Exploring the Relationships between the Big Five Personality Factors, Conflict Styles, and Bargaining Behaviors

Zhenzhong Ma

Odette School of Business University of Windsor

401 Sunset Ave Windsor, ON Canada N9B 3P4 Tel.: 1-519-253-3000 ext 4251

Fax: 1-519-973-7073 Email: maz@uwindsor.ca

1

Exploring the Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors, Conflict Styles, and

Bargaining Behaviors

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship of individual differences in personality to one’s

preferences for conflict handling, and further to bargaining behaviors in a negotiation setting.

The investigation offers a conceptual foundation for exploring the relationship between the Big

Five personality factors, conflict styles, and behavioral patterns in business negotiation, then

using student sample in a simulated business negotiation to empirically test the hypothesized

relationships. Results show that extraversion is positively related to confrontational conflict

styles and negatively to non-confrontational styles, while agreeableness is positively related to

non-confrontational styles but negatively to confrontational styles. Further, neuroticism is found

to negatively influence compromising style. Moreover, competing, collaborating, and avoiding

are three styles that predict bargaining behaviors and further to negotiation outcomes.

Implications are also discussed, which concludes this paper.

Key Words: Personality, Conflict Styles, Bargaining Behaviors.

(Empirical Paper)

2

Resolving conflict is one of the fundamental management tasks. The strategy one tends to

employ to approach conflict situations represents one’s characteristic mode of conflict handling

or conflict style (Black & Mouton, 1964; Moberg, 1998). Research in conflict management

domain has generated different models of conflict styles individuals tent to use to resolve conflict

(e.g., Black & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). For example, in their managerial

grid model, Black and Mouton (1964) proposed five characteristic modes for conflict handling:

directly confronting a dispute, smoothing over differences, avoiding the conflict altogether,

forcing one’s position, and compromising on a middle ground. Based on this conceptual model, a

number of other modes of conflict resolving have been developed and widely applied in different

conflict situations (Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976).

Researchers who are interested in understanding and predicting conflict style have frequently

examined the potential for stable, personality variables to explain the differences in conflict

handling preferences, but the research on the relationship between personality and conflict styles

has produced mixed results (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 2001). Some early studies supported a

relationship between conflict styles and personality dimensions measured as Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI) (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975), but others have reported weak relationships

between personality and styles of handling conflict (Jones & Melcher, 1982) or personality and

negotiation outcomes (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993; Wall & Blum, 1991). This inconsistency has

led some researchers to question whether individual personality traits are important in predicting

conflict handling styles and negotiation behaviors (Lewicki, Litterer, Minton, & Saunders, 1994).

However, a counter argument is that some of the inconsistency stemmed from problems in

defining and measuring personality and conflict. For instance, the majority of the past research

focused on isolated, readily available and single personality trait rather than on a comprehensive

3

model of personality structure (Antonioni, 1998; Ma & Jaeger, 2003). In addition, previous

research used the Thomas-Kilmann conflict management survey in which a forced-choice

response scale was used rather than an interval Likert scale. As a result, researchers called for

studies using different measures of personality and conflict styles in order to overcome these

deficiencies. With the emergence of a widely accepted comprehensive personality measure—the

Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1995), recently studies have linked Big Five personality factors to

conflict styles and more promising results have been obtained (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 1998;

Moberg, 2001). To further advance the research in this area, the current study intends to use the

Big Five to examine whether strong relationships exist between personality traits and conflict

styles in a business negotiation context. Moreover, different conflict styles as indicators of

behavioral patterns and further of the outcomes in the negotiation process will be investigated in

this study to test the validity of conflict styles as predictors of their behavioral equivalents.

Conflict Styles

Conflict style refers to specific behavioral patterns that one prefers to employ when

addressing conflict situations. Researchers have been studying the best ways to manage conflict,

resulting in an impressive literature on conflict management styles (cf. Antonioni, 1998; Moberg,

2001; Thompson, 1990; Van de Vliert, 1997; Wall & Blum, 1991). The dominant conflict style

model in this literature is dual-concern model. Originated from the work of Blake and Mouton

(1964), the dual-concern model has several variations, all of which assume that individuals

choose different modes, strategies, or styles for handling conflict based on some variations of

two primary concerns/interests— “concern for self” and “concern for other”.

Perhaps the best known and the most accepted model is that of Thomas (1976) who identifies

five different conflict-handling styles based on two dimensions: assertiveness and

4

cooperativeness. Assertiveness measures the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy

his/her own concerns, and cooperativeness assesses the extent to which an individual attempts to

satisfy the other person’s concerns. As shown in Figure 1, these two dimensions yield five

conflict styles: competing (high concern for self, low concern for others), collaborating (high

concern for self and others), compromising (moderate concern for self and for others),

accommodating (low concern for self and high concern for others), and avoiding (low concern

for self and low concern for others). These five styles reflect an individual’s behavioral

intentions when facing conflict situations (Womack, 1988), either confrontational such as

competing and collaborating or non-confrontational such as avoiding and accommodating with

compromising as a middle-ground position. Subsequent studies suggest that the

interrelationships among the constructs are consistent with those depicted in the model (Van de

Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990; Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994) and that the two dimensions provide

the basis for choice of conflict modes (Sorenson, Morse, & Savage, 1999).

