Conflict Management Styles and Argumentativeness

Hess / Online Ecstasy User Discourse

Ohio Communication Journal Volume 50-2012, pp. 31 - 4 7

Conflict Management Styles and Argumentativeness: Examining the Differences between Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Andrea L. Meluch Heather L. Walter Today's interactions are increasingly occurring in textually-based computermediated formats over traditional face-to-face (FTF). This paper explores the differences in conflict management styles (CMS) and argumentativeness between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and FTF communication. Results indicate that individuals are more likely to compromise and collaborate in a FTF conflict situation than they would be in a similar conflict situation that occurs via CMC.

Conflict is a natural daily occurrence that routinely impacts both personal and work relationships. Conflict, however, should not be negatively denoted, especially in the innovative world present today (Clercq, Thongpapanl, & Dimov, 2009). In fact, one can conclude that individuals who engage in conflict allow varying opinions to surface, which can solve problems and develop new ideas. The format for communicating is changing, especially with the advent of social networking, and the overall canopy of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Researchers cannot ignore the widespread usage of CMC in conflict research and need to embrace the different ways that people can now engage in conflict. Working through conflict, whether it occurs in a face-to-face (FTF) or CMC context, still requires communication. In the earlier years of conflict studies, researchers felt that conflict management could best be understood by breaking down one's cooperativeness and assertiveness behaviors (Thomas, 1976). Today,

Andrea L . Meluch is a doctoral student in the College of Communication and Information at Kent State University. Heather L. Walter (Ph.D., University of Buffalo, SUNY) is Assistant Professor in the School of Communication at The University of Akron. Inquiries may be sent to the first author at [email protected].

32

Meluch & Walter / Conflict Management Styles and Argumentativeness

however, there are many factors that early conflict management researchers could not have predicted, and digital communication media are one o f these factors. It is common for people to take their entire network o f contacts with them wherever they go, communicating with them, at w i l l , throughout the day via texts, emails, and social networking websites. The availability o f communication and the digital medium through which this communication takes place foster an environment ripe for conflict. Misinterpretation o f messages and the physical space that separates individuals using C M C makes conflict not only a common occurrence, but a routine one. When conflict occurs via C M C channels, an individual's degree o f argumentativeness can affect how w i l l i n g he or she is to engage i n a conflict. A n individual's argumentativeness has been shown to be greater i n public arguments (Johnson, Becker, Wigley, Haigh, & Craig, 2007). Message boards, status postings and tweets all provide a public forum for individuals to argue their positions w i t h one another and engage i n conflict. When conflict is considered, researchers can identify an individual's conflict management style (CMS), which can provide insight on how that individual w i l l respond to a conflict. However, the C M C context changes many things, such as whether or not an individual's argumentative nature w i l l emerge. The Internet has given the w o r l d the ability to connect individuals together who otherwise would have never met. In many instances these individuals are expected to work and communicate w i t h one another via C M C , instead o f doing so i n a FTF environment. Research on communication technology i n the workplace shows that individuals are utilizing the Internet and email over other types o f technology that are also available (D'Urso & Pierce, 2009). The use o f C M C usually takes place through textual interactions, despite the availability o f video chat and video conferencing technologies. These textual relationships rely solely on the receiver's personal interpretation o f the message. In the past, communicating w i t h one another consisted mainly o f FTF relationships; however, today that is no longer the case. Individuals can communicate with one another and never actually see or hear the other person at all. Much C M C lacks all elements o f traditional interpersonal communication, except the bare bones o f text. Deciphering the meaning o f computer-mediated messages is difficult in itself, let alone when individuals are disagreeing on a given subject, or experiencing some level o f miscommunication.

