Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.

com/abstract=1484794
Title: How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of
control

Authors:
Dijkstra, Maria; Vrije Universiteit
Beersma, Bianca; University of Amsterdam
Evers, Arne; University of Amsterdam



Presented at the
22nd Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference
Kyoto, J apan
J une 15 18, 2009

Abstract: In a field study among 774 health-care workers, we demonstrated how locus of control
and workplace conflict interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we showed
that this moderation was mediated by an active conflict management strategy.


Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794
Conflict management, psychological strain and control


How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of
control.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT






Abstract
In a field study among 774 health-care workers, we demonstrated how locus of control
and workplace conflict interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we
showed that this moderation was mediated by an active conflict management strategy.







Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484794
2
How an active conflict management strategy relates to psychological strain: The role of
control.

The reality of interpersonal conflict is a clear consequence of people interacting
with each other and therefore a normal experience in society and organizational life (e.g.
Katz & Kahn 1978; March & Simon, 1958). It is not surprising then that in the past
twenty years, scholars as well as practitioners attended to the subject of workplace
conflict in terms of consequences for individual and team performance. As a result, our
understanding of workplace conflict and its consequences for the welfare of the
organization in terms of productivity and team performance is quite developed (e.g. De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1998). Far less attention has been
devoted to the welfare of the individual members of organizations in terms of stress-
related outcomes like psychological strain. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First,
other research on organizational behavior has shown negative relations between stress-
related indicators and measures of performance (Bond & Bunce, 2003; Cotton & Hart,
2003; Staw & Barsade, 1993;Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000;
2004), pointing to the relevance of such "soft" outcomes. Second, according to the
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2007), stress was the second most
reported work-related health problem in 2005, affecting over 20% of workers from the
EU-15, and costing an estimated 20 000 million. Therefore, in this study we will focus
on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain. We will examine the nature
of this relationship in terms of mediating and moderating factors. In this study we
demonstrate how locus of control moderates the relationship between workplace conflict
and psychological strain. Specifically, we will show that when individuals perceive to be
3
in control over the situation, the relationship between conflict and strain is weaker than
when they perceive that they are not in control. In addition we show that this process is
mediated by the way in which conflict is managed.
Interpersonal Conflict and Psychological Strain
Despite its potential functionality and benefits for organizational effectiveness
and team performance (see for example De Dreu & van de Vliert, 1997), for most people
conflict has a negative connotation; it brings forth feelings like anger, disgust and fear, it
often forms a threat to self-esteem, and coping with the conflict situation depletes our
cognitive resources (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996; De Dreu & van Knippenberg
2005; Frone, 2000). Actually, when in conflict, the individual's adrenaline levels,
heartbeat and muscle tension increase (Mc Ewen, 1998; Quick, Quick, Nelson. & Hurrell,
1997). Conflict thus brings about negative individual stress reactions known as strain
(Jex & Beehr, 1991), and is considered as among the most potent stressors in working life
(Bolger, Delongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Newton & Keenan, 1985; Parkes, 1986,
Smith & Sulsky, 1995).
Control and Conflict Management
Which consequences conflict has in terms of psychological strain, largely depends
on the way an individual manages the conflict, that is, responds to the stressor (Dijkstra,
van Dierendonck & Evers, 2005). Within this context, control is an important
psychological construct that in past research has shown its relevance for physical and
psychological well-being (e.g., Skinner, 1996; Steptoe & Appels, 1989; Affleck, Tennen,
Pfeiffer, & Fifield, 1987). In the area of work and organizational psychology, evidence
has been found to suggest that a high level of work control positively influences well-
being (Perrewe & Ganster, 1989; Karasek et. al., 1988). Furthermore, research on stress
4
has consistently shown that lack of control enhances the negative impact of stressors on
individual well-being (e.g. Carver & Scheier 1994; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1996). In fact,
coping strategies were argued to be potentially beneficial or detrimental based on the
degree to which they exhibit control consisting of both actions and cognitive
reappraisals that are proactive, take-charge in tone or escape- consisting of both
actions and cognitive reappraisals that suggest an escapist, avoidance mode (Latack,
1986, p. 378).
The control/escape distinction made in the stress and coping literature (e.g.,
Latack, 1986; Latack & Havlovic, 1992) corresponds with the distinction between active
and passive conflict management strategies. As such, it may well be that pro-active ways
of managing conflict, in which individuals take and maintain control, reduce the negative
effects of conflict on psychological strain.
Drawing a parallel between coping styles and conflict management strategies,
Dijkstra, De Dreu, Evers & Van Dierendonck (in press) found that the strength of the
relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain varies as a function
of the conflict management strategy individuals engage in. They presumed, but did not
