See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228098801

The Emergence of the Activity Reduces Conflict Associated Strain (ARCAS)

Model: A Test of a Conditional Mediation Model of Workplace Conflict and
Employee Strain

Article in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · July 2012

DOI: 10.1037/a0028550 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
12 723

3 authors, including:

Maria T M Dijkstra Bianca Beersma

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
20 PUBLICATIONS 468 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 2,701 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bianca Beersma on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 17, No. 3, 365–375 1076-8998/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0028550

The Emergence of the Activity Reduces Conflict Associated Strain

(ARCAS) Model: A Test of a Conditional Mediation Model of Workplace
Conflict and Employee Strain

Maria T. M. Dijkstra Bianca Beersma

VU University, Amsterdam University of Amsterdam

Roosmarijn A. W. M. Cornelissen
Imperial College London

To test and extend the emerging Activity Reduces Conflict-Associated Strain (ARCAS) model, we
predicted that the relationship between task conflict and employee strain would be weakened to the extent
that people experience high organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). A survey among Dutch employees
demonstrated that, consistent with the model, the conflict– employee strain relationship was weaker the
higher employees’ OBSE and the more they engaged in active problem-solving conflict management.
Our data also revealed that higher levels of OBSE were related to more problem-solving conflict
management. Moreover, consistent with the ARCAS model, we could confirm a conditional mediation
model in which organization-based self-esteem through its relationship with problem-solving conflict
management weakened the relationship between task conflict and employee strain. Potential applications
of the results are discussed.

Keywords: activity, ARCAS model, employee strain, organization-based self-esteem, workplace conflict

The psychological and associated health consequences of con-
flict at work can be devastating. Overviews show that these con-
sequences range from depressive feelings, anger, somatic symp-
toms like stomach pains, headaches, and dizziness, to complete
exhaustion and burn-out, in turn leading to extensive sick leave
and sometimes permanent job loss (Cooper & Marshall, 1976;
Danna & Griffin, 1999; De Dreu & Beersma, 2005). It is therefore
not surprising that interpersonal conflict at work is seen as one of
the most potent work stressors (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, &
Schilling, 1989; Smith & Sulsky, 1995). This is especially unfor-
tunate because conflict, defined as “being somehow involved with
opposing forces” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 612) is among the most
common experiences in life and thus work (March & Simon,
1958), as was illustrated in studies showing that managers spend
20 – 42% of their time handling conflict at work (Thomas, 1992;
Watson & Hoffmann, 1996).
Until relatively recently, however, the psychological study of
conflict focused predominantly on the effects of conflict on
Maria T. M. Dijkstra, Department of Organization Sciences, VU Uni-
versity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Bianca Beersma, Department of
Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands; Roosmarijn A. W. M. Cornelissen, Imperial Col-
lege London, London, UK.
We thank Marcello Gallucci for his advice regarding the statistical
analyses reported in this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria
T. M. Dijkstra, VU University, Department of Organization Sciences, De
Boelelaan 1081, Room Z-312, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail: m.t.m.dijkstra@vu.nl
performance (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; see, e.g., Jehn, 1994,
1995; Nemeth, 1987, 1995, 2001; Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, &
Frey, 2002), sometimes demonstrating positive consequences of
conflict for creativity and decision-making (see also Hollen-
beck et al., 1995; Hollenbeck, Colquit, Ilgen, LePine, & Hed-
lund, 1998; Tjosvold, 1998). Despite the unquestionable impor-
tance of this work, it has not fully appreciated the fact that the
well-being of individual employees is almost without exception
deteriorated by workplace conflict (for a review see Dijkstra,
2006).
Fortunately, during the past years, we have witnessed the de-
velopment of a body of knowledge focused on the relationship
between workplace conflict and stress-related outcomes. From this
knowledge, a theoretical framework, which we will here refer to as
the “Activity Reduces Conflict-Associated Strain” (ARCAS)
model, has now started to emerge. According to the ARCAS
model, several moderators can reduce the strain-inducing effects of
the stressor conflict. These moderators, although of different types,
all encourage active rather than passive conflict management.
Combining stress literature and conflict literature, empirical evi-
dence supporting the model so far comes from studies that have
examined the moderating influence of specific conflict behaviors
and other coping behaviors (Dijkstra, De Dreu, Evers, & Van
Dierendonck, 2009; Latack, 1986). Additionally, studies have ex-
amined more distal moderators (such as “Big Five” personality
variables and Locus of Control) that influence conflict manage-
ment and other coping behaviors (e.g., Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck,
Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Hooker, Frazier & Monahan, 1994;
Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Dijkstra, Beersma, & Evers,
2011).

