University of South Florida

Scholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2006

Measuring social stressors in organizations: The

development of the Interpersonal Conflict in
Organizations Scale (ICOS)
Valentina Bruk Lee
University of South Florida

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the American Studies Commons

Scholar Commons Citation

Lee, Valentina Bruk, "Measuring social stressors in organizations: The development of the Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations
Scale (ICOS)" (2006). Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2599

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact
scholarcommons@usf.edu.
 Measuring Social Stressors in Organizations: The Development of the Interpersonal

Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS)

by

Valentina Bruk Lee

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Psychology
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida

Major Professor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D.

Ellis Gesten, Ph.D.
Peter Rentos, Ph.D.
Kristen Salomon, Ph.D.
Joseph Vandello, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:
August 30, 2006

Keywords: task outcome conflict, task process conflict, relationship conflict, non-task
organizational conflict, scale development, conflict measure

© Copyright 2006, Valentina Bruk Lee

 Acknowledgments

This dissertation represents the incessant effort and dedication of several very

special individuals. I would like to thank Dr. Paul E. Spector, who has been my mentor

for the past six years. He has not only guided me through this process with his keen

insights and advice, but has also taught me many valuable lessons along the way. I would

also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their suggestions

throughout the dissertation process: Drs. Kristen Salomon, Joseph Vandello, Ellis Gesten,

and Peter G. Rentos.

I am indebted to everyone who helped me by recruiting participants for this

study, including my family members, friends, and coworkers. A special thanks to my

sister, who stressed about my sample as much as I did!

Accomplishing this goal was made easier with the support and love of my

husband and best friend, Ian. His patience and constant reinforcement kept me sane

during this arduous road. I would also like to thank my parents, who have given up so

much to see me succeed.

This research was supported (in part) by a pilot project research training grant

from the Sunshine ERC at the University of South Florida. The Sunshine Education and

Research Center is supported by Training Grant No. T42-CCT412874 from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health. The contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily

represent the official views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
 Table of Contents

List of Tables iii

List of Figures v

Abstract vi

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1
The Prevalence of Interpersonal Conflict at Work 2
Social Stressors: The Outcomes of Interpersonal Conflict at Work 5
Social Stressors and Personal Well-Being 5
Social Stressors and Organizational Outcomes 9
Methodological Issues 14
Types of Interpersonal Conflict 17
Definitional Components of Interpersonal Conflict 19
The Current Study 21
Scale Development and Validation 23

Chapter 2 – Method 27
Participants 27
Procedures 29
Measures 32

Chapter 3 – Results 36
Phase I 36
Phase II 37
Task Outcome Conflict Factor Analysis 49
Task Process Conflict Factor Analysis 53
Relationship Conflict Factor Analysis 55
Non-task Organizational Conflict Factor Analysis 58

Chapter 4 – Discussion 64
Convergent and Discriminant Validity 66
Are Task Process and Task Outcome Conflicts the Same? 67
Interpersonal Trust and its Moderating Effects on Conflict Types 67
Definitional Components of the Four Conflict Subscales 68
The ICOS and other Conflict Scales 69
Limitations 70
Future Research Directions 71
Concluding Remarks 73

i
References 75

Appendices 82
Appendix A: Focus Group Script 83
Appendix B: Demographical Information 85
Appendix C: Original Items of the ICOS 86
Appendix D: Final Items on the ICOS 91
Appendix E: Jehn’s (1995) Conflict Scale 95
Appendix F: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale 96
Appendix G: Depression Scale 97
Appendix H: Job Affective Well-Being Scale 98
Appendix I: Physical Symptoms Inventory 99
Appendix J: Job Satisfaction Scale 100
Appendix K: Turnover Intentions 101
Appendix L: Counterproductive Work Behaviors 102
Appendix M: Trust Scale 103
Appendix N: Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Item 104
Appendix O: Accidents/Injuries Item 105

About the Author End Page

ii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Interpersonal Conflict Framework for Scale Development 23

Table 2. Breakdown of Participants by Industry Sector 28

Table 3. Breakdown of Participants by Industry Sector 29

Table 4. Definitions of the Four Conflict Types Measured by the ICOS 31

Table 5. Correlations and Alpha Coefficients for the ICOS Subscales

Containing all the Original Items 36

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Refined ICOS 37

Table 7. Intercorrelations Between the Final ICOS Subscales and the

Study Variables 38

Table 8. Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the

ICOS 39

Table 9. Factor Loadings from the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the
ICOS 40

Table 10. Correlations Between the Demographics and Outcome Variables 41

Table 11. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for ICOS Subscales

Predicting Study Outcome Variables 43

Table 12. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for ICOS Subscales

Predicting CVD Risk Factors 44

Table 13. Multiple Regression Analysis of the Moderating Role of

Interpersonal Trust 47

Table 14. Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the
Task Outcome Conflict Subscale 50

Table 15. Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the
Task Outcome Conflict Subscale 51

iii
Table 16. Intercorrelations between the Definitional Components of the
ICOS subscales and Jehn’s Conflict Subscales 52

Table 17. Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the
Non-task Organizational Conflict Subscale 53

Table 18. Factor Loadings from the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the
Task Process Conflict Subscale 54

Table 19. Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the
Relationship Conflict Subscale 56

Table 20. Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for
the Relationship Conflict Subscale 57

Table 21. Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the
Non-task Organizational Conflict Subscale 58

Table 22. Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for
the Non-Task Organizational Conflict Subscale 59

Table 23. Correlations Between the Components of the ICOS Subscales

and Outcome Variables 62

Table 24. Hotelling’s t Test for Dependent Correlations 63

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Scree plot for the Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale 39

Figure 2. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task

Outcome and Relationship Conflict 48

Figure 3. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task

Outcome and Non-task Organizational Conflict 48

Figure 4. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task

Process and Non-task Organizational Conflict 49

Figure 5. Scree plot for the task outcome conflict subscale 50

Figure 6. Scree plot for the task process conflict subscale 54

Figure 7. Scree plot for the task process conflict subscale 56

Figure 8. Scree plot for the non-task organizational conflict subscale 59

v
 Measuring Social Stressors in Organizations: The Development of the Interpersonal
Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS)

Valentina Bruk Lee

ABSTRACT

Interpersonal conflict in organizations has been recognized as a leading social

stressor across occupations with detrimental effects on employee well-being and

organizational outcomes. However, reliable and valid measures of conflict are scarce and

even the most widely used scales are limited by weaknesses in construct definition. In

order to address the need for an improved measurement tool, the 63-item Interpersonal

Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS) was developed. The ICOS was based on a

comprehensive conceptualization of conflict that defines the construct on the basis of

three definitional components: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion (Barki

& Hartwick, 2004). In addition, the ICOS reliably measures four conflict types, including

task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict.

Data were collected in two phases. The phase I sample included 126 participants

from a variety of occupations whose data were used for the purpose of refining the scale.

The scale validation (phase II) sample consisted of 260 full-time employees, who were

also representative of various occupations. Initial validity results supported significant

relationships with various organizational and personal outcome variables, including

depression, job satisfaction, somatic symptoms, negative emotions, turnover intentions,

counterproductive work behaviors, and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Factor

vi
analytic results for the four subscales, as well as, evidence for convergent validity are

reported. Overall, the ICOS is a promising new measure of conflict that offers researchers

the flexibility of assessing various types of conflict while addressing the conceptual

limitations of existing scales.

vii
 Chapter One

Introduction

The impact of occupational stress on the health, safety, and well-being of

employees has received significant attention from researchers across a variety of

disciplines. In fact, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

recognized occupational stress as a major workplace hazard with potential physical and

psychological outcomes. A number of models exist to explain the process whereby job

stress affects employees (see Jex, 1998, for a review). Occupational stress models

differentiate between two main types of variables: Stressors and strains. Stressors are the

perceived or objective environmental characteristics that may elicit a response from an

employee. Strains, on the other hand, refer to the negative responses employees may

experience when faced with a stressor and may be categorized as psychological/affective,

physical, or behavioral (Jex & Beehr, 1991).

The most commonly studied stressors have been workload and role stressors, such

as role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload (Kahn, Wolf, Quinn, Snoek, &

Rosenthal, 1964). However, an increasing number of occupational stress researchers have

shifted their focus to stressors resulting from the social work environment, such as

interpersonal conflict at work. This social stressor has been shown to have a detrimental

impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of employees, as well as, a direct

relationship with outcomes of organizational importance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003;

1
Spector & Jex, 1988). Furthermore, conflict at work is recognized as a leading source of

stress for workers across occupations, cultures, and age groups, thus its importance is

generalized to a wide population of employees (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler & Schilling,

1989; Keenan & Newton, 1985; Narayanan, Menon & Spector, 1999a). Nevertheless,

measurement weaknesses have limited our understanding of this social stressor.

Consequently, the purpose of this research was to develop and validate the

Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale (ICOS). This paper will first review the

literature on the personal and organizational outcomes associated with this social stressor.

A discussion of the methodological issues facing the measurement of conflict and the

deficiencies in construct conceptualization will follow. Last, the results of the scale

development and validation of the ICOS will be presented.

The Prevalence of Interpersonal Conflict at Work

A diary study by Bolger et al., (1989) provided evidence for the importance of

interpersonal relationships at work. The researchers found that interpersonal conflicts

were considered the most upsetting stressor by a sample of married couples who were

asked to report work and non-work sources of stress. Smith and Sulsky (1995) reported

that 25% of respondents in a large sample of employees from a wide range of

occupations considered interpersonal issues to be the most vexing stressors at work. In

addition, negative social interactions with others at work accounted for three-fourths of

all work situations that employees described as detrimental (Schwartz & Stone, 1993).

Hahn (2000) asked participants, who were representative of a full time working sample in

a variety of occupations, to record the number of conflicts they experienced at work and

2
to describe the occurrence. Content analysis of the data showed that respondents recorded

interpersonal stressors on 50% of their workdays.

Keenan and Newton (1985) also used an open-ended method to assess stress

among young engineers. Respondents completed the Stress Incident Record (SIR) by

recording critical events that they considered stressful. Among the incidents reported,

74% were social in nature, such that they were caused by social interactions with

superiors, subordinates, or colleagues. As expected, one of the most cited stressors was

interpersonal conflict at work. Narayanan et al. (1999b) also used the SIR in a study that

asked respondents from clerical, sales, and academic groups to report an incident that

occurred within the past month and which was considered to be stressful. Interpersonal

conflict was the most reported stressor for both the academic and sales groups. Gender

analysis showed that women in the sales and academic groups reported interpersonal

conflict as the leading source of stress while men reported it to be the second most

important stressor. Further, the clerical group reported conflict to be the third major

source of stress among a total of nine potential sources.

Kandel, Davies, and Raveis (1985) studied stress for women in the marital,

occupational, and household roles. The occupational role was found to be one of the most

stressful roles for women and a factor analysis of the data revealed seven sources of

stress associated with it. Two of the sources were interpersonal in nature. Regression

analyses indicated that interpersonal conflict was the strongest predictor of a measure of

overall stress for the occupational role. Psychological well-being was also shown to be

more strongly affected by interpersonal conflicts than by any other situational

characteristic, such as the noxiousness of the work environment. Depersonalization,

3
which was measured with items similar to those found in widely used scales of

interpersonal conflict at work, was also found to be the leading stressor in the

occupational role of men and women (Pearlin, 1980).

Further evidence supports the notion that this stressor is among the most cited

across occupations and cultures. Taylor and Daniel (1987) examined the sources of stress

among soccer referees using the Soccer Official’s Stress Survey and found that

interpersonal conflict and peer conflict were two of the five stress factors that emerged

from the data. Rainey’s (1995) factor analysis of stress data gathered from a sample of

baseball and softball umpires also included interpersonal conflict as one of four factors.

Similarly, Stewart and Ellery (1998) examined the sources of stress among high school

volleyball officials and indicated that interpersonal conflict was one of four factors that

emerged from the data as significant sources of stress.

Cross-cultural evidence for the prevalence of interpersonal conflict at work as a

source of significant stress has also been found. Narayanan et al. (1999a) reported that

interpersonal conflict was the third most cited source of stress in a U.S. sample and the

fourth most cited source of stress in an Indian sample. Respondents in both samples

consisted of clerical workers and eleven possible stressor categories were considered. In

this study, role stressors traditionally studied in occupational stress were the least

reported sources of stress. Liu (2002) found that Chinese faculty reported experiencing

significantly more overall interpersonal conflict and conflict with supervisors than

American faculty did. Furthermore, the levels of interpersonal conflict among university

support staff in the two countries did not differ, providing evidence for the presence of

this stressor across cultures (Liu, 2002).

4
Social Stressors: The Outcomes of Interpersonal Conflict at Work

Two streams of research emerge from the conflict literature. One is focused on the

styles of conflict management or resolution while the other is focused on measuring the

level or occurrence of interpersonal conflict. The latter is the focus of this research as it

fits into the occupational stress literature and is concerned with the frequency and

consequences of employee conflict.

Researchers have found that the experience of interpersonal conflicts in the

workplace is associated with personal and organizational outcomes. Variables of

organizational importance that have received attention include job satisfaction, turnover

intentions, counterproductive work behaviors, organizational commitment, and

performance (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Spector & Jex, 1998). Meanwhile, the impact

of conflict at work on employee health and well-being has been reported to result in

depression, negative emotional states, psychosomatic complaints, life dissatisfaction,

burnout, and psychiatric morbidity (Dormann & Zapf, 1999, 2002; Frone, 2000).

