TRAIT APPROACHES

The second major approach to the study of personality is the nomothetic, exem­plified by “trait” research and its application to behavior. Traits can be defined as words summarizing a set of behaviors or describing a consistent response to relationships and situations as measured through an assessment instrument (Martin, 1988).

Because our interests center on multitrait measurement, we briefly mention single-trait approaches and refer the reader to other sources for in-depth discussion.

Single Traits

Here, we describe the single-trait approach to studying conflict process and outcome. This approach, which seeks to understand social behavior in terms of relatively stable traits or dispositions residing within the individual, is now considered to have limited usefulness. The trait approach typically focuses on one or more enduring predispositions of specific types: motivational tenden­cies (aggression, power, pride, fear), character traits (authoritarianism, Machi­avellianism, locus of control, dogmatism), cognitive tendencies (cognitive simplicity versus complexity, open versus closed mind), values and ideologies, self-conceptions and bases of self-esteem, and learned habits and skills of coping.

The now-dominant approach to explaining social behavior is one that seeks to understand its regularity in terms of the interacting and reciprocally influencing contribution of both situational and dispositional determinants. There are several well-supported propositions in this approach:

1. Individuals vary considerably in terms of whether they manifest con­sistency of personality in their social behavior across situations—for example, those who monitor and regulate their behavioral choices on the basis of situational information show relatively little consistency (Snyder and Ickes, 1993).

2. Some situations have “strong” characteristics, in which little individual variation in behavior occurs despite differences in individual traits (Mischel, 1977).

3. A situation can evoke dispositions because of their apparent relevance to it; subsequently, the situation becomes salient as a guide to behav­ior and permits modes of behaving that are differentially responsive to individual differences (Bem and Lenney, 1976).

4. A situation can evoke self-focusing tendencies that make predisposi­tions salient to the self, and as a consequence, these predispositions can also become influential determinants of behavior in situations where such a self-focus is not evoked.

5. There is a tendency for congruence between personal disposition and situational characteristics (Deutsch, 1982, 1985) such that someone with a given disposition tends to seek out the type of social situation that fits the disposition; people tend to mold their dispositions to fit a situation that they find difficult to leave or alter. That is, the causal arrow goes both ways between situational characteristics and personal­ity disposition.

Multitrait Measures of Personality and Conflict

Given the importance of creating clearer definitions and comprehensive mea­sures of personality, a number of researchers over the past two decades have worked to develop reliable multidimensional personality assessment instru­ments.

The Five-Factor Model. In an attempt to describe personality more completely than is afforded by individual traits, Costa and McCrae (1985) developed a five- factor model (FFM) of personality, composed of five independent dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.

Neuroticism is a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions. It encompasses six subscales: anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (for example, panic in emergencies). People with strong neurotic tendencies are thought to be less able to control their emotions and cope effectively with stress (Costa and McCrae, 1985). With respect to inter­personal conflict, individuals high in levels of angry hostility, depression, vul­nerability, and self-consciousness might find conflict threatening, prompting them to avoid conflict situations or to use contentious tactics as a reaction to the threat. On the other hand, people with low neurotic tendencies would be less likely to interpret the situation in terms of their own emotional distortion and perhaps utilize more constructive strategies.

Differences in the desire for social activity are incorporated in the extraver­sion scale, which includes interpersonal traits such as warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions. Because extraverts tend to view their actions as positive and effective, enjoying social interactions, an extravert would be expected to deal directly with conflict situ­ations. An individual scoring low on extraversion facets such as warmth and assertiveness would be less secure in interpersonal relations and, therefore, might avoid a conflict situation.

Openness to experience denotes receptiveness to ideas and experiences, with subscales of openness to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values.

The dimension of conscientiousness refers to achievement striving, compe­tence, and self-discipline. Those low on this scale may be disorganized or lazy, negligent, and prone to quitting rather than persevering. Those on the high end of this dimension are well prepared, well organized, and strive for excellence. Given these characteristics, those high in conscientiousness would be expected to prefer dealing with conflict directly, where low scorers might be expected to either use attacking strategies or avoid conflict situations altogether.

Agreeableness refers to persons who are trusting, generous, lenient, and good natured. High agreeableness in individuals leads them to have sympathy and concern for others, but also may inhibit assertiveness or cause them to defer to others. In a conflict situation, this may result in decisions that fail to meet their own best interests. Overall, those who score high on such facets as trust, altruism, and compliance would be expected to use constructive strategies such as negotiation. Low scorers are suspicious, antagonistic, critical, irritable, and self-centered. These individuals are prone to express anger in conflict situations, to be guarded in expressing their own feelings, and to compete rather than coop­erate with other people.

The FFM dimensions have been reliably demonstrated to occur in an impres­sive number of groups, including children, women and men, non-White and White respondents, and in people from such varied lingual and cultural back­grounds as Dutch, German, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino. Furthermore, the personality trait constructs of the FFM reflect many of the personality categories used in psychotherapy, the difference being that the FFM dimensions are more testable in research and cover a broader range of human behavior than the attributes of personality emerging from the study of psychopathology.