------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here -------------------------------

Personality and Conflict Styles The main research question of this study is whether the Big Five personality factors predict

individual’s styles for approaching conflict situation and whether the dispositionally determined

conflict styles translate into corresponding behaviors during business negotiations. In order to

address this question, the Big Five personality factors are discussed first, followed by hypotheses

stating the proposed relationship between the Big Five factors and conflict styles with brief

explanation of the logic behind each one.

5

Big Five Personality Factors

There have been arguments that broader personality predispositions rather than isolated traits

affect people’s strategies in approaching conflict situation and therefore more comprehensive

measurement of personality should be used to investigate individual’s characteristic mode of

conflict handling styles (Robin & Brown, 1975). Over the past decades, theory and research in

the trait view of personality have slowly converged and a consensus has been reached that the

Five-Factor Model of personality, often termed as “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to

describe the most salient aspects of personality. The Big Five is composed of neuroticism,

extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, which are enjoying increasing

acceptance and popularity among personality psychologists.

The personality factors that make up the Big Five are not themselves traits but rather

dispositional categories under which a variety of specific traits may be subsumed (Barry &

Friedman, 1998). According to Barrick and Mount (1991), these five factors include (1)

Neuroticism, which is associated with being anxious, depressed, worried, and insecure; (2)

Extraversion, which is associated with being sociable, assertive, talkative, and active; (3)

Openness, which is associated with being imaginative, curious, original, and open-minded; (4)

Agreeableness, which is associated with being courteous, flexible, trusting, cooperative, and

tolerant; and (5) Conscientiousness, which is associated with being careful, responsible, and

organized. The Big Five thus captures individual characteristics that are affective, experiential,

and motivational (McCare & Costa, 1989) and are more likely to predict individuals’ behavioral

intentions in conflict situations.

6

Predicting Conflict Styles

Neuroticism McCrae and Costa (1989) describe neuroticism as emotional instability and

maladjustment characterized by negative emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, and negative

self-concept and low self-esteem. Individuals high in neuroticism are less able to control their

impulse or effectively cope with stress (McCrae & Costa, 1985). In this way, neuroticism can be

logically related to conflict handling preferences (Moberg, 1998, 2001). As coping with conflict

is a cognitively effortful task and often arouse negative affect, it is expected individuals high in

existing level of anxiety and depression, may find conflict threatening and thus have a strong

need to either avoid the conflict or act very aggressively to protect their own interests. As a result,

they are more likely to avoid the conflict or to compete with the others and less likely to

accommodate, compromise, or collaborate in conflict situations.

H1: Neuroticism will be positively related to competing and avoiding styles and negatively

related to collaborating, accommodating, and compromising styles.

Extraversion As an indicator of one’s interpersonal assertiveness, gregariousness, and

confidence (Costa & McCrae, 1995), extraversion has been found to predict the levels of

individual impact on group interaction (Barry & Friedman, 1998). Because extraverts by their

nature are assertive they may stand up for their needs without respecting the needs of others.

Forcing or influencing others to resolve a conflict in one’s favor also requires an outspoken and

overbearing personality (Antonioni, 1998), which suggests extraversion is more likely to be

related to the use of competing style and less likely to accommodating or avoiding.

Individuals high in extraversion also show a strong inclination to develop interpersonal

relationships and have the social skills and the desire to work with others, which is a necessity

7

for resolving conflicts in a collaborative way. A previous study using MBTI measures supports

the notion that extraverts preferred a collaborative style of managing conflict (Mills, Robey, &

Smith, 1985).

H2: Extraversion will be positively related to confrontational styles, including competing and

collaborating styles and negatively related to non-confrontational styles, such as avoiding,

compromising, and accommodating.

Agreeableness Costa and McCrae (1995) characterized high agreeable persons as

sympathetic, helpful, and cooperative, and low agreeable persons as antagonistic, skeptical, and

competitive. Because agreeableness tends to be an interpersonal factor that is expressed when

cooperation and consideration are important, its absence would be reflected in a lack of concern

for the outcomes of another. Therefore, low agreeable individuals would be expected to adopt a

conflict style in which one attempts to contend and achieve one’s own goals, or win at another’s

expense. Conversely, high agreeableness would be expressed through concern for another’s

outcome and reflected in preference for a compromising position (Moberg, 2001).

H3: Agreeableness will be positively related to compromising style and negatively related to

competing style.