365
366 DIJKSTRA, BEERSMA, AND CORNELISSEN
Until now, research testing the relationships specified in the
ARCAS model has focused exclusively on moderator variables
that are rooted in stable individual differences. As a consequence,
it has left organizations deprived of practical psychological “tools”
to help prevent or mitigate the occupational health problems as-
sociated with workplace conflict.
The current study focuses on Organization Based Self Esteem
(OBSE), which reflects the degree to which a person believes
him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organiza-
tional member. We wish to examine whether the conflict–strain
relationship is also moderated by employees’ OBSE.
Although related to personality, OBSE has been shown to be
more susceptible to external influence (Ferris, Brown, & Heller,
2009; Lee, 2003; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989).
Thus, the current study is the first to shed light on whether a more
malleable variable can weaken the relationship between workplace
conflict and strain.
Following from the ARCAS model, we predict and demonstrate
that OBSE moderates the relationship between task conflict at
work and psychological strain through its relationship with the
active conflict management strategy of problem-solving. In the
following, we will first present an overview of the emerging
ARCAS model and research that has supported it. We will then
discuss the moderating role of OBSE on the conflict–strain rela-
tionship. Finally, we will describe our hypotheses as derived from
the model and discuss the results of a survey study that tested these
hypotheses.
Conflict at Work as a Stressor: The ARCAS Model
It is widely known and accepted that workplace conflict is an
inevitable, natural, and recurrent phenomenon. The idea that con-
flict at work is also one of the most potent stressors within
organizations is also not new (Bolger et al., 1989; Newton &
Keenan, 1985; Parkes, 1986; Smith & Sulsky, 1995). Conflict
brings about negative individual stress reactions that can be both
physical (McEwen, 1998; Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurell, 1997)
and psychological (Jones & Bright, 2001; Newton & Keenan,
1985; Buunk & Gerichhauzen, 1993) in origin and which have
been generally conceptualized as strain (Jex & Beehr, 1991).
Despite this knowledge, only recently have researchers started
to systematically examine how the relationship between conflict
and stress-related outcomes could be mitigated (Dijkstra, Van
Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Dijkstra, Van Dieren-
donck, & Evers, 2005; Dijkstra et al., 2011; Saijo, Ueno, &
Hashimoto, 2007). Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, and Mäkikangas
(2003), for example, found that the Big Five variable Emotional
stability moderated the relationship between work–family conflict,
exhaustion, and satisfaction. In the same area of research and
consistent with the findings of Kinnunen et al. (2003), Dijkstra,
Van Dierendonck, Evers, and De Dreu (2005) showed in two
studies that Extraversion and Emotional stability weakened the
negative relationship between workplace conflict and well-being.
Another dispositional variable that was studied is Locus of Control
(Rotter, 1966), which refers to the expectancies people hold re-
garding their control over rewards or outcomes in life. Dijkstra et
al. (2011) argued and showed that people that scored high on the
internal Locus of Control scale suffered less from conflict-related
psychological strain than people that scored low on this scale.
Interestingly, the studies discussed above, whether they con-
cerned big-five personality characteristics or Locus of Control, all
point to activity as an important component of the particular
moderating variable. In line with this notion, research in this area
has repeatedly shown that Extraversion tends to be related to active
strategies like problem-focused coping, while Neuroticism (i.e.,
the opposite of Emotional stability) is more likely to be related to
passive forms of coping (e.g., Costa & McGrae, 1989; Endler &
Parker, 1990; Hooker et al., 1994; Kardum & Krapic, 2001; for a
review see Sørlie & Sexton, 2001). Consistent with the activity
encouraging capacity of Locus of Control, Folkman (1984) argued
that people with an internal Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966), are
more likely than those with an external Locus of Control to use
coping strategies aimed at actively solving the problem. Indeed,
Locus of Control was found to be positively related to active
coping (Carver et al., 1989; Dijkstra et al., 2011) and negatively to
passive coping (Blanchard-Field & Irion, 1988).
The above cited studies showed that extraverted people and
people with an internal Locus of Control have in common that they
seem to be “equipped” in such a way as to tend to active rather
than passive behavior (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Dijkstra, Van
Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Dijkstra et al., 2011). In a
conflict situation these individuals may therefore actively try to
take action to handle conflict rather than become passive victims
of the stressor.
Research on stress at work has consistently shown that lack of
proactivity enhances the negative impact of stressors on individual
well-being, whereas activity can reduce it (e.g., Carver & Scheier,
1996; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1996). According to the emerging
ARCAS model, proactivity as reflected in one’s personality or
outlook on the world exerts its influence on the conflict-strain
relationship through coping behaviors, in particular through the
active conflict management strategy of problem-solving—also re-
ferred to as collaborating (Thomas & Killman, 1974) or integrating
(Rahim, 1983). Although there are numerous conflict management
strategies and various ways to classify them, researchers tend to
agree on the merits of this active conflict management strategy,
which is generally seen as the most constructive way to handle
workplace conflict (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold & Law, 2000; Behfar,
Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Dyer & Song, 1997). While
engaging in a problem-solving conflict management strategy, peo-
ple combine a high concern for own outcomes with a high concern
for the outcomes of the other party (Blake & Mouton, 1964;
Thomas, 1992).
Problem-solving conflict management involves an exchange of
information about priorities and preferences, showing insights, and
making tradeoffs between important and unimportant issues. The
activity of this strategy is reflected in the attitude oriented toward
the attainment of desired outcomes (van de Vliert & Euwema,
1994). At the same time wishes, views, and interests of the other
party are respected. Problem solving is therefore clearly an active
conflict management strategy: rather than failing to put energy into
the conflict altogether (as one does when following an avoiding
strategy) or submitting oneself to the choices of one’s counterpart
(as one does when following a yielding strategy), when engaging
in problem-solving conflict management one actively strives to
benefit one’s own as well as one’s counterpart’s interests. A study
among 774 health care workers revealed that managing workplace
conflict in such an active, problem-solving way weakens the
 TESTING THE ARCAS MODEL
positive relation between conflict and employee strain (Dijkstra et
al., 2011).
From the results of the above studies, a theoretical framework
emerges that both captures the relationship between workplace
conflict and strain as well as the moderating effect of proactivity
on this relationship. This “Activity Reduces Conflict-Associated
Strain” (ARCAS) model is depicted in Figure 1. First, the figure
shows a positive relationship between workplace conflict and
employee strain; the more conflict an employee perceives, the
more likely he or she is to experience physical and/or psycholog-
ical strain symptoms. This relationship is moderated by activity
encouraging variables as well as by specific and active conflict
behavior (see Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, & Evers, 2005; Dijkstra
et al., 2011; Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996). In fact, in
this conditional mediation model, activity-encouraging variables
exert their influence through active conflict behavior.
The ARCAS model clearly postulates that taking an active
stance is of vital importance to reduce the negative relationship
between conflict and well-being. However, research examining
the model has, until now, exclusively focused on stable vari-
ables that should weaken the conflict-strain relationship
through their relationship with active conflict behavior. As a
consequence, previous work fails to offer leads to organizations
for influencing the negative consequences of workplace con-
flict, and, as such, reducing the conflict-related strain of their
employees.
The present study therefore focuses on the domain-specific
attitude of Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE), which is a
less stable, more malleable variable (Ferris et al., 2009; Lee, 2003;
Pierce et al., 1989) than the moderators studied before in testing
the ARCAS model. Extending the ARCAS model by examine the
moderating effect of OBSE on the relationship between task con-
flict and employee strain is therefore the main purpose of the