We focus here on the five-factor trait model to offer information for conflict resolution because it is:

• More comprehensive than other trait models of personality in incorpo­rating a wide range of human response and behavior—most other inventories can be subsumed within its dimensions.

• Inclusive of normal behaviors as well as the extremes to be found in personality disorders.

• A robust measure of personality that has been validated in a variety of languages and cultures.

• A personality approach that is straightforward, fairly easily understood, and one of the most dominant models of personality used in current research (Antonioni, 1998; Jensen-Campbell, Gleason, Adams, and Malcolm, 2003; Moberg, 2001).

Obviously, nonpersonality factors such as cognitive distortion, dysfunctional belief, personal evaluation, intelligence, and situational demands need to be examined along with the five personality factors to fully account for behavior. However, dismissing the multitrait approach would be to lose sight of its merit for use by laypersons without an advanced degree in personality psychology or psychotherapy. In methodologically appropriate use, the FFM appears to offer valuable information about the conflict resolution process for practitioners, as we discuss below.

Measures of Conflict Style. A number of similar approaches to measuring indi­vidual styles of managing conflict have been developed (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Kilmann and Thomas, 1977; Rahim, 1986; Thomas, 1988).

The dual-concern model of conflict style also has two dimensions: “concern about other’s outcomes” and “concern about own outcomes.” High concern for the other as well as oneself is linked to a collaborative problem-solving style. High concern for self and low concern for the other is connected with a con­tending, competitive approach. High concern for the other and low concern for self is associated with yielding or submission. Low concern for both self and the other is associated.

There has not yet been much research on the measures of conflict style. How­ever, there is reason to believe that conflict behavior is determined by both situational and dispositional influences. Thus, research by Rahim (1986) indicates that a manager in conflict with a supervisor resorts to yielding, while with peers the manager employs compromising and with subordinates problem solving.

Personality and Conflict Resolution Strategies. In recent research conducted by Sandy and Boardman (2006), 237 graduate students, with no conflict resolution training experience were asked to fill out the NEO-PI-R five-factor model questionnaire (Costa and McCrae, 1985; Costa, McCrae, and Dye, 1991). Following this, subjects were asked to select three conflicts they had experienced during the previous three months. Each week for three successive weeks, they were given a comprehensive questionnaire and asked to describe one conflict (open-ended question) and report the strategies they used to handle it (using both open-ended questions and the Kilmann and Thomas [1977] dual concerns model instrument). They also characterized their relationship with the other person in the conflict and, using five-point rating scales, indicated the size and importance of the conflict. In addition, they reported whether or not the conflict was resolved and whether the conflict strengthened or weakened their relationship.

The types of conflict reported included relationship issues (13 percent), another person’s failure to meet one’s own expectations (18 percent), discour­teous or annoying behavior (16 percent), disagreements about what should be done (31 percent), one’s own failure to meet another’s expectations (6 percent), being offended by what another person said (14 percent), and displaced anger (15 percent). Conflicts were with relatives (17 percent), significant others (17 per­cent), friends (36 percent), acquaintances (12 percent), and people in the work­place, for example with bosses or subordinates (16 percent).

Factor and reliability analyses of the dual concerns instrument indicated that these subjects used four strategies for handling conflict, which we have labeled negotiation, contending, avoidance, and attack. Negotiation consisted of strate­gies such as “I sought a mutually beneficial solution” and “I tried to understand him or her.” Contending strategies included “I used threats” and “I was sarcas­tic in my sense of humor.” Avoidance covered items such as “I tried to change the subject” and “I denied that there was any problem in the conflict.” Finally, Attack included “I criticized an aspect of his or her personality” and “I blamed him or her for causing the conflict.”

Negotiation Strategy. Personality facet scales from the FFM dimensions formed “predictive clusters” of individual characteristics that tended to be associated with the dominant strategy used in the conflict reported. For example, those who used Negotiation strategies scored high on Agreeableness facets (Trust, Altruism, and Compliance); Extraversion facets (Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activ­ity, and Positive Emotions) and Fantasy from the Openness scale. Conversely, indi­viduals who used negotiation strategies scored low on Neuroticism facets such as Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability.

Contending Strategy. Personality facets influencing choice of the Contending conflict resolution strategy include low scores on Competence, Duty, Self­Discipline, and Deliberation of the Conscientiousness domain; low scores on the Straightforwardness, Trust, Altruism, Compliance, and Modesty subscales of the Agreeableness domain; and low scores on Ideas and Values on the Open­ness domain. Low scores on the Warmth facet of Extraversion domain also are related to the use of the Contending strategy. Higher scores on all the facets of the Neuroticism domain are related to the choice of Contending as a conflict resolution strategy.

Avoidance Strategy. Low scores on facets of the Conscientiousness domain (Competence, Self-Discipline, and Order), Altruism of the Agreeableness domain, and several facets of the Extraversion domain (Warmth, Gregarious­ness, Assertiveness) are associated with people who use the Avoidance strategy for conflict. Avoidance is also used when individuals have higher scores on the Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability facets of the Neuroticism domain.