Openness Openness has often been defined as having an active imagination, being

intellectually curious, having a preference for variety, and willingness to entertain new ideas

(Costa & McCrae, 1995). Openness reflects the extent to which people are willing to make

adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas and situations. Therefore,

closed individuals will be less flexible and have difficulty understanding others’ views, which

8

may lead to competing or avoiding styles. In contrast, though open individuals may find conflict

to be of concern, they will be more likely to prefer an adaptive, flexible approach to its solution,

leading to more compromising or collaborating styles in conflict situations.

H4: Openness will be positively related to compromising and collaborating styles and

negatively related to competing, accommodating, and avoiding styles.

Conscientiousness Sometimes termed as “Will”, conscientiousness reflects being dutiful,

thorough, responsible, and self-disciplined (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Within the context of

conflict resolution, these personality features are suitable for preparation work and pre-conflict

planning, but not necessarily related to any of the conflict styles studied here. Empirical studies

support the fact that conscientiousness is generally not related to any specific behavioral pattern

or outcomes during business negotiation, either in distributive negotiation or in integrative

negotiation (Barry & Friedman, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis will be examined:

H5: Conscientiousness will not be related to any of the conflict styles.

Conflict Styles and Negotiation Negotiation is a frequently invoked mechanism for the resolution of conflicts between

individuals or the representatives of groups. To certain extent bargaining behaviors are

predicated upon conflict styles (Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991). Others equal, different

conflict styles are expected to translate into different behaviors in the process of negotiation,

which further generates different outcomes. However, surprisingly few studies have attempted to

examine this relationship (Volkema & Bergmann, 1995), resulting in an unresolved question: Do

conflict styles predict actual behaviors during the process of conflict resolution such as

9

negotiation? Some scholars suggested a contingency approach to handling conflict, meaning that

the appropriateness of using a particular style depends on the conflict situation (Rahim, 1992),

but the contingency approach fails to acknowledge that individuals may not be flexible enough to

use whichever style is best for a particular situation. The relationships between conflict styles

and actual negotiation process during negotiation thus become very important for better

understanding of the conflict resolving process.

Negotiation Process Negotiation process is the dynamic interaction between negotiators by

which the two parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon an exchange rate by

resolving incompatible goals (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Wall, 1985; Wall and Blum, 1991).

Among other factors, competitive bargaining behavior, collaborative bargaining behavior, and

compromising bargaining behavior have been found to play important roles during negotiations

(Barry & Friedman, 1998; Lewicki & Litterer, 1985; Greenhalgh et al., 1985). Competitive

behavior is a power-oriented mode, in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win

one’s one position—one’s ability to argue, one’s rank, and economic sanctions. Competitive

behavior is based only on the concerns of the competitor; it doesn’t take into consideration the

others’ interests. It might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position that you believe

is correct, or simply trying to win.

Collaborative behavior goes beyond just satisfying one’s own interests and it involves an

attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the interests of both

parties. In the process of conflict resolving, collaborative behavior might take the form of

exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, concluding to resolve some

condition which would otherwise have them competing for resources, or it might take the form

of confronting and trying to find a creative solution.

10

Compromising behavior falls on a middle ground. Compromising behavior involves splitting

the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position, with an

objective to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solutions that partially satisfy both parties,

though often neither side is completely satisfied as a result.

According to the dual-concern model of conflict styles, individuals tend to seek an

appropriate combination of pursuing their own concerns at the others’ expenses and sacrificing

their own interests to satisfy the other sides, and such combination forms different conflict styles.

In this study, I will use a buyer-seller negotiation task with integrative potentials to examine the

influence of conflict styles on bargaining behaviors and subsequent outcomes. I predict that

different conflict management styles have implications for the manner in which the negotiation

process is tackled, leading to different behavioral formats. More specifically, when negotiators

prefer a confrontational style and focus on their own concerns, such as competing and

collaborating, they will behave more aggressively and tend to fight hard to defend their own

interests, and therefore use more competitive and collaborative behaviors; when negotiators

prefer a non-confrontational style and focus on satisfying their partners’ interests, such as

accommodating or even avoiding, they will behave less contentiously and therefore use more

compromising behaviors during the negotiation process.

H6: confrontation conflict styles, including competing and collaborating styles, will be

positively related to competitive behaviors and collaborative behaviors and negatively

related to compromising behaviors during business negotiation.

11

H7: Non-confrontational conflict styles, including avoiding, accommodating, and

compromising styles, will be negatively related to competitive behaviors and collaborative

behaviors and positively related to compromising behaviors during business negotiation.

Negotiation Outcomes In the present study, three key outcome constructs will be considered:

(1) negotiator’s individual profits, (2) relationship building, and (3) negotiator’s satisfaction. The

inclusion of negotiator’s individual profits reflects the main objective of most negotiation studies.

The ultimate goal of negotiation research is to find approaches that could be used to improve

negotiator’s individual profits and to look for those factors—no matter how they are

categorized—that influence individual profits. To explore the effects of different conflict

management styles, individual profits will be measured in this study as one criterion variable.

