Conflict Resolution Styles in University Students

The determination of the conflict resolution strategies of university students that they use when they have conflicts with people

Article summary

While conflict is mainly perceived as a negative entity of social interaction, there are positive aspects of conflict as well. These may include an enhancement of self-awareness and an increase in problem solving motivation (Dincyurek & Civelek, 2008). There exists interest in determining which of the conflict resolution strategies that are used by university students in interpersonal conflict (Dincyurek & Civelek, 2008). This particular study used a sample of 100 university students from both Eastern Mediterranean University and Near East University. The students used the Conflict Resolution Survey (Tezer, 1986) to rate how frequently they use each of the above mentioned conflict strategies in different relationships/situations.

Findings show that students used compromising with friends, close friends, and parents whereas collaborating has a higher frequency of use with emotional friends (Dincyurek & Civelek, 2008). Multiple studies conducted by numerous researchers describe the different situations and relationships as well as which conflict resolution strategy is employed in each most often. For example, it was found that school administrators use collaborating and accommodating strategies as opposed to avoidance (McDaniel, 1992). It can be assumed from the abundant amount of research that a constructive conflict resolution is desired as opposed to a negative one (Dincyurek & Civelek, 2008).  

Integration

Johnson and Johnson (1994) explain that there are five conflict resolution styles (forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating) that result from the two dimensions of “relation” and “purpose.” These styles may influence whether a particular conflict is constructive or destructive (Deutsch, 1973). The research conducted and presented in this article is based on the five styles of conflict resolution as discussed in Folger, Poole, and Stutman (2009). This article openly accepts them as the primary styles in which university students handle different conflicts.

The styles, as explained above are forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Forcing as described here is synonymous with a competing style found in Folger et al. (2009). This style is very high in assertiveness (Folger et al., 2009). The accommodating style is related to giving in (Folger et al., 2009). The avoiding style is considered “leaving well enough alone” (Folger et al., 2009). This leaves the compromising and collaborating style in which both encourage parties to work together differing in the sense that collaboration leads to higher satisfaction for both parties (Folger et al., 2009).

Application

This fore mentioned study takes principles known by many as styles of conflict and applies them to observing how students use them and with who they use which ones. The design of such a study is relatively simple and efficient. This should lead to easy replication in the future. Also, the study should not only be replicated with university students from the east but applied to other populations.

Other populations that this study could be used to research seem almost limitless. Future research should focus on minute and drastic differences from participants used in this particular scenario. Students around the world should be studied in order to determine if there are significant differences in choice and frequency of particular conflict styles among certain relationships. This could be applied to populations as estranged as those in nursing facilities, prisoners, psychological inpatients, etc. Knowledge of a particular group’s preference of conflict style may influence the conflict itself accomplishing such things as minimizing the time a conflict consumes as well as the potential damage done.

References

Dincyurek, S., & Civelek, A. H. (2008). The determination of the conflict resolution strategies of university students that they use when they have conflicts with people. The Behavior Analyst Today, 9, 215-233.

Israel vs. The World

     It is no secret that the Jewish country of Israel has had a nd continues to have tumultuous relations with the Muslim coutnries surrounding it. It is also general knowledge that this dispute is nothing recent. Rather, much like a rivalry between siblings, it has been going on for a long, long time.
     While conflicts have existed between Israel and a slew of other nations over the decades, it would seem that there is one country that would stand out to be the Lex Luthor of the Hebrew homeland's Superman: Palestine.
     According to a timeline, the conflict between the two started as early as late 1917 with the Balfour Delcaration promising a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Tensions would grow even greater when Israel declares itself a Jewish state in the Israel War of independence in 1948. From then it would seem to be a serious of attack and response between the two countries. Incidentally, a majority of the violence would be started by Palestine and their Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that believed an extermination of Israel was ideal in the mid 60's. This view of a necessary termination would lead to the constant negative attitude toward Isreal.
     In recent years, such as the last decade, there have still been conflicts between the two opposing nations. Surpisingly however, in an overview of the events of the Palestinian-Isreali conflict, it would appear that the majority of people in the often antagonistic Palestine desire to maintain their hatred but practice peace. Yet on the other hand, interviews with Palestinians have suggested otherwise (even women are training with weapons to fight their "sworn enemy Isreal." That is coming from one side of the world while tensions build in correlation to the situation in Egypt. Israel enjoys some security on the Egyptian side due to an agreement over Gaza,  and while he might not have been the most popular ruler, Mubarak's strict police force did discourage activist or terrorist initiatives in Egypt allowing Isreal to only have to keep one eye open while they sleep (on Palestine).
    The whole history of contemporary (in the sense that we're not talking biblically old) Isreal would seem to be a survival based on reciprocity and negative escalation. They are unfortunately stuck in the center of the world were tolerance is a foreign word and were change is just as foreign. They have constantly been picked at for nothing more than their existence and beliefs. Yet they are damned by the rest of the world for returning fire. This is not an area in which compensation will yield results. Instead it will reveal a vulnerability to further competitive attacks. With Isreal being surrounded by potentially hostile forces, 2 consecutive attacks with no reciprocation may be too much for the small country to recover from. It is an interesting situation because even though negative reciprocity is generally viewed in a negative sense (hence the term negative reciprocity), it would seemto be the only thing keeping the country alive.

Compensation in Egypt

Egypt would seem to be the perpetual elephant in the room judging by recent events and media coverage. It won't matter what the topic of discussion will be because it will always lead back to "what's going on in Egypt?"
The latest article focused on the decision of the current military (which the people had wanted to take over for President Hosni Mubarak) to support the current regime. It also makes mention of the consistent tensions that still loom over the country, primarily in Tahrir Square. This article brings to light (though not in much detail) the moves that each side has made in order to avoid further violence.
 The initial compromises to the other side's demands are a form of compensation which might carry the hope of bringing about positive reciprocity. In the beginning of the conflict, both side made demands yet neither was willing to budge. This back and forth of demands and no executing of these demands by the opposing side are a form of negative reciprocity. In this case, nothing was accomplished and tensions only rose. However, the current regime of Mubarak showed a motivation to bypass any further bloodshed in a move of compensation. This was done by Mubarak's announcement of his resignation in September and that free and fair elections would be held to elect a new leader. The goal of a compensating move is to react in the opposite way of the other party's reciprocal behavior in the hopes that the climate of the conflict will move from negative to positive and that the opposing party will follow suit with another positive move. So far the protestors have not made a particularly positive response to these announcements (especially with the military now backing the currently hated government) but there has been no bloodshed spilt at the same time either.

Introduction

My name is William Bryant and I am a psychology major at Kent State University. I am a manager at a record store and have a great interest in music, movies, psychology, and a greatly crafted beer (not the watered down defilements that often make appearances at frat parties). I am always intrigued by learning new things or discovering something that was previously unknown to me. I am stubborn but can easily admit when I am wrong. I am taking this conflict resolution course to understand the mechanics and chemistry behind conflict and how to manage it properly for my present and my future.