current study.
Figure 1. Activity Reduces Conflict-Associated Strain (ARCAS) Model. Theoretical model in which activity-
encouraging moderators, through active conflict behavior, influence the relationship between workplace conflict
and employee strain.
367
The Present Study: Organization-Based Self-Esteem
Self-esteem reflects an attitude of (dis)approval of the self and
therefore is a personal evaluation indicating what people think of
themselves in terms of capability, significance, success, and worth
(Coopersmith, 1967; Korman, 1976; Rosenberg, 1965; Wells &
Marwell, 1976). Defined as such, self-esteem is assumed to be the
weighted function of esteem in more specific areas (Simpson &
Boyle, 1975). Research on the relationship between attitudes and
behavior indicates that the more self-esteem is framed in a (spe-
cific) context consistent with the attitude or behavior under study,
the higher the observed correlations between the variables will be
(e.g., Epstein, 1979; Song & Hattie, 1985). Simpson and Boyle
(1975), for example, administered measures of global, specific,
and task-specific self-esteem to college students and related them
to (self) predicted and actual performance on a midterm examina-
tion. The relationship between the esteem measures and perfor-
mance was strongest for task specific self-esteem and was not
significant for the global measures.
Based on these observations, Pierce et al. (1989) suggested that
organization-related phenomena should be better predicted by
organization-specific self-esteem than by global self-esteem,
whereas global self-esteem should predict life satisfaction more
accurately. Building upon this notion, they introduced the concept
of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which reflects the de-
gree to which a person believes him/herself to be capable, signif-
icant, and worthy as an organizational member.
In a study on the antecedents of OBSE, Pierce et al. (1989)
hypothesized and found that respect shown by managers to em-
ployees affects the beliefs that employees form regarding them-
selves within the organizational context. Consistent with these
findings, a person will come to hold positive beliefs about him/
herself to the extent that important organizational members (e.g.,
role models, mentors) communicate—through words and behav-
368 DIJKSTRA, BEERSMA, AND CORNELISSEN
ior—that he or she is able, significant, and worthy (Pierce &
Gardner, 2004, see also Korman, 1970, 1976). Furthermore Rior-
dan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, and Self (2001) found evidence that
an organization’s time and effort put forth in the socialization of
new members contributes to the initial development of OBSE. The
research findings reported above confirm that OBSE is—in
part—a social construct, which is susceptible to social influence,
and therefore malleable. Thus, if OBSE would be shown to effec-
tively reduce the negative consequences of conflict for well-being,
it would constitute a practical “tool” for managers to mitigate the
negative effects of conflict.
The basic hypothesis underlying most research on self-esteem is
that individuals will develop attitudes and behaviors that will
maintain their level of self-esteem (Korman, 1976). As such, in the
work place, people with high (low) OBSE will develop and main-
tain work attitudes like high (low) job satisfaction and show high
(low) performance behavior, because such attitudes and behavior
are consistent with the attitude that they are people of high (low)
competence (Pierce et al., 1989). A recent meta-analysis by Bowl-
ing, Eschleman, Wang, Kirkendall, and Alarcon (2010) including
57 samples from published articles and nine from doctoral disser-
tations, indeed, showed OBSE to be related to job satisfaction (␳ ⫽
.57, k ⫽ 34, n ⫽ 10.362) and performance (for in-role job perfor-
mance, ␳ ⫽ .34, k ⫽ 12, n ⫽ 2.020 and for organizational
citizenship behavior, ␳ ⫽ .38, k ⫽ 14, n ⫽ 4.069).
OBSE and Activity
Although there is ample evidence that OBSE is related to
organizational behavior (Bowling et al., 2010), the relationship
between OBSE and specific and active coping behavior has hardly
been studied. Some indication of a positive relationship between
OBSE and active coping behavior can be derived from a study by
Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, and Gosling (2001) who, in a
large sample of 326,641 participants, found that high self-esteem
correlated with extraversion (r ⫽ .38), whereas Kardum and
Krapic (2001) found that extraversion has a direct positive effect
on active coping. Furthermore, as employees with high self-esteem
are likely to have strong expectations that they can execute the
behaviors required for task performance (Bandura, 1977), we may
expect them to actually pursue these behaviors; that is, take an
active stance. We would expect employees who feel capable,
significant, successful, and worthy at work to be more likely to
take an active stance when experiencing stressors in general and
conflict in particular and engage in active conflict management.
Furthermore, and especially relevant to the current study, OBSE
has been shown to act as a moderator of the relationship between
job related stressors and stress-related outcomes (Brockner et al.,
1998; Brutus, Ruderman, Ohlott, & McCauly, 2000; Jex & Elac-
qua, 1999). OBSE could therefore potentially also reduce the
negative effects of the stressor conflict on employee strain. In the
case of workplace conflict, this would mean that they would
become more likely to engage in the active and constructive
conflict management strategy of problem-solving to the extent that
they feel themselves to be worthy members of their organization.
In line with earlier research (Dijkstra et al., 2009), this should in
turn lead them to experience less conflict-related strain. In con-
trast, employees who have low organization-based self esteem
should be less likely to engage in active problem-solving conflict
management and therefore suffer more conflict-related strain.
In the current study we focused specifically on task conflict,
consistent with Pierce et al.’s (1989) recommendation to focus on
context-specific measures of self-esteem (such as OBSE) and on
context-specific behaviors when examining the impact of self-
esteem on organizational behavior. Task conflict is defined as
disagreement concerning ideas and opinions about the task being
performed (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008, see also
Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Jehn, 1995, 1997). In contrast with
more social– emotional frictions, also known as relationship con-
flict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Gamero, Gonzalez-Roma, &
Peiro, 2008; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007; Simons &
Peterson, 2000), task conflict thus fits into the domain of specific
task-related behaviors, such as disagreement regarding how to
approach a task or what information to include in a report.
In the ARCAS MODEL (see Figure 1), relatively stable indi-
vidual qualities (in the present study OBSE) ease the development
of active behavior (in the present study a problem-solving conflict
management strategy). Subsequently this active behavior dimin-
ishes employee strain (in the present study psychological strain),
associated with workplace conflict (in the present study task con-
flict). Testing and extending the ARCAS model, we specifically
hypothesize that OBSE is related to more problem-solving conflict
management, and, through this problem-solving conflict manage-
ment, weakens the positive relationship between task conflict and
psychological strain.
Method
Procedure and Sample
Data for this study were collected from a survey of 96 employ-
ees who were employed by diverse organizations in a wide variety
of areas (accounting/finance/insurance, medical/health, sales/
retail, education, food services/hospitality, legal, administrative,
and human resources) The third author, who was an undergraduate
student in psychology when the study was conducted, identified
working adults from different industries and occupational status to
participate in the study, and via their contacts she approached
additional respondents. Many studies have used this snowball
sampling approach (cf. Scott, 1991) to obtain data from a variety
of firms and industries (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Eddleston,
Veiga, & Powell, 2006; Lim & Lee, 2011; Martins, Eddleston, &
Veiga, 2002; Tepper, 1995). Data collected with such procedures
have been shown to be of comparable quality with that of data
collected through more traditional procedures (e.g., Smith, Tisak,
Hahn, & Schmieder, 1997).
Respondents received the questionnaire either on paper or by
e-mail. A cover letter by the research team informed the respon-
dents that the aim of the study was to examine working conditions
and their consequences, and they were asked to return the com-
pleted questionnaire, either by email or by putting it in the included
addressed envelope and sealing it, within 10 days. Respondents
were encouraged to respond as accurately and honestly as possible,
and they were assured that their participation would be kept
confidential, anonymous, and used strictly for academic research
purposes only. Of the 133 surveys distributed, 72% were com-
pleted and returned. All respondents had Dutch nationality, and 62
 TESTING THE ARCAS MODEL 369

