be more important than winning an argument (Brew & Cairnes, 2004). In any
conflict, one negotiates their concern for self-face versus other-face as well as the social
norms that regulate the proper response to conflict based on their position in an
organizational hierarchy.
11
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
The self or other perspective used in face negotiation theory is similar to the
means Rahim (2002) uses to distinguish between the motivations people have when
selecting conflict management tactics. While face theory highlights the concern for selfface or other-face, Rahim distinguishes between the motivations by titling them concern
for self or concern for other (Rahim, 2002). Both perspectives share this factor in their
attempts at defining and describing the steps people take when functioning in conflict
situations. Individual’s concern for themselves versus the other party is only one of
several means for describing conflict management. In the next theory, causality is
examined to understand how conflicts tend to escalate or deescalate based on the
attributions made by the parties involved.
Attribution Theory
Studies have revealed that many of the problems that arise due to organizational
conflict stem from people’s nature to attribute negative actions to internal rather than
external factors (Young, 2004). This occurrence is the primary concern of attribution
theory which is aimed at describing the manner in which individuals tend to attribute
their own negative behavior to external factors while they attribute others’ negative
behaviors to internal factors (Bippus & Young, 2005). Internal qualities include one’s
personal skills and abilities and external factors involve environmental elements
including the organization or co-workers. A person is most likely to assume their own
negative behavior is a result of external or environmental factors outside of their control
while presuming that other’s negative behaviors are a result of internal factors within
their control. For example, one might presume another person was late to work because
12
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
of an internal trait like they are lazy or irresponsible but blame their own tardiness on
external factors like traffic. A study performed by Kelsey et al. found that college
students attributed their professors’ misbehavior to internal factors (Kelsey, Kearny, Plax,
Allen, & Ritter, 2004). Attributions can play a determining role in whether a conflict is
handled in a manner where both parties walk away satisfied or leave the conflict in an
escalated state where neither party accomplishes their goals.
Conflicts escalate when negative actions are perceived as stemming from internal
character traits rather than environmental factors (Bippus, 2003; Cox & Walker, 1997;
Young, 2004). When people believe that one’s negative actions are a result of a personal
trait (i.e. internal factors), they will be more likely to have a negative view of the
interaction, which leads to conflict escalation. Bippus (2003) performed a study among
college students to assess the use of humor in past conflict situations and whether or not
humor was an effective tactic. Her work concluded that the usefulness of the humor was
dependent on what the student had perceived as the motivating factor for the action. If
they perceived the humor to be utilized for mood improvement, signs of sensitivity, a
desire for perspective change, or an attempt at finding common ground then the use of
humor was considered an appropriate conflict management tool. However, humor
associated with a lack of argumentative skills, an attempt at topic change, or simply a
means of anxiety relief was determined to be a poor course of action and tended to lead to
escalation. In the end, attribution theory is important to the study of conflict management
because it highlights the importance of perceptions in the process. True motivation is not
13
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
as important as the motivation the other party believes guides the other’s actions
throughout conflict.
Reciprocity Theory
In behavioral sciences, scholars have determined that individuals are likely to
reciprocate what is done to them (Kahn, 2002; Olekalns & Smith, 2003; Eadie, 2000;
Richmond & McCroskey, 2000; Hensel & Diehl, 1994; Ward & Rajmaira, 1992; Boyle
& Lawler, 1991; Druckmand & Harris, 1990; Patchen, 1987; Axelrod, 1980).
“Reciprocity theory predicts that individuals will reciprocate behavior engaged in by the
other person” (Eadie, 2000, p. 9). This assertion has strong implications in the study of
conflict management. According to Kahn, people tend to reciprocate both negative and
positive actions (Kahn, 2002). If a person perceives the other party to be working toward
a common good through their attempts at collaboration, then they will be inclined to
counter with similar moves. In contrast, if it is perceived that a party fails to do their part
in accomplishing the common good of the group, then “resentment and pride” will keep
the other party from contributing as well. The process of reciprocity is also known as the
“tit-for-tat” rule (see Axelrod, Riolo, & Cohen, 2002; Axelrod, 1980). An underlying
construct guiding the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is the role self-interest plays in the
process. If every player in the game defects or chooses an action that is in their own selfinterest, then each player ends up worse off than if they had decided to cooperate
(Tutzauer, Chojnacki, & Hoffmann, 2005). As predicted, the players found it beneficial
to counter a cooperative move with their own cooperation (Parks & Komorita, 1998).
14
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Other than creating the tit-for-tat rule, Axelrod’s work produced some of the current
knowledge used to explain reciprocity in conflict situations.
The theory of reciprocity has been used to explain behavior in the realm of
international relations and international conflicts (Hensel & Diehl, 1994; Ward &
Rajmaira, 1992; Boyle & Lawler, 1991). For example, reciprocity was used to explain
the arms build up of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States (Ward
& Rajmaira, 1992; Boyle & Lawler, 1991). Boyle and Lawler (1991) stipulated that, “If
graduated, reciprocal negative actions produced the arms buildup, then graduated,
reciprocal positive action is the pathway to reducing it” (p. 1187). In other words, the
Cold War and the arms build up were a result of reciprocated action and reciprocal action
is the means for reducing the arms build up.
The important contribution of reciprocity theory in studying conflict management
is its attempt to help explain why certain actions are chosen in a conflict situation. If one
party’s actions are governed by those of the other, then it is easy to understand why
conflict escalates as a result of aggressive or competitive moves or why individuals who
are more cooperative tend to maintain a more stable relationship with the other party.
Reciprocity theory then helps to understand the reactionary manner of actions in conflict
management.
Gaming Theory
Conflict management is a process governed by strategy (Chen & Cheung, 2005;
Levine & Sheaman, 2005; Shin, I-Huei, Jin, & Cameron, 2005; Gross, Guerrero, &
Alberts, 2004; Olson & Braithwaite, 2004). Strategy has been found to emerge in
15
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
conflict situations for children as early as when they are in preschool (Horowitz, Jansson,
Ljungberg, & Hedenbro, 2005). Strategy is the guiding force behind gaming theory.
Gaming theory views the interaction in a conflict as a game (Murphy & Dee, 1992;
Murphy, 1991; Murphy, 1990; Steinfatt, Seibold, & Frye, 1974). The participants in the
conflict are players who must create and implement strategies that they believe will help
them attain their goals (Murphy, 1991, 1990, Steinfatt, Seibold, & Frye, 1974). Each
player in the game derives their own strategy, at least in part, from what they believe the
other player or players’ strategies might be (Murphy & Dee, 1992). The game continues
until the parties reach a mutually acceptable outcome or they reach a state of stalemate
which generally transitions into new games (Murphy, 1990). The game takes place over
time with multiple interactions which leads to the creation and establishment of rules and
norms that govern the playing of the game (Murphy, 1991).
Steinfatt, Seibold, and Frye (1974) point out three areas in which game theory is
useful in communication theory. First, the gains and losses incurred by each team can be
specified. Secondly, game theory emphasizes the occurrence of decision-making based
on strategy, which leads to either positive or negative consequences. Lastly, the theory
helps explain the communication process by highlighting the fact that each side has
power in the interaction or conflict. For example, one party makes a move and the other
has the power to reward that move and vice versa. Each player has a certain level of
influence over others’ actions in the game.
Like reciprocity theory, gaming theory has seen much use in the explanation of
conflict in the realm of international affairs. Studies have described the strategic or game
16
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
like nature of the situation with China and Taiwan (Lynn, 2005), issues with the
induction of Cyprus in the European Union (Yesilada & Sozen, 2002), the arms race
between the United States and the Soviet Union (Plous, 1985), and a general explanation
of third-party intervention in military affairs in other countries (Gent, 2004).
Gaming theory contributes to conflict management because of the insight it yields
on the use of strategy to accomplish goals and how each move influences the other side’s
moves. Conflict does not take place in a vacuum. Parties must base their strategies on
those they perceive the other players to be using or they will find it difficult to reach a
mutually satisfactory conclusion to the conflict. Secondly, gaming theory describes the
nature of continued interaction, which leads to the development of game rules and norms
common in the conflict management process. As time goes by, what is acceptable and
unacceptable becomes clearer and clearer. The goal of each player in this game is to
eventually narrow and define the rules to a point where each side feels they have received
the best outcome from the conflict (Murphy, 1991).
Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)
CMM suggests that over time interactions of human beings create certain rules
that guide behavior. CMM theory then stipulates that reality is socially created through
human communication/interaction (Ross, 2006; Montgomery, 2004; Dillon & Glanaes,
2004; Bruss, Morris, Dannison, Orbe, Quitugua, & Palacios, 2005; Buttle, 1994; Cronen
& Pearce, 1991/1992; Cronen, Pearce & Changsheng, 1989/1990; Brenders, 1987; Ross,
1985). CMM postulates that there is not one single way to view the world (Cronen,
Pearce, & Harris, 1979). Instead, there are many lenses through which to view the world
17
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
and one’s own parents, family, community, friends, etc. play a role in creating and
maintaining these lenses through which any particular individual makes sense of the
world (Buttle, 1994; Pearce & Rossi, 1984). For example, speech behavior in the United
States is interpreted quite differently than it would be in Korea because the two groups
have different social networks influencing their own view of reality (Wolfson & Pearce,
1983). According to this theory, reality is not something one finds in the world but rather
something that is constructed socially while interacting in the world (Randall, 1997).
People interact with others in their social groups and over time develop rules or
constructs that govern how they view the world (Bruss, Morris, Dannison, Orbe,
Quitugua, & Palacios, 2005; Dillon & Galanes, 2002). Constructs are reinforced through
more and more interaction thus they gain strength over time. Pearce and Rossi (1984)
provide an example of this process in explaining hand gestures. It is through social
interaction they may come to learn that a particular hand gesture symbolizes a wave and
as a salutation. However, this interpretation may be specific to a given social group
alone. In another community, the same wave may mean something different or obscene
(Pearce & Rossi, 1984).
CMM has been used to describe how people have come to create and interpret the
realities where they live (Bruss, Morris, Dannison, Orbe, Quitugua, & Palacios, 2005;
Montgomery, 2004; Pearce & Rossi, 1984; Wolfson & Pearce, 1983). Bruss et al. used
the theory to explain how families with obese children viewed obesity (Bruss et al.,
2005), Montgomery examined how refugees from the Middle East explained torture and
violence to their children (Montgomery, 2004), and the Wolfson/Pearce (1983)
18
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
collaboration explored cross cultural phenomena via this theory. All of these studies
have used CMM because it provides insight into the socially created rules that govern
individual people’s actions.
Conflict, like most social interaction, is not a stagnate phenomena. It evolves and
changes throughout the parties’ interactions with one another. CMM is critical to conflict
management study because it emphasizes the role context plays on decision making
(Buttle, 1994). When one is selecting a method for working through a conflict, one must
consider a variety of contextual elements and past interactions with the other party prior
to making the choice.
Field Theory
Factors outside of the individual or individuals in conflict must also be considered
(Yan Bing, Harwood, & Hummert, 2005; Simosi, 2003; Kyratzis & Guo, 2001; AbtPerkins, 1995). Kurt Lewin’s field theory aids the researcher in explaining conflict in its
broader contexts (Chak, 2002). Field theory acknowledges contexts by stipulating that
humans live their lives in life spaces (Chak, 2002; Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger,
1998; Hample & Dallinger, 1995). The life space approach hones in on the affect several
different coexisting forces have on a particular individual (Chak, 2002; Houston,
Bettencourt, & Wenger, 1998; Hample & Dallinger, 1995; Murphy, 1961). These forces
include anything the individual perceives as relevant. For example, “perceptions of the
self, individual needs, and environmental cues” (Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger, 1998,
p. 738) that occur in one’s life space might influence their actions.
19
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
One’s behavior in any given situation is positively related to the salience of the
force to the individual. Houston et al. provides the example of a person’s automobile. If
the car is unreliable, then this creates a positive force influencing the person to invest in a
new vehicle but perhaps there is also a force leading the person to hold onto the vehicle
because it has been paid in full. Neither one of these forces can be considered
independently. They are both influencing the behavior of that individual. In the end, the
person may buy a cheap and reliable car, which alleviates the pressures from both forces
at the same time (Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger, 1998). The purpose of this example
is to illustrate the manner in which a variety of forces are operating at the same time to
influence behavior in one’s life space. After all, field theory “Serves as a heuristic tool to
discover the factors and their interrelationships which are relevant in respect to behavior
in specific situations” (Albrecht, 1970, p. 237).