Relationship and satisfaction as affective outcomes have been linked to functional behaviors

in a variety of settings (Churchill et al., 1990; Ma, 2004; Ma & Jaeger, 2003), and are considered

critical outcome measures of exchange relationships like business negotiation (Ruekert &

Churchill, 1984). This is especially true when integrative negotiations are crucial and long-term

relationships become more important than one-shot negotiation successes. Satisfaction and

relationship are the factors that can increase the possibility of an integrative or “win-win”

solution and that help maintain the positive relationships. Thus, it is essential to include

satisfaction and relationship building as primary negotiation outcomes.

The relationships between bargaining behaviors and negotiation outcomes are based on the

following rationale: Because competitive behaviors are based only on the concerns of the

competitor they are more likely to generate high individual profits and produce high satisfaction

for negotiators themselves. Converse to this, compromising behaviors are intended for an

expedient solutions with both sides giving up some interests, these behaviors are more likely to

12

lead to lower individual profits as the full potentials of the problems are not completely explored,

but given their intent to find a mutually acceptable middle position, negotiators with

compromising behaviors are likely to be more satisfied than not with the negotiation. Different

as they are, both competitive behaviors and compromising behaviors are not expected to related

to relationship building because, on the one hand, competitive behaviors might cause the other

sides to reciprocate competition, and on the other hand, compromising behaviors do not lead to

complete fulfillment of either side’s interests and an integrative solution is made impossible by

expedient compromising.

Collaborative behaviors, not like the other two types of behaviors, involve an active search

for solutions that fully satisfy the interests of both parties. As a result, a creative solution could

be found and the outcome pie is expanded from which both sides could benefit and feel satisfied,

with a good relationship established for interactions in future.

H8: Competitive behaviors will lead to higher individual profits and higher satisfaction.

H9: Compromising behaviors will lead to lower individual profits and higher satisfaction.

H10: Collaborative behaviors will lead to higher individual profits, better relationship

building and higher satisfaction.

The Mediating Effects Although there are some studies linking conflict management styles

to actual conflict resolving behaviors (Volkema & Bergmann, 1995; Kirkbride et al., 1991), few

studies have been conducted within a negotiation context and no study has directly related

individual differences in personality to conflict styles and bargaining behaviors. The current

study is intended to integrate the research on personality traits, conflict styles, and negotiation so

as to provide a complete picture of conflict management process.

13

Thus, in addition to the examination of the relationships between the Big Five personality

factors and conflict styles and the relationships between conflict styles and bargaining behaviors,

other research issues to be examined here are the mediating effects of conflict styles on the

relationship of personality traits to bargaining behaviors and the mediating effects of bargaining

behaviors on the relationship of conflict styles to negotiation outcomes. Therefore, the following

hypotheses will also be examined.

H11: Conflict styles will mediate the relationship of personality factors to bargaining

behaviors.

H12: Bargaining behaviors will mediate the relationship of conflict styles to negotiation

outcomes.

Method Participants

138 undergraduate business students from one major Canadian university in the east of

Canada were recruited via volunteer and course credit options. 55% of them were female, with

an average age of 18.5 (Minimum = 17; Maximum = 25, s.d. = 1.03). Students were randomly

paired off into same-sex pairs for a negotiation exercise.

Procedures

Student participants were told beforehand they were participating in a negotiation exercise in

which they would play the roles they were assigned to. They were instructed to be as creative as

they wanted. They were also told that this study was only for academic purpose and

confidentiality was ensured by assigning each subject a pseudo-id so that no real identities would

be collected for the final results.

14

About two weeks before the negotiation exercise, each student was given a personality

questionnaire to complete. On the day when negotiations were conducted, subjects were

randomly paired-off into buyer-seller dyads and assigned to different roles for negotiation.

Written instructions were handed out which described negotiator’s role as a buyer or seller in a

simulated business negotiation for three appliances. The instructions informed negotiators that

they were allowed to share any information with their partners as they saw appropriate, but must

not show their instructions to them. Participants had 30 minutes to read their instructions and

prepare for this negotiation. Before starting the actual negotiations, they filled out a pre-

negotiation questionnaire. Participants then had 30 minutes to negotiate an agreement. Dyads

who settled within the 30 minutes assigned were asked to complete a final written contract on the

agreed options. Finally, every one completed a post-negotiation questionnaire, which measured

negotiation behaviors and negotiation outcomes. In this study all dyads reached agreements

within 30 minutes and therefore all were used in data analysis.

Negotiation Exercise

The negotiation exercise was a variable-sum simulation similar to that used by Thompson &

Hastie (1990) and Drake (2001) with some adaptation. Negotiators were instructed to reach an

agreement on the prices for three appliances: (1) big-screen TV set, (2) digital camcorder, and (3)

laptop computer. For each appliance, the negotiator received a list of 9 possible prices to be paid

for that item, labeled "Price A", "Price B", and so on, through "Price I". Next to each price was

listed the dollar amount of profits the negotiator would earn from setting at that price.