respondents were female. The mean age of the employees was 31 Table 1
years (SD ⫽ 10.64), their mean length of service was 4 years Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations (n ⫽ 96)
(SD ⫽ 4.64), and the mean number of working hours was 28.74
(SD ⫽ 13.38). Variable/Scale M SD ␣ 2 3 4
The jobs of the employees in our sample ranged from semi- 1. Task conflict 2.48 .76 .73 ⫺.14 ⫺.00 .34ⴱⴱ
skilled and unskilled (e.g., stock or grocery clerk, shop assistant, 2. OBSE 4.02 .65 .92 .23ⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱⴱ
receptionist) to highly skilled (e.g., lawyer, physician). 3. PSCM 3.93 .58 .69 ⫺.22ⴱ
4. Psychological strain 2.10 .71 .76
Measures Note. PSCM ⫽ problem-solving conflict management.
ⴱ
Employee strain symptoms. We used the Dutch adaptation p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
of a shortened subscale of the Occupational Stress Indicator
(Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). This scale contained five items
concerned with symptoms of psychological strain, such as feeling tively related to employee strain, whereas both OBSE and
miserable, panicky, upset, and worried. Each item had five re- problem-solving conflict management (PSCM) were negatively
sponse choices with the response categories varying across items. related to employee strain.
For all items, higher scores indicated higher employee strain. A
sample item was as follows: “Do you find yourself experiencing Test of the ARCAS Model
fairly long periods in which you feel melancholy for no apparent
Our model predicted that OBSE would moderate the relation-
reason?” We asked respondents to report on how they felt during
ship between Task conflict and Psychological strain through its
the past three months. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .76.
impact on respondents degree of PSCM. In other words, PSCM
Task conflict. We assessed the occurrence of task conflict
should function as a proximal moderator of Task conflict–
using the task conflict subscale of the Intragroup Conflict Scale
Psychological strain relationship whereas OBSE should be a distal
(ICS) developed by Jehn (1992, 1994). The four items were to be
moderator (see Figure 2) of this relationship. As a consequence,
answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5
OBSE should interact with Task conflict in predicting Psycholog-
(very often). Higher scores indicated more task conflict. A sample
ical strain (without the mediator PSCM in the model) and should
item was as follows: “How many disagreements over different
be linearly related to the mediator, PSCM, in a regression with the
ideas were there?” Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .73.
mediator as dependent variable. When all predictors and their
Problem-solving conflict management. We used the 4-item
interactions are included in a model predicting strain, PSCM
subscale for measuring problem-solving conflict management of
should interact with Task conflict whereas the interactive effect of
the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH; van de Vliert,
OBSE should be substantially reduced (for a discussion of how
1997). The scale has been shown to have satisfactory convergent,
issues of mediation and moderation might be combined in theo-
discriminant, and predictive validity (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma,
retically interesting ways, see, e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Muller,
Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001) and has been used in several earlier
Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005; Preacher, Curran & Bauer, 2006; Preacher,
studies (see for some examples: Beersma & De Dreu, 2005;
Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).
Giebels & Janssen, 2005; Rizkalla, Wertheim, & Hodgson, 2008).
The test of our conditional mediation model requires three
Respondents were asked to report how they behave in the case of
regression models to be estimated. In the first model, OBSE, Task
an interpersonal conflict at work. Items were answered on a
conflict, and their interaction are included as potential predictors of
5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). A
the dependent variable Psychological strain. Here we expect a
sample item was as follows: “I work out a solution that serves my
significant interaction between the predictors. In the second re-
own as well as other’s interests as good as possible ” Higher scores
gression, OBSE, Task conflict, and their interaction are included as
on this scale indicate more problem-solving conflict management.
potential predictors of the mediator PSCM. Here we expect OBSE
Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .69.
to show a linear effect on the mediator and no significant interac-
Organization-based self-esteem. We used a Dutch transla-
tion between OBSE and Task conflict. Finally, a regression with
tion of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem scale developed by
all the predictors and their interactions and Psychological strain as
Pierce et al. (1989). The OBSE scale consists of ten items which
the dependent variable is required. Here we expect PSCM to
all reflect what Pierce et al., (1989) would expect employees to
interact with Task conflict, and the original OBSE ⫻ Task conflict
consider in evaluating the extent to which they believe that they
interaction effect to be reduced.
are valuable, worthwhile, effectual members of their employing
Following the advice by Aiken and West (1991), predictor
organization. We asked respondents to indicate, on a 5-point Likert
variables were mean-centered around zero before calculating their
scale ranging from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree), the
cross-product terms. In the first regression analysis we entered
extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement.
Task conflict, OBSE, and the cross-product of OBSE and Task
Higher scores referred to higher amounts of OBSE. Sample items
conflict into the regression equation to predict Psychological strain
were as follows: “I count around here”, and “I am efficient around
(see Table 2). This analysis showed a significant effect of Task
here”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .92.
conflict, ␤ ⫽ .31, p ⫽ .001, and an interaction of OBSE and Task
conflict, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⫽ .01(see Figure 2, ␤1 an ␤2 respectively).
Results In the second regression analysis, we used OBSE to predict PSCM
Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and intercorrela- while controlling for the interaction between Task conflict and
tions of variables are shown in Table 1. Task conflict was posi- OBSE (see Table 3, dv ⫽ PSCM). We found a significant rela-
370 DIJKSTRA, BEERSMA, AND CORNELISSEN

