The psychosocial costs of conflict management styles
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the interactive effect of interpersonal conflict at work and adopting an integrating/compromising conflict style on workers' psychosocial wellbeing. Design/methodology/approach A total of 311 employed young adults completed an online questionnaire. Findings Moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses support the hypothesis that integrating/compromising interacts with interpersonal conflict at work to predict psychosocial strain. Specifically, it was found that integrating/compromising is related to psychosocial strain in a U-shaped fashion when work conflict is high. Although a moderate degree of integrating/compromising is psychosocially beneficial for workers and can buffer the negative impact of work conflict, beyond a certain point, integrating/compromising is associated with an increase in psychosocial strain when work conflict is high. Research limitations/implications The results of the study suggest that investigations of conflict styles should focus not only on managing the occurrence of conflict – or resolving it when it does occur – but also on the psychosocial costs of adopting particular conflict styles. The data are cross-sectional; therefore, inferences about causality are limited. Originality/value The study is one of the few to empirically test the psychosocial costs of adopting particular conflict styles. In addition, compared with similar studies, more complex relationships (i.e. nonlinear) between the variables are assessed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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