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 50 - 2012

33

Conflict Management Styles Conflict is a regular part o f the daily human experience. Conflict has many definitions i n the social sciences; some have positive connotations and others have negative ones (Thomas, 1976). The definition o f conflict to be utilized for the purposes o f this study is "From a communications standpoint, conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party i n achieving their goals" (Wilmot & Hocker, 1985, p. 23). I n this definition there is recognition o f interdependent parties, where there are multiple perspectives that i n some way seem to differ from each other. There are many approaches to determine the way i n which humans handle conflict. Blake and Mouton's (1964) managerial grid was one o f the first attempts made by researchers to evaluate human behaviors and categorize them. A t its inception the managerial grid measured an individual's "concern for people" and "concern for producdon;" however, it has been modified (Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976) to examine "concern for others" and "concern for s e l f " Researchers have a variety o f names for the five basic conflict management styles (CMS). While reasoning for changing or altering the names o f the CMS varies, research usually idenfifles some form o f the five types C M S as follows: 1) avoiding; 2) accommodating; 3) competing; 4) compromising; and 5) collaborating (Thomas, 1976). Each C M S is unique i n that it incorporates specific behaviors o f an individual i n a conflict situation (Volkema & Bergmann, 1994). Individuals who exhibit the avoiding style are prone to have l o w assertiveness and cooperafiveness. The accommodating style is when individuals exhibit low assertiveness and high cooperativeness. I n certain scales, such as the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (Putnam & Wilson, 1982), the accommodating and avoiding styles are combined due to their l o w degree o f assertiveness. When avoiding and accommodating styles are grouped together, i n some cases they are referred to as "non-confronting." Competing is comprised o f high assertiveness and low cooperativeness behaviors. Putnam and Wilson's (1982) scale has a different term for competing, and instead refers to individuals w i t h high assertiveness and l o w cooperativeness as being "controlling." While compromising behaviors include medium assertiveness and medium cooperativeness, the collaborating style is comprised o f both high assertiveness and cooperativeness behaviors. Volkema and Bergmann (1994) identify the relationship between behaviors i n each C M S and found that highly assertive behavior and

34


highly cooperative behavior (collaborating) occurred least often. The behaviors that were found to occur most often were those that included ignoring or accepting conflict. Conflict-handling behaviors are associated mostly with conflict management in a positive light (Thomas, 1978). The study of conflict experienced a paradigm shift from having negative connotation to being viewed as a productive force (Deutsch, 1969). Today we know as long as conflict is handled in a non-avoidance way, it can lead to synergies among individuals. Argumentativeness The desire to be argumentative can be found in communication interactions both in public and private settings, and in both face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) contexts. An individual's argumentativeness is an inherent characteristic of one's personality that will determine how willing someone is to engage in an argument or shy away from one (Infante & Rancer, 1996). Therefore, argumentativeness is a trait and would likely remain constant across different contexts. Argumentativeness scales have been shown to be a valid way to assess how likely a person will be to argue a position on any given subject matter (Infante & Rancer, 1982). However, even friendly arguments (especially those concerning controversial issues) can quickly turn into heated conflict. In their study, Johnson, et. al. (2007) focused on whether the public nature of an argument affects whether an individual will exhibit higher levels of argumentativeness. They found that the type of argument (a public argument or private one) is a predictor of reported argumentativeness levels. In looking at computer-mediated communication (CMC), argumentativeness levels may be affected by the computer-mediated nature of the argument. Many times in CMC public conversations are readily available for all of an individual's contacts to see. Examples of public CMC conversations include message boards, blogs, Facebook posts, status updates, and tweets. In CMC individuals choose whether or not to display their argumentative behavior to an entire social network, and/or everyone on the Internet. Face-to-Face Communication Prior to the Internet, face-to-face (FTF) communication in the traditional interpersonal setting, "snail mail" and telephone conversations comprised most of the communication landscape. Letters were the textual basis of communication used frequently in many settings before computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology

Ohio Communication Journal/Vol.

50 - 2012

35

made its way into the picture. However, letters and memos were not used the same way that CMC is used today. Letters and memos were formal correspondences used to communicate with little expectation of an expedited response. Conversely, CMC uses technology to communicate less formally and with a high expectation of an expedient response. In a synthesis of FTF and CMC comparative literature, Bordia (1997) proposed that research has shown a "poorer" perception of the partner and task in CMC, versus FTF group relationships. FTF relationships generally allow individuals to get a better sense of each other's communication through nonverbal cues, such as tone and body language, among others. An analysis of this research shows that FTF groups are more prone to attitude or shift changes (Bordia, 1997). The attitudinal changes can be due to the social pressure that is immediate in FTF relationships, whereas in CMC relationships individuals are less likely to flip their perspective because there are not others physically present. Computer-Mediated Communication and Conflict The emergence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in all areas of one's life has drastically changed the way individuals interact with one another. CMC can roughly be defined as "human communication via computers," (Simpson, 2002, p. 414). Through CMC, individuals send and receive a wide variety of synchronous and asynchronous messages that impact relationships. Synchronous CMC is the passing of messages in real time (Simpson, 2002). Asynchronous CMC occurs when using mediums such as email, where time passes instead of having instantaneous communication in the sender-messagereceiver relationship (Simpson, 2002). Email, however, is not the only CMC which individuals use primarily on a textual basis (not including emoticons) to convey their messages. Other forms of CMC include the popular social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as instant-messaging, text-messaging, and different forms of blogs and message boards. Due to the wide acceptance of CMC by popular culture, more individuals are utilizing CMC to its fullest extent to engage in conversations. However, interactions taking place entirely electronically are fundamentally different than those in interpersonal settings, where verbal messages and nonverbal cues can be observed synchronously. The physical space that separates individuals engaging in CMC is an element that makes the interaction completely different from FTF. CMC only shows the asynchronous text being sent, so it is