Different appliances earned different profits for negotiators. For instance, sellers could

achieve a profit of $1000 for each unit of big-screen TV sets, but only $600 for laptop computers.

In addition, the profit sheets for buyer and seller differed in that some high-profit appliances for

15

buyers were low-profit appliances for sellers, and vice-versa. Thus, the opportunity for mutually

beneficial trade-off existed and both sides could compromise their least profitable item to

maximize profits on their most profitable item.

Other appliances represented incompatible goals for buyers and sellers, a zero-sum situation.

That is, each negotiator stood to make exactly the same amount of profit for that item and would

be forced to compete for a sizable share of that profit. For example, buyer and seller could both

earn $0 to $800 for digital camcorder and must split the difference to reach an agreement.

Manipulation Check

To check the role and other manipulations, each participant were asked regarding their (1)

role, (2) goal in terms profits, (3) planned opening bid in terms of prices, and (4) the amount of

profit represented by the opening bid. These questions were asked to ensure subjects understood

the instructions and the task. Few participants failed these items and the most common mistake

was a miscalculation of profits, which would be reviewed and corrected. After completing the

negotiation, participants were then debriefed and questions were answered in the discussion

period.

Measures

Personality An international personality inventory (IPI) measuring Big Five developed by

Goldberg (1999) was used in this study to measure negotiator’s personality. The IPI scale is a

50-item short-version scale that provides a brief, comprehensive measure of the five dimensions

of personality. It consists of five 10-item subscales that measure each of the five dimensions of

the Big Five: Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Sample

questions include: “I feel little concern for others,” “I don’t talk a lot,” and “I sympathize with

16

others’ feelings”. Students were asked to indicate on a one-to-five scale how accurately each

statement described him or her, where 1 = very inaccurate and 5 = very accurate.

Based on factor analysis using SPSS, the resulting scales that were used for analysis included:

9 items for neuroticism (reliability alpha = .85; M = 2.92, S.D. = 0.70, Maximum = 4.40;

Minimum = 1.00); 9 items for extraversion (reliability alpha = .86; M = 3.46, S.D = 0.69,

Maximum = 1.50, Minimum = 4.90); 10 items for conscientiousness (reliability alpha = .82; M =

3.35, S.D. = 0.64, Maximum = 4.90, Minimum = 1.10); 8 items for agreeableness (reliability

alpha = .78; M = 3.93, S.D. = 0.55, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 2.25); and 8 items for

openness (reliability alpha = .80; M = 3.66, S.D. = 0.59, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 1.63).

Conflict Styles To overcome the problem of the forced-choice response scale often used in

other studies of conflict style (Antonioni, 1998), a scale consisting of 28 items based on Rahim

and Magner’s study (1995) on conflict handling styles was used in this study. Students subjects

were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale their preferred approached when facing with conflict

situations where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The scales used in the analysis

included: 7 items for collaborating (reliability alpha = .78; M = 3.91, S.D. = 0.49, Maximum =

5.00; Minimum = 2.00); 6 items for accommodating (reliability alpha = .70; M = 3.16, S.D. =

0.54, Maximum = 4.67; Minimum = 1.33); 5 items for competing (reliability alpha = .80; M =

3.28, S.D. = 0.71, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 1.40); 6 items for avoiding (reliability alpha

= .78; M = 3.06, S.D. = 0.71, Maximum = 4.50; Minimum = 1.50); 4 items for compromising

(reliability alpha = .67; M = 3.67, S.D. = 0.54, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 2.50).

Bargaining Behaviors To measure bargaining behaviors, including competitive behavior,

collaborative behavior, and compromising behavior, three sets of questions were developed for

this purpose with items adapted from those that have been used to measure similar behaviors

17

(Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Participants were asked to assess how each statement described his

or her behaviors in the negotiation. Sample items included “I was firm in pursuing my goals

during the negotiation” and “I tried hard to win my position” or “I tried hard to find a

compromising solution” and “I attempted to work through our difference in order to solve the

problem”. Respondents were to assess the response on a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly

disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The scales used for analysis included: 6 items for competitive

behavior (reliability alpha = .83; M = 3.76, S.D. = 0.60, Maximum = 5.00; Minimum = 1.83); 7

items for collaborative behavior (reliability alpha = .81; M = 3.56, S.D = 0.61, Maximum = 5.00,

Minimum = 1.86); 5 items for compromising behavior (reliability alpha = .71; M = 3.83, S.D. =

0.69, Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 2.00).

Negotiation Outcomes The economic negotiation outcome, i.e., individual profit, was the

actual amount of agreement reached during the simulation. Negotiators’ satisfaction with

negotiation was measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 3 items, where 1 = very dissatisfied and

5 = very satisfied, with reliability alpha = .88 (M = 3.81, S.D = 0.92, Maximum = 5.00,

Minimum = 1.00). Relationship building was also measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 4

items, with 1 = to the least extent the relationship has been improved and 5 = to the greatest

extent the relationship has been improved (reliability alpha = .88; M = 3.87, S.D = 0.91,

Maximum = 5.00, Minimum = 1.00).