In relation to conflict management, field theory has made some strides. First of
all, the theory maintains that one’s history is going to influence their perceptions and
therefore their preference patterns for managing conflict (Murphy, 1961). Because forces
derived from a current situation must be considered with one’s past experiences, field
theory accounts for the effects personal history has on his or her actions (Chak, 2002).
Secondly, lives occurs within contexts, which also plays a role in determining one’s
behavior. Smith and Principato (1985) point out that within life spaces, barriers arise that
make goal attainment difficult. In these conflict situations, a person must come to
understand how to operate in any given context in a manner that will resolve the conflict
and lead to goal attainment (Hample & Dallinger, 1998; Sondel, 1956). Finally, because
20
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
“Conflict and choice are closely related in that choice produces conflict and conflict is
resolved by making choices” (Adele, 2003, p.167). Field theory highlights the fact that
individuals are key players in managing conflict in their own lives. The contexts and past
experiences determine the directions individuals choose to take when confronted with
conflict and the theory can be helpful when performing a study aimed at finding
predictive factors influencing conflict management strategies.
Dialectical Theory
In any interpersonal interaction, including conflict interactions, individuals must
learn to function with the other person or persons in a way that allows them to account
for the inherent coexistence of influencing forces that are in opposition to one another
(Duta, 2005, 2005; Hung, 2005; Toller, 2005; Baxter, 2004; Jameson, 2004; Kramer,
2004; Tracy, 2004; Pawlowski, 1998). Dialectical theory is aimed at explaining the
human interaction in light of these apparent contradictions (Baxter, 2004; Tracy, 2004).
Many scholars postulate that there are three primary contradictions in interpersonal
relationships including autonomy versus connectedness, stability versus change, and
openness versus closedness (Troller, 2005; Jameson, 2004; Kramer, 2004; Erbert, Perez,
& Gareis, 2003; Pawlowski, 1998). Erbert, Perez, and Gareis (2003) explain opposing
forces operate within communication and that attending to both ends of seemingly
polarized relational needs seems impossible at times. However, the study of dialectics
focuses on the fact that it is possible to meet both needs in social interaction (Duta, 2005).
After all, anyone who only attempts to meet only one end of a dialectical tension leaves
parties dissatisfied (Jameson, 2004). Since these contradictions are inescapable, scholars
21
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
stipulate that it is imperative to learn to operate interpersonally with these tensions in
mind (Tracy, 2004; Erbert, Perez, & Gareis, 2003). Troller (2005) points out that a
dialectical approach to communication accepts three stages in the relational process.
These steps begin with the notion that contradictions are inherent to relational interaction,
followed by the idea that contradictions inspire relational change, and finally that the
contradictions are created and constructed via communication (Troller, 2005).
When one’s goal is managing conflict, one must also manage dialectical tensions.
Similar to the collaboration style of conflict management, dialectical tensions must be
reframed so that the two ends are no longer opposites but rather two needs that must be
met in an interpersonal interaction (Tracy, 2004). That is, conflicting tensions do not
necessarily indicate a conflict (Pawlowski, 1998). Part of building a strong relationship
with the other party in a conflict scenario may require paying attention to their needs for
things like autonomy/connectedness or other opposing forces (Baxter, 2004; Kramer,
2004; Tracy, 2004; Baxter & Erbert, 1999). By accommodating the other party’s
preferences between dialectical tensions will place a person in a better position to
effectively manage any given conflict.
Social Exchange Theory
SET is based on the idea that that human interaction is guided by self interest. “It
is the essence of conceptualization that stress relationships between actors (rather than
attributes) and the mutual rewards to be derived from those relationships” (Druckman,
1998, p. 255). A person enters a relationship for the purpose of achieving certain rewards
or a share of a limited supply of resources. This is where the idea of exchange comes
22
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
from. Each party perceived advantages to interacting with the other and therefore a
relationship develops. Communication between parties is related to the allocation of the
resources that initiated the interaction and as these resources are shared back and forth
and “exchange” takes place (Szmatka, Skuoretz, Sozanski, & Mazur, 1998). One
consistently evaluates a relationship in order to decide whether the resources acquired are
worth those one has to part with (Sirgy, 1990). In other words, human interaction is
driven by and evaluated through a system of cost and reward analysis. Is what one
acquires in a relationship worth the resources they had to give up? This is the question
that guides human interaction.
However, exchange theory did not originate in communication research but in
economic research. It was originally used to explain economic exchanges between
parties because the calculation of other resources was substantially more difficult to
quantify (Druckman, 1998). Because the values of exact sums are much easier to
quantify, exchange research remained here until the 1960s. Gauldner and Blau were
some of the first to initiate the application of exchange theory in social sciences.
Gauldner (1960) “referred to social exchange as a pattern of mutually contingent
exchanges of gratification between two parties with belief in reciprocity under a
generalized norm” (p. 167). He began to see that there were actually socially derived
resources that were exchanged in social relationships as in economic transactions. Blau
(1964) further adds that social exchange unlike economic exchange is more long term,
involves less tangible resources, and operates in an unspecified time frame. SET can then
be applied to the social realm of human interaction. SET is appropriate for a myriad of
23
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
different social situations including its application to conflict management tactic selection
in this study.
Next, an overview of the benefits of SET in conflict research will be examined.
The theory is also unique in the fact that it notes the cognitive process used to analyze a
conflict situation for possible resource acquisition. Also, this cognitive process
influences decision-making and perhaps influences one’s conflict management tactic
selections. Social exchange theory combines elements of several important conflict
management theories as well as accounts for resource driven motivation underlying the
cost/reward analysis inherent in decision making.
Social exchange theory specifically posits that “the guiding force behind
behaviors is self-interest” (Folger, 2001, p. 71). People view their relationships and
interactions through a lens of cost/reward and available alternatives analysis (Guillet,
Sarrazin, Carpenter, Trouilloud, & Curry, 2002, Bagozzi, 1974). The construction of
relationships can be understood to develop on the acquisition and/or transfer of resources.
Ledingham, Fruning, and Wilson (1999) stipulates that one’s status, knowledge, services,
money, goods, and love are examples of resources. However, the cognitive steps in
social exchange occur within a range of fairness. One assesses whether the rewards
he/she receive from a particular relationship or action merits the costs they relinquish in
the process (Folger, 2001). According to Hubbell and Chory-Assad (2005), “Perceptions
of fairness of an organizational outcome received in a given transaction is referred to as
distributive justice” (p. 49). What resources are actually transferred is irrelevant when
compared with what each party perceives to have transpired.
24
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
While cost/reward analysis describes the primary thrust of conflict management
style selection, one must also consider the alternatives available to the individual (Guillit,
Sarrazin, Carpenter, Trouilloud, & Curry, 2002). Over the years conflict has received a
bad name. People view the other party in a conflict as standing in the way of their ability
to attain their goals (Jameson, 2004; Susskind, 2004; Knapp & Putnum, 1988; Putnum,
1987). Due to the negative perception of conflict, the availability of alternatives to the
conflict has become a prominent issue. Individuals who believe they have other
alternatives will be substantially less inclined to involve themselves in the conflict
(Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 2001; Sprether, 2001; Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994). For
example, an officer with many relationships can risk losing damaging one in a conflict,
but a police officer who has few relationships within the department can not. Costs and
rewards alone do not draw the complete picture. Social exchange research is incomplete
without considering the availability of alternatives. In conflict, one with alternatives can
use an avoiding style where one with few alternatives can not.
The social exchange perspective provides insight into the self-interests that guide
one’s actions in conflict and sheds light on conflict management interaction in a variety
of ways. First of all, parties’ actions in conflict are strategic. According to Knapp and
Putnam (1998) “Conflict is best defined as an expressed struggle between at least two
interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference
from the other party in achieving their goals” (p. 414). Individuals or individual parties
in conflict act in a manner consistent with what they perceive to be the best means of
attaining their goals (Rogan & France, 2003). In other words, one’s selection of a
25
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
conflict management style is not simply made on a whim but is governed by the action’s
likelihood to lead to goal achievement (Wilson & Putnum, 1990). Social exchange
theory emphasizes the strategic nature of individual action in conflict. It is also
beneficial to conflict management research because it can be used to understand and
perhaps predict one’s propensity for the use of a particular conflict management style in a
given context.
The social exchange approach delineates the interdependence of the parties
situations involved in conflict. In a critique of previous conflict management style
research, Knapp and Putnam stipulate that, “If we are aiming to predict behavior and to
uncover the nature of conflict interaction between individuals in organizations, we must
expand our purview to incorporate relational and organizational factors into the
measurement of individual preferences” (Knapp, 1988, p. 414). This definition stipulates
that preferences in conflict are interdependent and that interdependence involves
resources that are rare and that there are few alternatives to obtaining those resources
(Hibbard, Kumar, & Stern, 2001). In essence, each party in conflict perceives the other
as a roadblock to attaining the scarce resources available to them upon goal achievement.
In order to achieve a goal, the parties must work together. “There are too many factors
associated with the other party to rely solely on the individual’s preference for conflict
strategies. The presence of the disputant has a profound effect on the strategies and
tactics planned in the comfort of one’s own head” (Knapp & Putnam, 1988, p. 414). The
other party must always be considered.
26
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Another benefit of social exchange theory is its visualization and consideration of
conflict management as strategic moves by each party in an attempt to satisfy their goals.
From this perspective, conflict is understood as a game whereby players interact and
influence one another (Jameson, 2004). Each party’s responses are usually on par with
those of the other. Moves in the conflict management are influenced by moves made
earlier in the confrontation (Folger, 2001). “This principle proves that each player's best
strategy is the one that takes his opponent's strategy into consideration: that minimizes
Player A's losses in view of Player B's selection of a strategy to maximize his own gains”
(Murphy, 1990, p. 29). Power is gained in this process through one’s ability to control
resources that the other desires and vice versa. The balance necessary in the interaction
limits a party. They have to consider the losses they will incur for each action they take.
Again, SET operates as a means of maintaining stability in an organization. Therefore,
social exchange theory can be described as a process where parties interact in a system of
strategic moves that further constrain conflict until a mutually beneficial arrangement is
agreed upon.
Lastly, social exchange theory focuses not only on material rewards and costs but
on the relational rewards and costs. In any given conflict situation one must consider
what is most important in a particular interaction. It may be more important to build a
strong relationship with the other party so they might utilize an accommodating approach
in order to strengthen the relationship. Despite receiving less material rewards by
allowing the other party to have what they want, one has been able to meet one’s
relational goal of strengthening their relationship with the other party. Appropriate
27
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
conflict management involves meeting situational as well as relational goals (Gross &
Guerrero, 2000).
At the end of a conflict, each party assesses the outcome and decides if the costs
incurred were worth whatever rewards were received. If a party believes the cost was too
high, the relationship runs the risk of being terminated (Myers, Knox, Pawlowski &
Ropog, 1999). Since there must be some form of relationship for interaction to continue
it is imperative that individuals in conflict consider relational costs and rewards. There
are four possible relational or social goals to consider when functioning in conflict.
Ohbuchi, Osamu, and Tedeschi (1999) describe each of these goals including
relationship, power equality, identity, and justice. Relationship goals are reached when a
party is able to establish and maintain a positive relationship with the other party
(Ohbuchi, Osamu, & Tedeschi, 1999). Part of constructive conflict management requires
that parties create relationships that allow for positive future interaction as well as an
established spirit of shared influence (Gross & Guerrero, 2000). The aim of conflict
management moves beyond simple goal attainment to a process whereby each party has
their needs met and also leaves the interaction with a positive view of their relationship
with the other person.
Secondly, each party must feel that they have some influence in the conflict or the
parties will find the relationship lacking. Similarly, power equality is associated with
relational satisfaction situations involving conflict. When parties perceive their position
as one with equal power to the other party and believe that they have the ability to
28
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
influence the other on equal terms, they will be more inclined to have a positive view of
the relationship (Larson, 1998).