36

-


more complex than even telephones where tone, volume and immediate synchronous reactions still are present. Through the exchange of messages via CMC, new communication issues have emerged. Characteristics of verbal and nonverbal communication are now taken into consideration with CMC. Darics (2010) found that individuals are "economizing" their messages for purposes of efficiency. By conducting a micro-analysis of real-time computer-mediated discourse, Darics was able to locate text and emoticons that enforced positive interactions. However, due to space constraints via computer-mediated discourse, individuals chose to shorten their messages or use abbreviations when necessary. Research has found that shortening of messages, or "economizing," does not mean that individuals forgo politeness (Darics, 2010). However, despite the prevalence of positivity, Darics does not fially explore the fact that miscommunication is still a common occurrence. CMC that is misinterpreted has the ability to lead to conflict in many different settings. Politeness occurs in CMC just as it does in interpersonal message exchanges; however, as conflict arises in CMC, individuals are found to be impolite as well. Hardaker (2010) suggests that humans will exert aggression more freely in CMC due to the fact that there is generally less accountability involved. Through examining CMC posts derived from a public domain, Hardaker found a good deal of individuals exercising aggression against one another. Distance between individuals was identified as a reason for CMC aggression (Hardaker, 2010). CMC aggression, along with other forms of miscommunication, can lead to conflict. The conflict and aggression found in CMC is not new to the field. In fact over the years many have found that CMC lends to more aggression, which is now called "flaming" in research (Tumage, 2008). Flaming is more prevalent when messages are shown to contain aggressive terms. Miscommunication via CMC occurs quite often and can be the cause of future flaming and consequently more misunderstandings as well. Examining CMC reveals not only the phenomena of a new communication medium, but also the problems that arise along with the new technology. Overall, CMC can be an efficient means of keeping in contact with others. However, through CMC conflict can arise, and the textual basis and physical separation of the individuals using these mediated channels can make it difficult to manage.

Ohio Communication Journal/Vol.

50-2G\2

31

In modem times computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilitates interaction between individuals; however, this interaction is digitally distanced. Unlike face-to-face (FTF) interactions, CMC does not allow individuals to perceive another person's nonverbal behavior. Recently, communication researchers have begun to further explore the effects that computer-mediated communication (CMC) has on the interactions that take place between dyads (Friedman & Currall, 2003) and in the context of groups (Zornoza, RipoU, & Peiro, 2002). Research has shown that there is a greater risk of conflict escalation when dyads interact because of the use of CMC technologies (Friedman & Currall, 2003). However, research has yet to completely determine i f individuals choose to change their CMS when they are utilizing CMC technologies and i f their argumentativeness levels are escalated as well in the CMC context. In this study we seek to discern the conflict management styles (CMS) utilized for CMC interactions, and then to find out whether it differs from those used in FTF interactions. This study also aims to investigate whether individuals are more prone to argumentativeness in CMC or FTF. In light of the findings from previous research, we propose the following research questions: RQl: In what ways do conflict management styles (CMS) differ when it comes to computer-mediated communication (CMC) versus face-to-face (FTF)? RQ2: In what ways does argumentativeness differ when it comes to computer-mediated communication (CMC) versus face-to-face (FTF)? Method Participants

Participants for this study were comprised of a convenience sample of 122 undergraduate students enrolled at a large public Midwestern university. The sample consisted of 51 males (40.8%) and 71 females (58.2%). The questionnaire used for this study was distributed in eight communication classes; therefore the majority of the majors were communication majors. The breakdown of the majors overall was 51.2% communication majors, 14.4% were sciences majors and the remaining majors were an even mixture of other majors and students that identified themselves as undeclared. The ages of the participants ranged from 18-61; M = 21.82, SD = 5 All.