measure, an important role for the concept of control and made a suggestion for future
research on that topic. Indeed, to our knowledge, the effect control on conflict-related
strain has never been examined. We argue that control is an important moderator of the
conflict-strain relationship. When individuals feel that they themselves are in control over
the situation they find themselves in, we predict that conflict will have less impact as a
stressor than when individuals do not feel in control. Furthermore, we predict that the
moderating effect of control on the conflict-strain relationship is mediated by conflict
management strategies, such that belief in personal control as opposed to believing to be
5
controlled by outside forces may lead an individual to use an active conflict management
strategy. In turn, this active conflict management will buffer against the negative effects
of conflict.
Hypotheses in the present study
We predict that the negative relationship between conflict and psychological
strain is weaker for individuals experiencing internal control (Hypothesis 1). We
also predict that the negative relationship between conflict and psychological strain is
weaker, the more individuals engage in active conflict management (Hypothesis 2).
Finally we predict that the (moderating) influence of experienced internal control
on the relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain is mediated by
the influence of problem solving on that relationship (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Sample.
Participants were members of the nursing and ancillary staff of an institution for
disabled people. Out of 1490, employees, 774 returned the questionnaire (response rate of
52 %) of which 649 (84 %) were women. The mean age of the employees was 39 years
(SD=10.4) and the mean length of service was 7.7 years (SD=7.4). Of all respondents
534 (69 %) were working 32 hours per week or less.
Procedure.
Employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to participate in
the study. Questionnaires were administered during daytime work hours, or were sent to
the home addresses of employees who could not be reached at work. Employees were
asked to return completed questionnaires within two weeks using a pre-stamped return
envelope.
6
Measures
Employee strain. We used the Dutch adaptation of a subscale of the Occupational
Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). This scale contained 13 items concerned
with symptoms of psychological strain, such as feeling miserable, panicky, upset, and
worried. Each item had six response choices, and all items were scored such that higher
scores indicated higher psychological strain. Cronbach's alpha was .88.
Occurrence of interpersonal conflict. In the instructions that respondents read
before filling out the questionnaire, we explained that conflict was defined as a
disagreement over ideas, interests, beliefs, values, or perceptions of reality. We then
assessed the occurrence of interpersonal conflict using the Intragroup Conflict Scale
(ICS) developed by Jehn (1992, 1994). The instrument has 8 items (four items regarding
task conflict and 4 items regarding relational conflict), to be answered on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). Sample items are: "How many
disagreements over different ideas were there?" (task conflict) and "How much tension
was there in the group during decisions?" (relational conflict). Cronbach\s alpha for the
conflict scale was .89.
Active conflict management. We used a subscale of the Dutch Test for Conflict
Handling (DUTCH: De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001; Van de Vliert,
1997) to assess the active conflict management strategy of problem solving. Respondents
were asked to report how they behave in the case of an interpersonal conflict at work. A
sample items was: "I stand for my own and other's goals and interests" Items were to be
answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). Cronbach's
alpha's was .74
Control. We used the Dutch adaptation of the locus of control scale of the
7
Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). The scale concerns
individuals work-life and and we used the internality subscale that measured the
internality dimension. The scale consists of 5 items, and a sample item was "I am in
control of my own career" (Internality). Items were to be answered on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (completely in disagreement), to 5 (Very much in agreement). Cronbach's
alpha's was .68.
Results
Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and inter correlations of variables
are shown in Table 1.
Moderator Analyses (Hypotheses 1 and 2)
To test the prediction that the negative relationship between conflict and
psychological strain is weaker, the more individuals experience feelings of control or the
more they engage in problem solving (Hypotheses 1 and 2), two sets of hierarchical
regressions were performed. In each model, psychological strain served as the dependent
variable and in the first step we entered the occurrence of conflict and control (or
problem solving). In step 2, the cross-product term of conflict and control (or conflict and
problem solving) was entered. Following the advice by Aiken and West (1991), predictor
variables were mean-centered around zero before calculating their cross-product terms.
We first tested the prediction that an internal locus of control moderates the
negative relation between the occurrence of conflict and psychological strain (Hypothesis
1), results showed that the main effects in step 1 explained a significant amount of
variance, R
2
= .14, F(2, 691) = 13.06, p < .001. More conflict ( = .27, t = 7.6, p < .001)
and a lower score on the internal locus of control scale ( = -.24, t = - 6.69, p < .001)
were related to more psychological strain. The interaction term added in the second step
8
explained an additional amount of variance in psychological strain, R
2
= .01, F(1, 690)
= 4.72, p = .03. These results support Hypothesis 1: the more individuals feel that they
are in control over the situation in which they find themselves, the weaker the negative
relationship between conflict and psychological strain.
With regard to the prediction that problem solving moderates the positive relation
between the occurrence of interpersonal conflict and strain (Hypothesis 1). Results