Figure 2. The ARCAS Model specified. Organization-based self-esteem, through a problem-solving conflict
management strategy, influences the relationship between task conflict and psychological strain.

tionship between OBSE and PSCM, ␤ ⫽ .23, p ⫽ .03 (␤3 in Figure
2). The interaction between Task conflict and OBSE was not
significant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.05, p ⫽ .61, ns. In the third analysis, the
interaction between OBSE and Task conflict and the interaction
between PSCM and Task conflict were entered into the equation to
predict Psychological strain (see Table 3, dv ⫽ Psychological
strain). In this analysis, there was a significant effect of the
interaction between PSCM and Task conflict on Psychological
strain, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⫽ .01(␤4 in Figure 2) and the originally
significant interaction between OBSE and Task conflict was re-
duced, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⫽ .04, see ␤2⬘ in Figure 2).
To gain more confidence in the proposed causal ordering of the
relationships in our model, we tested two alternative models in a
post hoc analysis. In the first alternative model we switched the
positions of Psychological strain and Task conflict. Task conflict
served as the Dependent Variable while Psychological strain was
entered as Independent Variable (OBSE remained Moderator,
PSCM remained Mediator). In the second alternative model, we
switched the positions of OBSE and PSCM. PSCM served as
Moderator, OBSE as Mediator, Task conflict remained Indepen-
dent variable and Psychological strain remained Dependent Vari-
able. There was no support for both the alternative models.
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to extend the emerging
ARCAS model by examining whether organization-based self-
esteem, a variable that is more susceptible to social influence than
the variables that had earlier been examined by research testing
Table 3
Least Squares Regression Results for Conditional Mediation

Table 2 (dv ⫽ Psychological

(dv ⫽ PSCM) strain)
Regression Results for OBSE as Moderator of the Conflict–
Psychological Strain Relationship ␤ t ␤ t

␤ t Independent variables
Task conflict .04 .42 .36 4.10ⴱⴱⴱ
Independent variables OBSE .23 2.22ⴱ ⫺.35 ⫺3.92ⴱⴱⴱ
Task conflict .31 3.41ⴱⴱⴱ PSCM ⫺.15 ⫺1.76
OBSE ⫺.38 ⫺4.19ⴱⴱⴱ Conflict ⫻ OBSE ⫺.05 ⫺.52 ⫺.18 ⫺2.06ⴱ
Conflict ⫻ OBSE ⫺.23 ⫺2.57ⴱ Conflict ⫻ PSCM ⫺.24 ⫺2.68ⴱⴱ
R2 .30ⴱⴱⴱ R2 .06 .36ⴱⴱⴱ