38

•


Ohio Communication Journal/Vo\. 50-2Q\2

39

Materials

Procedure

In regards to conflict management scales, studies show that certain scales for assessing one's conflict management styles (such as Hall's Conflict Management Survey) are not always easy to administer and do not always yield the most helpful results (Shockley-Zalabak, 1988). Vliert and Kabanoff (1990) assessed the validity of the principles of managerial grid assessments and found that for the most part the assessments were applicable. Created by Putnam and Wilson (1982), the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) was utilized in this study to evaluate participants' CMS due to its ability to write in particular scenarios, which the participants could use as a basis for their answers. The OCCI is a 30-item, self-report measure that uses a 7-point Likert scale format ranging from "always" to "never." The rehability for the OCCI compares favorably to other conflict management assessment instruments. Wilson and Waltman (1988) reported alpha coefficients ranging from .70 to .93 for subscales, with most of the coefficients above .80. The OCCI has been assessed for content, construct and predictive validity; however, the OCCI has not consistently shown predictive validity over time (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). The OCCI alpha coefficient for this study was .85, which is well within the range of previously tested levels. For the purposes of this study, the Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982) also was utilized to identify whether individuals exhibited higher levels of argumentativeness in face-to-face (FTF) environments or computer-mediated communication (CMC) ones. The Argumentativeness Scale is a 20-item, self-report measure that uses a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from "almost always true" to "almost never true." According to Infante and Rancer (1982), the coefficient alpha for the argumentativeness trait was to be a .91. For this study, that alpha coefficient was .63, which is lower than previously reported analyses. Overall, using scales to determine one's CMS and argumentativeness are effective to a certain extent. However, conflict occurs circumstantially, especially in new technology where CMC is employed. One's CMS and argumentativeness may not always be concrete, as the flaws in many instruments have shown. The emphasis for this CMS and argumentativeness study is on the medium through which the conflict occurred. The public nature and widespread use of Facebook discussions online makes them a useful avenue to explore CMS and argumentativeness together.

Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: a computermediated communication (CMC) context or a face-to-face (FTF) context. Participants read the condition for the CMC or FTF situation and then subsequently took the survey; however, participants were not aware at any time of the other condition. The researchers reasoned that if participants saw both contexts (CMC and FTF) impressions from one condition could influence survey response i f a second condition was presented. For each condition there were two different scenarios assigned randomly, resulting in four separate scenarios divided between the two conditions of CMC and FTF. In all there were four different versions of the questionnaire distributed to the participants. Each version of the questionnaire featured a different topic for the scenario. The CMC versions simulated a Facebook discussion posting, in which an argument conflict had ensued. The FTF versions simulated a family dinner, in which an argument conflict had ensued. The questionnaire was completed after the participants read their randomly assigned scenario, and questions were reconfigured to make them think specifically about the scenario they had read. Then participants completed the OCCI (Putnam & Wilson, 1982) first and the Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982) second. The CMC condition was randomly assigned to 64 participants (51.2%). The FTF condition was randomly assigned to 61 participants (48.8%). Results Participants indicated their conflict management style (CMS) and argumentativeness tendencies (see Table 1). ARGap stands for the tendency to approach argumentative situations and ARGav stands for the tendency to avoid argumentative situations. Together, they are used to report the means for the argumentativeness trait (ARGgt) in Table 1. The means for the four reported CMS also are reported in Table 1.

40

Meluch & Walter / Conflict Management

Styles and

Ohio Communication

Argumentativeness

Table 1. Means

Journal

/Vol.

50-2012

41

Table 2. Conflict Management Styles as they Relate to Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication N

Minimum

Maximum

M

SD

ARGap

121

19,00

50.00

33.67

7.36

ARGav

119

14.00

49.00

28.62

7.03

ARGgt

116

-26.00

33.00

4.68

12.09

nonconfront

122

12.00

76.00

42.37

12.60

collaborate

125

6.00

42.00

27.81

6.94

compromise

125

5.00

34.00

19.38

4.91

control

124

7.00

44.00

27.74

7.18

Valid N

113

Sum of squares nonconfront

collaborate

compromise

Conflict Management Styles RQl asked whether conflict management styles (CMS) are different in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments compared to face-to-face (FTF). Controlling and non-confrontational styles did not seem to be influenced by the condition (CMS vs. FTF); however, the compromising and collaborating strategies were. A oneway ANOVA was run to examine the differences between the uses of each of the styles. The participants in the FTF condition ( M = 29.19) were more likely to collaborate than those in the CMC condition ( M = 26.48). This was statistically significant F(l,123) = 4.917, p = .028. Also, those in the FTF condition were more likely to compromise ( M = 20.59) than those in the CMC condition ( M = 18.23). This was also statistically significant F(l,123) = 7.559, p = .007. There was no significant difference between FTF and CMC when using nonconfrontational or control strategies. The ANOVA results are shown in Table 2.

control

df

Mean square

F

Sig.

