Interpersonal Conflict Handling Styles: A Survey of Chinese College Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas-Klimann Conflict Mode Instrument is a basic model for understanding and comparing interpersonal conflict handling styles. Individuals handle interpersonal conflict in various strategies, and may have a natural tendency toward one or two of these strategies. This research based on Thomas-Klimann Conflict Mode Instrument, investigated college students’ preference and use of these styles in interpersonal conflict, and analyzed it with MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance). The results showed that:（1）college students’ preference and use of interpersonal conflict handling styles in order from high to low is compromising— collaborating—competing—accommodating—avoiding;（2）there were significant differences between males and females on competing style. Key words: college students, interpersonal conflict, styles Resume: L’Instrument du mode de conflit Thomas-Klimann est un model de base pour comprendre et comparer les styles de reglement du conflit interpersonnel. Les individus resoudent les conflits interpersonnels avec des strategies variantes, mais ils ont une tendance naturelle a une ou deux d’entre elles. Cet essai, base sur l’Instrument du mode de conflit Thomas-Klimann, etudie la preference et l’utilisation de ces styles dans les conflits interpersonnels et les analyse avec MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance). Les resultats montrent que : premierment, l’ordre du haut en bas de la preference et l’utilisation des styles de reglement du conflit interpersonnel des etudants est :compromis- collaboration- competition- accomodement- evitement ; deuxiement, il y a des differences signifiantes entre les hommes et les femmes sur le style de competion. Mots-Cles: etudiants, conflit interpersonnel, styles
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it