Social Stressors and Personal Well-Being

Depression is a psychological strain that has been widely reported in studies of

interpersonal conflict at work. Dormann and Zapf (1999, 2002) found that increased

social stress, as indicated by conflict, led to higher levels of depressive symptoms. The

earlier study was a three wave longitudinal study, which showed that social stressors in

all three waves of data were positively related to depression (r=.14-.26). The latter study

provided support for Mohr’s (1986) stress model and indicated a direct and mediated path

between conflict and depressive symptoms. Bolger et al. (1989) concluded that

interpersonal conflicts accounted for more than 80% of the variance in daily mood, which

5
was assessed by a measure of anxiety, hostility, and depression. They concluded that it

was the most important stressor influencing psychological distress. A study by Frone

(2000) also found support for a positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and

depression. The study differentiated between conflict with supervisors and with

coworkers based on Fiske’s (1992) model of social relations. The results indicated that

conflict with coworkers was positively related to depression (r=.31), which was assessed

by various dimensions of depressive symptoms, including depressed mood, feelings of

hopelessness, and sleep disturbance. Heinisch and Jex (1997) also reported a similar

correlation between conflict and depression in a study of the moderating effects of gender

and personality on the stress-depression relationship. Furthermore, meta-analytic findings

of 13 studies supported a positive correlation between conflict and depression in the mid

.30s (Spector & Jex, 1998).

Negative affective reactions to conflict at work have been reported by a number

of studies. Keenan and Newton (1985) reported that anger, annoyance, and frustration

were the most frequently cited emotions reported by their sample of engineers, who

ranked interpersonal conflicts as one of the most commonly experienced work stressors.

Similarly, Narayanan et al. (1999a,b) found that the stressors in their studies, including

interpersonal conflicts at work, were associated with anger, annoyance, and frustration

for three occupational groups. Further, a cross-cultural study showed that the most

frequently cited emotional reactions by an American sample reporting interpersonal

conflicts were frustration, annoyance, and anger, respectively. Hahn’s (2000) diary

study, which investigated the effects of locus of control on exposure and reactivity to

work stressors, indicated that both internal and externals reported experiencing anxiety

6
and anger in response to incidents of conflict at work. However, those with an internal

locus of control orientation experienced more anger than those with an external

orientation. Work frustration and anxiety were also reported to be significant positive

correlates of conflict at work in a longitudinal study by Spector and O’Connell (1994).

Further evidence of the affective outcomes of interpersonal conflict was presented

by Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988) in a study with multiple data sources. Conflict was

reported by incumbents to be positively correlated with anxiety and frustration.

Interestingly, cross-source data using the supervisors’ reports of incumbent conflict also

showed a significant positive correlation with anxiety and frustration. Finally, meta-

analytic findings also support a positive mean correlation in the mid .30s between conflict

and anxiety, as well as, between conflict and frustration (Spector, 1997; Spector & Jex,

1998).

Fox et al. (2001) used the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale to obtain a

negative emotion score derived from the responses to 15 items measuring various

negative emotional states. The results supported a significant positive correlation (r=.49)

between conflict and negative emotion. These findings were replicated by Spector, Fox,

Goh, and Bruursema (2003) in a study that tested a model of voluntary work behaviors.

Furthermore, Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) showed that both conflict with coworkers and

with supervisors was related to a measure of overall negative emotions (r=.23-.30) for a

sample of full time working adults from a variety of occupations. The correlations

remained significant even when using cross-source data, such that peer reports of conflict

were correlated with self-reports of negative emotion, thus dispelling the argument that

correlations may be due to common method bias.

7
 Clearly, there is strong support for the negative affective outcomes of

interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Due to research linking the experience and

expression of anger to cardiovascular disease (Greenglass, 1996: Julkunen, 1996), the

emotional reactions resulting from conflicts in the workplace may be of critical

importance to employee health. Furthermore, the experience of negative emotional states,

such as depression, has been shown to suppress human immune function (O’Leary,

1990).

As expected, interpersonal conflicts in the workplace have been associated with

increased somatic complaints, which are self-reports of physical symptoms. Data from a

diary study conducted by Hahn (2000) showed that participants reported more health

symptoms following a conflict. Specifically, participants with an internal locus of control

were more likely to report health symptoms after the occurrence of a conflict.

Furthermore, Spector and Jex (1998) reported a correlation of .26 between the Physical

Symptoms Inventory (PSI) and a measure of interpersonal conflict at work. Similarly,

Frone (2000) found that when employees reported experiencing more conflict with their

coworkers, they also reported higher levels of somatic symptoms as measured by a

physical symptoms checklist.

A variety of other strains, such as burnout, life dissatisfaction, and psychiatric

morbidity have also been reported in response to interpersonal conflict at work. Burnout

refers to a feeling of emotional exhaustion that may result from the experience of

stressors. Rainey (1995) tested a model of stress with a sample of sports officials and

found that interpersonal conflict was the best predictor of burnout. The implications of

these findings are important given the fact that burnout is associated with health

8
symptoms and a predictor of changes in cholesterol and triglycerides levels (Shirom,

Westman, Shamai & Carel, 1997). In addition, Appelberg, Romanov, Honkasalo, and

Koskenvuo (1991) conducted a study on the occupational and psychological factors

associated with conflict at work using the Finish Twin Cohort. The results for both males

and females indicated that employees reporting more conflict at work were also more

dissatisfied with their lives and experienced more daily stress. An even more alarming

finding was reported by Romanov, Appelberg, Honkasalo, and Koskenvuo (1996) in a

longitudinal study using the same Finish sample. The researchers collected

epidemiological follow up data in addition to health, education, psychosocial, sleep, and

personality information. The follow up data included suicidal deaths, hospitalization and

free medication due to psychiatric diagnoses. The results showed that employees who

reported interpersonal conflicts in the last six months had a higher risk for psychiatric

morbidity even after controlling for social class, mental instability, personality, alcohol

consumption, health status, mental instability, marital status, and conflict with spouse.

Although the results cannot establish causality, the researchers believe that “the extent to

which interpersonal conflict at work can weaken an individual’s ability to solve his or her

emotional problems and eventually lead to mental disease seems to be a crucial topic for

future research and interventions in the occupational field” (Romanov et al., 1996, p.

169).

Social Stressors and Organizational Outcomes

The effects of interpersonal conflict at work are not limited to employee health

and well-being, but also extend to the organization. Job satisfaction is a psychological

strain traditionally studied in the occupational stress literature. Although it may also be

9
considered a personal outcome of social stressors, for the purpose of this review it will be

treated as a variable of organizational relevance. Various studies have consistently shown

a significant negative correlation between the experience of conflict at work and levels of

overall job satisfaction.

Specifically, Frone (2000) reported that employees who reported more conflict with

supervisors also reported lower levels of overall satisfaction with their jobs (r=-.44).

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 10 studies showed that the Interpersonal Conflict at

Work Scale (ICAWS) correlated negatively (r=-.32) with job satisfaction (Spector & Jex,

1998). A similar negative correlation with job satisfaction was also reported by Spector et

al. (1988) using self-report data. Last, a study testing a model of voluntary behaviors

looked at the mediating role of job satisfaction in the stress process and found that

conflict had a direct negative relationship with a measure of overall job satisfaction

(Spector et al., 2003). These results indicate that employees who report experiencing

higher levels of interpersonal conflicts at work also report lower job satisfaction.

Increased turnover intentions are also an organizational outcome resulting from

the experience of interpersonal conflict at work. Given the positive relationship between

turnover intentions and actual turnover, self-reports of intentions to quit are a good

indicator of actual turnover (Carsten & Spector, 1987). In his study of young employees,

Frone (2000) found that employees who reported more conflict with supervisors

indicated higher intentions of quitting and were less committed to the organization.

These findings supported the hypothesis that supervisors are viewed as a symbol of the

organization and, therefore, conflict with supervisors is more likely to result in

organizational consequences. Rainey (1995) reported that referees were more likely to

10
quit their jobs when they indicated higher levels of interpersonal conflict. Chen and

Spector (1992) also found a strong positive correlation (r=.39) between interpersonal

conflict and intentions to quit in a large sample of employees from a variety of

occupations. Furthermore, the correlation between interpersonal conflict and intentions to

quit was the strongest from among various job strains (Spector & Jex, 1998). These

findings are also supported by research on intragroup conflict where different types of

conflict result in less intention to stay with the group (Jehn, 1995).

An organizational outcome of conflict that has received considerable attention is

counterproductive work behavior (CWB). These behaviors are aimed at hurting the

organization and/or the individuals who are part of it. Numerous terms exist to refer to

research in this area, such as deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995),

organizational retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), antisocial behaviors

(Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), and workplace aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996).

Each of these terms refers to detrimental behaviors that affect an organization’s

productivity and coworkers’ performance. Behaviors that are considered

counterproductive may include coming to work late without permission, stealing things

from the workplace, aggressing against a coworker or supervisor, or taking unauthorized

breaks. Murphy (1993) estimated the cost of a variety of counterproductive work

behaviors to be between $6 and $200 billion annually in the U.S.

Chen and Spector (1992) found that conflict at work was positively related to a

variety of CWB. Specifically, it was associated with more interpersonal aggression

(r=.49), increased workplace hostility and complaining (r=.46), more sabotage (r=.34),

and theft (r=.16). Fox et al., (2001) distinguished between CWB aimed at the

11
organization versus aimed at other individuals in their test of an emotion-centered model

of voluntary behaviors. Their results showed direct positive relationships between

conflict and both organizational and personal CWB, such that employees who reported

more conflict also reported engaging in more counterproductivity. Spector et al. (2003)

supported these findings by using multiple sources of data, which included self and peer

reports. Self-report data provided further evidence for the positive relationship between

conflict and personal CWB, but not for organizational CWB. Nevertheless, cross-source

data, which used self-reports of conflict and peer reports of CWB, resulted in significant

positive correlations between conflict and both organizational and personal CWB (r=.20-

.25, respectively). Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) also collected data from incumbents and

their peers on a study of the relationship between sources of conflict and targets of CWB.

The results showed a positive association between sources of conflict and CWB. Overall,

employees who reported experiencing more conflict at work also reported engaging or

were reported to have engaged in more CWB against the organization and other

employees.

Business research has focused on the impact of intragroup conflict, which occurs

within the group, on group level outcomes. Specifically, research on intragroup conflict

has studied its effect on group performance and intragroup satisfaction. Although the unit

of analysis for some of these studies is at the group level, the findings are very relevant to

the current research because the conflict within groups remains interpersonal in nature.

Furthermore, this area of research has distinguished between relationship and task

conflict. Researchers have defined relationship conflict as conflicts caused by

interpersonal differences among group members while task conflict refers to

12
disagreements related to the task being performed (Jehn, 1995). There has been a

tendency in recent literature to classify relationship conflict as detrimental to group

performance and satisfaction, while treating task conflict as beneficial to organizational

functioning. Results, however, are mixed. Jehn (1995, 1997) conducted qualitative and

quantitative research investigating the effects of task and relationship conflict on group

performance and satisfaction using 26 management teams and 79 work groups. Her

quantitative findings showed that employees reporting higher levels of intragroup

relationship conflict indicated lower group satisfaction, however, there was no

relationship between relationship conflict and group performance. Task conflict also

showed a negative relationship with group satisfaction, but the results with performance

were more complex. For groups performing non-routine work, task conflict was often

found to be beneficial. However, this was not the case for groups with routine tasks,

which could not deviate from their standardized procedures to resolve a task conflict.

Therefore, it was concluded that outcomes resulting from the resolution of disagreements

caused by task conflict could be beneficial for organizations due to the stimulation of new

ideas which may lead to improved decision quality. Qualitative data on six work units

indicated that low performance groups had higher levels of relationship conflict than did

high performing groups. On the other hand, high performing groups had higher levels of

task conflict than did low performing groups. Furthermore, how important were the

perceived consequences of the conflict served a key role on the impact of the conflict on

performance, such that it enhanced the positive or negative effects of task and

relationship conflict, respectively.

13
 Decision quality has also received attention in the conflict literature and may be

treated as an indicator of group performance. It has been argued that task conflict results

in better decisions and decision quality whereas relationship conflict acts as a hindrance

(Amason, 1996; Simons & Peterson, 2000). The results of a meta-analysis, however,

contradict the findings described above. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) concluded that

conflict, regardless of the type, is detrimental to both team performance and team

satisfaction. The average correlations between conflict and team satisfaction were -.32

(task) and -.54 (relationship). Furthermore, the average correlations between conflict and

team performance were -.23 (task) and -.22 (relationship). These relationships remained

negative even after moderator models, including the routine level of jobs, were tested.

Methodological Issues

Given the evidence above, it is clear that interpersonal conflict is a leading

stressor in organizations and, consequently, of great importance to researchers of job

stress. Furthermore, its relationship with numerous outcomes makes it a variable of

critical importance at both the personal and organizational level. Nevertheless, a concise

definition of conflict is lacking across studies and disciplines. In fact, researchers often

fail to define conflict as it is measured in their studies or provide definitions that differ

from one study to another. For example, conflict has been described as a “relationship in

which a sequence of conditions and events moves toward aggressive behavior and

disorder” (Ware & Barnes, 1992, p. 213) or as a “situation in which two individuals

disagree about issues, actions, or goals and joint outcomes become important” (Gordon,

1999, p.275) among many other definitions. Furthermore, psychometrically sound

measures of the occurrence of interpersonal conflict are scarce. Often, measures are

14
created for the purpose of the study, evidence for the validity or reliability of the scales is

not presented or lacking, or present an incomplete conceptualization of the construct. For

example, the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector & Jex, 1998) is a

four item summated rating scale that is intended to assess the frequency of occurrence of

different conflicting situations (i.e., “how often do others do nasty things to you?”).