.787

.377

4.917

.028

7.559

.007

.255

.614

125.203

1

125.203

Within groups

19095.199

120

159.127

Total

19220.402

121

229.768

1

229.768

Within groups

5747.624

123

46.729

Total

5977.392

124

173.330

1

173.330

Within groups

2820.238

123

22.929

Total

2993.568

124

13.242

1

13.242

Within groups

6334.500

122

51.922

Total

6347.742

123

Between groups

Between groups

Between groups

Between groups

Argumentativeness RQ2 asks how argumentativeness differs in FTF and CMC environments. The ARGgt was found to be moderate with M = 4.68 and SD = 12.09 (see Table 1). A one-way ANOVA was used to examine these differences. The argumentativeness scale did not report a significant difference in levels between FTF and CMC conditions. While the results do not indicate a significant difference, the overall argumentativeness trait shows a difference that is approaching significance F(l,114) = 1.874, p = .174. The results are in Table 3. In this situation the mean score for CMC scenarios had a higher aggressiveness trait ( M = 6.18) than in the FTF scenarios ( M = 3.12), but the difference is not statistically significant.

42

Meluch & Walter / Conflict Management

Styles and

Table 3. Argumentativeness Differences between Computer-Mediated Communication and Face-to-Face Sum of Squares Between groups

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1.874

.174

272.109

1

272.109

Within groups

16551.090

114

145.185

Total

16823.198

115

Ohio Communication

Argumentativeness

Discussion This study had two research questions. One research question looked at the differences among conflict management styles (CMS) in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) communication. The other research question examined the differences between argumentativeness levels in CMC and FTF. The results related to both research questions are interesting and will be discussed further. Conflict Management Styles Results from this study indicate that CMS use is different depending on the context of the communication (CMC or FTF). There does not seem to be an impact on highly controlling or nonconfrontational strategies. However, an individual's capacity to compromise or collaborate is more likely to happen in FTF environments compared to CMC. Collaborating, and to a lesser extent compromising, are difficult tasks to undertake in a CMC context, due to the heightened communication that must take place between the individuals. To collaborate, individuals must be much more interdependent of each other and have much at stake (Knapp, Putnam, & Davis, 1988). In FTF interactions there might be a perception that there is more at stake in a conflict. For example, in a FTF interaction where the individuals are engaging in conflict they may feel more apt to be involved because of immediacy. In CMC environments, immediacy would be less apparent because of the spatial and time constraints placed on the individuals. The distance between the two parties may make them feel less interdependent and therefore less likely to collaborate or compromise with one another.

Argumentativeness

'*

Journal

/ Vol. 5 0 - 2 0 1 2

43

'

In terms of argumentativeness, it is interesting that the difference in levels between CMC and FTF interactions is negligible. It would seem that individuals would be more argumentative in CMC environments because of the sheer amount of discussions that take place in CMC environments that appear heated. The resuhs indicate a higher mean score of argumentativeness in the CMC environment. While this is not statistically significant, we have reason to believe that future studies may indicate that one is more likely to be argumentative while in engaging in conflict online than when in FTF interactions. However, as stated earlier, argumentativeness is a trait, so it follows previous research that argumentativeness continues to be the same across different contexts. Comparing Conflict Management Styles Findings to Argumentativeness Findings It is of expressed interest that differences between CMC and FTF interactions were not found in both CMS and argumentativeness. As a trait, argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1996) would not differ across contexts; on the other hand, CMS, which is a style, might. To contrast the two, this research supports the notion that CMS varies depending on the context or situation, as the CMS varied between the CMC and FTF context. Argumentativeness did not vary between the two contexts, which is consistent with the trait conceptualization. Limitations

• •

This study contains some significant limitations. First, both of the conditions were presented to the participants in a textual format. This may make individuals less likely to envision the FTF interaction actually taking place and respond to it in the same manner that they would a CMC interaction presented in a similar format. Further, the scenarios for FTF were different topics than those for CMC. The different topics were selected to ensure that participants were not being overly argumentative or trying to manage conflict based on any one topic presented. While these topics were deemed to be equally controversial, it is possible that some of the results are due to the topics, rather than the context difference. Another limitation is the sample, which was composed primarily of undergraduates as a convenience. The age range was from 18-61, but the vast majority of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.

