Can conflict cultivate collaboration? The positive impact of mild versus intense task conflict via perceived openness rather than emotions.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-25 DOI:10.1037/xap0000448
Ming-Hong Tsai
{"title":"Can conflict cultivate collaboration? The positive impact of mild versus intense task conflict via perceived openness rather than emotions.","authors":"Ming-Hong Tsai","doi":"10.1037/xap0000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has demonstrated negative associations between task-relevant conflicts and collaboration. To supplement the previous findings and explore the potential benefits of conflicts, we differentiate between two types of task conflict expressions (i.e., mild vs. intense task conflicts, such as debates vs. disagreements regarding work-related issues) in dyad interactions and propose the differential effects of mild versus intense task conflicts on collaboration based on the theory of conflict expression. In three studies with experimental manipulations and surveys on working adults, the results demonstrated that perceptions of debates versus disagreements (in Studies 1 and 2) or mild versus intense task conflicts (in Study 3) enhanced perceivers' collaboration with others via the perceivers' assessments of others' openness rather than emotions. The findings regarding positive associations between mild task conflicts and collaboration implicate the coexistence of conflict and collaboration. Moreover, the results showed that debates versus disagreements (in Study 1) or mild versus intense task conflicts (in Study 3) achieved high task performance by enhancing perceptions of others' openness that subsequently increased collaboration. These findings clarify why conflicts inconsistently influence interpersonal interactions and task performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":"813-830"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000448","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated negative associations between task-relevant conflicts and collaboration. To supplement the previous findings and explore the potential benefits of conflicts, we differentiate between two types of task conflict expressions (i.e., mild vs. intense task conflicts, such as debates vs. disagreements regarding work-related issues) in dyad interactions and propose the differential effects of mild versus intense task conflicts on collaboration based on the theory of conflict expression. In three studies with experimental manipulations and surveys on working adults, the results demonstrated that perceptions of debates versus disagreements (in Studies 1 and 2) or mild versus intense task conflicts (in Study 3) enhanced perceivers' collaboration with others via the perceivers' assessments of others' openness rather than emotions. The findings regarding positive associations between mild task conflicts and collaboration implicate the coexistence of conflict and collaboration. Moreover, the results showed that debates versus disagreements (in Study 1) or mild versus intense task conflicts (in Study 3) achieved high task performance by enhancing perceptions of others' openness that subsequently increased collaboration. These findings clarify why conflicts inconsistently influence interpersonal interactions and task performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冲突能促进合作吗?温和与激烈的任务冲突通过感知开放性而非情绪产生的积极影响。
以往的研究表明,任务相关冲突与协作之间存在负相关。为了补充之前的研究结果并探索冲突的潜在益处,我们区分了二人互动中两种类型的任务冲突表达(即温和与激烈的任务冲突,如关于工作相关问题的辩论与分歧),并基于冲突表达理论提出了温和与激烈的任务冲突对合作的不同影响。在三项针对工作成年人的实验操作和调查研究中,结果表明,对辩论与分歧的感知(研究 1 和研究 2)或对轻微与激烈任务冲突的感知(研究 3)通过感知者对他人开放性的评估而不是情绪,增强了感知者与他人的合作。关于轻微任务冲突与协作之间正相关的研究结果表明,冲突与协作是共存的。此外,研究结果表明,辩论与分歧(研究 1)或轻微任务冲突与激烈任务冲突(研究 3)通过增强对他人开放性的感知来提高任务绩效,进而增强协作。这些研究结果澄清了为什么冲突会不一致地影响人际互动和任务绩效。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1