Analysis

A hierarchical regression analysis using SPSS was conducted for each dependent variables

by first entering the control variables, role and work experience as the first block, then the

independent variables (i.e., personality factors for conflict styles, and conflict styles for

bargaining behaviors) as the next block.

18

Results Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations among the Big Five personality

factors, conflict styles, negotiation process, and negotiation outcomes. In general, the bivariate

correlations reflect expected relations and provide confidence that the measures functioned

properly for the effects tested in this study.

------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------

Figure 2 represents the results of regression analysis, which support most of the hypotheses

proposed in this study. For the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict

styles, Hypothesis 1 predicts neuroticism will be negatively related to non-confrontational style,

which was partially supported with the negative relationship between neuroticism and

compromising style found in this study, meaning that people high in neuroticism are less likely

to have a compromising preferences for conflict handling, but the predicted positive relationship

between neuroticism and competing or avoiding was not supported in this study. It is easy to

understand that neuroticism as an indicator of emotional instability may not have a strong

relationship with either competing, collaborating or accommodating, but it is interesting to notice

that neuroticism is not related to avoiding either. As is discussed with a high level of existent

anxiety and depression, people high in neuroticism are expected to find conflict threatening and

should try to avoid it. This relationship is worth more efforts in future studies.

------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here -------------------------------

Hypothesis 2 predicts extraversion will be positively related to confrontational styles

including competing and collaborating and negatively related to such non-confrontational style

19

as avoiding. This was supported in this study, implying that extroverts are more likely to have a

competing or collaborating preferences for conflict handling while less likely to choose avoiding

style to approach conflict situations. The proposed negative relationship between extraversion

and compromising and accommodating, however, was not supported, which suggests no strong

relationship between extraversion and the use of compromising or accommodating style.

In support of the prediction on agreeableness and its impact on conflict styles, agreeableness

was found positively related to compromising and negatively related to competing style, which

supported Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 5 was also supported in this study, consistent with the view

of today’s literature on conscientiousness which states that conscientiousness usually is not

related to any specific behavioral preferences in conflict situation (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Ma

& Jaeger, 2003).

Contrary to the prediction of Hypothesis 4, openness was not found related to any of the

conflict styles studied here. The reason could be that open-mind people show strong ability of

adjustment and adaptation towards conflict situation, and this flexibility leads people to quickly

adjust their tactic and strategy preferences according to different situations, as argued by the

contingency approach. As a result, openness is not consistently related to any specific conflict

style due to its situational flexibility.

For the relationship between conflict styles and bargaining behaviors, the results of this

study showed that competing style and collaborative style led to more competitive behaviors

during business negotiation and collaborating style predicted more collaborative behaviors in

negotiation, while avoiding was negatively related to the use of competitive behavior, which

partially supported Hypothesis 6 and 7. This findings support the validity of conflict styles as

predictors of actual bargaining behaviors. Collaborating style showed a positively relationship,

20

instead a negative one as predicted, with compromising behavior, which is interesting in that

people with collaborating preferences for conflict handling may sometimes focus more on their

concerns for others’ needs and thus are willing to find an expedient solution mutually acceptable

to both sides instead of actively pushing the others to reach an win-win solution, which is often

more demanding and difficult to achieve.

To our surprise, accommodating and compromising styles didn’t predict any behavior types

in this study, meaning that even though people may believe accommodating or compromising

styles preferable in some situations, these preferences do not manifest in actual bargaining

process. This may reflect the actual reluctance of involved parties to give up some interests in

order to find a middle ground position (compromising style), not to mention selflessly satisfying

the others’ interests as requested by accommodating style.

The relationships between bargaining behavior and negotiation outcomes, including

individual profits, satisfaction with negotiation, and relationship building were strongly

supported in this study, consistent with the predictions of Hypothesis 8, Hypothesis 9, and

Hypothesis 10, with an except that collaborative behavior was not found related to either

individual profits or satisfaction. But collaborative behavior has a strong positive relationship

with relationship building, which reflects its emphasis on long-term orientation. In other words,

even though working collaboratively for a creative solution so as to expand the pie will lead to

better relationship for future businesses (as predicted in Hypothesis 10), this value-adding

process (or value creation) doesn’t guarantee that individual negotiators will get a larger share

from the final expanded profits. Future research should closely examine the impact of

collaborative behaviors on individual profits.

