The Relationships between Coping, Gender and Personality on the Experience of Interpersonal Conflict at Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explored the relations between task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict and several outcomes of employee well-being and organizational importance, examined the role of coping styles as moderators in the stressor-strain process, and investigated how the individual difference characteristics of gender and personality affect these processes. An online questionnaire measuring task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict, dispositional coping styles, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, turnover intentions, social dysfunction, loss of confidence, anxiety and depression, and several personality dispositions was completed by 178 participants working in the Toronto, Ontario region. All of the participants worked in the IT industry and were recruited from a single organization and the business-orientated networking site LinkedIn. Results showed that both task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict were negatively correlated with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, and positively correlated with turnover intentions, social dysfunction, loss of confidence, and anxiety and depression. The coping styles of problem-focused, emotion-focused and avoidance moderated several of the relationships between task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict and the criterion variables. No gender differences were found in perceptions of relationship-based interpersonal conflict. When faced with relationship-based interpersonal conflict, female employees indicated significantly lower levels of job satisfaction than their male counterparts. While no gender differences were found in the reported use of the problem-focused coping style, female employees reported using the emotion-focused and avoidance coping styles more often than their male counterparts.Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Locus of Control were examined as direct and moderator variables in the experience if interpersonal conflict at work. Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with perceptions of task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict, while Neuroticism was positively correlated with perceptions of both. Internal Locus of Control was positively correlated with perceptions of task-based interpersonal and did not show a significant correlation with relationship-based interpersonal conflict. Both Neuroticism and Conscientiousness moderated the relationships between task-based and relationship-based interpersonal conflict and the coping styles of problem-focused, emotion-focused and avoidance. Findings indicated that Locus of Control did not moderate any of the relationships between both types of interpersonal conflict and the coping styles. Limitations and strengths of the present research are discussed in the final chapter, along with recommendations for future research, practical implications, and a conclusion is drawn from the findings presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".