Although the ICAWS has been shown to be a valid tool using a meta-analytic approach

and its internal consistency is satisfactory, it is based on a narrow conceptualization of

the construct of interpersonal conflict. Mainly, three of the items ask about situations

where the respondent is simply a passive receiver of the action, thus suggesting that

conflict is a one-way exchange. However, this is not consistent with the widely used

definitions of interpersonal conflict, which emphasize the role of at least two parties and

that underline the two-way interaction necessary for a situation to be labeled as

conflicting (Barki & Hartwick, 2001; Fink, 1968). Moreover, the ICAWS seems to be

more consistent with items that are intended to asses the construct of incivility defined as

“low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target in violation of

workplace norms for mutual respect” (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2004). Incivility is

consistent with the idea of the passive receiver or workplace victim that is implied in the

ICAWS items.

Another widely used measure of conflict is Jehn’s (1995) scale of relationship and

task based conflict. The scale was designed to measure intragroup conflict. Factor

analytic data supports the two-dimensional model of conflict the scale is intended to

measure and studies report good reliability coefficients (Simons & Peterson, 2000;

Amason, 1996). However, Jehn’s (1995) scale primarily measures only one of three

15
components of conflict, namely disagreement (i.e., “to what extent are there differences

in opinion in your work unit?). For example, task conflict refers to disagreements or

differing points of views that revolve around the completion or implementation of a task.

However, these disagreements may simply reflect brainstorming or an exchange of

dissimilar ideas that would not necessarily be considered conflict by the parties involved

or an objective bystander. In fact, to consider any interpersonal disagreement as conflict

would suggest that research on brainstorming and conflict are the same. Further, research

has indicated that items asking about disagreements load on a separate factors from items

asking about conflict and that not all disagreements escalate to conflict, thus

distinguishing between the two (Barki & Hartwick, 2001).

Another area of research that has investigated the impact of interpersonal conflict

is that of information systems. Conflict scales tailored to the development and

implementation of information systems include two scales by Barki and Hartwick (1994;

2001). One was composed of three items, which loaded on two separate factors when

responses were factor analyzed. One factor was labeled disagreements while the other,

containing only one item, was labeled conflict. Barki and Hartwick (2001) created a

second scale to measure conflict between information system developers and users.

Given their earlier findings, they assessed conflict as consisting of four properties, which

included interdependence, disagreement, interference, and negative emotion. The

measure was made up of 20 items that were assessed on an 11-point scale. The

psychometric properties indicated good reliability and good criterion validity for the

disagreement, interference, and negative emotion dimensions.

16
 Overall, the currently used measures of interpersonal conflict suffer from one or

more weaknesses. Whereas some have good psychometric properties, they may require a

more careful operationalization of the construct being measured. Others do not capture all

of the definitional properties of the construct under investigation. Further, some scales do

not have the psychometric support that warrants their scientific use. Lastly, some conflict

measures were created for use in specific settings and samples and are, thus, limited in

their application to diverse settings.

Types of Interpersonal Conflict

Two main types of conflict, which were briefly described earlier, have emerged

from the literature and received considerable attention: task and relationship conflict.

Task conflict refers to conflict with regard to task related issues, such as differing

viewpoints regarding the objectives of a work task. On the other hand, relationship

conflict relates to conflict emerging from personality clashes or emotionally charged

interactions with others due to issues of a personal nature. This differentiation was first

made by Pinkley (1990) in a multidimensional scaling study that sought to understand the

cognitive interpretations of conflict by those involved. This typology was later supported

by Jehn (1994;1995), who made clear distinctions between the two types of conflict.

Amason and Schweiger (1994) and Amason (1996) also made a similar distinction,

however, they labeled conflict as either cognitive or affective. Cognitive conflict is “. . .

functional [and] generally task oriented and focused on judgmental differences about how

best to achieve common objectives” (Amason, 1996, p. 127). However, affective conflict

is “when conflict is dysfunctional [and] tends to be emotional and focused on personal

incompatibilities or disputes” (p. 129). Therefore, it is simple to observe the similarities

17
between task and cognitive conflict, as well as, between relationship and affective

conflict.

The idea that a moderate amount of task conflict is functional and desirable in

organizations has been a more recent focus of research in the business field (Van de

Vliert & De Dreu, 1994). These studies also posit that relationship conflict is deleterious

to the work environment. For example, task conflict was associated with enhanced

decision quality among top management and increased understanding of the decision,

while affective conflict was detrimental to decision quality (Amason, 1996). It has also

been shown that task conflict is associated with the conception of new ideas, effective use

of resources, task completion, and a more accurate assessment of the task (Baron, 1991;

Tjosvold, Dann, & Wong, 1992; Fiol, 1994). On the other hand, relationship conflicts

have a negative impact on both performance, group productivity, and satisfaction ( Jehn,

1994, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Given these findings, it is not surprising that

“the notion that task conflict may be productive and that relationship conflict is

dysfunctional is strongly reflected in management teaching” (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003;

p.742).

Nevertheless, various studies have reported a positive correlation between these

two types of conflict, which makes the matter of encouraging task conflict while

minimizing relationship conflict difficult. Simons and Peterson (2000) found that the

positive correlation is weaker for groups that have high levels of intragroup trust and

stronger for groups with low levels of trust. This interaction supports the argument that

the positive relationship exists because task conflict leads to relationship conflict through

18
a misattribution of group member behavior. Under low trust, members are more likely to

attribute negative intentions to the occurrence of task conflict, which in turn evolve into

relationship conflict. However, Hartwick and Barki (2004) attribute the positive

relationship to a weakness in the measurement of task and relationship conflict. They

propose that both task and relationship conflict consist of three overlapping properties,

which include negative emotion, disagreement and interference, and that these three

definitional properties are positively correlated (Barki & Hartwick, 2001). Therefore, it is

not surprising that task conflict, operationalized mainly as disagreements, and

relationship conflict, operationalized primarily as negative emotion, would also be

positively correlated.

A third less cited conflict type is process conflict (Jehn, 1997). It was defined as

“conflict about how task accomplishments should proceed in the work unit, who is

responsible for what, and how things should be delegated” (p. 540). Jehn (1997)

suggested that process conflict was different from task conflict because the latter was

traditionally studied in terms of disagreements over task outcomes. Research on process

conflict, however, is very limited.

Definitional Components of Interpersonal Conflict

Barki and Hartwick (2001) proposed four definitional properties of interpersonal

conflict based on the literature, which included interdependence, interference,

disagreement, and negative emotion. Interdependence was defined as “exist[ing] when

each party’s attainment of their goals depends, at least in part, on the actions of the other

party” (p. 198). Interference represents the behavioral component of conflict in which

the actions of one party interferes with the objectives of another party. Disagreement

19
refers to the cognitive component of conflict and “exists when parties think that a

divergence of values, needs, interests, opinions, goals, or objectives exists” (p.198). Last,

negative emotion taps into the affective component of conflict and refers to negative

emotional states associated with the experience of conflict at work.

Barki and Hartwick (2001) tested a model in which interpersonal conflict at work

was treated as a second order multidimensional variable composed of the four

components described above. A 20-item measure of interpersonal conflict between

information systems (IS) developers and users was created to tap into each of the

components. In addition, a three item measure of conflict in general was created for the

purposes of criterion validity (i.e., “how often did conflicts occur between you and the

[IS staff] [users] concerning this project?”). The sample was divided into IS users and

staff for purposes of cross validation. Previous to using structural equation modeling to

examine the proposed model, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using each of the

samples was conducted. Data from the IS staff indicated that interference, disagreement,

and negative emotion were positively correlated. However, interdependence was not

significantly correlated with any of the other three components. Furthermore,

interference, disagreement, and negative emotion all showed significant positive

correlations with the overall conflict measure while interdependence did not. Data from

the IS user sample also supported the previous findings. Specifically, interdependence

was not significantly correlated with the other three dimensions of conflict nor with the

criterion measure.

Based on these findings, interdependence was removed from the model when

testing for model fit. The dimensionality of conflict was tested using structural equation

20
modeling and data from the IS staff sample. The results supported a second order

multidimensional model of conflict with second-order factor loadings of .89 for

disagreement, .93 for negative emotion, and .84 for interference. These findings were

further supported using data from the IS user sample for which the second-order factor

loadings were .80 for disagreement, .88 for interference, and .95 for negative emotion.

The construct reliability was .88 and .91 for each sample, respectively. Additional cross

validation evidence for the model was found using a multi-sample SEM analysis (Barki

& Hartwick, 2001).

The results from this study served to create a framework of conflict that consists

of a behavioral (interference), cognitive (disagreement), and affective (negative emotion)

component. The researchers support a multiple theme perspective of conflict in which all

three components must be present in order for the situation to constitute conflict (Barki &

Hartwick, 2004). This perspective differs from others who conceptualize conflict in a

broader sense and define it as the occurrence of interference, negative emotion, or

disagreement. Another position defines conflict as the occurrence of at least two of its

components (e.g., Mack & Snyder, 1957; Fink, 1968; Pondy, 1967). A third view defines

conflict as exclusively disagreement, interference, or negative emotion (e.g., Jehn, 1995;

Wall & Callister, 1995).

The Current Study

The goal of this study was to address the need for a construct valid and reliable

measure of interpersonal conflict in organizations that is based on a comprehensive

conceptualization of the construct. The current study adopted Barki and Hartwick’s

(2004) model, such that conflict was conceptualized as the occurrence of all three

21
definitional components and, as such, the ICOS assesses interference, disagreement, and

negative emotion. Bolstering support for this perspective comes from previous research

indicating that 95% of the variance in conflict was explained by the inclusion of all three

components in the model (Barki & Hartwick, 2001). Given that a clear conceptualization

of the construct is an essential and initial step in scale development, an adapted version of

Barki and Hartwick’s (2004) definition of conflict was utilized for the purposes of this

research. Interpersonal conflict was defined as “a dynamic process that occurs between

parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and

interference with the attainment of their goals” (p.8). The condition that parties must be

interdependent was omitted from the definition as previous research did not indicate

support for its inclusion. Based on the definitional properties of conflict and the literature

regarding different types of conflict, Barki and Hartwick’s (2004) proposed a typology of

conflict, which was adapted for use in the current scale development.

As seen in Table 1, the ICOS consists of four conflict subscales. At this stage of

scale development it was decided that task outcome and task process conflicts would be

treated as being distinct from one another. This differed from the original typology

proposed by Barki and Hartwick (2004) in which both of these were classified as making

up task conflict. Further, consistent with previous work, conflicts that were non-task

related and of a more personal nature were categorized as encompassing relationship

conflicts (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 2000; Pinkley, 1990). Based on pilot research, a

fourth type of conflict arising from non-task organizational issues (i.e, organizational

policies) was also assessed. Each conflict subscale consists of items assessing all three

definitional components of conflict. This differs from existing measures of conflict that

22
have traditionally measured only one of its components, namely disagreement, and have

failed to provide a complete picture of the construct.

Table 1
Interpersonal Conflict Framework for Scale Development.

Conflict Subscales

Task Task Process Non-task Relationship

Outcome Organizational

Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement

over task over task over non-task over
outcome process organizational relationship
issue issue

Interference Interference Interference Interference Interference

over task over task over non-task over
outcome process organizational relationship
issue issue

Negative emotion Negative Negative Negative Negative

emotion emotion emotion emotion
resulting from resulting from resulting from resulting from
task outcome task process non-task relationship
disagreement disagreement organizational disagreement
and/or and/or disagreement and/or
interference interference and/or interference
interference

Scale Development and Validation

The scale validation process usually entails testing the hypothesized relationships

between the construct of interest and its correlates (Spector, 1992). Validity for a scale

may be demonstrated by indicating support for hypothesized relationships. Specifically,

criterion related validity looks at the relationship between the construct of interest and

23
other variables, labeled criteria (Allen & Yen, 1979). Whenever possible, the

hypothesized relationships are derived from theory and previous empirical findings. The

literature review showed consistent support for the relationship of interpersonal conflict

with various emotional, psychological, and behavioral strains. These included depressive

symptoms, negative affect, somatic symptoms, job dissatisfaction, turnover intentions,

and counterproductivity. However, due to the existing weaknesses in the measurement of

interpersonal conflict, past research has not always differentiated between types of

conflict and their relationship with specific strains. Therefore, hypotheses linking specific

types of conflict to strains cannot be made based on past theory or empirical support and,

hence, are exploratory in nature. The following hypotheses were developed to serve in

the validation of the ICOS:

Hypothesis 1: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with depression symptoms. Predictions regarding specific conflict

subscales/depression relationships are exploratory.

Hypothesis 2: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with a negative emotional state. It is expected that this correlation would exist

for task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict

subscales.

Hypothesis 3: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with somatic symptoms. Predictions regarding specific conflict

subscales/somatic symptoms relationships are exploratory.

24
Hypothesis 4: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be negatively

correlated with job satisfaction. It is expected that this correlation exist for task outcome,

task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict subscales.

Hypothesis 5: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with intentions to quit. It is expected that this correlation exist for task

outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict subscales.

Hypothesis 6: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with withdrawal counterproductive work behaviors. Predictions regarding

specific conflict subscales/CWB relationships are exploratory.

Hypothesis 7: The task outcome and task process conflict subscales of the ICOS will be

positively correlated with Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale, thus indicating convergent

validity.

