Moderating Heirarical

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794

Title: How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of

control

Authors: Dijkstra, Maria; Vrije Universiteit

Beersma, Bianca; University of Amsterdam Evers, Arne; University of Amsterdam

Presented at the

22nd Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference

Kyoto, Japan

June 15 – 18, 2009

Abstract: In a field study among 774 health-care workers, we demonstrated how locus of control

and workplace conflict interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we showed

that this moderation was mediated by an active conflict management strategy.


Conflict management, psychological strain and control

How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of

control.

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Abstract

In a field study among 774 health-care workers, we demonstrated how locus of control

and workplace conflict interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we

showed that this moderation was mediated by an active conflict management strategy.


2

How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of

control.

The reality of interpersonal conflict is a clear consequence of people interacting

with each other and therefore a normal experience in society and organizational life (e.g.

Katz & Kahn 1978; March & Simon, 1958). It is not surprising then that in the past

twenty years, scholars as well as practitioners attended to the subject of workplace

conflict in terms of consequences for individual and team performance. As a result, our

understanding of workplace conflict and its consequences for the welfare of the

organization in terms of productivity and team performance is quite developed (e.g. De

Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1998). Far less attention has been

devoted to the welfare of the individual members of organizations in terms of stress-

related outcomes like psychological strain. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First,

other research on organizational behavior has shown negative relations between stress-

related indicators and measures of performance (Bond & Bunce, 2003; Cotton & Hart,

2003; Staw & Barsade, 1993;Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000;

2004), pointing to the relevance of such "soft" outcomes. Second, according to the

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2007), stress was the second most

reported work-related health problem in 2005, affecting over 20% of workers from the

EU-15, and costing an estimated Є20 000 million. Therefore, in this study we will focus

on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain. We will examine the nature

of this relationship in terms of mediating and moderating factors. In this study we

demonstrate how locus of control moderates the relationship between workplace conflict

and psychological strain. Specifically, we will show that when individuals perceive to be

3

in control over the situation, the relationship between conflict and strain is weaker than

when they perceive that they are not in control. In addition we show that this process is

mediated by the way in which conflict is managed.

Interpersonal Conflict and Psychological Strain

Despite its potential functionality and benefits for organizational effectiveness

and team performance (see for example De Dreu & van de Vliert, 1997), for most people

conflict has a negative connotation; it brings forth feelings like anger, disgust and fear, it

often forms a threat to self-esteem, and coping with the conflict situation depletes our

cognitive resources (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996; De Dreu & van Knippenberg

2005; Frone, 2000). Actually, when in conflict, the individual's adrenaline levels,

heartbeat and muscle tension increase (Mc Ewen, 1998; Quick, Quick, Nelson. & Hurrell,

1997). Conflict thus brings about negative individual stress reactions known as strain

(Jex & Beehr, 1991), and is considered as among the most potent stressors in working life

(Bolger, Delongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Newton & Keenan, 1985; Parkes, 1986,

Smith & Sulsky, 1995).

Control and Conflict Management

Which consequences conflict has in terms of psychological strain, largely depends

on the way an individual manages the conflict, that is, responds to the stressor (Dijkstra,

van Dierendonck & Evers, 2005). Within this context, control is an important

psychological construct that in past research has shown its relevance for physical and

psychological well-being (e.g., Skinner, 1996; Steptoe & Appels, 1989; Affleck, Tennen,

Pfeiffer, & Fifield, 1987). In the area of work and organizational psychology, evidence

has been found to suggest that a high level of work control positively influences well-

being (Perrewe & Ganster, 1989; Karasek et. al., 1988). Furthermore, research on stress

4

has consistently shown that lack of control enhances the negative impact of stressors on

individual well-being (e.g. Carver & Scheier 1994; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1996). In fact,

coping strategies were argued to be potentially beneficial or detrimental based on the

degree to which they exhibit control –“consisting of both actions and cognitive

reappraisals that are proactive, take-charge in tone”– or escape- “consisting of both

actions and cognitive reappraisals that suggest an escapist, avoidance mode” (Latack,

1986, p. 378).

The control/escape distinction made in the stress and coping literature (e.g.,

Latack, 1986; Latack & Havlovic, 1992) corresponds with the distinction between active

and passive conflict management strategies. As such, it may well be that pro-active ways

of managing conflict, in which individuals take and maintain control, reduce the negative

effects of conflict on psychological strain.

