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.