Hypothesis 8: The relationship conflict subscale of the ICOS will be positively correlated

with Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale, thus indicating convergent validity.

Hypothesis 9: The Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale will be positively

correlated with Spector and Jex’s (1998) Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale.

Predictions regarding specific ICOS conflict subscales and this scale are exploratory in

nature because the latter measure does not measure multiple types of conflict.

Hypothesis 10: The task outcome and task process conflict subscales will be positively

correlated with the relationship conflict subscale.

Hypothesis 11: Trust will moderate the relationship between the relationship conflict

subscale and both task conflict subscales, such that the relationship is weaker under high

trust levels and stronger under low trust levels.

25
Hypothesis 12: Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale will be positively correlated with the

task disagreement subscales more strongly than with the task interference or task emotion

subscales.

Hypothesis 13: Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale will be positively correlated

with the relationship emotion subscale more strongly than with the relationship

disagreement or relationship interference subscales.

26
 Chapter Two

Method

Data for this study were collected in two phases. Phase I was conducted for the

purpose of scale refinement. Data from this phase were used to select the items for the

refined version of the ICOS. Phase II data were used for final item selection, in the

validation of the refined ICOS, and to test the factor structure of each of the four conflict

subscales.

Participants

Phase I pilot sample. Ten participants employed full time reviewed the initial 131-

item measure. Of these, five (50%) were male and five (50%) were female. Over half

(60%) were White Non-Hispanic, 20% were Hispanic, 10% were Black Non-Hispanic,

and 10% were Asian/Pacific Islander. On average, they were 36.8 years old and worked

in their current jobs 6.2 years.

Phase I sample. Participants in this phase consisted of 126 employees representing

a variety of occupations who worked an average of 41.2 hours per week (see Table 2). A

total of 179 survey packets were mailed resulting in a response rate of 54.2% (N= 97)

completed questionnaires. The remaining 29 participants were recruited through the

participant pool in the Psychology Department at the University of South Florida. Of the

total sample, 42 were male (33.3%) and 84 were female (66.7%). On average,

participants were 35.9 years old and worked in their currents jobs for 5.1 years.

Participants were representative of a variety of racial/ethnic groups, including White non-

27
Hispanic (57.1%), Hispanic (23%), Black non-Hispanic (7.9%), Asian/Pacific Islander

(5.6%), and other groups (6.3%).

Table 2
Breakdown of Participants by Industry Sector (Phase I; N=126)
Industry Sector N %

1. Communications 2 1.6
2. Education 28 22.2
3. Financial Services 11 8.7
4. Government 4 3.2
5. Hospitality 12 9.5
6. Manufacturing 4 3.2
7. Medical/Social Services 8 6.3
8. Military 1 0.8
9. Retail 9 7.1
10. Service 13 10.3
11. Technology 5 4.0
12. Other 28 22.2
Missing Data 1 0.8

Phase II sample. Participants in the validation phase consisted of a snowball

sample of 260 employees from a variety of occupations who worked an average of 43.2

hours per week (see Table 3). A total of 237 employees were invited to participate and

instructed to forward the invitation to other potential participants. Of the final sample, 72

were male (27.7%), 159 were female (61.2%), and 29 (11.2%) did not report their gender.

The majority of the sample was white collar (80.8%). The average age of the sample was

37.1 years and the average job tenure was 7.4 years. Although 30 (11.5%) participants

did not report their race, the racial/ethnic breakdown was similar to that of the sample for

Phase I. Specifically, participants were White non-Hispanic (50.4%), Hispanic (27.3%),

Black non-Hispanic (3.5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.2%), and other groups (6.2%).

28
Table 3
Breakdown of Participants by Industry Sector (Phase II; N=260)
Industry Sector N %

1. Communications 2 1.6
2. Education 48 18.5
3. Entertainment 2 0.8
3. Financial Services 21 8.1
4. Government 13 5.0
5. Hospitality 7 2.7
6. Manufacturing 9 3.5
7. Medical/Social Services 25 9.6
8. Military 1 0.4
9. Retail 4 1.5
10. Service 19 7.3
11. Technology 18 6.9
12. Other 53 20.4
Missing Data 28 10.8

Procedures

Phase I: Item Development and Scale Refinement

Pilot data collected earlier as part of a research grant was used in the item

development. Sixty full time employees in a wide variety of jobs each participated in one

of seven one-hour focus groups to discuss their perceptions and experiences of conflict in

their jobs. Focus groups are semi-structured group interviews in which a researcher uses

open-ended questions (see Appendix A) to stimulate a discussion about topic of empirical

interest (Stacks & Hocking, 1999). This methodology is considered a very useful

technique in conceptualizing a construct and its indicators (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan,

2003). At the end of each focus group, participants were asked to write down two critical

incidents of conflict in their workplace. For each critical incident, participants were asked

to describe what led up to the incident and the context in which it occurred, exactly what

happened during the conflict, the perceived consequences of the conflict, and whether or
29
not the consequences were within the control of the employee. A total of 117 critical

incidents regarding the experience of interpersonal conflict at work were collected. Three

research assistants sorted the incidents into categories, including task outcome conflict,

task process conflict, relationship conflict, non-task organizational conflict, and other.

Consensus was reached among raters for any incident on which they did not initially

agree.

Items were developed based on the critical incidents, the qualitative data collected

during the focus group sessions, and a thorough review of existing measures and items. A

total of 145 scale items were written to conform to accepted standards in scale

development. Four graduate students were instructed to sort the items into one of four

conflict types: task outcome, task process, relationship, or non-task organizational

conflict (refer to Table 4 for a definition of each). Overall there was good agreement

among the raters and only 14 items on which two or more of the raters could not agree

were deleted. A convenience sample of 10 employees were administered the initial items

for the purpose of confirming that the instructions were clearly written, to establish the

length of time necessary to complete the measure, and to identify any problems with

wording or objectionable items. Open-ended comments were also requested at the end of

the questionnaire. Based on the feedback received from the pilot sample six items were

deleted to avoid redundancy, the interference items were reworded such that items

described unidirectional behaviors, instructions were slightly modified for clarity, and the

time required to complete the questionnaire was determined to be approximately 20-25

minutes. After revisions, the preliminary conflict scale consisted of 128 conflict items.

30
Table 4
Definitions of the Four Conflict Types Measured by the ICOS
Conflict Type Definition

Task outcome Conflict over the goals, objectives, and completion of a

work task.

Task process Conflict about how task accomplishments should

proceed, who is responsible for what, how things should
be delegated, and the procedures to follow in performing
a task
Relationship Conflict emerging from personality clashes or
emotionally charged interactions with others. For
example, conflict over not liking a coworker for personal
reasons. These conflicts are over non-work related
issues, such as social groups, rumors, and personal
dislike.
Non-task organizational Conflict emerging from issues that are not related to a
specific task, but are over issues that are organizational
in nature.

Survey packets containing the 134-item questionnaire (including demographics),

an informational letter, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and an engraved business pen

were mailed to a convenience sample of 116 participants. In addition, the most recent list

of all University Support and Personnel Systems (USPS) and Administrative and

Professional (A&P) employees was obtained from the University of South Florida’s

human resources department at the time of data collection. A random sample of 63

employees selected from the list was sent the survey packets through campus mail. The

study was also posted in Experimentrak making it available for employed students to sign

up for an appointment time to complete the questionnaire in person. Appointments were

scheduled in groups of up to five participants and students received one extra credit for

participating. All participants were instructed to complete the questionnaire with regard

31
to their experiences in their present job. Completed questionnaires were returned through

campus mail, regular postal service, or in person depending upon the sample.

Phase II: Scale Validation

Participants in this phase were sent an invitation by electronic mail to complete

the 128-item questionnaire online and encouraged to forward the invitation to other

potential participants. The electronic message contained a website link to SurveyMonkey

which took the employee directly to an informational letter describing the purpose of the

study and instructing them to answer the questionnaire with regard to their present job.

Upon completing the questionnaire, participants were given instructions to enter a raffle

for an opportunity to win one of two $50 gift cards.

Measures Phase I (See Appendix B-C)

Demographics. Information regarding the participants’ age, gender (1=male,

2=female), job tenure, number of weekly work hours, race, and industry sector was

collected.

Interpersonal conflict. Conflict was measured using the preliminary 128-item

measure. Items could be summed to create four subscale scores. Of these, 26 were task

outcome conflict items (7 disagreement, 10 interference, 9 emotion), 27 were task

process conflict items (10 disagreement, 10 interference, 7 emotion), 39 were relationship

conflict items (12 disagreement, 17 interference, 10 emotion), and 36 were non-task

organizational conflict items (14 disagreement, 14 interference, 8 emotion). Items were

assessed on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Every day.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four conflict subscales ranged between .94-.95.

32
Measures Phase II (see Appendix D-O)

Demographics. Information regarding the participants’ age, gender (1=male,

2=female), job tenure, number of weekly work hours, race, job type (1=white collar,

2=blue collar), industry sector, and number of days absent from work in the past 90 days

was collected.

Interpersonal conflict. Conflict was measured using the 64-item scale that was

refined in Phase I. Items could be summed to create a subscale score for task outcome,

task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict. The measure consisted of

16 items per conflict type with 5 disagreement, 6 interference, and 5 emotion items each.

Items were assessed on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Every

day. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four conflict subscales ranged between .91-.93.

A modified version of Jehn’s (1995) measure of intragroup conflict was also used.

The scale included eight conflict items rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from

1=None to 5=A very great deal. Task and relationship conflict were measured with four

items each. The internal consistencies of the task and relationship conflict subscales were

.87 and .92, respectively.

The ICAWS (Spector & Jex, 1998) consists of four questions that measure the

extent to which the employee experienced arguments, yelling, and rudeness when

interacting with the others at work. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 = Never to 5 = Every day where high scores represented higher levels of conflict.

The internal consistency for the ICAWS was .72.

Depression. Dormann and Zapf’s (2002) shortened version of Mohr’s (1986)

depressive symptoms scale was used. The edited three-item version omits items that refer

33
to psychosomatic symptoms or anxiety as a way of avoiding overlap with these

constructs. Internal consistency for the shortened version was .76. Higher scores

indicated higher levels of depressive symptoms with items rated on a 7 point scale where

1=Almost always to 7=Never.

Negative emotional state. The negative emotion subscale of the Job-Related

Affective Well-Being Scale was used to measure negative emotional reactions to job

conditions (JAWS; Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000). Respondents rated

how often their present jobs made them feel each of 10 negative emotions. Each item was

rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=Never to 5 = Every day. A negative emotion

score was calculated by summing the scores on all items. The internal consistency of the

negative emotion subscale of the JAWS was .91.

Psychosomatic symptoms. The revised 13-item Physical Symptoms Inventory

(PSI; Spector & Jex, 1998) was used to assess physical somatic health symptoms. Each

item was a condition/state about which a person would likely be aware, such as

headaches. Respondents rated each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1= Less than

once per month or never to 5= Several times per day.

Job satisfaction. The three-item Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979)

job satisfaction scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire was

used. Items asked participants about their satisfaction with the job overall and were rated

on a 6-point Likert type scale ranging from 1=Disagree very much to 6=Agree very

much. Higher scores represented higher levels of job satisfaction. The scale had an

internal consistency of .84.

34
 Turnover intentions. Intentions to quit was measured with one item (i.e., “How

often have you seriously considered quitting your job?”) on a scale ranging from

1=Never to 6=Extremely often (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988).

Counterproductive work behaviors. The five withdrawal items from the

Counterproductive Work Behaviors Checklist (CWB-C; Spector, Fox, Penney,

Bruursema, and Kessler, 2006) were used. Respondents indicated how often they

performed each of the listed behaviors in their current job on a scale from 1 = Never to 5

= Every day.

Trust. A modified version of Simons and Peterson’s (2000) five-item trust scale

was used. One item was reworded to make it applicable to all employees and not just

executives. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1=Never to

7=Always. The internal consistency of the scale was. 94.

Cardiovascular disease risk factors. One item asked participants if they had been

diagnosed with any of four different CVD risk factors, including high blood pressure,

coronary disease, high cholesterol, and high triglycerides. Individuals were either given a

total score from 0-4 depending on the number of risk factors selected or categorized as

having been diagnosed with at least one risk factor.

Accident/Injury. One item was included to measure the number of accidents or

injuries experienced on the current job. Respondents selected among four options: 0, 1-2,

3-4, or 5+ accidents/injuries.

35
 Chapter Three

Results

Phase I

Item analyses were conducted as part of the scale refinement process. The

purpose of the item analyses was to identify a set of internally consistent items for each

of the four conflict subcales. Based on considerations regarding the length of the final

measure, it was determined that the subcales should contain no more than 16 items each,

therefore, the items with the highest item-total correlations for each of the definitional

components were kept for Phase II and 64 items were deleted. This strategy is one of

several widely accepted ways of refining a scale (Spector, 1992). The intercorrelations

between the four conflict scales (containing all the original items) ranged between .70

and .92 (see Table 5).