Drawing a parallel between coping styles and conflict management strategies,

Dijkstra, De Dreu, Evers & Van Dierendonck (in press) found that the strength of the

relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain varies as a function

of the conflict management strategy individuals engage in. They presumed, but did not

measure, an important role for the concept of control and made a suggestion for future

research on that topic. Indeed, to our knowledge, the effect control on conflict-related

strain has never been examined. We argue that control is an important moderator of the

conflict-strain relationship. When individuals feel that they themselves are in control over

the situation they find themselves in, we predict that conflict will have less impact as a

stressor than when individuals do not feel in control. Furthermore, we predict that the

moderating effect of control on the conflict-strain relationship is mediated by conflict

management strategies, such that belief in personal control as opposed to believing to be

5

controlled by outside forces may lead an individual to use an active conflict management

strategy. In turn, this active conflict management will buffer against the negative effects

of conflict.

Hypotheses in the present study

We predict that the negative relationship between conflict and psychological

strain is weaker for individuals experiencing internal control (Hypothesis 1). We

also predict that the negative relationship between conflict and psychological strain is

weaker, the more individuals engage in active conflict management (Hypothesis 2).

Finally we predict that the (moderating) influence of experienced internal control

on the relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain is mediated by

the influence of problem solving on that relationship (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Sample.

Participants were members of the nursing and ancillary staff of an institution for

disabled people. Out of 1490, employees, 774 returned the questionnaire (response rate of

52 %) of which 649 (84 %) were women. The mean age of the employees was 39 years

(SD=10.4) and the mean length of service was 7.7 years (SD=7.4). Of all respondents

534 (69 %) were working 32 hours per week or less.

Procedure.

Employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to participate in

the study. Questionnaires were administered during daytime work hours, or were sent to

the home addresses of employees who could not be reached at work. Employees were

asked to return completed questionnaires within two weeks using a pre-stamped return

envelope.

6

Measures

Employee strain. We used the Dutch adaptation of a subscale of the Occupational

Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). This scale contained 13 items concerned

with symptoms of psychological strain, such as feeling miserable, panicky, upset, and

worried. Each item had six response choices, and all items were scored such that higher

scores indicated higher psychological strain. Cronbach's alpha was .88.

Occurrence of interpersonal conflict. In the instructions that respondents read

before filling out the questionnaire, we explained that conflict was defined as a

disagreement over ideas, interests, beliefs, values, or perceptions of reality. We then

assessed the occurrence of interpersonal conflict using the Intragroup Conflict Scale

(ICS) developed by Jehn (1992, 1994). The instrument has 8 items (four items regarding

task conflict and 4 items regarding relational conflict), to be answered on a 5-point scale

ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). Sample items are: "How many

disagreements over different ideas were there?" (task conflict) and "How much tension

was there in the group during decisions?" (relational conflict). Cronbach\s alpha for the

conflict scale was .89.

Active conflict management. We used a subscale of the Dutch Test for Conflict

Handling (DUTCH: De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001; Van de Vliert,

1997) to assess the active conflict management strategy of problem solving. Respondents

were asked to report how they behave in the case of an interpersonal conflict at work. A

sample items was: "I stand for my own and other's goals and interests" Items were to be

answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). Cronbach's

alpha's was .74

Control. We used the Dutch adaptation of the locus of control scale of the

7

Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). The scale concerns

individuals work-life and and we used the internality subscale that measured the

internality dimension. The scale consists of 5 items, and a sample item was "I am in

control of my own career" (Internality). Items were to be answered on a 5-point scale

ranging from 1 (completely in disagreement), to 5 (Very much in agreement). Cronbach's

alpha's was .68.

Results

Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and inter correlations of variables

are shown in Table 1.

Moderator Analyses (Hypotheses 1 and 2)

To test the prediction that the negative relationship between conflict and

psychological strain is weaker, the more individuals experience feelings of control or the

more they engage in problem solving (Hypotheses 1 and 2), two sets of hierarchical

regressions were performed. In each model, psychological strain served as the dependent

variable and in the first step we entered the occurrence of conflict and control (or

problem solving). In step 2, the cross-product term of conflict and control (or conflict and

problem solving) was entered. Following the advice by Aiken and West (1991), predictor

variables were mean-centered around zero before calculating their cross-product terms.