showed that the main effects in step 1 explained a significant amount of variance, R
2
=
.13, F(2, 696) = 51.6, p < .001. Inspection of the regression weights showed that more
conflict ( = .29, t = 8.1, p < .001, and less problem solving ( = -.19, t = -5.46, p < .001)
were related to more psychological strain. The interaction term added in the third step
explained an additional amount of variance in strain, R
2
= .01, F(1, 695) = 8.9, p = .02.
These results support Hypothesis 2: the more individuals engage in problem solving
behavior, the weaker the negative relationship between conflict and psychological strain.
Mediation Analysis (Hypothesis 3)
To test the prediction that the (moderating influence) of an internal locus of
control on the relationship between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain is
mediated by the moderating influence of problem solving on that relationship, we tested
for mediated moderation following the steps as suggested by Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt
(2005). The first requirement for mediated moderation is that there is an overall
moderation effect, in our case this means that the relationship between conflict and strain
needs to be moderated by control. The test of Hypothesis 2 reported above shows that this
is the case. As Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt (2005) advise to enter all (centered) variables in
the equation at once when testing for mediated moderation, we entered conflict, internal
locus of control and the cross-product term of conflict and internal locus of control in a
9
regression analysis, with psychological strain as the dependent variable. Results showed a
significant model, R
2
= .15, F(3, 690) = 39.95 , p < .001. Inspection of the regression
weights revealed a significant amount of explained variance for the cross-product term of
conflict and locus of control ( = -.08, t = -2.17, p = .03).
The second requirement for mediated moderation is that there is a main effect of
the moderator (control in our case) on the mediator (problem solving in our case). To
assess this, we again entered conflict, internal locus of control and the cross-product term
of conflict and internal locus in a regression analysis. However, this time problem solving
served as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant model, R
2
= .08, F(3, 700)
= 19.63 , p < .001. Inspection of the regression weight revealed a significant amount of
explained variance for internal locus of control ( = .27, t = 7.37, p = .03).
The third and final requirement for moderated mediation is that the interactive
effect of the independent variable and the moderator (conflict and control in our case)
should no longer be significant when controlled for the interactive effect between the
independent variable and the mediator (i.e. conflict and problem solving). The latter
effect should be significant in this analysis. To assess this, we ran a regression analysis in
which psychological strain served as the dependent variable and conflict, internal locus of
control, the cross-product of conflict and internal locus of control, problem solving and
the cross-product between conflict and problem solving were entered as predictors.
Results showed a significant model, R
2
= .17, F(5, 679) = 28.49 , p < .001. Inspection of
the regression weights revealed that a significant amount of variance was explained by
the cross-product term of conflict and problem solving ( = -.08, t = -.231, p = .02)., and
that the originally significant interaction between conflict and control was reduced to
10
non-significance ( = -.05, t = -1.36, p = .17). A Sobel test confirmed the significance of
the indirect path, Z = -2.29, p < .02. These results provide support for Hypothesis 3.
Discussion
In this study we demonstrated how locus of control and workplace conflict
interact to affect the level of psychological strain. In addition we showed that this process
is mediated by the way the conflict is managed. These findings have important theoretical
and practical implications. Theoretically, our findings increase our understandings of the
mechanisms that can help individuals cope with the negative effects of conflict. Earlier
results on passive conflict management strategies had shown that these are associated
with higher levels of psychological strain (Dijkstra et al., in press. This is in line with
research on coping with difficult situations in general, which had shown that avoidance
coping strategies are also associated with higher levels of reported strain (Koeske, Kirk &
Koeske, 1993) and lower levels of well-being and performance (Ben-Zur, 1999).
However, although Dijkstra et al (in press) alluded to the possibility that conflict
management might be influenced by individuals' locus of control, they did not assess this
relationship. In our study we considered and measured the function of the construct of
control. We showed that this indeed not only moderated the conlflict-strain relationship,
but we also uncovered an underlying mechanism for this moderating effect, because our
data revealed that it was because control led to more active conflict management that it
effectively buffered the negative effects of conflict. Of course, future research should
examine this relationship in more detail. It may be interesting to examine whether other
conflict management behaviors are also related to control, and how they affect the
conflict-strain relationship. Also, it is worthwhile to examine how feelings of control can
be affected. Follow-up (experimental) studies should examine how organizations can
11
cultivate feelings of control in their employees and thus reduce the negative impact of
conflict.
On a more practical note, whereas the previous work by Dijkstra et al (in press),
particularly alerted to the need to refrain from passive conflict management strategies in
order to not increase conflict's negative consequences, the current study points to the
option of actually decreasing the negative consequences of interpersonal conflict.
Believing in personal control and engaging in the active conflict management strategy of
problem solving, can buffer the negative relationship between conflict and psychological
strain, and we believe this is definitely promising news for organizations.
12