44

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 50 - 2012


This generation is very comfortable with online communication, and with Facebook specifically. This sample provides a narrow scope from which to generalize the results. A truly randomized sample of individuals may yield more significant results. Finally, a limitation of this study is in the use of the Argumentativeness Scale, which proved to have a lower reliability in this study (.63) than in previous research (i.e., .91; Infante & Rancer, 1982). As a trait scale, the Argumentativeness Scale examines personality traits, whereas this study was examining context-specific behaviors. Therefore the Argumentativeness Scale may not be as adaptable as the OCCI to the scenarios presented in this methodology. The low reliability impacts the validity of the instrument as utilized here. Directions for Future Research

^

Future studies should take into account the limitations presented above. Ideally, a replication of this study with more real-life contexts would be important. Such a study could actually use a Facebook page or either videotaped or role-played interactions, instead of a text-based script. In a replication study, it would be pertinent to use the same argument topic across both contexts, so that the topic is not a variable. Also, further research should utilize a more generalizable sample. As the sample for this study was composed of university students, fiirther research should recruit a larger random sample. The specific styles of conflict management should be further examined to determine i f one is utilized more often in CMC environments, compared to FTF. There may be other traits beyond argumentativeness that may change across the different contexts. Traits such as nonverbal immediacy and communication apprehension also could be studied in much the same way as argumentativeness was in this study. However, consideration of a trait scale's inability to adapt to different contexts should be addressed in future research. Further, there is reason to consider examining CMC versus FTF communication in superior-subordinate relationships, as well as other types of organizational relationships. Finally, interpersonal FTF relationships should be examined when individuals know one another in the CMC context. Does the FTF relationship impact how individuals communicate in CMC, or does the separation of CMC breakdown barriers of FTF relationships?

45

Conclusion In sum, this study concludes that there is in fact a difference in the way we communicate online versus face-to-face. In conflict scenarios one is less likely to compromise or collaborate when the conflict is engaged online. It also appears as i f those engaging in conflicts online are likely to use more argumentativeness than those engaging in conflicts face-to-face.

46


References Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Breakthrough in organization development: A large-scale program that implements behavioral science concepts. Harvard Business Review, 42, 133-155. Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediatedcommunication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-120. Clerq, D. D., Thongpopanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2009). When good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse: The role of social capital in the conflict-innovation relationship. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 57,283-297. doi: 10.1007/sl 1747008-0122-0 Darics, E. (2010). Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual ieava. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 129-150. doi:l 0.1515/JPLR.2010.007 Deutsch, M . (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 35, p. 7-41. D'Urso, S. C , & Pierce, K. M . (2009). Connected to the organization: A survey of communication technologies in the modem organizational landscape. Communication Research Reports, 26, 75-81. Friedman, R. A., & Currall, S. C. (2003). Conflict escalation: Dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Human Relations, 56, 1325-1347. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215-242. doi:10.1515/JPLR.2010.011 Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 320-351. Johnson, A. J., Becker, J. A. H., Wigley, S., Haigh, M . M . , & Craig, E. A. (2007). Reported argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness levels: The influence of type of argument. Communication Studies, 58, 189-205. Knapp, M . L., Putnam, L. L., & Davis, L. J. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflict in organizations: Where do we go from here? Communication Quarterly, 1, 414-429.

Ohio Communication Journal /Vol. 50-2012

47

Kotowski, M . R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C. R., & Boh, J. M . (2009). A mutlitrait-multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs, 76, 443-462. Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. Communication Yearbook, 6, 629-652. Rahim, M . A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376. Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1988). Assessing the Hall conflict management survey. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 302-320. Simpson, J. (2002). Key concepts in ELT: Computer-mediated communication. ELT Journal, 56, 414-415. Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. M . D. Dunette. Chicago: RandMcNally. Thomas, K. W. (1978). Introduction. California Management Review, 21, 56-60. Tumage, A. K. (2008). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 4359. Vliert, E. V. D., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209. Volkema, R. J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1994). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 5-15. Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. (1985). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, l A : Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Wilson, S. R., & Waltman, M . S. (1988). Assessing the PutnamWilson organizational communication conflict instrument (OCCI). Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 367-388. Zomoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiro, J. M . (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: Faceto-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 55,481-508.