We first tested the prediction that an internal locus of control moderates the

negative relation between the occurrence of conflict and psychological strain (Hypothesis

1), results showed that the main effects in step 1 explained a significant amount of

variance, R2 = .14, F(2, 691) = 13.06, p < .001. More conflict (ß = .27, t = 7.6, p < .001)

and a lower score on the internal locus of control scale (ß = -.24, t = - 6.69, p < .001)

were related to more psychological strain. The interaction term added in the second step

8

explained an additional amount of variance in psychological strain, ∆R2 = .01, F(1, 690)

= 4.72, p = .03. These results support Hypothesis 1: the more individuals feel that they

are in control over the situation in which they find themselves, the weaker the negative

relationship between conflict and psychological strain.

With regard to the prediction that problem solving moderates the positive relation

between the occurrence of interpersonal conflict and strain (Hypothesis 1). Results

showed that the main effects in step 1 explained a significant amount of variance, R2 =

.13, F(2, 696) = 51.6, p < .001. Inspection of the regression weights showed that more

conflict (ß = .29, t = 8.1, p < .001, and less problem solving (ß = -.19, t = -5.46, p < .001)

were related to more psychological strain. The interaction term added in the third step

explained an additional amount of variance in strain, ∆R2 = .01, F(1, 695) = 8.9, p = .02.

These results support Hypothesis 2: the more individuals engage in problem solving

behavior, the weaker the negative relationship between conflict and psychological strain.

Mediation Analysis (Hypothesis 3)

To test the prediction that the (moderating influence) of an internal locus of

control on the relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain is

mediated by the moderating influence of problem solving on that relationship, we tested

for mediated moderation following the steps as suggested by Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt

(2005). The first requirement for mediated moderation is that there is an overall

moderation effect, in our case this means that the relationship between conflict and strain

needs to be moderated by control. The test of Hypothesis 2 reported above shows that this

is the case. As Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt (2005) advise to enter all (centered) variables in

the equation at once when testing for mediated moderation, we entered conflict, internal

locus of control and the cross-product term of conflict and internal locus of control in a

9

regression analysis, with psychological strain as the dependent variable. Results showed a

significant model, R2 = .15, F(3, 690) = 39.95 , p < .001. Inspection of the regression

weights revealed a significant amount of explained variance for the cross-product term of

conflict and locus of control (ß = -.08, t = -2.17, p = .03).

The second requirement for mediated moderation is that there is a main effect of

the moderator (control in our case) on the mediator (problem solving in our case). To

assess this, we again entered conflict, internal locus of control and the cross-product term

of conflict and internal locus in a regression analysis. However, this time problem solving

served as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant model, R2 = .08, F(3, 700)

= 19.63 , p < .001. Inspection of the regression weight revealed a significant amount of

explained variance for internal locus of control (ß = .27, t = 7.37, p = .03).

The third and final requirement for moderated mediation is that the interactive

effect of the independent variable and the moderator (conflict and control in our case)

should no longer be significant when controlled for the interactive effect between the

independent variable and the mediator (i.e. conflict and problem solving). The latter

effect should be significant in this analysis. To assess this, we ran a regression analysis in

which psychological strain served as the dependent variable and conflict, internal locus of

control, the cross-product of conflict and internal locus of control, problem solving and

the cross-product between conflict and problem solving were entered as predictors.

Results showed a significant model, R2 = .17, F(5, 679) = 28.49 , p < .001. Inspection of

the regression weights revealed that a significant amount of variance was explained by

the cross-product term of conflict and problem solving (ß = -.08, t = -.231, p = .02)., and

that the originally significant interaction between conflict and control was reduced to

10

non-significance ( = -.05, t = -1.36, p = .17). A Sobel test confirmed the significance of

the indirect path, Z = -2.29, p < .02. These results provide support for Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

In this study we demonstrated how locus of control and workplace conflict

interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we showed that this process

is mediated by the way the conflict is managed. These findings have important theoretical

and practical implications. Theoretically, our findings increase our understandings of the

mechanisms that can help individuals cope with the negative effects of conflict. Earlier

results on passive conflict management strategies had shown that these are associated

with higher levels of psychological strain (Dijkstra et al., in press. This is in line with

research on coping with difficult situations in general, which had shown that avoidance

coping strategies are also associated with higher levels of reported strain (Koeske, Kirk &

Koeske, 1993) and lower levels of well-being and performance (Ben-Zur, 1999).

However, although Dijkstra et al (in press) alluded to the possibility that conflict

management might be influenced by individuals' locus of control, they did not assess this

relationship. In our study we considered and measured the function of the construct of

control. We showed that this indeed not only moderated the conlflict-strain relationship,

but we also uncovered an underlying mechanism for this moderating effect, because our

data revealed that it was because control led to more active conflict management that it

effectively buffered the negative effects of conflict. Of course, future research should

examine this relationship in more detail. It may be interesting to examine whether other

conflict management behaviors are also related to control, and how they affect the

conflict-strain relationship. Also, it is worthwhile to examine how feelings of control can

be affected. Follow-up (experimental) studies should examine how organizations can

11

cultivate feelings of control in their employees and thus reduce the negative impact of

conflict.