Note. Standardized regression coefficients of the significant models are Note. Standardized regression coefficients are depicted. dv ⫽ dependent
depicted. variable; PSCM ⫽ problem-solving conflict management.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 TESTING THE ARCAS MODEL
relationships specified by the model, could weaken the relationship
between conflict and strain. We not only showed that OBSE
moderated the conflict-strain relationship, our data also revealed
that the moderating effect of OBSE is partly explained by a
relationship between OBSE and PSCM. These results provide
further insight into the complex interplay between conflict at work
and employee well-being. The lack of support for two tested
alternative models strengthened our confidence in the causal or-
dering of the ARCAS model. In the following, we discuss several
contributions to conflict theory and practice, address some limita-
tions, and highlight suggestions for future research.
Theoretical Contributions
The present findings contribute to our understanding of the
complex relationship between conflict at work and employee
strain. We replicated past work relevant to the ARCAS model
(Dijkstra et al., 2011), showing that when employees engage in
more problem-solving conflict management, the positive relation-
ship between conflict and psychological strain is reduced. This
replication allows for more confidence in the robustness of the
moderating effect of problem-solving conflict management on the
conflict-strain relationship (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008; Tsang &
Kwan, 1999). The more critical contribution of the current study
though, is that it extends the ARCAS model. Moderators of the
conflict-strain relationship were already examined in previous
studies (e.g., Desivilya, & Yagil, 2005; Dijkstra, Van Dieren-
donck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Dijkstra et al., 2011; Jensen-
Campbell et al., 1996). However, these moderators were without
exception rather stable (personality) characteristics. As a conse-
quence the thus obtained knowledge hardly provided us with tools
for modifying potentially less desirable consequences of particular
personality characteristics. Our study is the first to identify a more
malleable construct, which is susceptible to social influence, as a
moderator of the relationship between conflict and employee
strain.
By extending the ARCAS model, the current study falls within
a line of research that links theory and research on conflict on the
one hand and the stress literature on the other hand. In line with the
stress literature, we argued that interpersonal conflict acts as a
stressor (e.g., Jex & Beehr, 1991), and that managing a conflict
essentially resembles coping with the stressor. Our results on the
active conflict management strategy of problem-solving in fact
match with research on coping. Active coping strategies have been
shown to reduce the negative effects of job stressors on mental
health outcomes (Parkes, 1990) and negative job related outcomes
like job dissatisfaction, physical complaints, and intentions to quit
(Koeske, Kirk & Koeske, 1993). Making the connection between
conflict management and coping strategies enables us to enhance
our knowledge about conflict management by borrowing from
insights and developments in the area of stress research.
Another theoretical contribution concerns OBSE as a variable
directly related to problem-solving conflict management. We have
shown that people who believed themselves to be capable, signif-
icant, and worthy organizational members engaged in a problem-
solving conflict management strategy to a higher extent than their
colleagues who do not— or to a lesser extent— hold these beliefs.
371
Contribution to Practice
Achieving the central goal of our study, we demonstrated that
OBSE weakened the conflict– employee strain relationship
through its influence on problem-solving conflict management. As
a consequence, we replicated past findings that workplace conflict
is related to psychological strain (Dijkstra et al., 2009; Giebels &
Janssen, 2005) and could further build up confidence in the
ARCAS model. These findings have several implications for prac-
tice, of which the most straightforward seems to be that, given its
negative consequences for occupational health, the general attitude
toward conflict at work should be toward its elimination. However,
workplace conflict—already strongly associated with occupational
life—will probably become even more prevalent in the near future.
The ongoing shift toward more decentralized and delayered struc-
tures (Dewettinck & Van Ameijde, 2011; Pfeffer, 1998), combined
with the growing ethnic and informational diversity of the work-
force, have increased the need to coordinate and work together.
The heterogeneous value and belief systems that have resulted
from these developments easily set the stage for misunderstanding,
disagreement, and irritation (De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & De
Best-Waldhober, 2002). However, what consequences conflict has
largely depends on the way employees respond to the conflict
situation (Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, & Evers, 2005; Dijkstra,
Van Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005). Although conflicts at
work can hardly be avoided, employees might learn to be more
able and ready in dealing with them.
To serve occupational health in the discordant job environment,
organization-based self-esteem might serve as a central point of
departure. Research has shown that social messages from mean-
ingful and significant others, received and internalized, are a major
source of self-esteem (Baumeister, 1999; Brockner, 1988; Brook-
over, Thomas & Paterson, 1964). Determinants of OBSE are
reasoned to be similar to those of self-esteem yet grounded in
one’s work and organizational experiences (Pierce et al., 1989).
Leaders, managers, and mentors could therefore be trained to
become more conscious of the possible impact of verbal and
nonverbal cues and messages they sent to their employees. If
necessary, this training can also involve techniques to (more)
carefully frame their instructions, task explanations, and feedback
to employees with the purpose of maintaining or even increasing
the level of employee OBSE.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although the results of our study supported our theoretical
model, several issues require attention. First, although the influ-
ence of OBSE on the relationship between task conflict and
psychological strain was reduced when we controlled for the
influence of PSCM on that relationship, the value of the regression
coefficient was still different from zero. This means that the
weakening effect of OBSE on the conflict-strain relationship is
partly, but not entirely, explained by a relationship between OBSE
and PSCM. This result points to possible other factors being
involved in the ARCAS model. Whereas in our study we focused
on conflict behavior, future research could consider the role of
internal coping strategies like internal or external attributions in
the relationship between conflict and strain. Perhaps OBSE is
positively associated with specific types of conflict attributions, as
372 DIJKSTRA, BEERSMA, AND CORNELISSEN
it is with problem-solving conflict behavior, and these attributions,
like problem-solving, reduce the link between conflict and strain.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study design limits our
conclusions regarding causality. We cannot be certain as to
whether conflict causes strain, strain causes conflict, or the two
variables mutually influence each other, neither can we conclude
that OBSE increases problem-solving conflict management or
rather that problem-solving conflict management increases OBSE.
Although the predictions and findings of our study are not isolated,
in that they follow and are consistent with earlier studies that also
examined predictions postulated by the ARCAS model (Desivilya
& Yagil, 2005; Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu,
2005; Dijkstra et al., 2009, 2011; Jensen-Campbell et al., 1996),
future studies should ideally examine (parts of) our model in an
experimental context. Earlier studies already have shown that
conflict situations can be created in the laboratory (see, e.g.,
Beersma & De Dreu, 2005; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead,
2004). However, this experimental work has focused mainly on
effects of conflict on performance, largely ignoring effects on
well-being and strain. Future research should experimentally ma-
nipulate (proxies of) conflict, problem-solving conflict manage-
ment, and OBSE and measure psychological strain (see for exam-
ples of earlier work which has taken an experimental approach to
examining strain: Greenberg et al., 1992; Rector & Roger, 1997).
Such research will add to the current findings by shedding light on
the causality patterns that link the variables we studied here.
A further limitation lies in the nature and rather small size of our
sample. The question to what extent we can generalize findings
derived from this sample to the population of “employees in
general” is an important one. To technically generalize from one
context to another one has to randomly sample people, tasks, and
times from some definable population. We clearly did not do this;
in our sample the percentage of young part-time employed women
is relatively high. For this and other reasons, Cook and Campbell
(1979) note that external validity is enhanced more by many
heterogeneous small studies than by one large study employing
random selection of subjects, tasks, and times. Thus, there is hope
that the external validity of our findings will become evident after
other researchers replicate our work in other studies with different
samples and tasks conducted at different times.
Moreover, one needs to keep the nature of the research question
in mind when assessing the relevance of external validity. We were
concerned with the conceptual question of whether OBSE could
weaken the relationship between conflict and strain, and we de-
veloped and tested specific predictions regarding this based on past
theory (which we refer to here as the ARCAS model). Because
there is no reason to think that this theory would not hold in the
context of our sample, we believe that our sample serves as a
meaningful venue for testing our hypotheses. Finally, although we
cannot argue with the recommendation that future studies should
examine whether our findings could be generalized to other con-
texts, it should be noted that our findings fit well with previous
work testing the ARCAS model in different contexts. This in-
creases our confidence in their external validity.
Another potential limitation relates to the restricted range we
observed for OBSE. It should be noted that, based on earlier
research testing the ARCAS model which found evidence for
linear relationships between variables in the model (see, e.g.,
Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Dijkstra et
al., 2009, 2011), we made the assumption that the relationships
between our predictor and criterion variables were linear. Given
this, restriction of range on OBSE should either not affect the
correlation between OBSE or reduce it, when compared with a
sample where the range for OBSE was less restricted (Glass &