Thirdly, the goal of justice is to reach a level of social fairness. Fairness is
extremely important when one is concerned with the relationship (Drolet, 1998).
Individuals who focus their efforts on achieving both resource as well as social goals like
justice are more likely to conclude a conflict constructively. Bianca Beersma of Social
Justice Research (2003) found that “those with a pro-social motive experienced more
procedural fairness, which was partly responsible for the higher joint outcomes they
obtained” (p. 217).
There are three types of justice, namely distributive, procedural, and interactional
which are used in understanding the social exchange process (Molm, Collet, & Schaefer,
2006). Distributive justice refers to the perception of fairness associated with the
distribution of resources at the end of an interaction (Molm, Collet, & Schaefer, 2006;
Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 2003). Grounded in Adam’s (1965) equity theory,
distributive justice refers to whether or not an individual believes they have received a
fair deal at the end of an interaction. However, fairness is not only ascertained at the end
of an interaction but throughout the actions taken during the interaction referred to as
procedural justice. Procedural justice is thus defined as the perceived fairness of the
processes and procedures used to arrive at the resource allocation (Loi, Ngo, & Foley,
2006; Molm, 2006; Posthuman & Campion, 2005). Tyler (1994) explains that people are
not only concerned with the resources they end up with after an interaction but the
manner in which those resources where obtained. Procedural fairness emphasizes the
29
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
importance of one’s identity in the exchange process. The procedures used throughout
the interaction provide information about the self which is important in constructing both
self-image and self-esteem (Tyler, 1994). For example, if one is in conflict and the other
party utilizes a competitive style, one might assume that they are perceived as weaker
because of the dominate approach to the conflict. While procedural justice focuses
primarily on procedures used in the interaction, interactional fairness is focused primarily
on how they are treated interpersonally Within each interaction, one assesses how the
other party treated them interpersonally and decided whether or not it was fair (Molm,
Collet, & Schaefer, 2006). One is not happy with the relationship if they believe they
have been unjustly treated. All three of these fairness issues are important when
evaluating SET because when unfairness is perceived the interaction changes and so
might the conflict tactic used. Scholars have suggested fairness influences the use of
different strategies (Molm, Quist, & Wisely, 1993). Because individuals who believe
they have been unjustly treated have the tendency to redress injustices by modifying their
inputs, outcomes, or both, it is imperative to SET research to account for justice
perceptions (Tornblom, 1977).
Finally, the focus moves from one’s concern for the other party to one’s concern
for self with identity. Identity stresses the importance of self-esteem and saving face in a
conflict management situation. In individualistic societies such as the United States there
is a heightened concern for self-face (Kim, Lee, Kim, & Hunter, 2004). Organizational
members tend to be concerned with how they perceive themselves to be viewed at the
end of a conflict. Have they lost face and perhaps a portion of influence they may have
30
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
otherwise enjoyed? Has the other party changed their views concerning their aptitude at
their job? These are a few questions that might concern a person from an individualistic
society during a conflict. Self-face influences how one interacts with the other party
during a conflict. Self-face, however, affects self-esteem and has profound implications
in the study of conflict management.
Despite the contributions other theories have made in conflict management
research, social exchange theory serves as the best fit for this particular study. It
incorporates several theoretical constructs used in other theories of conflict management
research. For example, social exchange theory incorporates the tenets of Brown and
Levin’s (1987) politeness theory which led to Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation theory, by
taking into account the importance of face concerns in conflict management tactic
selection (Oetzel, 2003). However, SET extends beyond mere face concerns.
Furthermore, gaming and reciprocity theory are similar in the sense that they focus on the
need to understand how one’s moves are influenced by the others’ (Levine & Sheaman,
2005). Social exchange theory accounts for all three of these phenomena by analyzing
conflict management tactic selection by viewing tactic selections as a result of the
salience one places on the relationship and the task while taking the conflict context into
account simultaneously. Secondly, it highlights the strategic nature of decisions made in
conflict as in gaming theory without presuming to understand all logical moves as
assumed by gaming theory. Unlike reciprocity theory which assumes automatic
reciprocation, SET offers that participants have a choice in whether and how individuals
reciprocate and strategize.
31
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Given that people behave the way they do in order to accomplish their own
personal goals (Folger, 2001). In the end, this study will attempt to show that an
understanding of SET in conflict situations can serve to maintain stability in law
enforcement organizations. An officers’ primary objective is to sustain peace within their
jurisdiction (Kent & Jordan, 2004; Bitter, 1967). However, unresolved conflict can serve
as a hindrance to officers’ ability to meet their job requirements. In organizations, “those
who report that differences are resolved through discussion are least likely to report
stress, poor general health, exhaustion or sickness absence” (Hyde, Jappinen, Theorell, &
Oxenstierna, 2006, p. 2218). Via social exchange theory, this study could explain an
officer’s motivation behind their actions in a conflict and better direct that officer toward
resolution and lower levels of stress.
Conflict Styles and Social Exchange Theory
Conflict is an inevitable component of everyday organizational life and comes in
a variety of forms (Tjosvold & Lai Cheng, 1989). As organizational and conflict research
progress the importance of effectively working through conflict becomes increasingly
more relevant. “The good communication skills often referred to in job postings-include
the ability to manage interpersonal situations and conflict in the workplace” (Myers &
Lawson, 2005, p. 309). Jobs require persons capable at working with others and dealing
with conflict is a necessary component of team membership (Ying-Jung & Heuy-Wen,
2005). It would be ideal to be able to say that conflict comes in only one form that all
employees could be trained in. However, conflict comes in many forms that scholars
have divided into three broad categories including relational, task, and process (Myers &
32
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Lawson, 2005). Relational conflict can be summarized as interpersonal or the conflicts
focused on the relationship rather than the organization, duties, or individual goals
(Gardner & Cary, 1999; Kruse, 1995). A relational conflict is based on relational issues
rather than the task. Parties in the conflict are not really concerned with the issue under
debate but are concerned with disagreeing with the person they do not like. The second
type of conflict is a task conflict. This happens when individuals disagree about the goals
of the organization or the group (Myers & Lawson, 2005; Tjosvold & Lai Cheng, 1989).
A task disagreement could be when one organizational member believes the company
should globalize and another does not. The two are disagreeing on the goal of the
organization. The last broad conflict classification is a process conflict. When parties
conflict over the manner in which something is done, they are experiencing process
conflict (Gardner & Cary, 1999). Perhaps one group member thinks that a sales person
should initiate interaction with small talk and another believes a salesperson should get
right down to business. Each person has the same goal of making the sale in mind, but
they disagree on how to achieve that goal. No matter what type of conflict organizational
members find themselves in, the need to be effective at performing throughout conflict is
extremely important.
Conflict styles are individual’s general responses or reactions of patterned
responses to conflict in a variety of different interactive situations (Ting-Toomey, Oetzel,
& Yee-Jung, 2001). Blake and Mouton’s (1975) managerial grid explains leadership
style by describing the two influences underlying manager decision-making. On the yaxis of the grid one’s concern for people is measured and on the x-axis one’s concern for
33
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
production (task goal) is measured. The intersection point of these two axes delineates
the degree to which each of these concerns influences the actions of a particular manager.
This study incorporates the Thomas-Kilmann interpretation of Blake and
Mouton’s Managerial Grid because of how it distinguishes between the five conflict
management styles. Instead of concern for people and concern for production, the
Thomas-Kilmann approach stipulates that one’s mode of conflict management of choice
stems from the levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness the person has (Hendel &
Galon, 2005; Morris-Conley & Kern, 2003; Thamos & Kilmann, 1974). Assertiveness
stresses one’s desire to meet and accomplish his/her own personal goals or the task while
cooperativeness defines those individuals who place greater concern on the needs of
others or the relationship (Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Yee-Jung, 2001). Because SET
emphasizes social resources like relationship building, the Thomas-Kilmann version
functions well by highlighting the conflict management styles and the degree to which
each of these styles based on the importance a manager places on each of the two
resource concerns. The literature outlines and defines five major conflict management
styles based on Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid including: collaborating or
integrating, accommodating, competing, avoiding, and compromising.
Collaborating occurs when one’s scores are high on both assertiveness as well as
cooperativeness. People using this style tend to enact problem solving in order to
formulate a solution that meets the needs of all parties involved. It is most useful when
decisions require the input of multiple parties looking to synthesize their ideas. Kuhn and
34
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Poole (2000) found that collaborative styles of dealing with conflict lead to more
effective decisions than those who used confrontation and avoidance strategies.
While accredited as the most beneficial style, collaborating requires a substantial
time commitment. Rahim (2002) explains that collaborating is most beneficial when
working with company objective or policy issues among subsets of the organization over
longer periods of time. Research has been conducted concerning the relationship
between face-saving and conflict styles (Kim, Lee, Kim & Hunter, 2004; Oetzel, Meares,
Myers & Lara, 2003; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The results of each of this research
projects concluded that individuals with both high face-saving concern for others and
high face-saving concern for themselves were substantially more inclined to use a
collaborating conflict management style when functioning with organizational or interorganizational conflict.
The collaborating approach to conflict specifies that an individual has performed
a cost/reward analysis, which is essential to SET and concluded that the best outcome
would be the one that accounted for both relational as well as task rewards. The high
concern for the other party highlights the importance placed on relational goals while the
high concern for self focuses on meeting the task related goals. Social exchange theory
can aid in better understanding what motivates a police officer to choose this particular
conflict management style because it emphasizes the cost/reward analysis process
inherent in the decision-making process. Research has shown that, “those who use a
more integrative style of handling conflict experience lower levels of task conflict,
thereby reducing relationship conflict” (Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai, 2000, p. 32).
35
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Social exchange theory would lead one to posit that in situations where an officer views
both the relationship as well as the task as highly important they will attempt to
collaborate with the other party in order to meet both of these needs (i.e. be both highly
cooperative as well as assertive).
Accommodating, on the other hand, is characteristic of one who has a high
concern for the other party and a lesser concern for self. Research stipulate that,
individuals who use the accommodating style put other peoples’ needs before their own
interests (Gross & Guerrero, 2000; Rahim, Butzman & White, 1999; Sorenson, Morse &
Savage, 1999). This approach to conflict not only exalts the other party’s concerns but
downplays the importance of their own. The accommodating style is thought to be useful
when one is unfamiliar with the elements of the conflict, the other party is right or the
issue under conflict is of greater importance to the other party (Rahim, 2002). However,
accommodating the other can be disadvantageous in the sense that it can negatively affect
satisfaction and hinder relationships when a party knows he/she is right, the other party is
being unethical, or the issue in question is important to the party, accommodating would
not be appropriate.
When a person opts for the obliging approach to conflict they are more concerned
with relational rewards than task rewards. The social exchange process reveals that a
cost reward analysis for this individual yields that the relationship is more important than
winning the conflict. For example, in a dispute over time off, a patrolman might yield to
the shift supervisor, his superior, in order to build a stronger relationship for future
interaction.
36
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Competing occurs when one party takes a win-lose approach to conflict by
presuming that in order to accommodate their needs the other party’s needs must not be
met. At times dominating is considered unethical because of the disregard for the other
party’s goals (Rahim, Buntzman, & White, 1999). This style is appropriate when the
issue under conflict is important to the party, a decision must be made quickly, making
unpopular decisions, overpowering an assertive subordinate, or when the other parties do
not have the expertise to adequately make the proper decision.
Competing should not be used when a problem is complex and there is enough
time to come to a more collaborative resolve. If the issue is not important or if both
parties are of equal power base, the method is not effective because equally powerful
parties may end in a stalemate where neither party accomplishes their goals.
According to social exchange theory, police officers using this technique are more
interested in winning the conflict than strengthening their relationship with the other
party. They decide that the task reward of winning out ranks the relational benefits that
might be gained. Therefore, social exchange theory stipulates that dominating occurs
when one analyzes an interaction and decides that accomplishing the task goals is more
important than strengthening the relationship.