On a more practical note, whereas the previous work by Dijkstra et al (in press),

particularly alerted to the need to refrain from passive conflict management strategies in

order to not increase conflict's negative consequences, the current study points to the

option of actually decreasing the negative consequences of interpersonal conflict.

Believing in personal control and engaging in the active conflict management strategy of

problem solving, can buffer the negative relationship between conflict and psychological

strain, and we believe this is definitely promising news for organizations.

12

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Pfeiffer, C., & Fifield, J. (1987). Appraisals of control and

predictability in adapting to a chronic disease. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 273-279.

Baumeister, R. F. (1995). The personal story of an interpersonal psychologist. In M. R.

Merrens, & G. G. Brannigan, (Eds), The social psychologists: Research

adventures. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Ben-Zur, H. (1999). The effectiveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency,

emotional correlates and cognitive performance. Personality and Individual

Differences, 26, 923-939.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress

on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.

Bond F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health,

job satisfaction, and work perforance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1057-

1067.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma,. & Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-

based measure of conflict management strategies in the work place. Journal of

Organzational Behavior, 22, 645-668.

13

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to

constructive conflict management: Effects of mere ownership, process

accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.

De Dreu C. K. W. & Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London:

Sage.

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team

member satisfaction, and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied


Dijkstra, M. T. M., De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., & Van Dierendonck, D., & (in press).

Interpersonal conflict at work. How conflict management is related to employee

strain.

Evers, A., Frese, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Revisions and further developments of the

Occupational Stress Indicator: LISREL results from four Dutch studies. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 221-240.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2007). European risk observatory

report: Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related tot occupational

safety and health. Available from European Agency for Safety and Health at

Work Web site, http://osha.europa.eu/en .

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing

a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

246-255.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing

stress. American Psychologist, 40, 513-524.

14

Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on efectiveess. A multiethod

examinator of the benefits and etrimetns of conflict. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation. Northwestern University.

Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing Effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and

disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. International Journal of

Conflictmanagement, 5, 223-238.

Jex, M. S., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the

study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 9, 311-365.

Jex, S. M., & Bliese. P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-

related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349-361.

Karasek, R. A., Theorell, T., Schwarz, J. E., Schnall, P. L., Pieper, C. F., & Michele, J. L.

(1988). Job characteristics in relation to the prevalence of myocardial infarction in

the Us Health.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Oxford,

England: Wiley.

Koeske, G. F., Kirk, S. A., & Koeske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress: Which

strategies work best? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

66, 319-335.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Seminars in Medicine of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical

Center: Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England

Journal of Medicine, 338, 171-179.

March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley.

15

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yerbyt, V. Y. (2005).When moderation is mediated and

meditation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,852-

863.

Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human Relations,

38, 107-126.

Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual differences,

environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51, 1277-1292.

Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands and behavioral

control on experienced job stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1-17.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997). Preventive stress

management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Schaubroek, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with

work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal,

40, 738-754.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social


Smith, C. S., & Sulsky, L. (1995). An investigation of job-related coping strategies across

multiple stressors and samples. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. Hurrell Jr., S. L., Sauter, &

G. P. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 109-123). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Steptoe, A., & Appels, A. (1989). (Eds.). Stress, personal control and health.

Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

16

Spector P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez. J. I., O'Driscoll, M., &Sparks, K. (2002). Locus of

control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? The

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 453-466.

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993).Affect & managerial performance: A test of the

sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrativ Science

Quarterly, 38, 304-331.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology, (2nd ed. Vol. 3, pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and Competitive Goal Approach to Conflict:

Accomplishments and Challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

47, 285-342.

Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. London: Psychology

Press.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997).

Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory

and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733-

746.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as

predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84-

94.

17

18

Locus of ontrol

Problem solving

Interpersonal conflict

Psychological strain

19

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations (n = 774)

Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Variable/Scale M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Conflict 2.09 .70 .89 -.13** -.08* .30***

2. Internal locus of control 4.06 .51 .68 .27*** -.28***

3. Problem solving 3.93 .58 .74 -.21***

4. Psychological strain 2.0 .61 .88

Documents

Moderating Heirarical