Hopkins, 1984; Weber, 2001). In other words, the correlation we
observed should in fact be higher, had we tested our predictions in
a sample where there was more variety in OBSE scores. Future
research should examine this to obtain information regarding the
true magnitude of the relationships observed here.
Finally, the respondents provided all our data, and this can
potentially have led to self-report biases and common-method
concerns. Common source variance is a plausible alternative ex-
planation for finding main effects. It has been argued, however,
that it is much harder to explain complicated patterns of data, like
the moderated mediation we predicted and observed, by common
method variance (see Spector, 1987, 2006, for a discussion).
Indeed, Evans (1985) examined the impact of correlated error
among dependent and independent variables to explore whether or
not artificial interaction terms can be generated. Based on a Monte
Carlo study he concludes that “the fears . . . that correlated error
might create an interaction term when there was none has proved
unfounded” (p. 313) and that interactions are stable when they
were predicted and when the effect size exceeds 1%. Both condi-
tions are met in our study: First, both interactions we tested were
predicted by the ARCAS model. Second, the interaction between
conflict and OBSE on employee strain explained 3% of the vari-
ance and the interaction between conflict and problem-solving
conflict management explained 6% of the variance in employee
strain. In fact, Evans (1985) notes that interactions are attenuated
by correlated (or uncorrelated) error variance. Given that the
reliability of the problem-solving conflict management scale used
in our study was .69, the interaction between conflict and problem-
solving conflict management might actually be stronger in reality
than we observed in our hierarchical regression analyses.
Conclusion
High OBSE weakens the negative relationship between conflict
and employee strain, and this weakening effect was partially
explained by the relationship between OBSE and an active,
problem-solving conflict management strategy. Our findings thus
support the ARCAS model of the complex mediating and moder-
ating relationships between workplace conflict and employee
strain. Furthermore, whereas previous work in this area focused on
rather stable individual differences, the present study concentrated
on OBSE, which has shown to be more susceptible to external
influence. As such OBSE constitutes a psychological point of
departure for managers, mentors and leaders to mitigate the neg-
ative consequences of— omnipresent—workplace conflict. In light
of the preservation and enhancement of occupational health and
well-being in current discordant job environments, we believe this
is definitely promising news.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management,
 TESTING THE ARCAS MODEL
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 53, 625– 642. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict,
strategic decision making and organizational performance. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239 –253. doi:10.1108/eb022745
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Baumeister, R. F. (1999). The self in social psychology. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict’s consequences:
Effects of social motives on post-negotiation creative and convergent
group functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 358 –374. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.358
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The
critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between
conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 170–188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX:
Gulf.
Blanchard-Fields, F., & Irion, J. (1988). The relation between locus of
control and coping in two contexts: Age as a moderator variable.
Psychology and Aging, 3, 197–203. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.3.2.197
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.808
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Qiang, W., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon,
G. (2010). A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of
organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 83, 601– 626. doi:10.1348/096317909X454382
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. H., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover,
S., . . . Bjorgvinsson, S. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in
reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 394 – 407. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.2.394
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Theory, research, and practice.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Brookover, W. B., Thomas, S., & Paterson, A. (1964). Self-concept of
ability of school achievement. Sociology of Education, 37, 271–278.
doi:10.2307/2111958
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of
resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 7, 57– 67. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.57
Brutus, S., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Mc Cauly, C. D. (2000).
Developing from job experiences: The role of organization-based self-
esteem. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 367–380. doi:
10.1002/1532-1096(200024)11:4⬍367::AID-HRDQ4⬎3.0.CO;2-6
Buunk, A. P., & Gerrichauzen, J. (1993). Stress en werk [Stress and work].
Heerlen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhof/Open Universiteit.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). Self-regulation and its failures.
Psychological Inquiry, 7, 32– 40. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0701_6
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and
analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A
review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill
health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 11–28. doi:10.1111/
j.2044-8325.1976.tb00325.x
373
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedent of self-esteem. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Personality, stress, and coping:
Some lessons from a decade of research. In K. S. Markides, & C. L.
Cooper, Aging, stress, social support and health (pp. 269 –285). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the work-
place: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management,
25, 357–384. doi:10.1177/014920639902500305
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond
effectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 14, 105–117. doi:10.1080/13594320
444000227
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A.
(2001). A theory based measure of conflict management strategies in the
workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645– 668. doi:
10.1002/job.107
De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & De Best-Waldhober, M.
(2002). Conflict at work and individual well-being. In M. J. Schabracq,
C. L. Cooper & K. A. M. Winnubst (Eds.), The handbook of work and
health psychology (pp. 495–515). Chichester, England: Wiley.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.4.741
Desivilya, S. H., & Yagil, D. (2005). Conflict management in work teams:
The Role of Emotions in Conflict Management: The case of Work
Teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16, 55– 69. doi:
10.1108/eb022923
Dewettinck, K., & van Ameijde, M. (2011). Linking leadership empow-
erment behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions:
Testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Personnel
Review, 40, 284 –305. doi:10.1108/00483481111118621
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Evers, A. V. A. M. (2011). Reducing
conflict-related strain employee strain: The benefits of an internal locus
of control and a problem-solving conflict management strategy. Work &
Stress, 25, 167–184. doi:10.1080/02678373.2011.593344
Dijkstra, M. T. M., De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., & Van Dierendonck, D.
(2009). Workplace conflict & psychological strain: Passive responses to
interpersonal conflict at work amplify employee strain. European Jour-
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 405– 423. doi:10.1080/
13594320802510880
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Coping with
conflict at work: The role of helplessness and flight behaviour. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 119 –135. doi:
10.1080/13594320444000254
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W.
(2005). Conflict and well-being at work: The moderating role of per-
sonality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 87–104. doi:10.1108/
02683940510579740
Dijkstra, M. T. M. (2006). Workplace conflict and individual well-being
(doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: KLI (KLI dissertation series).
Dyer, B. X., & Song, M. (1997). The impact of strategy on conflict: A
cross-national comparative study of US and Japanese firms. Journal of
International Business Studies, 28, 467– 493. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs
.8490108
Eddleston, K. A., Veiga, J. F., & Powell, G. N. (2006). Explaining sex
differences in managerial career satisfier preferences: The role of gender
self-schema. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 437– 445. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.91.2.437
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of
374 DIJKSTRA, BEERSMA, AND CORNELISSEN
coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 58, 844 – 854. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the
people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 1097–1126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated
method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323. doi:
10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
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 Psy-
chology, 73, 221–240. doi:10.1348/096317900166994
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports
and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based
self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
108, 279 –286. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839 – 852. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.839
Gamero, N., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Peiro, J. M. (2008). The influence of
intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81,
47– 69. doi:10.1348/096317907X180441
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced wellbeing at
work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 137–155. doi:10.1080/
13594320444000236
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education
and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J.,
Lyon, D., . . . Pinel, E. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem?
Converging evidence that self-esteem serves as an anxiety-buffering
function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 913–922.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.913
Hollenbeck, J. R., Colquit, J. A., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., & Hedlund, J.
(1998). Accuracy decomposition and team decision making: Testing
theoretical boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