21

Finally, the mediating effects of conflict styles on the relationship of personality traits and

bargaining behaviors and the mediating effects of bargaining behaviors on the relationships

between conflict styles and negotiation outcomes were tested using the standard approach of

testing mediating effects. First, the relationships between independent variables and mediating

factors were tested. Second, the relationship between mediating factors and dependent variables

were tested. Third, controlling for the effects of mediating factors, the relationships of

independent variables to dependent variables were examined. If these relationships were

weakened, then we could conclude the mediating factors did mediate the impact of independent

variables on dependent variables, and if these relationships became zero, it could be concluded

that the impact was fully mediated. The results from this study showed that conflict styles fully

mediated the impact of the Big Five personality factors on bargaining behaviors. Bargaining

behaviors also fully mediated the impact of conflict styles on negotiation outcomes, consistent

with the predictions in Hypothesis 11 and 12.

Discussion

One of the major contributions of this study is the empirical evidence it provides for a

relationship between a fundamental personality structure, i.e., the Big Five, and the characteristic

mode of conflict handling in a negotiation context and for a relationship between conflict styles

and different bargaining behaviors. The findings from this study indicate that a positive

relationship exists between extraversion and competing, between extraversion and collaborating,

and between agreeableness and compromising, as well as a negative relationship between

extraversion and avoiding, between neuroticism and compromising, and between agreeableness

and competing. Moreover, this study also supports a positive relationship between competing

and collaborating styles and competitive behaviors, between collaborating style and collaborative

22

and compromising behaviors, as well as a negative relationship between avoiding style and

competitive behaviors. These findings suggest that extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism

are three most important personality factors in the Big Five that predict conflict styles and that

collaborating, competing and avoiding are three most important conflict styles that predict actual

bargaining behaviors with negotiation contexts.

The results from this study have important implications for both theorists and practitioners

alike in conflict management area. From a theoretical perspective, this study attempts a complete

investigation on the framework that integrates personality factors, conflict styles, and bargaining

behaviors and outcomes. The current literature on conflict and conflict management does not

lack the studies examining the relationship between personality and conflict styles or studies

examining the relationship between conflict styles and their corresponding behaviors, but few

studies have tried to examine these phenomena in a contextually rich situations such as

negotiations, the most used conflict resolution format, and even fewer attempt to integrate

various studies in this area. This study takes the first step of examining the integrated

relationship between personality factors, conflict preferences, and bargaining behaviors and

outcomes. The results from this study provide empirical evidence for the Big Five personality

factors as valid predicators of conflict preferences and for conflict styles as indicators of

behavioral patterns in actual conflict resolving process, which will enrich our understanding of

the relationship between personality, conflict styles, and their impact in conflict situations.

The results of this study also have implications for conflict practitioners. Organizations may

begin to use Big Five personality assessment to help make decisions about selection, promotion

and training for improvement in conflict resolution skills. For instance, the practices in training

on conflict management have been ignoring the impact of personality, and thus are less effective.

23

With the knowledge of the relationship between personality and conflict styles, training could

help individuals understand why and how their own personality is related to a preference for a

particular style of handling conflicts. Similarly, with a better understanding of the relationship

between conflict styles and actual behaviors and outcomes in conflict situations, individuals will

understand how their preferences in conflict handling affect their behaviors and the resulting

outcomes, and therefore are more able to increase their self-awareness and more able to self-

adjust their behaviors, making it possible for individuals to learn the behaviors required for

integrative solutions.

As with any research project, this study has some limitations. The use of same source

responses might have contributed to common method variance. This study, however, was

designed to control for this variance in ways recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986), by

administering questionnaires at different times and in different places together with reverse scale

formats. The high reliability alphas also provide support for the scales used in this study.

Another limitation is the use of student sample. The analysis of this study was based on

student samples and the student sample might be different from the general population samples.

This being said, however, one could argue that while the student samples may not be perfectly

representative, it is still valuable for its exploratory nature of this study, and the results provide

insightful directions for advanced studies. The issue to be addressed in future research is to use

professional negotiators and real negotiation situations to examine the relationship between

personality, conflict styles, and bargaining behaviors. Difficult as it may be, results from such

studies will greatly contribute to negotiation scholarship. Using different samples will also

increase the external validity of similar studies.

24

REFERENCES Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict

management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-27. Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative

negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345-359. Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Churchill, G., Walker, O., & Ford, N. (1990). Sale Force Management (3rd edition). Homewood,

IL: Irwin. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetland: A reply to Block.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216-220. Drake, L. (2001). The culture-negotiation link: Integrative and distributive bargaining through an

inter-cultural communication lens. Human Communication Research, 27(3), 317-349. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Goldbeg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe v.7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Greenhalgh, L., Nelsin, S. A., & Gilkey, R. W. (1985). The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 9-33.

Jones, R. E., & Melcher, B. H. (1982). Personality and the preferences for the modes of conflict resolution. Human Relations, 35, 649-658.

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, E. J. (1975). Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as a reflection of Jungian Personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37, 971-980.

Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, F. Y., and Westwood, R. I. (1991). ‘Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behavior: cultural and psychological influence’, Organization Studies, 12(3), 365-389.

Lewicki, R. J., & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Lewicki, R. J., Litterer, J. A., Minton, J. W., and Saunders, D. M. (1994). Negotiation (2nd

edition). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Ma, Z. (2004, August). West Meets Muslim: Comparing Canadian and Pakistani Conflict Styles

in Business Negotiations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.

Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. (2003). Exploring individual differences in Chinese negotiation styles. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Meeting, Administrative Science Association of Canada, 24(8), 81-102.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's 'Adequate taxonomy': Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.

McCrae, R. R., & Coates, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumflex and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.

25

Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict handling and personality dimensions of project management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 1135-1143.

Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the five factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 258-285.

Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47-68.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.

Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organization (2nd edition). Westport, CT: Praeger. Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling

interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132.

Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic.

Ruekert, R., & Churchill, G. (1984). Reliability and validity of alternative measures of channel member satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 226-233.

Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A., and Savage, G. T. (1999). ‘A test of the motivations underlying choice of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1), 25-44.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). ‘Conflict and conflict management’, In M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thomas, K. W., and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.

Thompson, L. (1990). ‘Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues’, Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-532.

Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Judgment tasks and biases in negotiation. In B. H. Sheppard, M. H. Bazerman, & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 31-54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Volkema, R. L., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 5-15.

Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal behavior: Theoretical frontiers. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

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.

Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management, Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 199-209.

Wall, J. A. (1985). Negotiation: Theory and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.

Wall, J. A., & Blum, M. W. (1991). Negotiations. Journal of Management, 17, 273-303. Womack, D. F. (1988). ‘Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Survey’, Management

Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 321-349.

26

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. Role .50 .50 -

2. Year of Work Experience .79 1.36 -.15 -

3. Neuroticism 2.89 .72 .02 .01 .85

4. Extraversion 3.53 .70 -.06 .12 -.22** .86

5. Agreeableness 3.93 .58 -.10 .06 .07 .29*** .78

6. Conscientiousness 3.32 .66 -.00 .18* -.18* .01 .06 .82

7. Openness 3.60 .59 -.04 .20* -.32*** .42*** .26** .24** .80

8. Collaborating Style 3.91 .49 -.07 .09 -.15 .24** .23** .13 .18* .78

9. Accommodating Style 3.16 .54 .01 -.03 -.03 -.09 .05 .07 -.07 .07 .70

10. Competing Style 3.28 .71 .09 .04 -.09 .34*** -.09 .06 .24** .10 -.20* .80

11. Avoiding Style 3.06 .71 -.05 .10 .11 -.23** .11 -.07 -.08 -.02 .37*** -.17* .78

12. Compromising Style 3.67 .54 -.03 -.01 -.17* .19* .25** .11 .23** .54*** .27*** -.09 .22** .67

13. Competitive Behavior 3.76 .60 -.04 .14 -.13 .18* .06 .12 .20* .29*** -.07 .23** -.21* .09 .83

14. Collaborative Behavior 3.65 .61 -.13 .17* .14 .08 .10 .07 .09 .27** .03 .03 .00 .20* .27*** .81

15. Compromising Behavior 3.83 .69 .03 .18* -.12 .05 .12 .01 .08 .22* -.02 -.02 .03 .19* .05 .53*** .71

16. Individual Profits 1280.5 187.9 .08 -.11 .05 -.05 -.05 .01 -.07 -.08 .18* -.13 -.02 -.02 .16 -.02 -.21* -

17. Satisfaction with Negotiation 3.81 .92 .05 .19* -.16 .08 .02 .08 .14 .06 .07 -.02 -.03 .12 .28*** .20* .25** -.02 .88

18. Relationship Building 3.87 .91 .04 .19* -.13 .12 .00 .12 .21* .12 .05 -.04 -.04 .19 .19* .38*** . 47*** -.11 .72*** .88 N = 138. Variables were coded as follows: Role, 0= buyer, 1= seller; conflict style ranged from 0 to 12; * p< 0.05 (2-tailed); ** p< 0.01 (2-tailed); *** p< 0.001 (2-tailed). Numbers in bold along the diagonal are reliability coefficients (Cronbach Alphas).

27

FIGURE 1

The Thomas Model of Conflict-handling Styles Adapted from Thomas (1976)

Competing Collaborating

Avoiding Accommodating

Compromising

Uncooperative Cooperative

Cooperativeness

Una

sser

tive

Ass

ertiv

e

Ass

ertiv

enes

s

28

FIGURE 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis:

Main Effects of the Big Five Personality Factors on Conflict Styles, Behaviors, and Negotiation outcomes

Openness Accommodating

Competing Neuroticism

Extraversion

Agreeablenes

Conscientious

CompromisingBehavior

CollaborativeBehavior

Competitive Behavior

Compromising

Avoiding

Collaborating

Satisfaction with Negotiatio

Relationship Building

Individual Profits

.41***

-.19*.23**

-.25**

.25**

-.19*

.17*

.25**

.21**

-.19*

.25**

.20**

.25**

.35***

.18*

-.20*

Personality Conflict Styles Bargaining Behaviors Negotiation Outcomes