Avoiding involves low concern for self as well as for others, which leads to a
lose-lose orientation with both parties unsatisfied. Gross and Guerrero (2000) points out
that “Avoiding is generally perceived as ineffective and inappropriate” (p. 200). “These
techniques are sometimes counterproductive because they force decisions the group is not
ready to make” (Fisher & Ellis, 1990, p. 276). However, avoiding can be beneficial when
37
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
the issue is trivial, the implications of the relational consequences are more important
than confronting the issue or a cooling off period is necessary prior to tackling a complex
problem (Rothwell, 2006). This style is inappropriate when the issues are important, the
party is responsible for making a decision, and when the situation calls for a speedy
decision.
Avoiding conflict is an interesting technique from a social exchange perspective
because it means that the party was not concerned with achieving either relational or task
rewards (Friedmen, Tidd, Currall & Tsai, 2000, p. 32). An officer might examine a
situation and decide not to pick up his or her radio or make a meeting scheduled by
another officer in order to avoid the situation entirely. They analyzed the situation and
decided that simply not getting involved in the conflict outweighed the possible relational
or task rewards. Perhaps there are scenarios where avoiding the conflict all together is
more important than the rewards that could be gained from involvement in the conflict.
For example, if an officer perceives conflict as detrimental to their relationship with their
superiors they might avoid becoming involved in a conflicting situation all together.
However, “By directly engaging interested stakeholders, companies can resolve pressing
issue, head off future conflicts, and ensure that everyone has a voice in the decision that
affect them” (Bohnet, 2006). Avoiding has its place but only in very rare situations is it
the most effective means for handling conflict.
Finally, compromising is the fifth component of Blake and Mouton’s managerial
grid. Compromising is a situation where both parties make allowances or relinquish
some of their demands in order to create a resolution acceptable to both. Compromising
38
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
has been studied in several different contexts to uncover what determines a person’s
likelihood to use the style. Rahim et al. concluded that the approach is based on an
“intermediate” concern for self and others (Rahim, Antonioni & Psnekicka, 2001, p.
191). In two studies performed by Oetzel et al. and Kim et al., results paralleled Rahim’s
to reveal that one’s propensity to compromise can be described using face-saving
descriptions (Oetzel, Meares, Myers, & Lara, 2003; Kim, Lee, Kim, & Hunter, 2004).
Compromising is positively correlated with an other-face-saving or mutual-face-saving
orientations (Kim, Lee, Kim, & Hunter, 2004).
One who compromises in conflict decides that they are moderately concerned
with both relational and task rewards (Rahim, 2002). Individuals are willing to make
allowances than one who integrates because their concern for each type of reward is less.
Social exchange theory posits that this strategy would allow one to achieve both
relational and task goals to a moderate extent because there is a less degree of personal
investment in terms of task and relational costs. For example, an officer in conflict with a
colleague over proper procedure for treating a crime scene might attempt to moderately
accomplish some of their task goals by carrying out some of their own preferences while
meeting some relational goals by agreeing to allow their colleague to perform some of
their preferred crime scene procedures. The officer might believe that the best idea is to
moderately achieve both their relational and task goals rather than risking losing both.
Much research has examined Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid in an attempt to better
understand why people react to conflict in ways they do (Oetzel, Meares, Myers, & Lara,
2003; Chackrabarty, Brown, & Gilbert, 2002; Rahim, 2002; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, &
39
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Yee-jung, 2001; McKinney & Kelly, 1997). Aside from simply saving face, social
exchange theory could be useful in understanding why individual police officers respond
in a given way to conflict.
Social exchange theory should act as a great explanation for conflict management
style preferences among police officers for a variety of reasons. First, conflict is a very
strategic encounter. Individuals go into it with the understanding that it will take strategy
to accomplish their goals. They will have to plan out their actions rather than simply
acting on a whim. Part of their strategy must include an appreciation for the other party
and their actions. If they do not consider the other’s strategy as well as the implications
of each move they are likely to arrive at a conclusion they are not happy with.
However, the party in conflict must also realize that they need the other party
because alternatives to obtaining their goals may be limited. They may need the other
party if they want to achieve their goals. Because of this driving need for the other party,
they must consider both task as well as relational goals. They have to maintain a certain
relationship in order to function with that other party. Therefore, social exchange theory
is a beneficial instrument to use when considering conflict management tactic selection
because it encompasses the primary elements of the conflict management process.
Furthermore, the theory extends conflict management research by not only
encompassing conflict management but also by providing a measurement scale for
ascertaining the level of importance placed on both tasks as well as relationships. Social
exchange theory provides a gauge upon which the degree of importance one places on a
given relationship or task can be understood. If the relationship is more important, than
40
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
the task they will accommodate the other party but if the task is more important than the
relationship than they will compete in the conflict. Social exchange theory makes it
possible for a researchers to understand one’s preferred conflict management style
preferences based on the level of importance placed on task, relationship, and availability
of alternatives.
Furthermore, the theory highlights the fact that the task, relational, and
availability of alternatives must be studied together. It is not a zero-sum explanation of
style preferences. One is not 100% concerned with the relationship and 0% concerned
with the task. Perhaps one is more concerned with the relationship but that does not
mean that it is not important to them at all. It takes place on a continuum that social
exchange theory allows one to study. It provides for a more accurate measurement of the
guiding force behind conflict management style preference than other theories.
Finally, the constructs of social exchange theory operate well in conjunction with
other independent variables to test their influence on the dependent variables of conflict
management tactic selection. One is able to test the theory with other elements. For
example, a researcher could see how one’s sex coupled with the importance they place on
a task versus a relationship to see if combinations of the elements work in such a way as
to provide significant results. Therefore this study utilized social exchange theory and
from the literature on law enforcement agencies, conflict management and social
exchange the following research questions are offered:
41
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
RQ1: Does social exchange theory’s factors predict conflict management styles among
police officers and their peers?
RQ2: What is the nature, direction, and strength of the relationship between the
dimensions of cost, rewards, and alternatives and self-reported conflict
preferences of police officers and their peers?
RQ3: What is the nature, direction, and strength of the relationships between the
demographic characteristics of the sample and conflict management styles?
42
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Participants
Participants consisted of 228 undergraduate students at a large southwestern state
university for the pilot study and 143 police officers 100 of which belong to one police
department in West Texas and 43 of who belong to another police department in East
Texas. Thus, two police departments are represented. The demographics of the police
officers include: 135 males and 8 females, 120 Caucasians, 3 African Americans, and 20
Hispanics, years of service ranged from 1 to 28 years with an average of 10 years, ranks
consisted of 100 patrolmen, 18 corporals, 20 sergeants, 4 lieutenants, 1 intern, and 1
chief, and ages ranged from 22 to 68 with an average age of 35.
Social Exchange Questionnaire
There is no questionnaire to be found that surveys social exchange. Therefore,
the researcher created a questionnaire in an attempt to measure the costs, rewards, and
available alternatives associated with the social exchange process perceived by police
officers when they are involved in conflict with their colleagues, superiors, and
subordinates (see Appendix A). There were 11 Likert scale items aimed at revealing
police officer’s perceptions of costs and rewards associated with their relationships with
their colleagues. Six items were related to rewards and five items were related to costs.
There were 12 Likert scale items focused on perceptions of costs and rewards associated
with the task. Five items were related to rewards and seven items were related to costs.
Finally, there were 5 Likert scale items focused on the availability of alternatives to
43
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
conflict. There were 28 items in all. The statements were measured using a five point
scale ranging from 5=strongly agree to 1=strongly disagree.
Conflict Management Questionnaire
Conflict styles were measured using the Thomas-Kilmann (1978) Conflict Mode
Instrument (see Appendix C). The instrument has been used extensively (Volkema &
Bergmann, 1995, Wommack, 1988). It has satisfactory test-retest and internal
consistency (Hendel, Fish, & Galon, 2005). In fact, the Thomas-Kilmann instrument has
been noted as the tool most widely used to determine conflict strategy preferences in
North America (Putnam, 1988). A past study revealed that the Cronbach’s alpha of the
five styles include .62 for avoiding, .71 for competing, .58 for compromising, .43 for
accommodating, .65 for collaborating and an overall mean score of .60 (Wommack,
1988, p. 329). One advantage of utilizing this instrument is that it limits the effects of
social desirability bias by placing statements of equal social desirability together (MorrisConley & Kern, 2003, Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988).
Conflict strategy preferences are assessed through the participant’s selection of
one of two options from “30 pairs of statements describing the five modes of conflict
resolution style created by the two-dimensional model of cooperation and assertiveness”
(Morris-Conley & Kern, 2003, p. 477). In other words, respondents select one statement
of each pair that best characterizes their behavior in conflict. Then the participants place
their selections on a tally sheet which places responses in a column specific to a
particular conflict strategy derived from the convergence of assertiveness and
cooperativeness (Hendel & Galon, 2005, Morris-Conley & Kern, 2003; Thomas &
44
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Kilmann, 1978). The column or mode, which receives the highest score on a 0-12 range,
is the participant’s preferred conflict strategy (Morris-Conley and Kern, 2003, Volkema
& Bergmann, 1995, Wommack, 1988).
Procedures
First, a pilot test was conducted to assess the reliability of the social exchange
questionnaire designed by the researcher. The researcher distributed the social exchange
questionnaire to undergraduates at a large south western university. The participants
were asked to fill out the questionnaire on a strictly volunteer basis. Students were asked
to think of a recent conflict they have been involved in with one of their peers or
colleagues and then fill out the questionnaire (see Appendix A).
The pilot test affirmed the reliability of the social exchange measure after the
removal of a number of unreliable items. The principal component analysis with varimax
rotation technique, yielded eight-factors based on 15 of the original 28 items (see Table
1). The first eight factors have Eigen values of 5.299, 3.490, 2.360, 1.669, 1.469, 1.220,
1.100, and 1.044, respectively. However, since three of the factors did not have more
than one item which met the .60/.40 criterion for retention, only five were utilized. The
remaining five factors represented “task costs,” “task rewards,” “relationship costs,”
“relationship rewards,” and “availability of alternatives.” Coefficient alphas for the five
remaining factors are .58, .74, .86, .83, and .44 respectively with an overall average
reliability score of .75. An examination of the scree plot further substantiated the
incorporation of only 54% (15) of the original 28 items (see Appendix B). The exclusion
decision was made because several items either did not clearly load on a factor or they
45
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
failed to meet the minimum retention criterion. However, while factor analysis showed
five factors along the tenets of social exchange theory (i.e., task costs, task rewards,
relationship costs, relationship rewards, and availability of alternatives) the fifth factor
(i.e., availability of alternatives) was not reliable and thus was excluded from data
analysis.
Then the researcher contacted different police chiefs in the same state and
requested permission to distribute a survey consisting of both the social exchange and the
Thomas-Kilmann questionnaires to their department’s officers during shift briefings.
Once granted permission, the researcher attended shift briefings and when prompted
distributed the surveys and gave the instructions aloud. Police departments usually had a
number of these meetings so the researcher attended as many as possible to distribute the
questionnaires to as many officers as possible. Officers were asked to fill out the survey
right there in order to get the largest return possible. For convenience sake and to allow
the police officers to get on the streets as soon as possible, the surveys were handed out
and explained before the shift briefings began to those officers who arrived early. This
way they spend very little time filling out the survey that they would have otherwise
spent patrolling the streets. Because some officers were not there, the researcher left
behind a number of surveys to be completed when they arrived. The participants were
asked to fill out the social exchange questionnaire first and then the Thomas-Kilmann.
The goal was to first determine how individual officers assess costs, rewards, and
alternatives and then determine the preferred conflict management tactic in order to
46
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
discover if the social exchange theory can serve as a predictor of conflict management
tactic selection.