Attack Strategy. Low scores on the Conscientiousness domain (Competence, Duty, and Self-Discipline) are associated with the use of attacking behavior in conflict situations. The same is true for the Agreeableness domain (Straightfor­wardness, Trust, Compliance, and Tenderness) and the Actions facet of the Openness domain. High scores on facets of the Neuroticism domain (Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability) also are associated with the use of attacking to resolve conflict.

Situation Versus Personality

Using a repeated measures analysis, we examined the influence of personality on consistency of conflict resolution strategy across situations or different conflicts described. Conflict resolution strategies were significantly different across situa­tions, indicating that situational constraints were more influential in determining conflict handling approach.

Influences on Whether the Conflict Is Resolved or Not

Importance of the Issue. The importance of the conflict to the disputants played a significant role in whether or not the conflict was resolved. The more important the conflict to the disputants, the less likely it was to be resolved.

Personality. Individuals scoring higher on Deliberation (Conscientiousness), Self-Consciousness and Angry Hostility (Neuroticism), and Feelings (Openness) were less likely to have resolved their conflicts than those scoring in the lower group. Those scoring higher on Warmth and Assertiveness (Extraversion) and Actions (Openness) were more likely to report their conflicts were resolved.

Preferred Conflict Resolution Strategy

Those scoring higher on strategies such as Attack, Avoidance, and Contending were less likely to have resolved the conflicts they described in the study. On the other hand, Negotiation strategy was significantly associated with resolved conflicts.

We note that the findings reported here are all statistically significant even though the correlations between personality facets and conflict behavior are low (mostly that the ability to predict an individual’s conflict behavior from his personality measures is quite low). However, in the section that follows, we suggest that there are “difficult” or “extreme” personalities (which are relatively rare in the graduate student population that participated in this research) who are more apt to be consistent in their conflict behaviors in different situations.

Negotiating with Difficult Personalities

All too often, individuals have to negotiate with difficult people. For example, peo­ple who are hostile, overly aggressive, or who explode; people who avoid conflict, avoid discussions, or who resist by using passive-aggressive techniques; individ­uals who complain incessantly or blame others, but never try to do anything about the conflict or situation; people who appear very agreeable, but who do not pro­duce or follow through on what they propose; enervating, negative people who sap energy from others, claiming nothing will work and that there are no solutions; “superior” people who believe they know everything and are only too eager to tell you they do; or people who cannot make decisions, who stall and are indecisive (Bramson, 1981).

Drawing from past work on personality and conflict (Bramson, 1981; Heitler, 1990; Ury, 1993) as well as our own research, we offer some suggestions for coping with difficult people. As we discussed previously, the use of contentious tactics and blame is more often associated with people low in conscientious­ness (for example, self-discipline, deliberation, and competence), low in agree­ableness (for example, straightforwardness, trust, and altruism), and high in neuroticism (for example, anxiety, angry hostility, depression, and impulsivity). Such angry, hostile people require special handling. First, it is useful to not react immediately to an attack: give them time to run down and regain emotional control. This is a critical first step, as well as difficult, as one’s natural tendency is to defend oneself. William Ury (1993) calls this “going to the balcony,” or choosing not to react. He describes imagining negotiating on stage and then climbing to the balcony overlooking the stage. The balcony is a metaphor for achieving a state of mental detachment necessary to arriving at constructive problem solving and regaining equilibrium. It is not useful to argue with some­one who is attacking because they cannot “hear” you anyway and it only adds fuel to the fire. If the attack does not subside, it is helpful to say (or shout) a neutral word like “stop!” to break into their tantrum or to take a break from the negotiation. Once the other has calmed down a bit, it is useful to state your opinions and perceptions calmly, facilitating the discussion by not arguing with them, but as Ury calls it, “stepping to their side.” This means listening to them, acknowledging their feelings, and agreeing with them whenever possible to dis­arm them. Some hostile people, called “snipers” by Bramson, are slightly more subtle in their attacking behavior: they take pot shots at you, make cutting remarks, or give you not-so-subtle digs. A helpful strategy in dealing with these people is to surface the attack; that is, do a process intervention by commenting on an observed behavior.

With respect to avoiding conflict, we found this strategy to be most often associated with low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, low extraversion, and high neuroticism. When trying to engage another who is avoiding conflict, a good strategy is to use open-ended questions and wait as calmly as you can for an answer. Many people rush to fill silences with conversation. Try to resist the temptation. If the person continues to avoid or remain silent, comment on what you are observing and end your comment with another open-ended ques­tion. If necessary, remind the other party of your resolve to solve the conflict to mutual satisfaction, and try to pursue additional opportunities to engage in conversation.

Ury (1993) talks about “building a golden bridge” to help draw the other party in the direction you want them to move. This process involves several steps: involving the other party in drafting the agreement; looking beyond obvi­ous interests, such as money, to take into account more intangible needs, such as recognition or autonomy; helping the other save face as she backs away from an initial position. The latter could involve showing how circumstances may have changed since the beginning of the negotiation or using an agreed-upon standard of fairness. You may want to proceed slowly and remember that it is important to note that addressing more intangible psychological needs is criti­cal to the process of building a bridge.