Table 5
Correlations and Alpha Coefficients for the ICOS Subscales Containing all the Original
Items
Subscale M SD Min/Max 1 2 3 4

1. Task outcome 47.0 15.7 25/126 (.95)

2. Task process 45.3 15.7 27/135 .92** (.95)
3. Relationship 54.7 18.1 38/195 .71** .70** (.94)
4. Non-task organizational 54.8 18.3 35/180 .80** .81** .80** (.95)
_______________________________________________________________________
Note: Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N=126;** p<.01

While the correlation between task outcome and task process conflict was high,

they were kept as distinct for Phase II. Descriptive statistics for the four refined scales,

36
including the mean, standard deviation, total number of items, minimum/maximum

values, and coefficient alpha can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for the Refined ICOS (Phase I)
Subscale M SD # Items Min/Max Alpha

1. Task outcome 27.9 10.1 16 16/80 .93

2. Task process 28.2 10.3 16 16/80 .93
3. Relationship 24.4 9.0 16 16/80 .92
4. Non-task organizational 25.0 9.2 16 16/80 .91

Phase II

An item analysis was conducted for each of the four conflict subscales for further

refinement. Items that had an item-total correlation of <.35 and whose inclusion would

lower the internal consistency of the scale were deleted. Only one item was removed

from the relationship conflict scale because it did not meet this criteria. All other items

for the task outcome, task process, and non-task organizational conflict scales were

retained. Subscales consisted of 16 items each except for the relationship conflict

subscale, which had 15 items. Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics and

intercorrelations for the final four conflict subcales, which ranged between .57 and .83.

Component scores (i.e., relationship disagreement) were factor analyzed using principal

axis factoring and subjected to a varimax rotation. An orthogonal rotation was chosen

given the exploratory nature of the study and the fact that it provided the simplest factor

structure. The factor structure was determined by examining the eigenvalues, the factor

loadings, and the scree plots. The results indicated that a three-factor solution explained

59.9% of the variance (see Table 8).

37
Table 7
Intercorrelations Between the Final ICOS Subscales and the Study Variables
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Task Outcome† 34.5 11.5 (.93)

2. Task Process† 27.1 9.3 .83** (.93)
3. Relationship† 22.6 7.2 .61** .57** (.91)
4. Non-task Organizational† 25.6 9.3 .65** .65** .63** (.92)
5. Depression 7.8 3.2 .28** .23** .32** .24** (.76)
6. Job Satisfaction 14.3 3.8 -.33** -.33** -.34** -.48** -.25** (.84)
7. Negative Emotion 19.5 7.5 .58** .58** .57** .65** .48** -.61** (.91)
8. Somatic Symptoms 21.2 6.6 .26** .28** .29** .30** .31** -.24** .42** (na)
9. CWB 9.7 3.7 .21** .22** .20** .29** .37** -.28** .46** .26** (na)
10. Turnover Intention 2.7 1.4 .42** .42** .50** .55** .29** -.65** .65** .24** .37** (na)
11. CVD Risk Factors .35 .70 .14* .16* .11 .24** .11 -.13* .17* .14* .07 .12 (na)
12. Accident 1.13 .37 -.01 .05 -.01 .07 -.01 .08 .04 .11 .04 -.06 .21** (na)
13. Trust 25.9 6.9 -.41** -.40** -.49** -.48** -.19** -.38** -.35** -.10 -.14* -.33** -.03 -.10 (.94)
14. Absence 1.7 2.5 -.06 -.02 .04 .05 .08 -.14* .17* .19* .37** .13 -.10 -.03 -.12 (na)
15. Task Conflict (Jehn) 10.0 3.0 .57** .52** .44** .55** .26* -.29** .44** .19** .23** .38** .07 .01 -.50** -.04 (.87)
16. Relationship Conflict (Jehn) 10.4 3.4 .55** .50** .59** .58** .24** -.42** .51** .27** .19** .49** .16* .04 -.61** .02 .72**(.92)
17. ICAWS 5.9 2.29 .49** .47** .44** .43** .07 -.29** .44** .16* .10 .32** .04 .07 -.40** .04 .31**.51** (.72)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal; N=213-254
†
Min/Max values: 16/75 (task outcome); 16/63 (task process); 15/49 (relationship); 16/66 (non-task org.)
* p<.05,**p<.01

38
Table 8
Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the ICOS
Extracted Sums of
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Squares Loadings
_____________________________ ______________________________
Total % Variance Cumulative % Total %Variance Cumulative %
I 6.820 52.46 52.46 6.44 49.55 49.55
II 1.21 9.29 61.75 .84 6.42 55.97
III 1.00 7.63 69.38 .51 3.93 59.91

Figure 1 shows a scree plot of the data, which also suggests the existence of three

factors. All the component scores had a factor loading of at least >.40 on one of the

factors (see Table 9). These factors were labeled task conflict, relationship conflict, and

non-task organizational conflict. Given the exploratory nature of the factor analysis and

theoretical arguments by Jehn (1997), task outcome and task process conflict were kept

separate for the remainder of the analyses. Furthermore, combining the items from these

two subscales reduced some of the relationships with outcome variables and made factor

analytic results at the subscale level less interpretable.

2
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Factor Number

Figure 1. Scree plot for the Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale.

39
Table 9
Factor Loadings from the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the ICOS
Factors
Conflict Type 1 2 3
________________________________________________________________________
Task Conflict
1. Task outcome disagreement .54 .34 .35
2. Task outcome interference .70 .19 .21
3. Task outcome emotion .68 .31 .31
4. Task process disagreement .65 .42 .32
5. Task process interference .80 .22 .17
6. Task process emotion .76 .29 .25

Non-task Organizational Conflict

1. Non-task organizational disagreement .32 .65 .37
2. Non-task organizational interference (target) .26 .73 .22
3. Non-task organizational interference (actor) .18 .48 .14
4. Non-task organizational emotion .33 .62 .37

Relationship Conflict
1. Relationship disagreement .22 .28 .74
2. Relationship interference .27 .19 .61
3. Relationship emotion .26 .31 .62

To provide evidence for scale validity, correlations were computed between the

four conflict subscales and various criteria. These correlations, as well as means, standard

deviations, and alpha coefficients for the ICOS and outcome variables are also shown in

Table 7.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that the ICOS would be positively correlated with

symptoms of depression. As predicted, the four subscales had significant positive

correlations with depression ranging between .23 (task process) and .32 (relationship; see

Table 7). Regression analyses were conducted to test whether the various conflict types

could explain incremental validity. Controls were not entered into the equation for two

40
main reasons. First, none of the demographic variables showed a consistent pattern of

significant relationships with the other variables (see Table 10).

Table 10
Correlations Between the Demographics and Outcome Variables
Variable Gender Age Weekly Tenure Race Industry Collar
Hours
Task Outcome .00 .01 .16* .03 .03 .11 .10
Task Process -.08 .00 .15* -.04 .03 .12 .06
Relationship -.03 .04 .12 .04 .10 .12 .14*
Non-task Organizational -.03 .09 .09 .01 .00 .07 .11
Task Conflict (Jehn) -.07 .04 .17* -.02 .06 .08 .10
Relationship Conflict .02 .15* .07 .10 .05 .03 .13
Jehn)
ICAWS .00 -.04 .03 .04 .05 .01 .11
Depression .04 -.08 -.13* -.10 -.16* .00 .04
Job Satisfaction -.05 .04 .04 .04 -.07 -.12 .03
Negative Emotion .03 -.01 .05 -.06 .05 .07 .08
Somatic Symptoms .27** .04 .02 -.01 .07 .14* -.11
CWB .03 -.14* -.21** -.08 .00 -.05 .07
Turnover Intentions .08 .00 -.02 .00 .03 .02 .06
CVD Risk Factors -.02 .42** .05 .30** -.09 .04 -.02
Accident -.02 .13 .10 .09 .05 -.06 .17*
Trust -.04 .03 -.01 .03 -.05 -.03 -.08
Absence .15* -.05 -.18** .01 .06 .07 .00
N=210-232; * p<.01,**p<.05

Second, even when controls were added to the regression equation, the pattern of

results did not change. As seen in Table 11, the only significant predictor of depression

after all of the conflict types were entered into the regression equation was relationship

conflict, β =.23, p<.05.

It was also hypothesized that the ICOS would show a positive relationship with

negative emotional states. As shown in Table 7, the correlations with negative emotional

states were significant and ranged between .57 (relationship) and .65 (non-task

organizational). Regression analyses indicated that both relationship (β =.21, p<.05) and

non-task organizational (β =.35, p<.05) conflict were significant predictors of negative

emotion (see Table 11).

41
 Hypothesis 3 proposed that the ICOS would be positively related to

psychosomatic symptoms. Support for this hypothesis was also found across the four

conflict subcales (see Table 7). Specifically, the correlations were .26, .28, .29, and .30

for task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task organizational conflict,

respectively. Table 11 indicates that when all conflict types are entered into the

regression equation, only non-task organizational conflict (β =.19, p<.05) remains a

significant predictor of psychosomatic symptoms.

As proposed by hypothesis 4, the ICOS showed significant negative correlations

with job satisfaction. The correlations ranged between -.33 (task outcome/process) and -

.48 (non-task organizational) for the four conflict types. The regression analyses shown in

Table 11 indicate that non-task organizational conflict (β =-.38, p<.05) is the only

significant predictor of job satisfaction when all conflict types are entered into the

equation.

Significant correlation coefficients were also calculated between the ICOS and

turnover intentions (see Table 7). Task outcome (r=.42), task process (.42), relationship

(.50), and non-task organizational (r=.55) conflict subscales were positively correlated

with intentions to quit. As with other criteria, Table 11 shows that when turnover

intention was regressed on all four conflict types, the only significant predictors were

relationship (β =.26, p<.05) and non-task organizational conflict (β =.35, p<.05).

It was posited in hypothesis 6 that the ICOS would be positively correlated with

CWB. While the correlation coefficients were smaller with this criterion than with those

previously discussed, they were in the predicted direction (see Table 7).

42
Table 11
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for ICOS Subscales Predicting Study Outcome Variables
Dependent Variable
Independent Depression Negative Somatic Job Turnover Withdrawal
Variable Emotion Symptoms Satisfaction Intentions CWB

Task Outcome .09 .15 -.07 .04 -.01 .02

Relationship .23** .21** .09 -.14 .26** .03
Task Process - .02 .11 .16 -.05 .07 .03
Non-Task Organizational .05 .35** .19* -.38** .35** .24**

Total R2 .10** .50** .11** .24** .34** .09**

* p<.05, ** p<.01

43
 Specifically, the task outcome (r=.21), task process (r=.22), relationship (r=.20),

and non-task organizational (r=.29) conflict scales correlated significantly with CWB.

Furthermore, as shown in Table 11 non-task organizational conflict (β =.24, p<.05) was

the only significant predictor when CWB was regressed on all four conflict types.

Furthermore, exploratory analyses showed that the ICOS had significant

relationships with diagnosed cardiovascular disease risk factors. Task outcome, task

process, and non-task organizational conflict showed positive correlations that ranged

between .14 and .24 (refer to Table 7). A logistic regression was conducted after

dichotomizing the CVD variable. Respondents were categorized by whether they had

been diagnosed with at least one of the risk factors. Given the high correlation between

age and CVD risk factors, it was entered as a control in the regression analysis. The

results shown in Table 12 indicate that in addition to age, non-task organizational conflict

was a significant predictor of CVD risk factors and explained incremental variance above

the other four conflict types.

Table 12
Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for ICOS Subscales Predicting CVD Risk
Factors
Dependent Variable: CVD Risk Factors
Independent
Variable B SE B eB
Step 1
Age .09** .02 1.10
Task Outcome .02 .03 1.02
Task Process - .01 .04 .765
Relationship - .03 .03 .974
Non-task Organizational .06* .03 1.06

X2 43.09**
df 5
*p<.05, ** p<.01

44
 On the other hand, significant correlations between the ICOS and the occurrence

of accidents were not supported. This could be due to the fact that the majority of the

sample was white-collar and accidents had a positive correlation with job type, thus,

indicating that blue-collar workers reported more accidents.

Hypotheses 7-9 refer to the convergent validity of the ICOS with other conflict

scales. Table 7 shows the intercorrelations between the ICOS, the ICAWS, and Jehn’s

(1995) conflict subscales. As hypothesized, both task outcome (r=.57) and task process

(r=.52) conflict have significant positive correlations with Jehn’s (1995) task conflict

subscale. In addition, the ICOS relationship conflict scale correlated significantly with

Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict scale (r=.59). Hypothesis 9 did not make specific

predictions regarding the relationships between the four ICOS subscales and the ICAWS

because the latter does not distinguish between conflict types. The results indicated that

the task outcome (r=.49), task process (r=.47), relationship (r=.44), and non-task

organizational conflict (r=.43) subscales were all significantly correlated with the

ICAWS.

Specific hypotheses regarding the discriminant validity of the ICOS were not

made, however, the correlation between the relationship subscale of the ICOS and Jehn’s

(1995) task conflict subscale, as well as, between the task subscales of the ICOS and

Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale were tested using partial correlation. The

ICOS relationship subscale (r=.09) did not correlate significantly with Jehn’s (1995) task

conflict subscale when the effects of Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale were

controlled for. The ICOS task outcome and task process conflict subscales were

significantly correlated (r=.23 and .20, respectively) to Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict

45
subscale, even after partialling out the effects of Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale.

Nevertheless, these relationships were smaller than those between the ICOS task conflict

subscales and Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale (r=.32 and .28) when controlling for

Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict.

As noted earlier, relationship conflict correlated positively with both task outcome

(r=.61) and task process (r=.57), thus supporting hypothesis 10. Regression analyses were

conducted to test the moderating effects of trust on the association between task and

relationship conflict (see Table 13). Both the interaction term (β =-.38) and the change in

R2 reached significance when testing the moderating role of trust in the task

outcome/relationship conflict correlation. Figure 2 illustrates the moderating effect of

trust on the relationship between the two conflict types, such that under low levels of trust

the relationship between the two is stronger than under high levels of trust. However, as

indicated by a non-significant interaction term, support for the moderating role of trust in

the task process/relationship correlation was not found.