Table 1.1: Factor Analysis of Social Exchange Measure (N=228)____________________
__________Factor___________
Social Exchange Items
I
II
III
IV
V____
B1
.785
B2
.731
B3
.684
B4
.764
B5
.830
B6
.711
B7
.828
B8
.856
B9
.695
B10
.770
B11
.804
B12
.752
B13
.764
B14
.658
B15
.755__
Note: Factor 1: Relationship Costs, Factor II: Relationship Rewards, Factor III: Task
Rewards, Factor IV: Task Costs, Factor V: Availability of Alternatives
Analysis
First of all, the researcher wanted to know if the individual police departments
acted alone or in conjunction with any other independent variable to influence conflict
management styles. Thus a regression analysis was run with police department as one of
the predictor variables (i.e., PD, Age, Ethnicity, Years of service, Gender, and Rank) for
the five conflict management styles. The results were mixed, because the overall model
approached significant meaning F(8, 132) = 1.96, p <.06. A look at the univariate model
suggests that police department was only significant for collaboration style with Beta for
PD =.24 and t(1, 139) = 2.6, p <.011. While the univariate analysis would suggest
47
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
significance at the face value, a Bonferroni correction method indicates that this is not
significant. According to the Bonferroni correction, the p value needed to be considered
significant must be equal to or less than .0083. Therefore, the rest of the research
questions were analyzed without accounting for differences between the two police
departments.
As for specific analysis for research questions, a combination of regression and
correlations were used in the second survey distribution to test the predictive relationship
between the independent variables concerning social exchange of costs, rewards, and
available alternatives on the dependent variable of conflict management styles. This
study is attempting to analyze the effects of several independent variables (task costs,
task rewards, relationship costs, relationship rewards, and availability of alternatives) on
the dependent variables of conflict management styles (i.e. compromising, collaborating,
competing, avoiding, and accommodating).
48
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Research question one asks if social exchange theory factors predict conflict
management styles among police officers. In order to answer this question, regressionanalysis was run with remaining social exchange factors (i.e., task costs, task rewards,
relationship costs, and relationship rewards) and none of the factors showed any
statistical significance. Therefore, social exchange factors did not predict police conflict
management styles.
Research question 2 asks what is the nature, direction and strength of relationship
between dimension of costs, rewards and alternatives and self-reported conflict
preferences of police officers. In an attempt to answer this question a correlation analysis
was run however without the alternative variable. The results show not statistical
significant correlation between social exchange theory factors and conflict management
styles of police officers.
Research question three asks for the nature, direction, and strength of relationship
between demographic characteristics (see Table 2) and conflict management styles. First
a correlation analysis was run and significance was found for two conflict styles. Results
indicated a negative correlation between years of service and competing style (i.e., -.221
p .01) and positive correlations between years of service and avoidance style (i.e., .17 p<
.05). Second, a regression analysis was run with demographic variables and the overall
model was significant at F (7, 127) = 2.36 P < .05. However, within the model only years
of service approach statistical significance with standardized Beta coefficients = -.29 and
49
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
t = -1.87 P = .06. The regression yielded a curvilinear relationship between years of
service and avoiding conflict. Thus only years of service yielded any statistical
significance in this study among demographic variables with conflict management style.
Table 1.2: Demographic Characteristics in Study 2 (N = 144)______________________
Demographic Information:
Gender:____________________________Percentage __________Number of Officers__
Male
93.8%
135
Female
5.6%
8
Ethnicity:________________________________________________________________
Caucasian
83.3%
120
African American
2.1%
3
Hispanic
13.9%
20
Years of Service:__________________________________________________________
0-5 yrs.
46.9%
67
6-10 yrs.
16%
23
11-15 yrs.
9.8%
14
16-20 yrs.
11.7%
17
21-25 yrs.
9.1%
13
25-30 yrs.
6.3%
9
Rank:___________________________________________________________________
Patrolman
69.4%
100
Corporal
12.5%
18
Sergeant
13.9%
20
Lieutenant
2.8%
4
Intern
.7%
1
Chief
.7%
1
Age:____________________________________________________________________
20-25 yrs.
9.8%
14
26-30 yrs.
29.4%
42
31-35 yrs.
13.9%
20
36-40 yrs.
15.4%
22
41-45 yrs.
14%
20
46-50 yrs.
10.5%
15
51-55 yrs.
5.6%
8
______Above 55 yrs.___________________1.4%____________________2__________
50
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Research question 1 asked does social exchange theory’s factors predict conflict
management styles among police officers and research question 2 asked what is the
nature, direction, and strength of the relationship between the dimensions of cost,
rewards, and alternatives and self-reported conflict preferences. Both of these research
questions were not proven statistically significant. However, the lack of significance
seems odd at first glance. After all, social exchange theory seems to fit based on what
one would think goes on in conflict as pertaining to costs and rewards. The fact that it is
not statistically significant may not mean that social exchange theory does not apply
based on choice of conflict styles stemming from perceptions of costs and rewards.
There may be a variety of explanations for how the exchange process still takes place but
instead of it being based on the social elements of the exchange process it is based more
on the economic and personal involvement aspects of exchange.
Firstly, the constructs that differentiate police departments from other
organizations undoubtedly played a major role in determining the officer’s scores on the
surveys. One characteristic distinguishing a police department from other organizations
is the paramilitary structure of leadership (Johnson & Cox III, 2004/2005; Hassel, Zhoa
& Macquire, 2003). Within this hierarchal system, there are clearly defined sets of rules
under which all officers are required to operate. Violating the norms of a paramilitary
leadership structure may prove detrimental to an officer’s career. There is substantially
51
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
less leeway or flexibility in the guidelines governing police officers as compared to most
other organizations. They are expected to immediately comply with orders and without
question. Protocol is established to ensure that the goals of the police department are
met, regardless if it means sacrificing the individual police officer’s preferences (Chapell,
MacDonald, & Manz, 2006, Reiter, 1999). Police officers have extensive training and
protocol in conflict negotiation and resolution as they are dealing with the public in
various and, oftentimes, emotionally driven circumstances. This training may be
generalized by the police officer, and employed when experiencing conflict among fellow
officers as a result of instruction from above. For example, a subordinate officer may
simply be instructed to accommodate his/her superiors, despite their feelings on the issue.
This study did not find any correlation between scores on the social exchange instrument
and preferred conflict styles because the measure was oriented toward the costs and
rewards associated with the relationship and task rather than those associated with
economic gain. An officer understands that violating paramilitary protocol can be
devastating to one’s career and opt for avoiding conflict. Exchange still takes place but it
is guided by economic goals rather than task or relational goals.
Secondly, there is an extremely high stress level linked with law enforcement
employment. A police officer’s life is affected by monumental levels of stress
experienced on a daily basis (Ansel, 2000). Literature indicates that a police officer’s
stress level is surpassed by very few other occupations. Past research stipulates that,
“Police officer stress leads to negative attitudes, burnout, loss of enthusiasm and
commitment (cynicism), increased apathy, substance abuse problems, divorce, health
52
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
problems and many other social, personal, and job-related problematic behaviors” (Lumb
& Breazeale, 2003, p. 91). The stress they unremittingly encounter almost certainly
influences how they evaluate conflict. After working with crime and death every day,
disputes between themselves and their fellow officers may not seem as significant, in
comparison. Police officers are in the unique position of having to function despite the
violent nature of their jobs (Sheehan, Everly & Langlieb, 2004; Patterson, 2003). When
weighing the significance of working the nightshift and notifying a mother of the death of
her child, a dispute regarding schedule preferences, obviously, will certainly be regarded
as practically meaningless. A police officer has to deal with so much as it is that the
costs of involving themselves in conflicts between themselves and their peers are too
high when coupled with the stress they must already deal with. Adding one more
confrontation onto their plat is simply too much.
Finally, police officers are so incredibly loyal to one another that, this in and of
itself, influences their responses to conflict among themselves. In fact, their loyalty to
one another further distinguishes them from other organizations (Woody, 2005; Poaline
III, 2003). Police officers have to depend on one another for backup in a lethal situation
involving firearms or other deadly weapons. Law enforcement is one of the most
dangerous jobs in the world (Bartol & Bartol, 2004). Officers are called to go places and
do things that put their lives at risk daily. For example, it is often a police officer’s job to
enter a building housing a known murderer in order to make the arrest and get the
criminal off the street. An individual officer rarely does this individually; he/she depends
on other police officers to assist them. Police departments are made up of an extremely
53
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
cohesive group of men and women (Frewin & Tuffin, 1998). Perhaps the strength of
these relationships plays a role in determining police officers’ responses to conflict. The
lack of significant correlation between social exchange and conflict styles preferences
may also be partially explained by the loyalty officers have for one another. The
relationship is so important that officers do not take the time to assess the costs and
rewards associated with social exchange. They may simply accommodate or avoid the
conflict because it is their partner and they need them too much to get involved in
confrontations with them.
The greatest predictor of conflict management tactics found in this study were
years of service which speaks to the idea of how longevity influences avoiding. When a
police officer evaluates the costs of confrontation, they are found to be too high when
compared with any potential benefits therefore they avoid it. This can be explained by
the literature on police officer burnout (Lumb & Breazeal, 2003). Job burnout is
extremely common for police officers. Perhaps the lack of appreciation becomes too
much of a burden and officers eventually get frustrated with their jobs. Moreover, the
stress levels of police officers are absolutely astronomical (Ansel, 2000). With such
impediments beating down on them, it is understandable police become disenfranchised
with the system and avoid conflict more and more often as their ages and careers
progress. They determine it is not beneficial to become involved in conflicts. As stated
previously, the research on avoidance determined an appropriate time to utilize this style
of conflict negotiation was when the issue is trivial or the relational implications
outweigh the benefits gained from involving oneself in the conflict (Rothwell, 2006).
54
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Burnout and stress may encourage conflict avoidance. Over time police officers become
disheartened and no longer care to exert the energy necessary to involving themselves in
conflict. In the officer’s mind, he is appropriately using the avoiding strategy, believing,
as time progresses, the importance placed on the issue will lessen. Thus, burnout leads to
a cavalier attitude where older officers of extended service simply do not care enough to
get involved in conflicts. A seasoned officer, assessing a situation, determines engaging
in conflict is more detrimental than leaving the issue alone. A rookie, assessing the same
situation, has limited understanding of the whole picture and is more prone to promote
discord than those who have extensive street experience. For example, a police
department implements a new guideline stipulating that officers must stagger their dining
times so that there are adequate numbers of officers on the street at all times. A new
police officer who enjoys dining with several of his/her colleagues would be more likely
to file their concerns over the regulation than a seasoned officer because they do not
understand the costs to their careers. The older officer would rather deal with the new
regulation than create conflict over it with his/her superiors.
Another explanation for the increased likelihood of avoidance in older officers,
with more years of service, concerns how close the officer is to retirement. One has
substantially more to lose if they are at the end of a 30 year career at the police
department than a rookie who is still years away from being vested. The last thing an
employee approaching retirement wants to do is negatively affect their pension or miss an
upcoming promotion. This scenario, also, trivializes the importance of many conflicts.
When compared to one’s retirement, conflicts are minimized. A rookie can easily change
55
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
careers if something goes awry but an officer who has put in many years of service into
the department has too much to lose.
Another viewpoint of the officer who is nearing retirement is that the new policies
will not affect him in the same way or for the same length of time. The costs of the new
policy are less for them. It is often not worth his energy to engage in conflict over what
may only affect him for a short length of time. The idea being, “I can endure anything
for a short period of time”. This allows him/her to be more accepting of the actions of the
department and those the officer comes into contact with within the department. Again, a
possible explanation is that getting involved in a conflict is not as important as the
consequences of being involved in the conflict. These arguments are in line with the idea
of costs and rewards tenets of social exchange theory. However, the arguments also lean
towards the fact that police officers perceive few alternatives in conflict situations which
is contrary to SET proposition. At least, one could argue that police officers either
because of the need to be loyal to the organization or one another, often do not perceive
other alternatives.
As one can see exchange still takes place but it is exchange based on a different
set of ideals. While the initial presumption was that costs, rewards, and availability of
alternatives based on task and relational issues were the underlying factors motivating
conflict action, the real motivator may be based on economic or personal investment.
The exchange process is still taking place but is based more on economic issues. Young
police officers coming out of the academy may have socially oriented social exchange
ideals based on task and relational costs, rewards and availability of alternatives, but as
56
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
reality sets in, investment in years of service and closeness to retirement may become the
underlying issues driving the social exchange process. The officers still consider the
costs and rewards of their actions but they are based on the end goal of economic gain or
investment.
