Association between personality characteristics and an orientation to conflict resolution with a general systems interpretation Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/xp68kk616

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • Purpose of the Study Redacted for Privacy J. Richard Connelly This study was to look at: (1) the orientation subjects' had toward the resolution of conflict situations, and (2) associations between personality traits, selected demographic characteristics and subjects' orientation to conflict resolution. Procedures Eighty-seven subjects, 23 male and 64 female college students, were given a pre- and post-assessment on their orientation to conflict resolution via the Modified Conflict Resolution Inventory (MCRI). They were administered two personality scales: Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (general need traits) and Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (socially oriented traits); they filled out a demographic data questionnaire and responded to a Relevance of Conflict Resolution instrument. An intervening variable of training in a Need approach to conflict resolution was given to assure subjects had an exposure to this approach. Training was not assessed as to its effectiveness. Subjects were classified on the dependent variable, their orientation to conflict resolution, as Issue or Need oriented. The Need orientation followed after the work of William Glasser (1967), who defines two basic psycho-social needs of man as: (1) the need to love and be loved, and (2) the need to feel worthwhile to oneself and others. Two sets of judges were used to rate subjects on the dependent variable classifications. Three regular judges' ratings were used as the subjects' classifications, the other set of judges' ratings were used for reliability assessment. Findings All 87 subjects were rated as Issue oriented on the pre-MCRI; 31 of the subjects shifted to the Need orientation on the post-MCRI. Independent variable scores were associated with the post-MCRI assessments through a step-wise discriminant analysis. Two independent variables--heterosexuality from EPPS and activation from RCR--were significant in the discriminant function, but each represented so many mis-classifications as to have relatively little value as discriminators. Significance in the discriminant function is based only on a difference between groups' means and not on the amount of variance accounted for. Interpretation The General Systems Theory perspective was used to interpret the findings. The 31 subjects who changed from an Issue to a Need orientation were ones who had received and processed information that allowed the Need selection on the posttest. None of the subjects had the prerequisite information to make a pre-test Need selection- - training was essential. The General Systems perspective is that substantive differences, i.e. , scores on personality traits, are not important in looking at behaviors. Subjects' goals and purposes are important as they fit in the environmental melieu. It is the purpose of the subject and not a score on a trait that must be looked at for understanding behavior. Processing of information is what determines the goals or purposes as they change in time. The independent variable of activation was seen as the most valuable, though it needs refinement, because it started to look at information about the subjects' purposes vis-a-vis conflict situations. Conclusions 1. There were no personality traits or demographic characteristics which had substantive differences that gave good discrimination between Issue and Need orientation to resolution of conflicts by the subjects. 2. A behavioral selection can only be made when the prerequisite information is present for the selection. In looking at behaviors, it is far more economical to look at information processed, which is used by the individual to set and modify goals and purposes, than to look for cause and effect relationships. 3. Further development of the MCRI and RCR would help refine these instruments for greater use in research and training or therapy.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Committee Member
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using ScandAll PRO 1.8.1 on a Fi-6770A in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 5.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-12-03T21:14:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 StrongJohnR1975.pdf: 1109735 bytes, checksum: 250a5aff2c48a252614a54fa08775718 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1974-08-08
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Madison Medley (mmscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-11-14T21:55:06Z No. of bitstreams: 1 StrongJohnR1975.pdf: 1109735 bytes, checksum: 250a5aff2c48a252614a54fa08775718 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Kirsten Clark(kcscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-12-03T21:14:33Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 StrongJohnR1975.pdf: 1109735 bytes, checksum: 250a5aff2c48a252614a54fa08775718 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-11-14T21:57:23Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 StrongJohnR1975.pdf: 1109735 bytes, checksum: 250a5aff2c48a252614a54fa08775718 (MD5)

Relationships

In Administrative Set:
Last modified: 08/17/2017

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Citations:

EndNote | Zotero | Mendeley

Items