In order to test the moderating role of trust on the relationship between task/non-

task organizational conflict, two additional regression analyses were conducted even

though specific hypotheses had not been made. Trust was a significant moderator in the

relationships between task outcome and non-task organizational conflict, as well as,

between task process and non-task organizational conflict (β = -.59 and β =-.37,

respectively). As before, the correlations between the conflict subscales are stronger

under low levels of interpersonal trust and weaker under high levels of interpersonal trust

(see Figures 3 and 4).

46
Table 13
Multiple Regression Analysis of the Moderating Role of Interpersonal Trust
Dependent Variable: Relationship Conflict
Independent
Variable Step1 Step 2
Task Outcome .46** -.82**
Trust -.30** .01
Task Outcome X Trust .38*
2
R at each step .42** .43**
R2 change .01*

Dependent Variable: Relationship Conflict

Independent
Variable Step1 Step 2
Task Process .45** .56**
Trust -.31** -.21
Task Process X Trust -.12
R2 at each step .40** .40**
R2 change 0

Dependent Variable: Non-task Organizational Conflict

Independent
Variable Step1 Step 2
Task Outcome .54** 1.10**
Trust -.26** .21
Task Outcome X Trust -.59*
R2 at each step .48** .50**
R2 change .02**

Dependent Variable: Non-task Organizational Conflict

Independent
Variable Step1 Step 2
Task Process .54** .90**
Trust -.26** .03
Task Process X Trust -.37*
R2 at each step .48** .49**
R2 change .01*

* p<.05, ** p<.01

47
 40
Relationship Conflict 35
30 Low Trust
25 High Trust

20
15
1 2
Task Outcome Conflict

Figure 2. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task Outcome and
Relationship Conflict.
Non-task Organizational

40

35

30 Low Trust
25 High Trust

20

15
1 2
Task Outcome

Figure 3. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task Outcome and
Non-task Organizational Conflict.

48
 Non-task Organizational
40

35

30 Low Trust
25 High Trust

20

15
1 2
Task Process

Figure 4. Moderating Effects of Trust on the Correlation Between Task Process and Non-
task Organizational Conflict.

Hypothesis 12-13 proposed that Jehn’s (1995) task and relationship conflict

subcales would be more strongly correlated with specific components of each of the four

ICOS conflict subscales. In order to test these hypotheses, it was first necessary to

determine that each conflict type was, in fact, composed of the three theorized

definitional components (disagreement, interference, and emotion). Data for each of the

four conflict subscales were factor analyzed using principal axis factoring and subjected

to varimax rotation. A minimum factor loading of .40 was used to determine which items

would be retained. Items loading on multiple factors were grouped under the factor that

was closest to the item’s initial conceptualization. Therefore, the theoretical interpretation

of the data was also key in determining the final factor structure.

Task Outcome Conflict Factor Analysis

As seen in Table 14, 65% of the variance in the data was accounted for by a three-

factor structure for task outcome conflict. The scree plot shown in Figure 5 also supports

49
a three-factor solution. Table 15 shows the factor loadings from the rotated factor

solution and indicates that items grouped together based on whether they assessed

disagreement, interference, or emotion. Only one item loaded >.40 on more than one

factor. The factor correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients are

presented in Table 16.

Table 14
Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the Task Outcome Conflict
Subscale
Extracted Sums of
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Squares Loadings
_____________________________ ______________________________
Total % Variance Cumulative % Total %Variance Cumulative %
I 8.09 50.59 50.59 7.75 48.42 48.42
II 1.96 12.25 62.84 1.62 10.11 58.52
III 1.33 8.33 71.17 .98 6.14 64.66

10

4
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Factor Number

Figure 5. Scree plot for the task outcome conflict subscale.

50
Table 15
Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the Task Outcome
Conflict Subscale
Factors
Task Outcome Items 1 2 3

Disagreement

1. Do you disagree with someone on the goals of a work task? .17 .69 .37
2. Do you have differences in opinion regarding what should be the .20 .83 .18
end product of a work task?
3. Do you disagree with someone on what is the content of a work .19 .77 .29
task to be performed?
4. Do you get into conflicts with someone over what should be done .24 .68 .28
in a work task?
5. Do you have incompatible ideas regarding what should be the .22 .78 .24
outcome of a work task?

Interference

1. Do others prevent you from completing your work tasks? .72 .09 .34
2. Do others impede you from accomplishing the goals of your .74 .16 .38
work tasks?
3. Does someone interfere with your job making it difficult for .70 .16 .42
you to finish your work tasks?
4. Do you impede others from accomplishing the goals of their .74 .26 .09
work tasks?
5. Do you interfere with someone’s job making it difficult for .69 .18 .07
them to finish their work tasks?
6. Do you interfere with what others think should be done in a .61 .26 .21
work task?

Emotion

1. Do you feel angry with others because they interfere with what .31 .38 .60
you think should be done in a work task?
2. Do you feel frustrated with others over the outcome of a work .19 .30 .72
task?
3. Do you feel irritated with others because you do not agree with .20 .30 .78
the goals of a work task?
4. Are you edgy with others over what the outcome of a work .26 .30 .69
task should be?
5. Do you feel annoyed by others at work because they make your .37 .22 .67
work tasks more difficult to complete?

51
Table 16
Intercorrelations between the Definitional Components of the ICOS Subscales and Jehn’s Conflict Subscales
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Task Outcome
1. Disagreement 11.4 4.2 (.91)
2. Interference 12.0 5.1 .50 (.89)
3. Emotion 11.1 4.3 .65 .62 (.90)
Task Process
4. Disagreement 8.7 3.2 .67 .53 .64 (.84)
5. Interference 9.3 3.4 .49 .74 .59 .65 (.81)
6. Emotion 9.1 3.9 .55 .60 .73 .73 .69 (.90)
Relationship
7. Disagreement 7.9 3.1 .51 .42 .51 .47 .37 .41 (.84)
8. Interference 7.8 3.2 .42 .42 .39 .41 .38 .37 .58 (.81)
9. Emotion 6.7 2.2 .39 .36 .51 .52 .38 .51 .63 .52 (.90)
Non-task Organizational
10. Disagreement 8.1 3.3 .50 .42 .54 .64 .46 .52 .51 .47 .47 (.84)
11. Interference (target) 4.8 2.3 .37 .38 .50 .51 .43 .51 .43 .31 .48 .64 (.86)
12. Interference (actor) 3.5 1.3 .36 .30 .25 .39 .29 .24 .36 .19 .23 .40 .48 (.90)
13. Emotion 9.2 4.3 .51 .45 .57 .57 .43 .52 .47 .43 .45 .69 .62 .36 (.89)
Jehn’s Conflict Scales
14. Task Conflict 10.0 3.0 .49 .41 .55 .48 .42 .49 .40 .35 .36 .50 .46 .25 .48 (.87)
15. Relationship Conflict 10.4 3.4 .39 .45 .55 .49 .40 .46 .51 .42 .53 .51 .53 .26 .51 .46 (.92)
Note: Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N=228-258
All correlations are significant at p<.01

52
Task Process Conflict Factor Analysis

Factor analysis of the task process conflict data also resulted in a three-factor

solution accounting for 59% of the variance (see Table 17). As shown by Figure 6, the

scree plot also provides for three main factors that represent disagreement, interference,

and emotion. However, the interpretation of the three factors in this case is a bit more

complex than for the other conflict types. Table 18 shows that six items had loadings

>.40 on multiple factors. In four of these cases, the item was grouped under the factor

that was congruent with the item’s conceptualization. However, this was not possible for

two of the interference items because neither of them loaded >.40 on the interference

factor. The next best fit for these two items based on both quantitative methods and

conceptual reasoning would be under the disagreement factor. However, the task process

interference subscale reliability drops from .81 to .75 when removing these two items.

Given the exploratory nature of the factor analysis and the fact that the pattern of

relationships described earlier did not change when these two interference items were

included in the disagreement subscale, these two items were kept in the interference

subscale. Table 16 shows the factor correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha

coefficients.

Table 17
Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the Non-task Organizational
Conflict Subscale
Extracted Sums of
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Squares Loadings
_____________________________ ______________________________
Total % Variance Cumulative % Total %Variance Cumulative %
I 7.91 49.45 49.45 7.52 47.02 47.02
II 1.64 10.27 59.72 1.19 7.44 54.46
III 1.05 6.54 66.26 .68 4.24 58.70

53
 10

4
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Factor Number

Figure 6. Scree plot for the task process conflict subscale.

Table 18
Factor Loadings from the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the Task Process Conflict
Subscale
Factors
Task Process Items 1 2 3

Disagreement

1. Do you disagree with someone over how you manager your .66 .25 .16
work tasks?
2. Do you disagree with someone because of something you or they .64 .25 .28
do in performing the work tasks?
3. Are you in conflict with someone over how work tasks are .59 .23 .14
assigned?
4. Do you have differences in opinion regarding when a work task .61 .16 .21
should be performed?
5. Do you have differences in opinion regarding how a work task .72 .25 .30
should be performed?

Interference

1. Does someone interfere with the way in which you manage your .47 .52 .20
work tasks?

54
Table 18 (continued)

2. Do others obstruct you from performing your work tasks at the .25 .55 .52
time when you want to ?
3. Do others prevent you from following the procedures for .42 .55 .27
performing a work task?
4. Do you block others from completing their work tasks in the .30 .22 .68
manner in which they want to?
5. Do you interfere with the way in which others manage their work .18 .10 .71
tasks?
6. Do you obstruct others from performing their work tasks at the time .04 .16 .65
when they want to?

Emotion

1. Do you feel angry with others due to differences in opinion .64 .51 .06
regarding how you should complete your work tasks?
2. Do you feel irritated with others because they keep you from .34 .79 .31
performing your tasks at the time that you want to?
3. Do you feel annoyed by others because they want you to perform .60 .47 -
.02
your work tasks in a different way?
4. Do you feel frustrated with others over who is responsible for .53 .53 .14
specific work tasks?
5. Do you feel annoyed by others because they get in the way of .31 .79 .30
you completing your works tasks as you planned to?

Relationship Conflict Factor Analysis

A three-factor structure also emerged from the relationship conflict data. In this

case, 55% of the variance was explained by the three factors (see Table 19). Figure 7

provides additional support for a three-factor solution. All but one item, which was

deleted from the final scale to increase its reliability, had factor loadings of >.40 on at

least one of the factors (see Table 20). Two of the items had strong loadings on multiple

factors and were classified according to the initial conceptualization of the item. As

before, the items grouped together into the three main components labeled disagreement,

55
interference, and emotion. The factor correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha

coefficients are presented in Table 16.

Table 19
Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the Relationship Conflict
Subscale
Extracted Sums of
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Squares Loadings
_____________________________ ______________________________
Total % Variance Cumulative % Total %Variance Cumulative %
I 6.75 44.97 44.97 6.32 42.14 42.14
II 1.56 10.42 55.39 1.52 7.68 49.82
III 1.28 8.52 63.91 .85 5.65 55.48

2
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Factor Number

Figure 7. Scree plot for the task process conflict subscale.

56
Table 20
Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the Relationship Conflict
Subscale
Factors
Relationship Items 1 2 3

Disagreement

1. Do you get into disagreements with others at work because of .44 .33 .53
differences in personality?
2. Do you disagree with someone at work due to differences in .41 .23 .42
personal values?
3. Do you argue with someone at work because you do not like .20 .23 .69
working together?
4. Do you differ in opinion with someone at work because you .12 .17 .80
simply cannot get along?
5. Do you get into conflicts with others at work because of a lack .36 .27 .60
of personal trust?

Interference

1. Do others say negative things about you that jeopardize how you .23 .70 .16
are viewed at work?
2. Do others get you into trouble at work because they do not like .10 .78 .21
you?
3. Do others at work do things to annoy you because you cannot .34 .57 .37
get along?
4. Do you say negative things about others that jeopardize how .21 .48 .13
they are viewed at work?
5. Do you get others into trouble at work because you do not like .15 .52 .16
them?

Emotion

1. Do you feel mad because of personal friction with others in your .72 .29 .17
workplace?
2. Do you feel anxious due to personality differences with others at .82 .11 .17
work?
3. Do you feel frustrated with others at work because you cannot .66 .31 .33
get along?
4. Do you feel apprehensive about coming to work due to personality .67 .18 .17
clashes with others at work?
5. Do you feel tense working with others at your workplace? .73 .22 .23

57
Non-task Organizational Conflict Factor Analysis

In the case of non-task organizational conflict, a three and four-factor solution

were tested. A four-factor solution was retained because it resulted in a better

interpretation of the data and because it impacted the pattern of validity coefficients

described below. As seen in Table 21, a four-factor solution explains 65% of the variance

in the data. The scree plot shown in Figure 8 also supports a four-factor structure. All of

the items had factor loadings >.40 on their primary factors and two items loaded on

multiple factors (see Table 22). In these cases, the conceptual meaning of the item was

considered when grouping it with other items. Based on the content of the items in each

factor, it was determined that they represented disagreement, emotion, interference

behaviors performed by the individual, and interference behaviors performed towards the

individual. Table 16 shows the factor correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha

coefficients.