The relationship between avoiding and social exchange were positively
correlated. However, the relationship was actually somewhat curvilinear. As officers
progressed in years of service, they became more and more likely to avoid conflict until a
point. After a certain time period, the relationship shifts to become negative. This
relationship can be explained by the nature of police work and burnout. As time goes by,
officers try to avoid conflict because they do not care as much and burn out or do not care
to upset their superiors. However, when they have several years of service under their
belt they begin to involve themselves in conflict a bit more. Police officers do burnout
but they also attain promotions as time progresses. Police departments are paramilitary.
There is a clearly defined set of rules and guidelines enforced by the superiors of a police
department. As officers years of service progress so does their track through the ranks.
Perhaps the relationship between avoiding conflict and years of service can be explained
by an officer’s achievement of superior status in the department. They can no longer
avoid conflict as a superior and maintain the paramilitary norm of police organizations.
They have to get involved at this point because they are the person in charge and it is
their responsibility to resolve the conflict.
Police officers are a very interesting group to study. Contrary to what the past
studies have revealed about most organizational members, they show no significant
57
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
correlations between social exchange and their conflict style preferences in this study.
The only two items that played a significant role in determining style preferences were
age and years of service. After consideration of the literature, it is understandable that
police officers of greater tenure and age are more inclined to avoid conflict. They have
learned over the years, the benefits of remaining uninvolved versus the consequences of
becoming involved in conflicts. Burnout and proximity to retirement may serve as the
motivating factor behind older police officer’s propensity to avoid conflict.
Limitations
There were several factors that may have limited this study which must be
understood. The original survey contained 28 items created to assess an officer’s social
exchange inclinations, but in the course of creating the most reliable measure possible it
was necessary to remove 13 of the items. This action limited the reliability of the five
components suggested to be indicative of the social exchange process. For example,
there were only two items used to ascertain an officer’s score on task costs and
availability of alternatives, three items for task rewards, and four items for both relational
costs and rewards. A better survey with a higher number of items may have yielded a
more significant result.
The instrument completed by undergraduate asked them to think of a conflict they
had with a colleague at work or with a fellow student in their classes. Police officers
were asked to think of conflicts they had experienced in their years of service on the
force. They had a much smaller pool of experience to pull from than the undergraduates
surveyed. These may have proved to be two entirely different sets of parameters. The
58
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
type of student jobs could potentially be in the hundreds. This mixture of job situations
joined with the option of student to student conflict, may have made the undergraduate
students unreliable for a pilot study group. In other words, the parameters established by
the researcher as to the conflict each group should think about were too broad. These
differences may have created an unreliable measure. The resulting show of no correlation
between social exchange and preferred conflict management styles may not be accurate.
There are several limitations to this study that relate directly to the sample. First,
the majority of the officers surveyed in this study were patrolmen. This may influence
the study in a variety of ways. Patrolmen are lower-ranking officers on the force. There
was a preponderance of young, inexperienced officers in this group. Though the years of
service did vary some, the study is limited from this perspective. There were too few
higher ranking officers from which to draw any significant conclusions or comparisons.
The literature specified that paramilitary leadership structures would incline higher
ranking officers be more likely to compete in conflict (Chapell, MacDonald, & Manz,
2006). A sample of police officers with adequate numbers of all ranks would have
allowed for conclusions based on the implications of one’s rank on their preferred
conflict styles.
Additionally, there were only three female officers surveyed. There is some
support in the literature indicating gender differences in preferred conflict management
tactics. Brewer, Mitchell, and Weber (2002) found that women are more inclined to
avoid conflict and men more likely to try to dominate in conflict. While there are
definitely mixed findings on gender differences, it would have been very interesting to
59
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
have had a larger number of women in the study to ascertain if the data revealed further
insight into the subject.
Geographical location of the police officers surveyed may have limited the
findings. All of the officers in this study came from the same state limiting the
generalization of the study. Every police department is different with diverse guidelines
and regulations for each station. Moreover, the distinctions between states may be even
more substantial. There are different laws in different states and undoubtedly different
protocols for handling conflict within the ranks. If officers from all over the country
could have been examined, the study could have made a comparison between the states to
see if there are differences between conflict management preferences between states or
regions of the country. However, this study is limited to the state of Texas.
The manner in which the survey was distributed may also have influenced the
results as well. While two-thirds of the surveys were distributed and explained in person
by the researcher, the other third were left in the hands of higher-ranking officers to hand
out and the officers had to depend solely on the written instructions for direction.
Despite, the apparent limitations of this study, the findings are still quite
interesting. Years of service and age are important when considering conflict
management strategy preferences. Officers with longer tenure on the force are more
likely to avoid confrontation with others. This finding leads to exciting avenues for
future conflict management research.
60
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Future Studies
One of the primary and perhaps obvious openings for future studies would be to
research conflict management strategy preferences for officers when they deal with the
public. There is the likelihood of different findings. An officer does not have the
relationship to influence their actions in the conflict. One might find that officers use a
substantially more competitive conflict strategy with the public in an effort to maintain
control and legitimacy. Such a study would yield interesting results that would further
enhance the body of literature in conflict research with law enforcement officers.
Another interesting possibility for future studies would be to do a similar study of
both metropolitan and rural police officers. There may be a distinct difference between
how each of the two sectors handle conflict. In a small town where the officer knows the
majority of the people they interact with, his/her action would be expected to be very
different than those of an officer in a larger city who has rarely met the members of the
community with which they deal. The presumption would be that rural officers would be
more likely to use a collaborative or accommodating approach with their public due to
their relationship. Also, police departments in smaller town may have different
preferences for dealing with conflict between their colleagues as well. The exact same
study could be duplicated utilizing officers from both groups and then comparing the
results to see if there are any significant differences between the two.
Yet, another interesting avenue for future study might be to examine the
differential between conflict styles utilized between colleagues and the public.
According to Donohue and Hoobler (2002) negotiation becomes more practical when
61
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
both parties have a strong enough relationship to be able to reevaluate the conditions of
the conflict. Would an officer find it easier to constructively resolve conflict with their
colleagues than with the general public? Could it be important for officers to learn to
function through conflicts where they have an established relationship before addressing
conflict with the public where there is no established relationship? A study in this
direction would be enlightening.
A final direction for future studies on this subject could be to add a relational
measure to the social exchange and conflict tactics measure. This would allow the
researcher to understand the strength of the relationship between the officer and the other
party involved in the conflict they were referencing while completing the survey. By
adding the third survey, the research could compare strength of relationship to the social
exchange score and determine if both of these factors could combine to have a more
significant correlation. The current study only investigated the amount of emphasis
placed on the relationship versus task instead of considering the strength of that particular
relationship. An officer may not have a very strong relationship with another party but
feel that by accommodating them, he/she can better achieve task goals. It would be
extremely beneficial to know what motivated the accommodation. Just because the
relationship is important does not necessarily mean that it is a strong one. The current
study is not capable of offering such explanations.
There are many interesting roads to be traveled concerning conflict and social
exchange research with police officers. Those heretofore mentioned are only a few of the
exciting and plausible directions stemming from this study; it allows one to understand
62
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is up to future research to expound on what has
already been found and further the advancement of communication research.
63
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
REFERENCES
Abt-Perkins, D. (1995). Are you calling her a racist? Language, context, and the struggle
to better understand conflicts concerning race. Women and Language News, 18,
25-29.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz. (Ed.). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. (Vol. 2, p. 267-299). New York: Academic
Press.
Adele, D. (2003). Decision making under conflict decision time as a measure of conflict
strength. Psychonomic Bulletin and review, 10(1), 167.
Albrecht, H. (1970). Application of socio-psychological research in extension educations.
Sociologia Ruralis, 10(3). 237-252.
Ansel, M. H. (2000). A conceptual model and implications for coping with stressful
events in police work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(3), 375-400.
Axelrod, R. (1980). More effective choice in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 24(3), 379-403.
Axelrod, R., Riolo, R. L., Cohen, M. D. (2002). Beyond geography, cooperation with
persistent links in the absence of clustered neighborhoods. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6(4), 341-346.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1974). Marketing as an Organized Behavioral System of Exchange.
Journal of Marketing, 38(4).
Bartol, C. R., Bartol, A. M. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: relational dialectics theory. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 4(3/4), 181-192.
Baxter, L. A., Erbert, L. A. (1999). Perceptions of dialectical contradictions in turning
points of development in heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 547.
Beersma, B., De D., Carsten, K. W. (2003). Social motives in integrative negotiation: the
mediating influence of procedural fairness. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 217239.
Bellingham, T. (2000). Police culture and the need for change. Police Journal, 73, 31-41.
64
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict
episodes. Western Journal of Communication, 67(4), 413-426.
Bippus, A. M., Young, S. L. (2005). Owning your emotions: reactions to expressions of
self versus other attributed positive and negative emotions. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 33(1), 26-45.
Bitter, E. (1967). The police on skid row: a study of peacekeeping. American
Sociological Review, 32(5), 699-715.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S. (1975) An overview of the grid. Training & Development
Journal,29(5), 29.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bohnet, I. (2006). What to do when they say “not in my backyard.” Negotiation, 6-9.
Boyle, E. H., Lawler, E. J. (1991). Resolving conflict through explicit bargaining. Social
Forces 69(4), 1183-1204.
Brenders, D. A. (1987). Fallacies in the coordinated management of meaning: a
philosophy of language critique of the hierarchical organization of coherent
conversation and related theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(2), 329.
Brew, F. P., Cairns, D. R. (2004). Styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in
relation to status and face concern: a study with Anglos and Chinese.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 27-56.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage.
Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Bruss, M. B., Morris, J. R., Dannison, L. L., Orbe, M., Quitugua, J. A., Palacios, R. T.
(2005). Food, culture, and family: exploring the coordinated management of
meaning regarding childhood obesity. Health Communication, 1(2), 155-175.
Buttle, F. A. (1994). The co-ordinated management of meaning: a case exemplar of a new
consumer research technology. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), 24.
Callanan, G., Benzing, C., Perri, D. (2006). Choice of conflict-handling strategy: a matter
of context. Journal of Psychology, 140(3), 269-288.
Chak, A. (2002). Understanding children’s curiosity and exploration through the lenses of
65
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Lewin’s field theory: on developing an appraised framework. Early Child
Development and Care, 172(1), 77-87.
Chackrabarty, S., Brown, G., Gilbert, A. H. (2002). Evolution of Rahim’s
organizational conflict inventory-II as a measure of conflict-handling styles in a
sample of Indian salespersons. Psychological Reports. 90, 549.
Chappell, A. T., MacDonald, J. M., Manz, P. W. (2006). The organizational determinants
of police arrest decisions. Crime and Delivery, 52(2), 287-306.
Chen, L., Cheung, K. (2005). When a Confucian manages individualists; a study of
intercultural conflict between Chinese managers and Western subordinates.
Conference Papers, 1-39.
Corpanzano, R., Aguinis, H., Schminke, M., Denham, D. L (1999). Disputant reactions to
managerial conflict resolution tactics. Group and Organization Management,
24(2), 124-154.
Cox, A. E., Walker, O. C. (1997). Reactions to disappointing performance in
manufacture-distributor relationships: the role of escalation and resource
commitments. Psychology & Marketing, 14(8), 791-821.
Cronen, V. E., Pearce W. B. (1991/1992). Grammars of identity and their implications for
discursive practices in and out of academic: a comparison of Davies and Harres’s
views to coordinated management of meaning theory. Research Language and
Social Interaction, 25, 37-66.
Cronen, V. E., Pearce, W. B., Changsheng, X. (1989/1990). The meaning of meaning in
the CMM analysis of communication: a comparison of two traditions. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 23, 1-40.
Cronen, V. E., Pearce, W. B., Harris, L. M. (1979). The logic of the coordinated
management of meaning: a rules based approach to the first course in
interpersonal communication. Communication Education, 28(1), 22-38.
Deluga, R. J., Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transformational and transactional
leadership styles on the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(1), 49-55.
Dillon, R. K., Galanes, G. J. (2002). Public dialogue: communication theory as public
affairs praxis. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(1), 79.
Dlali, M. (2001). Negative politeness and requests in IsiXhosa. South Africa Journal of
African Languages, 21(3/4), 366.
