Compromising, Avoiding, or Bullying? A Mixed Method Approach to Understanding Conflict Resolution and Bullying Among Undergraduate Roommates
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
While living with roommates in residence presents a unique set of challenges for emerging adults who are just beginning to navigate a world of adult responsibilities and are adjusting to living with an often-unfamiliar companion, conflicts become inevitable. Common sources of conflict, such as disputes over cleaning duties or noise levels, combine with still-developing conflict resolution skills to create an escalating environment of hostility that can develop into bullying if not properly addressed. However, what remains relatively understudied is how emerging adults navigate conflict management and how conflict resolution styles mitigate such household conflicts. Employing a multi-methods approach, this study utilized quantitative (i.e., questionnaires) and qualitative (i.e., short answer questions) methods to investigate the relative influence of conflict management styles and social support on roommate victimization and bullying among 804 undergraduate students aged 18–21 years old (79% female; M = 19). Multiple hierarchal linear regressions and thematic analyses were employed to analyze the data. The findings revealed that roommate compromise predicted an increase in roommate victimization and bullying, and an inverse relationship between resolving conflict with self-interest, where increased self-interest predicted lower roommate victimization and bullying. Social support was significantly inversely related to roommate bullying and victimization, such that increased social support tended to mitigate bullying and victimization. Taken in unison, these findings convey while students may believe they are compromising, whether they are requires further investigation. This work highlights the need to teach students how to manage conflict in healthy ways while verifying the continued importance of social support.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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