Table 21
Total Variance Explained by the Three Extracted Factors of the Non-task Organizational
Conflict Subscale
Extracted Sums of
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Squares Loadings
_____________________________ ______________________________
Total % Variance Cumulative % Total %Variance Cumulative %
I 7.63 47.70 47.70 7.28 45.52 45.52
II 1.96 12.24 59.94 1.71 10.67 56.19
III 1.12 7.01 66.95 .77 4.83 61.02
IV 1.04 6.52 73.47 .70 4.35 65.37

58
 10

4
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Factor Number

Figure 8. Scree plot for the non-task organizational conflict subscale.

Table 22
Factor Loadings From the Rotated Factor Structure Matrix for the Non-Task
Organizational Conflict Subscale
Factors
Non-task Organizational Items 1 2 3 4

Disagreement

1. Are you in a dispute with someone at work caused by .43 .07 .42 .40
differences in organizational power?
2. Are you in a disagreement with someone at work because .40 .08 .55 .26
of a company policy?
3. Do you disagree with someone about hiring decisions in .32 .04 .76 .06
your organization?
4. Do you disagree with someone over organizational-related .18 .24 .67 .22
issues that do not pertain to a specific work task?
5. Do you dispute with someone at work because of poor .36 .24 .52 .35
organizational leadership?

Interference Performed Towards the Individual (target)

1. Do others impede your work because an organizational .23 .21 .16 .66
policy allows them to?
2. Does someone make your life more difficult over an .27 .21 .22 .79
organizational-related issue that does not pertain to a
specific work task?

59
Table 22 (continued)

3. Do others block you from attaining your objectives .42 .31 .24 .59
because of differences in organizational power?

Interference Performed by the Individual (actor)

1. Do you make someone’s life more difficult over an .19 .80 .08 .25
organizational-related issue that does not pertain to a
specific work task?
2. Do you block others from attaining their objectives .13 .90 .04 .26
because of differences in organizational power?
3. Do you impede someone’s work because an organizational .10 .81 .23 .04
policy allows you to?

Emotion

1. Do you feel anxious due to the actions of someone with .66 .08 .19 .28
more organizational power?
2. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related .71 .09 .26 .33
to a company policy?
3. Do you feel mad due to conflicts over organizational .80 .22 .22 .20
changes?
4. Do you feel tense because others in your organization do .70 .15 .25 .10
not value your work?
5. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related .62 .16 .33 .23
to personnel staffing?

To test hypotheses 12-13, items within each factor were summed to form a factor

or component score and correlated with Jehn’s (1995) task and relationship conflict

subscales (see Table 17). The task outcome disagreement (r=.49) factor score did not

correlate significantly stronger with Jehn’s ( 1995) task conflict subscale than did the task

outcome interference (r=.41) or task outcome emotion (r=.55) factor scores. Similar

findings were found for task process where the task process disagreement (r=.48) factor

score did not correlate significantly stronger with Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale

than did the task process interference (r=.42) or task process emotion (r=.49) factor

60
scores. As proposed by hypothesis 13, the relationship emotion (r=.53) factor score

correlated more strongly with Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale than did the

relationship disagreement (r=.51) or relationship interference (r=.42) factor scores.

Hotelling’s t test for dependent correlations indicated that only the difference between the

relationship emotion and interference factors was significant, t (231)= -2.03, p<.05.

Other interesting findings emerged from the data when studying the relationships

between the conflict components, or factors, and the outcome variables (see Table 23).

For example, the interference factors of the relationship (r=.05), task outcome (r=.11),

and task process (r=.07) conflict scales did not significantly correlate with the CWB

measure. Furthermore, non-task organizational interference behaviors performed by the

individual were not significantly related to depression (r=.08) or psychosomatic

symptoms (r=.10). Further, as shown in Table 24, interference behaviors performed by

the individual were less strongly related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

negative emotion than were interference behaviors performed towards the individual.

61
 Table 23

Correlations Between the Components of the ICOS Subscales and Outcome Variables
Variable Depression Negative Somatic Job Turnover CWB Trust Accidents CVD Risk
Emotion Symptoms Satisfaction Intentions Factors
Task Outcome
1.Disagreement .25** .51** .14* -.26** .35** .22** -.32** .01 .07
2. Interference .19** .42** .25** -.24** .29** .11 -.30** .00 .15*
3. Emotion .29** .54** .26** -.33** .43** .22** -.42** -.03 .13
Task Process
1. Disagreement .19** .55** .25** -.30** .44** .29** -.37** .06 .16*
2. Interference .12 .43** .21** -.23** .30** .07 -.30** .08 .17*
3. Emotion .29** .55** .28** -.34** .40** .23** -.39** .01 .10
Relationship
1.Disagreement .21** .46** .20** -.28** .45** .17** -.44** -.03 .09
2. Interference .19** .34** .26** -.17* .25** .05 -.39** .03 .07
3. Emotion .40** .59** .28** -.39** .52** .25** -.40** -.02 .13
Non-Task Org
1. Disagreement .16* .49** .22** -.38** .47** .23** -.41** .04 .16*
2. Interference (target) .13* .49** .19** -.41** .41** .23** -.48** .07 .23**
3. Interference (actor) .08 .33** .10 -.16* .21** .14* -.22** -.02 .15*
4. Emotion .31** .68** .36** -.49** .55** .31** -.42** .08 .23**
N =226-254; * p<.01, **p<.05

62
Table 24
Hotelling’s t-Test for Dependent Correlations
Variable Interference Interference Hotelling’s
(target) (actor) t test
Job -.41** -.16* -3.96*
satisfaction
Turnover .41** .21** 3.94*
intentions
Negative .49** .33** 2.69*
emotion
* p<.01, **p<.05

63
 Chapter Four

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to develop a reliable and valid measure of

interpersonal conflict in organizations based on a comprehensive conceptualization of the

construct, and to provide preliminary evidence for construct validity. Research on

interpersonal conflict has identified it as a leading source of stress in the workplace,

however, our knowledge has been limited by the weaknesses in our measurement. Given

the various definitions of conflict it is not surprising that existing measures operationalize

conflict in different ways, thus making it difficult to compare findings across studies.

Research by Barki and Hartwick (2004) addressed this issue by proposing a conceptual

model of conflict that was developed from their earlier empirical work. The definition of

conflict used for this study was adapted from Barki and Hartwick’s (2004) research and

describes conflict as a dynamic process that occurs between parties as they experience

negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the

attainment of their goals. Three main definitional properties of conflict are proposed in

this conceptualization: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion. Researchers

have used a combination of these three properties to define and assess conflict across

various disciplines (see Barki & Hartwick, 2004 for a review). Nevertheless, Barki and

Hartwick’s (2004) model proposes that the inclusion of all three definitional components

is essential in the measurement of conflict and, therefore, an adequate measure of the

construct should tap into all three properties. Furthermore, not only was the new measure

64
intended to include items that addressed conflict’s definitional properties, but also

measure conflict arising from different sources. The Interpersonal Conflict in

Organizations Scale (ICOS) was created to measure task outcome, task process,

relationship, and non-task organizational conflict. Items within each of the four conflict

subscales were written to assess conflict’s three definitional components.

The psychometric evidence presented in Phase I and Phase II indicated that each

of the four subscales had a high coefficient alpha, thus supporting the notion that the

items reflected a common, underlying construct. Furthermore, significant relationships

were found for each of the

outcome variables and the ICOS. While the construct validity of any scale involves

numerous samples and studies, the results presented are very promising and provide

initial support for the validity of the scale.

The findings of the validation phase support the notion that conflict can be

deleterious to employee well-being. Although previous occupational stress research has

also found support for the detrimental effects of conflict, the research in our field has not

distinguished between conflict types. Furthermore, research that has differentiated

between conflict types has been focused on other types of criteria, such as job satisfaction

and performance. This study showed that the four conflict types measured by the ICOS

had significant relationships with depression, somatic complaints, negative emotional

states, and CVD risk factors. Furthermore, the regression analyses indicated that in the

case of these four criteria, two conflict types emerged as having incremental validity

above the rest. Specifically, relationship conflict was the only significant predictor of

depression while non-task organizational conflict was the only significant predictor of

65
somatic symptoms and CVD risk factors. Both relationship and non-task organizational

conflict were significant predictors of negative emotional states. A contribution of this

research was to distinguish between conflict types in our study of this social stressor and

its impact on personal well-being. Furthermore, these findings allowed us to address

whether task conflict, traditionally studied in relation to performance, was also important

to well-being. Given the results, it seems that task conflict relates to well-being outcomes

through its shared variance with relationship conflict.

Moreover, the validation data also indicated significant relationships between the

four conflict types measured by the ICOS and organizational variables, including job

satisfaction, turnover intentions, and withdrawal CWB. The findings were consistent with

previous research showing a significant relationship between task and relationship

conflict with job satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). At the same time, the study

addressed a need for studying additional variables of organizational relevance beyond

performance and job satisfaction. Interestingly, the results indicated that relationship and

non-task organizational conflict were the only two significant predictors of these three

organizational variables. Given that non-task organizational conflict is not part of the

conventional conflict typology, these findings suggest that using the ICOS can provide

additional insight into our current knowledge of the stress/strain process.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The ICOS showed very good convergent validity with Jehn’s (1995) conflict

scales and the ICAWS. Given the moderate to high intercorrelations among the four

ICOS conflict scales the evidence for discriminant validity was not as strong. For

instance, the relationship with the criteria was very similar across the four conflict

66
subscales. However, high intercorrelations among the subscales were expected based on

past conflict research. In fact, a meta-analysis by DeDreu and Weingart (2003) indicated

that the mean correlation between task and relationship conflict across 24 studies was

r=.54. Nevertheless, some evidence for discriminant validity was found for the ICOS

relationship subscale. Specifically, the ICOS relationship conflict subscale was

significantly related to Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale but not to the task

conflict subscale when the effects of the latter were partialled out.

Are Task Process and Task Outcome Conflicts the Same?

It is worth noting that while the task process and task outcome conflict subscales

were highly intercorrelated, it was determined that they should be kept distinct at this

point of the scale development process. This decision was driven by the fact that several

of the correlations with the outcome variables were lower when the items from these two

subscales were combined. Also, factor analytic results indicated a more interpretable

factor structure at the subscale level when items were kept separate. Last, it may be too

early to determine whether these two conflict types can be subsumed into one since it

may be possible that they have differential relationships with other outcomes not

measured in this study. The factor structure of the two subscales should be re-examined

upon further use of the ICOS.

Interpersonal Trust and its Moderating Effects on Conflict Types

Simons and Peterson (2000) concluded that the positive correlation between

Jehn’s (1995) task and relationship conflict subscales was due to a misattribution process.

Under conditions of low trust, groups were likely to misattribute the intentions behind

task conflict to be more personal in nature. Misattributed intentions would then be

67
reciprocated in the form of relationship conflict. Although the moderating role of trust

was originally tested at the group level of analysis, the current study tested it at the

individual level. The correlation between the ICOS task outcome and relationship conflict

subscales was stronger under conditions of low interpersonal trust than under conditions

of high trust, thus providing further support for the moderating role of trust. Furthermore,

data from this study made it possible to apply the same test to the relationship between

task and non-task organizational conflict. Interestingly, trust was found to moderate the

relationship between task outcome and non-task organizational conflict, as well as, the

relationship between task process and non-task organizational conflict. Hence, not only

can misattributed intentions escalate from task conflicts into relationship conflict for low

trust groups, but they can also escalate into non-task organizational conflict.

Definitional Components of the Four Conflict Subscales

The results supported the three main definitional components of conflict described

by Barki and Hartwick (2004). The factors for the task outcome, task process, and

relationship conflict subscales assessed disagreement, interference, and negative emotion.

The only subscale that deviated from this factor structure was non-task organizational

conflict. In this case, interference could be further divided into interference behaviors

performed by the individual or towards the individual.

Barki and Hartwick (2004) categorized Jehn’s (1995) task and relationship

conflict subscales as defining conflict in terms of pure disagreement or pure negative

emotion, respectively. Consequently, it was expected that the disagreement component of

the task conflict subscales in the ICOS would relate stronger to Jehn’s (1995) task

conflict subscale than the other two components (interference or emotion). Similarly, it

68
was expected that the negative emotion component of the ICOS relationship conflict

subscale would relate more strongly to Jehn’s (1995) relationship conflict subscale than

then other two components (disagreement or interference). While some support was

found for the latter, there were no significant differences across components and their

relationship to Jehn’s (1995) task conflict subscale. A possible explanation for this is that

given the general wording in Jehn’s (1995) conflict scale, respondents may be

considering all components of conflict when responding to the items despite the construct

definition intended by the researcher.

As noted in the results, some interesting patterns emerged from the two

interference factors of the non-task organizational scale. Interference behaviors over non-

task organizational issues that are performed toward the individual have a greater impact

on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms than

interference behaviors performed by the individual. Although the factor structure of the

task outcome, task process, and relationship conflict subscales did not support

differentiating between the targets of the interference behaviors, exploratory tests were

done to see if similar patterns would arise. However, differential relationships were not

found for the other conflict subscales. A possible explanation for these findings is that

some of the non-task organizational interference behaviors imply differential

organizational power, therefore, being the victim of such behaviors can be

understandably more detrimental than being the actor.

The ICOS and other Conflict Scales

The results of this study provide promising support for the use of the new scale.