66
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Donohue, W., Hoobler, G. (2002). Relational frames and their ethical implications in
international negotiation: an analysis based on the Oslo II negotiations.
International Negotiation, 7(2), 143-167.
Drolet, A., Larrick, R., Morris, M. W. (1998). Thinking of others: how perspective taking
changes negotiators’ aspirations and fairness perceptions as a function of
negotiator relationships. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 23-31.
Druckman, D., Harris, R. (1990). Alternative models of responsiveness in international
negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(2), 234-251.
Druckman, D. (1998). Social exchange theory: premises and prospects. International
Negotiation, 3(2), 243-266.
Duta, A. (2005). The dialectical theory of leadership-the balancing act of “both” and
“and.”Conference Papers-International communication Association, 1-29.
Eddie, B. (2000). Women in business; new forms of eloquence; reciprocity and
accommodation.Spectra, 36(7), 9-11.
Erber, L. A., Perez, F. G., Gareis, E. (2003). Turning points and dialectical interpretations
of immigrant experience in the United States. Western Journal of Communication,
67, (2), 113-137.
Fisher, B., A., Ellis, D. G. (1990). Small Group Decision Making (3rd ed.) New York:
McGraw Hill Publishing Company.
Folger, R. (2001). Farness as deonance. In S. W. Gillialand, D. D. Steiner, & D. P.
Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in Social Issues in Management, pp. 3-33. New York,
NY: Information Ages Publishers.
Frewin, K., Tuffin, K. (1998). Police status, conformity and internal pressure: a
discursive analysis of police culture. Discourse & Society, 9(12), 173-186.
Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S., Currall, S. C., Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes
around: the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict stress. International
Journal of Conflict Management. 11, 32.
Gardner, D. B., Cary, A. (1999). Collaboration, conflict, and power: lessons for case
managers. Family and Community Health, 22(3), 64.
67
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Gauldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25,
165-178.
Gent, S. E. (2004). Issues and international intervention. Conference papers-American
Political Science Association, 1-43.
Goodall, J. (1992). The blues. New Republic, 206(21), 20-23.
Grau, J., Grau, C. (2003). New communication demands of the 21st century workplace.
Listening Porfessional,2(1), 3-19.
Gross, M. A., Guerrero, L. K., Alberts, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and
communication competence in task-oriented dyads. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 32, 249-270.
Gross, M. A., Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: an
application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles.
The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 200-226.
Guillet, E.L, Sarrazin, P., Carpenter, P. J., Trouilloud, D., Curry, F. (2002). Predicting
persistence or withdrawal in female handballers with social exchange theory.
International Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 92-104.
Hample, D., Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict
personally: revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication
Quarterly, 43(3), 297-319.
Harrison, T. R., Morrill, C. (2004). Ombuds processes and disputant reconciliation.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(4), 318-342.
Hassell, K. D., Zhao, J. S., Maguire, E. R. (2003). Structural arrangements in large
municipal police organizations: revisiting Wilson’s theory of local political
culture. Policing, 26(2), 231-250.
Hendel, T., Fish, M., Galon, V. (2005). Leadership styles and choice of strategy in
conflict management among Israeli nurse managers in general hospitals. Journal
of Nursing Management, 13(2), 137-146.
Hensel, P. R., Diehl, P. F. (1994). It takes two to tango: nonmilitarized in response in
interstate disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 479-506.
Hibbard, J. D., Kumar, N., Stern, L. W. (2001). Examining the Impact of Destructive
Acts in Marketing Channel Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1),
45-61.
68
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Horowitz, L., Jansson, L. Ljungberg, T., Hedenbro, M. (2005). Behavioral patterns of
conflict resolution strategies in preschool boys with language impairment in
comparison with boys with typical language. International Journal of Language
and Communication Disorders, 40(4), 431-454.
Houston, M. B., Bettencout, L. A., Winger, S. (1998). The relationship between waiting
in a service queue and evaluations of service quality: a field theory perspective.
Psychology and Marketing, 15(8), 735-753.
Hubbell, A. P., Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating factors: perceptions of justice and
their relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Communication
Studies, 56(1), 47-70.
Hyde, M., Jappinen, P., Theorell, T, Oxensterna, G. (2006). Workplace conflict
resolution and the health of employees in the Swedish and Finnish units of an
industrial company. Social Science & Medicine, 63(8), 2218-2227.
Jameson, J. K. (2004). Negotiating autonomy and connection through politeness: A
dialectical approach to organizational conflict management. Western Journal of
Communication. 68, 257-277.
Jihong, Z., Hassell, K. D. (2005). Policing styles and organizational priorities: retesting
Wilson’s theory of local political culture. Police Quarterly, 8(4), 411-430.
Johnson, D., Rolof, M., Riffee, M. (2004). Politeness theory and refusals of requests: face
threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies, 55(2), 227238.
Johnson, T. A., Cox III, R. W. (2004/2005). Police ethics: organizational implications.
Public Integrity, 7(1), 67-79.
Karlsson, I., Christianson, S. (2006). Police officers involved in a manhunt of a mass
murderer: memories and psychological responses. Policing, 29(3), 524-540.
Kahan, D. M. (2002). Reciprocity, collective action, and community policing. California
Law Review, 90(5), 1513.
Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Allen, T. H., Ritter, K. J. (2004). College
students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 52(1),
40-55.
69
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Kent, S., Jordan, D. (2004). Social divisions and coercive control in advanced societies
law enforcement strength in eleven nations from 1975 to 1994. Social Problems,
51(3), 343-361.
Kim, M., Lee, H., Kim, I., Hunter, J. E. (2004). A test for a cultural model of conflict
styles. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication (John Benjamins Publishing Co.).
14, 197-222.
King, J. (2004). Tension in Teams. Harvard Management Communication Letter. 3. 1.
Knapp, M. L., Putnam, L. L. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflict in organizations:
where do we go from here? Management Communication Quarterly. 1, 414.
Krammer, M. W. (2004). Toward a communication theory of group dialectics: an
ethnographic study of a community theatre group. Communication Monographs,
71(3), 311-332.
Kruse, A. (1995). Third-party roles in conflict management. Training & Development,
49(5), 74.
Kuhn, T., Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision
making? Human Communication Research. 26, 558.
Kyratzis, A., Guo, J. (2001). Preschool girls’ and boys’ verbal conflict strategies in the
United States and China. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(1),
45-74.
Larson, D. W. (1998). Exchange and reciprocity in international negotiations.
InternationalNegotiations, 3(2), 121-138.
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the
perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: monitoring and predicting
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2),
167.
Lennon, M. C., Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework:
the importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 506.
Manning, Peter K. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 23-43.
Levine, T., Sheaman, S. (2005). An examination of the procedural reciprocity among
negotiators: strategic choice and tactic usages. Conference Papers-International
Communication Association, 1-21.
70
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Loi, R., Ngo, H., Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to
organization commitment and intentiona to leave: the mediating role of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
79(1), 101-120.
Lorr, M., Strack, S. (1994). Personality profiles of police candidates. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50(2), 200-2007.
Lumb, R., Breazeale, R. (2003). Police officer attitudes and community policing
implementation: developing strategies for durable organizational change. Policing
& Society, 13(1), 91.
Lynn, E. (2005). Analysis of the dispute over Taiwan using a game theory approach.
Defense and Security Analysis, 21(4), 413-418.
Manning, P. K. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 23-43.
McKinney, B. C., Kelly, L. (1997). The relationship between conflict message styles and
dimensions of communication competence. Communication Report, 10, 185-196.
Molm, L. D., Collet, J. L., Schaefer, D. R. (2006). Conflict and fairness in social
exchange.Social Fairness, 84(4), 2331-2352.
Molm, L. D., Peterson, G, Takahashi, N. (2001). The value of exchange. Social Forces,
80(1), 159-184.
Molm, L. D., Quist, T. M., Wisely, D. A. (1993). Reciprocal justice and strategies of
exchange.Social Forces, 72(1), 19-44.
Montgomery, E. (2004). Tortured families: a coordinated management of meaning
analysis. Family Process, 43(3), 349-371.
Morgan, W., Wilson, S., Aleman, C., Anastasiou, L., Kim, M., Oetzel, J. (2003). Identity
implications of influence goals: a causal model of perception and management of
face threats. Conference Papers-International Communication Association, 1-37.
Morris-Conley, C. M., Kern, R. M. (2003). The relationship between lifestyle and
conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(4), 475-487.
Murphy, G. (1961). Toward a field theory of communication. Journal of Communication,
11, 196-201.
Murphy, P., Dee, J. (1992). DuPont and Greenpeace: the dynamic of conflict between
corporation and activist groups. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(1), 3-20.
71
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Murphy, P. (1991). Game theory models for organizational/public conflicts. Canadian
Journal ofCommunication, 16(2), 277-289.
Murphy, P. (1990). Using Two-Person Bargaining Games To Plan Communications
Strategy.Public Relations Quarterly, 35(2), 27-32.
Myers, L. L., Larson, R. S. (2005). Preparing students for early work conflicts. Business
Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 306-317.
Myers, S. A., Knox, R. L., Pawlowski, D. R., Ropog, B. L. (1999). Perceived
communication openness and functional communication skills among
organizational peers. Communication Reports, 12(2), 71-83.
Myers, L. L., Lawson, R. S. (2005). Preparing students for early work conflicts. Business
Communication Quarterly, 68, 306-317.
Oetzel, J., Meares, M., Myers, K. K., Lara, E. (2003). Interpersonal conflict in
organizations: explaining conflict styles via face-negotiation theory.
Communication Research Reports. 20, 106-115.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a crosscultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research,
30(6), 599-624.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., Takai, J. (2000). A typology of
facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers.
Communication Quarterly, 48(4), 397-413.
Ohbuchi, K., Osamu, F., Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management:
goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 30(1), 51-71.
Olekalns, M. Smith, P. L. (2003). Social motives in negotiation: the relationships
between dyad composition, negotiation processes and outcomes. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 4(3/4), 233-254.
Olsen, L. N., Braithwaite, D. O. (2004). If you hit me again, I’ll hit you back; conflict
management strategies of individuals experiencing aggression during conflict.
Communication Studies, 55(2), 271-285.
Ortega, A., Brenner, S., Leather, P. (2007). Occupational stress, coping and personality in
the police: an SEM study. International Journal of Police Science &Management,
9(1), 36-50.
72
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Paoline III, E. A. (2003). Taking stock: toward a richer understanding of police culture.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 199-215.
Parenti, C. (1999). SWAT nation. Nation, 268(20), 16-21.
Parks, C. D., Komorita, S. S. (1998). Reciprocity research and its implications for
negotiation process. International Negotiation, 3(2), 151-169.
Patchen, M. (1987). Strategies for eliciting cooperation from an adversary. Journal of
ConflictResolution, 31(1), 164-185.
Patterson, G. T. (2003). Examining the effects of coping and social support on work and
life stress among police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 215.
Pawlowski, D. R. (1998). Dialectical tensions in marital partners’ accounts of their
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 46(4), 396-416.
Pearce, W. B., Rossi, S. M. (1984). The problematic practices of “feminism”: an
interpretive and critical analysis. Communication Quarterly, 32(4), 277-286.
Plous, S. (1985). Perceptual illusions and military realities. Journal of conflict Resolution,
291(3), 363-389.
Posthuman, R. A., Campion, M. A. (2005). When do multiple dimensions of procedural
justice predict agreement to publicly endorse your employer in recruitment
advertisements? Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78(3),
431-432.
Putnam, L. L. (1987). Leadership and conflict management. Association for
Communication Administration Bulletin, 61, 41-49.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206-235.
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader
power, subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance.
International Journal of Conflict Management (1997-2002), 12(4), 191.
Rahim, M. A., Buntzman, G. F., White, D. (1999). An empirical study of the stages of
moral development and conflict management styles. International Journal of
Conflict Management (1997-2002). 10, 154-171.
73
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Randall, M. (1997). Two SCA members receive Fulbright Fellowships. Spectra, 33(5),
14-24.
Reiter, M. S. (1999). Empowerment policing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68(2),
7.
