| Several normative models of interpersonal conflict exist in counseling psychology and organization development. At least one measure, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument (TKCI), assesses people's most and least preferred conflict styles. The present study was designed to investigate differences in how people perceive conflict and to initiate an alternative individual differences approach to studying interpersonal conflict. A new hypothetical construct, situational attribution, was created to examine individual differences in personality and its relevance to the extent to which people consider the situation or circumstances when retrospectively explaining conflict outcomes.; One hundred and sixteen working professionals and students completed three new measures created by the primary investigator to assess situational attribution, their personal accountability for the outcome of the dispute, and the other person's accountability for the outcome of the dispute. Participants also completed the short form of the Snyder Self-Monitoring Scale and the Agreeableness subscale of the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness to Experience Revised Inventory (NEO PI-R). Results suggest that those low in self-monitoring are more likely than are those high in self-monitoring to consider the situation or circumstances when retrospectively explaining conflict outcomes. The writer believes that these results suggest that when given an indeterminate amount of time to reflect after a conflict, low self-monitors are more likely to consider the situation or circumstances when retrospectively explaining conflict outcomes than are high self-monitors. A new individual differences model of interpersonal conflict and its relevance to situational attribution is presented. Finally, broad implications and applications of situational attribution to business and society are discussed. |