494 –500. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.494
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., &
Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision
performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.292
Hooker, K., Frazier, L. D., & Monahan, D. J. (1994). Personality and
coping among caregivers of spouses with dementia. The Gerontologist,
34, 386 –392. doi:10.1093/geront/34.3.386
Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A
multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict
(unpublished transcript) Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advan-
tages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238. doi:10.1108/eb022744
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256 –282. doi:10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions
in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530 –
557. doi:10.2307/2393737
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict
types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 17, 465–495. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality
and relationships as moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 42,
148 –164.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodolog-
ical issues in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 9, 311–365.
Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator: A
comparison of global and organization-based measures. Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 71– 81. doi:10.1348/
096317999166509
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress, myth, theory and research. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited.
Kardum, I., & Krapic, N. (2001). Personality traits, stressful life evens, and
coping styles in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 30, 503–515. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00041-6
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.
Oxford, England: Wiley.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mäkikangas. (2003). Work-
family conflict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as
a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1669 –
1683. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00389-6
Koeske, G. F., Kirk, S. A., & Koeske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress:
Which strategies work best? Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 66, 319 –335. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993
.tb00542.x
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 54, 31– 41. doi:10.1037/h0028656
Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an
extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, 50 – 63.
Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions
for scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377–385.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.377
Lee, J. (2003). An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in
two Korean banks. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 14, 1046–1066. doi:10.1080/0958519032000106207
Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and non-work outcomes of workplace
incivility: Does family support matter? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16, 95–111. doi:10.1037/a0021726
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the
relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 45, 399 – 409. doi:10.2307/3069354
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Seminars in medicine of the Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center: Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 171–179.
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t take it
personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective con-
flict. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 733–758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00674.x
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 852– 863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes and judgments.
Social Cognition, 13, 273–291. doi:10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.273
Nemeth, C. (2001). Dissent, diversity and juries. In F. Butera and G.
Mugny (Eds.), Social influence in social reality (pp. 23–32). Bern,
Switzerland: Hogrefe and Huber.
Nemeth, C. J. (1987). Influence processes, problem solving and creativity.
In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence:
The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 237–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress.
Human Relations, 38, 107–126. doi:10.1177/001872678503800202
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual
differences, environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Jour-
 TESTING THE ARCAS MODEL
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277–1292. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.51.6.1277
Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environ-
ment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 399 – 409. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.399
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Understanding organizations: Concepts and controver-
sies. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & T. Susan (Eds), The handbook of
social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 733–777). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, G. D., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organisation-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622– 648. doi:
10.2307/256437
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, G. D. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and
organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem
literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591– 622. doi:10.1016/
j.jm.2003.10.001
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools
for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel model-
ing, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 31, 437– 448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/
00273170701341316
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997).
Preventive stress management in organizations. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10238-000
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368 –376. doi:10.2307/
255985
Rector, N. A., & Roger, D. (1997). The stress buffering effects of self
esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 799 – 808. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00095-0
Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001).
The effects of pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer
attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 159 –176.
Rizkalla, L., Wertheim, E. H., & Hodgson, L. K. (2008). The roles of
emotion management and perspective taking. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 1594 –1601. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.014
Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D.
(2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in
Personality, 35, 463– 482. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research:
Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs: General and
Applied, 80, 1–28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Saijo, Y., Ueno, T., & Hashimoto, Y. (2007). Job stress and depressive
symptoms among Japanese fire fighters. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, 50, 470 – 480. doi:10.1002/ajim.20460
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in
group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to
counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586. doi:10.1016/S0749-
5978(02)00001-8
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Shapiro, D. H., Jr., & Schwarz, C. E. (1996). Controlling ourselves,
controlling our world: Psychology’s role in understanding positive and
negative consequences of seeking and gaining control. American Psy-
chologist, 51, 1213–1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.12.1213
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflicts and relationship
View publication stats
375
conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of trust. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Simpson, C. K., & Boyle, D. (1975). Esteem construct generality and
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
35, 897–904. doi:10.1177/001316447503500416
Smith, C. S., & Sulsky, L. (1995). An investigation of job-related coping
strategies across multiple stressors and samples. In R. Murphy, J. J.
Hurrell Jr., S. L. Sauter, and G. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp.
109 –123). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Smith, C. S., Tisak, J., Hahn, S. E., & Schmieder, R. A. (1997). The
measurement of job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,
225–237. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3⬍225::AID-
JOB797⬎3.0.CO;2-E
Song, I.-S., & Hattie, J. (1985). Relationships between self-concept and
achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 365–372. doi:
10.1016/0092-6566(85)90005-4
Sørlie, T., & Sexton, H. C. (2001). Predictors of the process of coping in
surgical patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 947–960.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00085-4
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect
and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 438 – 443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.438
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or
urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi:
10.1177/1094428105284955
Tepper, B. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring
and nonmentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
1191–1205. doi:10.2307/256626
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument. Tuxedo Park, NY: Xicom, Inc.
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). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to
conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 47, 285–342. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998
.tb00025.x
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. (1999). Replication and theory devel-
opment in organizational Science: A critical realist perspective. The
Academy of Management Review, 24, 759 –780.
van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness
as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 674 – 687. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674
van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. London:
Psychology Press.
van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The
interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.86.1.57
Watson, C., & Hoffman, R. L. (1996). Managers as negotiators: A test of
power versus gender as predictors of feelings, behavior and outcomes.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 63– 85. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)
90035-1
Weber, D. A. (2001, February). Restriction of range: The truth about
consequences and corrections. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and
measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Saga.
Received March 2, 2011
Revision received March 30, 2012
Accepted April 9, 2012 䡲