Richmond, V., McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The impact of supervisor and subordinate
immediacy and relational and organizational outcomes. Communication
Monographs, 67(1), 85-95.
Ritter, J. (2007). Suicide rates jolt police culture. USA Today, 3.
Rogan, R. C., France, B. H. (2003). An examination of the relationship between verbal
aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals.
Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 458-469.
Rosenthal, D. B., Hautaluoma, J. (1988). Effects of importance of issues, gender, and
power of contenders on conflict management style. Journal of Social Psychology,
128(5), 699.
Ross, R. A. (2006). A proposal for integrating structuration theory with coordinated
management of meaning theory. Communication Studies, 57(2), 173-196.
Ross, R. A. (1985). Organizational adaptation from a rules theory perspective. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 49(4), 322-340.
Rothwell, J. D. (2006). In Mixed Company (6th ed.) Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
Sander, F. E. A., Bardone, R. C. (2005). Keep it out of court: resolving differences inhouse. Negotiation. 3-5.
Sheehan, D. C., Everly Jr., G. S., Langlieb, A. (2004). Coping with major critical
incidents. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73(9), 1-13.
Shin, J., Cheng, I., Jin, Y., Cameron, G. T. (2005). Going head to head: content analysis
of high profile conflicts as played out in the press. Public Relations Review, 31(3),
399-406.
Siira, K., Rogan, R. G., hall, J. A. (2004). “A spoken word is an arrow shot”: a
comparison of Finnish and U. S. conflict management and face maintenance.
Journal of Intercultural Communication, 33, 89-107.
Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin’s framework for the analysis of everyday
argumentation: some methodological considerations. Argumentations, 17(2), 185.
74
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Sirgy, J. M. (1990). Toward a theory of social relations: the regression analog.
Behavioral Science, 35(3), 197.
Smith, B. D., Principato, F. (1983). Effects of conflict and field structure on arousal and
motor response. British Journal of Psychology, 74(2), 213.
Sondel, B. (1956). Toward a field theory of communication. Journal of Communication,
6, 147-163.
Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A., Savage, G. T. (1999). A test of the motivations underlying
choice of conflict strategies in the dual concern model. International Journal of
Conflict Management (1997-2002). 10, 25-44.
Sprether, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: associations with
satisfaction,commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63(3),
599.
Steinfatt, T, M., Seibold, D., R., Frye, J., K. (1974). Communication in game simulated
conflict; two experiments. Speech Monographs, 41(1), 24-35.
Susskind, L. (2004). Divided, You'll Fall: Managing Conflict Within the Ranks.
Negotiation. 3-5.
Szmatka, J., Skuoretz, J. Sozanski, T., Mazur, J. (1998). Conflict in networks.
Sociological Perspectives, 41(1), 49-66.
Terkourafi, M. (2004). Testing Brown and Levinson’s theory in a corpus of spontaneous
conversational data from Cypriot Greek. International Journal of the Sociology of
language, 168(1), 119-134.
Thomas, K. W., Kilmann, R. H. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring
conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 42, 1139-1145.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styels: a face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y.
Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.
213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., Yee-jung K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict
management styles. Communication Reports, 14, 18.
Tjosvold, D., Lai Cheng, C. (1989). Conflict between managers and workers: the role of
cooperation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2), 235.
75
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Tornblom, K. Y. (1997). Magnitude and source of compensation in two situations of
distributive justice. Acta Sociolgica, 20(1), 75-95.
Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double blind & query: analyzing and
theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 32(2), 119-146.
Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Troller, P. W. (2005). Relationship of dialectical contradictions by parents who have
experienced the death of a child. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
33(1), 46-66.
Tutzauer, F., Chojnacki, M. K., Hoffmann, P. W. (2005). Communication networks,
strategic interaction, and the game of chicken. Conference Papers-International
Communication Association, 1-41.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of
distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(5), 850-863.
Volkema, R. J., Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral
patterns in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 5-15.
Ward, M. D., Rajmaira, S. (1992). Reciprocity and norms in U. S.-Soviet foreign policy.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 342-368.
Webster, S., Lyubelski, J. (2005). Supporting the thin blue line: gender-sensitive therapy
with male police officers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(1),
51-58.
Wilson, S., Kim, M., Meischke, H. (1991). Evaluating Brown and Levionson’s politeness
theory: a revised analysis of directive an dface. Research on Language & Social
Interaction, 25, 215-252.
Wilson, S. R., Putnam, L. L. (1990). Interaction Goals in Negotiation. Communication
Yearbook, 13, 374-406.
Wommack, D. F. (1988). Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey.
Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 321.
Wolfson, K., Pearce, W. B. (1983). A cross-cultural comparison of the implications of
self-disclosure on conversational logics. Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 249256.
76
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Woody, R. (2006). Family interventions with law enforcement officers. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 34(2), 95-103.
Woody, R. (2005). The police culture: research implication for psychological services.
Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 36(5), 525-529.
Wright, T., Orbe, M. (2003). Turning the tables of analysis in intercultural
communication research: studying the facework strategies used by “anonymous”
European American reviewers. Howard Journal of Communication, 14(1), 1.
Yan Bing, Z., Harwood, J., Hummert, M. L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management
styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72(1),
71-91.
Yeslida, B. A., Sozen, A. (2002). Negotiating a resolution to the Cyprus problem: is
potential European Union membership a blessing or a curse? International
Negotiation, 7(2), 261-285.
Ying-Jung, Y., Heuy-Wen, C. (2005). Team composision and learning behaviors in
cross-functional teams. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 33(4), 391-402.
Young, S. L. (2004). What is your problem?: attribution theory and perceived reasons for
profanity usage during conflict. Communication Research Reports, 21(4), 338347.
Zhao, J., He, N., Lovrich, N. (2006). The effect of local political culture on policing
behaviors in the 1990s: a retest of Wilson’s theory in more contemporary times.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(6), 569-578.
77
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
APPENDIX A
PILOT STUDY SOCIAL EXCHANGE SURVEY
78
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Directions: Please fill out the below demographic information.
Age________ Gender ________ Ethnicity ________________
Classification____________
Direction: Please think back to the last conflict interaction you had with one of your
colleagues, superiors, or subordinates at work or in classes and fill out the following
survey with those events in mind.
-1. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with
failing to attain my goals in the conflict.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-2. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with
failing to accomplish my task when I allow the other party to have what they want.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-3. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, appropriately following
procedure is more important than the relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-4. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am more concerned
with the task than my relationship(s) with the other party.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-5. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, competing too seriously
about my goals risks damaging my relationship with them.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-6. When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues and I do not compete for
my side of the issue, I am concerned with appearing weak.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
79
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
When I am involved in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with
obtaining a reputation as one who is hard to get along with.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-8. When I compete in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I try to accomplish the goal I
am seeking.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-9. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I try to gain a reputation of
strength if I accomplish my goals.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-10. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, accomplishing my task will
make me appear better at my job to my superiors.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-11. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, accomplishing my task will
make me appear better at my job to my colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-12. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, by accomplishing my task I try
to gain a positive reputation that will help me in future conflicts.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-13. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with damaging
my relationships with my peers or colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-14. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned that the
interaction will result in relationships where my peers or colleagues will not work with
me through conflicts in the future.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
80
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
-15. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with damaging
my working relationships with my peers or colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-16. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with damaging
the friendships I have with my peers or colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-17. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am concerned with damaging
the relationships I have with my peers or colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-18. When I am in conflict with my subordinates, I am concerned with damaging the
relationships I have with my subordinates.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-19. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I try to gain stronger
relationships with those with whom I am in conflict.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-20. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I try to gain relationships with
my peers for future conflicts.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-21. When I am in conflict with peers or colleagues, I try to gain stronger relationships
for future interactions.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-22. When I am in conflict with my superiors, I try to gain stronger relationships with my
superiors.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-23. When I am in conflict with subordinates, I try to gain stronger relationships with my
subordinates.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
81
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
-24. When I am in conflict with my peers or colleagues, I am not concerned with the
effects of the conflict on my relationship with the other party because I have other
friends.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-25. Normally, I side with others in conflict because I do not have many other
relationships.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-26. When I am in conflict over a task I need to accomplish I am required to work
through the conflict with the other party or I will not be able to get the task done.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-27. When conflict arises I let my superiors handle it.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-28. When conflict arises I have to work through it because no one else will do it.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
82
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
APPENDIX B
SOCIAL EXCHANGE SURVEY
83
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Directions: Please fill out the below demographic information.
Age________ Gender ________ Ethnicity ________________ Years on Force
________ Rank________________
Direction: Please think back to the last conflict interaction you had with one of your
colleagues, superiors, or subordinates and fill out the following survey with those events
in mind.
-1. When I am involved in conflict with other police officers, I am concerned with not
accomplishing my task when I allow the other party to have what they want.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-2. When I am involved in conflict with other police officers and I do not compete for my
side of the issue, I am concerned with appearing weak.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-3. When I am in conflict with my fellow officers, I try to gain a reputation of strength if
I accomplish my goals.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-4. When I am in conflict with my fellow officers, accomplishing my task will make me
appear better at my job with my superiors.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-5. When I am in conflict with my fellow officers, accomplishing my task will make me
appear better at my job with my colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-6. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I am concerned
with damaging my working relationships with my colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
84
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
-7. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I am concerned
with damaging the friendships I have with my colleagues.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-8. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I am concerned
with damaging the relationships I have with my superiors.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-9. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I am concerned
with damaging the relationships I have with my subordinates.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-10. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I try to gain
relationships with my colleagues for future conflicts.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-11. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I try to gain
stronger relationships for future interactions.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-12. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I try to gain
stronger relationships with my superiors.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-13. When I am in conflict with my colleagues in the police department, I try to gain
stronger relationships with my subordinates.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-14. When conflict arises I let my superiors handle it.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Agree
-15. When conflict arises I have to work through it because no one else will do it.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
85
5
Strongly Agree
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
APPENDIX C
THOMAS-KILMANN CONFLICT MODE INSTRUMENT
86
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
Instructions
Consider situations in which you find your wishes differing from those of another person.
How do you usually respond to such situations?
On the following pages are several pairs of statements describing possible behavioral
responses. For each pair, please circle the “A” or “B” statement, which is most
characteristic of your own behavior.
In many case, neither the “A” nor the “B” statement may be very typical of your
behavior; but please select the response which you would be more likely to use.
87
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem.
Rather than negotiate the things on which we disagree, I try to stress those things upon which
we both agree.
I try to find a compromise solution.
I attempt to deal with all of his/her and my concerns.
I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.
I try to find a compromise solution.
I Sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.
I consistently seek the other’s help in working out a solution.
I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions.
I try to avoid creating unpleasantness for myself.
I try to win my position.
I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over.
I give up some points in exchange for others.
I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
I make some effort to get my way.
I am firm in pursuing my goals.
I try to find a compromise solution.
I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.
I sometimes avoid taking positions, which would create controversy.
I will let the other person have some of his/her positions if s/he lets me have some of mine.
I propose a middle ground.
I press to get my points made.
I tell the other person my ideas and ask for his/hers.
I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position.
88
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.
I try to do what is necessary to avoid tensions.
I try not to hurt the other’s feelings.
I try to convince the other person of the merits of my position.
I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions.
If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views.
I will let other people have some of their positions if they let me have some of mine.
I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over.
I attempt to immediately work through our differences.
I try to find a fair combination of gains and losses for both of us.
In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes.
I always lean toward a direct discussion of the problem.
I try to find a position that is intermediate between his/hers and mine.
I assert my wishes.
I am very often concerned with satisfying all our wishes.
There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem.
If the other’s position seems very important to him/her, I would try to meet his/her wishes.
I try to get the other person to settle for a compromise.
I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position.
In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes.
I propose a middle ground.
I am nearly always concerned with satisfying all our wishes.
I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy.
If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views.
I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
I usually seek the other’s help in working out a solution.
I propose a middle ground.
89
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
I try not to hurt the other’s feelings.
I always share the problem with the other person so that we can work it out.
90
Texas Tech University, Scott Brandon Boyd, August 2007
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
______Scott B. Boyd_______________________________
Student Signature
_____July 5, 2007__
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_________ ______________________________________
Student Signature
91
________________
Date