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Pfeiffer, C., & Fifield, J. (1987). Appraisals of control and
predictability in adapting to a chronic disease. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 273-279.
Baumeister, R. F. (1995). The personal story of an interpersonal psychologist. In M. R.
Merrens, & G. G. Brannigan, (Eds), The social psychologists: Research
adventures. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Ben-Zur, H. (1999). The effectiveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency,
emotional correlates and cognitive performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 923-939.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress
on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.
Bond F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health,
job satisfaction, and work perforance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1057-
1067.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma,. & Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-
based measure of conflict management strategies in the work place. Journal of
Organzational Behavior, 22, 645-668.
13
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to
constructive conflict management: Effects of mere ownership, process
accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.
De Dreu C. K. W. & Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London:
Sage.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
member satisfaction, and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741-749.
Dijkstra, M. T. M., De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., & Van Dierendonck, D., & (in press).
Interpersonal conflict at work. How conflict management is related to employee
strain.
Evers, A., Frese, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Revisions and further developments of the
Occupational Stress Indicator: LISREL results from four Dutch studies. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 221-240.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2007). European risk observatory
report: Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related tot occupational
safety and health. Available from European Agency for Safety and Health at
Work Web site, http://osha.europa.eu/en .
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing
a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
246-255.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 40, 513-524.
14
Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on efectiveess. A multiethod
examinator of the benefits and etrimetns of conflict. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Northwestern University.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing Effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and
disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. International Journal of
Conflictmanagement, 5, 223-238.
Jex, M. S., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the
study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 9, 311-365.
Jex, S. M., & Bliese. P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-
related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349-361.
Karasek, R. A., Theorell, T., Schwarz, J. E., Schnall, P. L., Pieper, C. F., & Michele, J. L.
(1988). Job characteristics in relation to the prevalence of myocardial infarction in
the Us Health.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Oxford,
England: Wiley.
Koeske, G. F., Kirk, S. A., & Koeske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress: Which
strategies work best? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
66, 319-335.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Seminars in Medicine of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center: Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England
Journal of Medicine, 338, 171-179.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley.
15
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yerbyt, V. Y. (2005).When moderation is mediated and
meditation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,852-
863.
Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human Relations,
38, 107-126.
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual differences,
environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1277-1292.
Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands and behavioral
control on experienced job stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1-17.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997). Preventive stress
management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schaubroek, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with
work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal,
40, 738-754.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549-570.
Smith, C. S., & Sulsky, L. (1995). An investigation of job-related coping strategies across
multiple stressors and samples. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. Hurrell Jr., S. L., Sauter, &
G. P. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 109-123). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Steptoe, A., & Appels, A. (1989). (Eds.). Stress, personal control and health.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
16
Spector P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez. J. I., O'Driscoll, M., &Sparks, K. (2002). Locus of
control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? The
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 453-466.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993).Affect & managerial performance: A test of the
sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrativ Science
Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, (2nd ed. Vol. 3, pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and Competitive Goal Approach to Conflict:
Accomplishments and Challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
47, 285-342.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. London: Psychology
Press.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997).
Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory
and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733-
746.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84-
94.


17


18

























Locus of ontrol

Problem solving

Interpersonal conflict

Psychological strain
19


Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations (n = 774)





Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001


Variable/Scale M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Conflict 2.09 .70 .89 -.13** -.08* .30***
2. Internal locus of control 4.06 .51 .68 .27*** -.28***
3. Problem solving 3.93 .58 .74 -.21***
4. Psychological strain 2.0 .61 .88