The ICOS was a significant correlate of several criteria for which the ICAWS or Jehn’s

69
conflict scales were not. These included depression, withdrawal CWB, and CVD risk

factors. In addition, the ICOS includes two additional conflict subscales that are not

assessed by neither the ICAWS nor Jehn’s (1995) conflict scales. Therefore, researchers

have the flexibility of choosing among the conflict subscales that they are interested in

assessing in their investigations. The development of the ICOS was in response to a call

for needed instruments to assess the three definitional components of conflict. However,

it is foreseeable that some researchers may view this conceptualization of conflict as

being too restrictive. Barki and Hartwick (2004) would argue that subscribing to the

three-component view of conflict would improve our ability to compare findings across

studies and prevent conflict researchers from confounding conflict with the actual

measurement of similar constructs. Nevertheless, given the factor structure for each of the

subscales, it is possible for a researcher to only use specific components in calculating a

score for a conflict type making this an advantage of the ICOS over other commonly used

conflict measures.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be noted. Among them is the fact that all

variables were measured using self-report. A common criticism of self-report measures is

that shared biases may inflate the relationship between variables. While other conflict

studies have used cross-source data and found similar patterns of relationships among

variables (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Spector et al., 2003), it is possible that biases may

have affected responses to both predictor and criterion measures. Also, both Phase I and

II samples were largely female and although gender showed a non-significant

70
relationship with almost all of the study’s variables, one should exercise caution when

generalizing to a mostly male population.

In addition, given that the sample for the validation phase of this study was a

snowball sample, it may be that the findings are not generalizable to other samples that

are less cooperative and may otherwise choose not to participate in this type of study.

Also, while a variety of occupations participated in both phases of the scale development,

subgroup comparisons could not be made due to the very small sample sizes in each

industry sector. Similarly, the majority of the participants were white collar, thus making

it impossible to make comparisons between blue and white-collar samples. Given the

significant correlation between the type of job (blue vs. white collar) and accidents, it is

possible that the non-significant relationships between conflict and the number of

accidents or injuries suffered on the job was due to a restriction of range on the latter.

Another limitation is that the data were cross-sectional. The conflict process is

dynamic in nature and may be better captured by a longitudinal study design.

Nevertheless, the results of this scale development and validation study are promising

and consistent with previous findings, therefore, lending confidence to its results.

Future Research Directions

Building support for the construct validity of a scale is a process that occurs over

time. Further validation of the ICOS is necessary in order to show its relationship to

additional criteria, as well as, to replicate the current findings using the same criteria.

While this study focused primarily on variables commonly studied in occupational stress

research, it is necessary for future studies to validate the scale against measures of

71
performance. Given past findings regarding the relationships between task conflict and

performance, regression analyses may show a different pattern of significant predictors.

The validation phase of this study resulted in some interesting findings regarding

non-task organizational conflict. While the primary focus of researchers has been on task

and relationship conflict, little research has been conducted on the impact of non-task

organizational conflict on employee well-being. This study supports the notion that

interpersonal conflicts over issues that are of an organizational nature, but not specifically

about the work task to be performed, may be among the most detrimental when compared

to other conflict types. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and to further

illustrate the importance of measuring other conflict types than those traditionally

assessed.

Furthermore, future ICOS validity studies should refine the relationships between

the four conflict subscales and the criteria by investigating additional moderators. For

example, it has been shown that the level of routine in people’s work and the perceived

consequences of the conflict moderate the relationship between conflict and performance

(Jehn, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). However, it is unknown if the same type of

relationships are found when studying conflict’s impact on employee well-being. It is

also possible that an employee’s conflict management style acts as moderator. Future

research may test whether effective conflict management styles buffer individuals from

the negative consequences of conflict while ineffective conflict management styles

exacerbate the effects of conflict.

Spector and Bruk-Lee (in press) reviewed the role of personality in the

conflict/strain process and provided a model to explain whereby personality impacts this

72
process. For example, it may be that some personality types are hyper-reactive to the

experience of conflict at work or that they create conditions conducive to conflict. There

are several personality traits that have been shown to have a substantive relationship with

conflict. Although some researchers would suggest controlling for the effects of

personality traits such as negative affectivity, Spector and Bruk-Lee (in press) propose

that they may act as moderators and their effects should not be partialled out of

conflict/strain relationships (see also Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000). Therefore,

while investigating the effects of personality on the conflict/strain process was beyond

the scope of this study, future research should assess the moderating role of locus of

control, negative affectivity, Type A, and trait anger on the relationships between the four

conflict types measured by the ICOS and various well-being and organizational

outcomes. Undoubtedly, such a study would make a significant contribution to our

understanding of conflict’s impact on personal and organizational outcomes and would

help to further develop the proposed model (see Spector & Bruk-Lee, in press).

Concluding Remarks

This study addressed a significant gap in our research through the development of

a construct valid and reliable measure of conflict based on a comprehensive definition of

the construct. Not only was this new measure designed to assess the more traditionally

studied task and relationship conflict types, but it also assesses task process and non-task

organizational conflict. By having differentiated between task outcome and task process

conflict, additional research may be conducted to determine whether these two conflict

types are, in fact, distinct. Furthermore, factor analyses supported subscale structures that

consisted of items measuring disagreement, interference, and emotion. Although some

73
may suggest that specific outcomes may be better predicted by the combination of only a

few of the components, the ICOS was designed to support a three-component model of

conflict. Nevertheless, specific factor scores may be calculated which is another

advantage of this scale above other widely used measures.

The findings from the validation phase challenge the notion that conflict may

serve constructive functions and further support the role of conflict as a leading social

stressor among working people. The development of the ICOS has the potential of

making a significant contribution to our understanding of conflict’s impact on personal

and organizational outcomes by offering researchers a reliable and comprehensive

instrument for measuring task outcome, task process, relationship, and non-task

organizational conflict. To date, none of the other widely used measures provide such a

comprehensive assessment of interpersonal conflict in organizations.

74
 References

Allen, M, J., & Yen, W.M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Prospects
High, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional

conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams.
Academy of Mangement Journal, 39, 123-148.

Amason, A.C., & Schweiger, D.M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict,
strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 5, 239-253.

Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Honkasalo, M.L., & Koskenvuo, M. (1991).

Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological characteristics of employees. Social
Science Medicine, 32, 1051-1056.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in
information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 195-228.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). User participation, conflict and conflict
resolution: The mediating roles of influence. Information Systems Research, 5, 422-438.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing The Construct of Interpersonal

Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 216-244.

Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 25-36.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace

aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive
Behavior, 22, 161-173.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C., & Schilling, E.A. (1989). Effects of daily
stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.

Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P.E. (2006). The Social Stressors-Counterproductive

Work Behaviors Link: Are Conflicts with Supervisors and Coworkers the Same? Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 145-156.

75
 Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Carsten, J.M., & Spector, P.E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and
employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 374-381.

Chen, P.Y., & Spector, P.E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with
aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict,
team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741-749.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and
depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations
in a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 874-884.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and
depressive symptoms: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 33-58.

Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-
173.

Fink, C.F. (1968). Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12, 412-460.

Fiol, C.M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations.

Organization Science, 5, 403-420.

Fiske, A.P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociability: Framework for a
unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.

Fox, S., Spector, P.E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior
(CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1-19.

Frone, M.R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes:

Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
246-255.

76
 Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.) (1997). Antisocial behavior in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gordon, J.R. (1999). Organizational Behavior: A diagnostic approach. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Greenglass, E. R. (1996). Anger suppression, cynical distrust, and hostility:

Implications for coronary heart disease. (pp. 205-225). In C. D. Spielberger, I. G.
Sarason, J. M. T. Brebner, E. Greenglass, P. Laungani, & A. M. O’Roark (Eds.). Stress
and Emotion: Anxiety, Anger, and Curiosity, Vol. 16. Washington, D.C.: Taylor &
Francis.

Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 19, 149-161.

Hahn, S.E. (2000). The effects of locus of control on daily exposure, coping and
reactivity to work interpersonal stressors: A diary study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 729-748.

Heinisch, D.A., & Jex, S.M. (1997). Negative affectivity and gender as
moderators of the relationship between work-related stressors and depressed mood at
work. Work and Stress, 11, 46-57.

Hollinger, E.C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee
deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53-75.

Jehn, K.A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and

disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 5, 223-238.

Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of

intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Jehn, K.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in

organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The
effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on
workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287-305.

Jex, S.M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications
for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

77
 Jex, S.M., & Beehr, T.A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues
in the study of work-related stress. Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9,
311-365.

Julkunen, J. (1996). Suppressing your anger: Good manners, bad health? (pp.
227-240). In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, J. M. T. Brebner, E. Greenglass, P.
Laungani, & A. M. O’Roark (Eds.). Stress and Emotion: Anxiety, Anger, and Curiosity,
Vol. 16. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R. (1964).
Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kandel, D.B., Davies, M., & Raveis, V.H. (1985). The stressfulness of daily
social roles for women: Marital, occupational and household roles. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 26, 64-78.

Keenan, A., & Newton, T.J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors and psychological
strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151-156.

Liu, C. (2002). A comparison of job stressors and job strains among employees
holding comparable jobs in Western and Eastern societies. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Mack, R.W., & Snyder, R.C. (1957). The analysis of social change: Toward an
overview and synthesis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 212-248.

Mohr, G. (1986). Measuring psychological complaints of workers. Frankfurt am

Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

Murphy, K.R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P.E. (1999a). A cross-cultural comparison
of job stressors and reaction among employees holding comparable jobs in two countries.
International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 197-212.

Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P.E. (1999b). Stress in the workplace: A
comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63-73.

Newstead, S.E., & Collis, J.M. (1987). Context and the interpretation of
quantifiers of frequency. Ergonomics, 30, 1447-1462.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.

78
 Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

O’Leary, A. (1990). Stress, emotion, and human immune function. Psychological

Bulletin, 108, 363-382.

Pearlin, L.L. (1980). Life-strains and psychological distress among adults: A

conceptual review. In N.J. Smelser & E.H. Erikson (Eds.), Themes of love and work in
adulthood (pp. 174-192). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M., & Porath, C.L. (2004). Workplace incivility. In
S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors
and targets (pp. 177-200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., & Sullivan, J.J.(2003). Making sense of factor analysis:
The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pinkley, R.L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of

conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126.

Pondy, L.R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 12, 296-320.

Rainey, D.W. (1995). Sources of stress among baseball and softball umpires.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 1-10.

Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace

behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-
572.

Romanov, K., Appelberg, K., Honkasalo, M.L., Koskenvuo, M. (1996). Recent

interpersonal conflict at work and psychiatric morbidity: A prospective study of 15, 530
employees aged 24-64. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 40, 169-176.

Schwartz, J.E., & Stone, A.A. (1993). Coping with daily work problems:
Contributions of problem content, appraisals, and person factors. Work and Stress, 7, 47-
62.

Shirom, A., Westman, M., Carel, R.S., & Shamai, O. (1997). Effects of work
overload and burnout on cholesterol and triglycerides levels: The moderating effects of
emotional reactivity among male and female employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2, 275-288.

79
 Simons, T.L., & Peterson, R.S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in
top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 102-111.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
434-443.

Smith, C.S., & Sulsky, L. (1995). An investigation of job-related coping strategies

across multiple stressors and samples. In L.R. Murphy, J.J. Hurrell, S.L. Sauter, & G.P.
Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 109-123). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Spector, P.E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spector, P.E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In
R.A. Jiacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Anti-social behavior in organizations (pp. 1-17).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P.E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (in press). Conflict, health, and well-being. In
C.K.W. De Dreu & M.J. Gelfand (eds.) The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict
Management in Organizations. SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series, New York:
Erlbaum.

Spector, P.E., & Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of
job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraint
Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Spector, P.E., & O’Connell, B.J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits,
negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job
stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1-
11.

Spector, P.E., Dwyer, D.J., & Jex, S.M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to
affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.

Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Goh, A., Bruursema, K. (2003, April). Counterproductive
work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Are they opposites? In
J.Greenberg (Chair), Vital but neglected topics in workplace deviance research.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Orlando, Florida.

80
 Spector, P.E, Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S.
(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors
created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.

Spector, P.E., Zapf, D., Chen, P.Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity
should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath
water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.

Stacks, D.W., & Hocking, J.E. (1999). Communication research. New York, NY:
Addison Wesley Longman.

Stewart, M.J., & Ellery, P.J. (1998). Sources and magnitude of perceived
psychological stress in high school volleyball officials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87,
1275-1282.

Taylor, A.H., & Daniel, J.V. (1987). Sources of stress in soccer officiating: An
empirical study. In T. Reilly, A Lees, K. Davids, & W.J. Murphy (Eds.), Science and
football: Proceedings of the first world congress of science and football (pp. 538-544).
London: E. & F.N. Spon.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thurstone, L.L. (1935). The vectors of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Thurstone, L.L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Tjosvold, D., Dann, V., & Wong, C. (1992). Managing conflict between
departments to serve customers. Human Relations, 4, 1035-1054.

Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (1994). Optimizing performance by

stimulating conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211-222.

Van Katwyk, P.T., Fox, S., Spector, P.E., & Kelloway, E.K. (2000). Using the
Job-Related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to
work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230.

Wagner-Johnson, D. (2004). Managing work team conflict: Assessment and

preventative strategies. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Texas.

Wall, J.A., Jr., & Callister, R.R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of
Management, 21, 515-558.

Ware, J., & Barnes, L.B. (1992). Managing interpersonal conflict. In J.J. Gabarro
(Ed.), Managing People and Organizations (pp.213-226). Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Pubs.

81
Appendices

82
 Appendix A: Focus Group Script

Good (morning/afternoon/evening). I’m Valentina Lee, a graduate student in the

Industrial/Organizational Psychology program at USF. I will lead you in a discussion

about conflict in the workplace.

I am sure you have questions about why you are here today and what is expected of you.

To answer your questions, I want to explain to you the purpose of this study. Researchers

have found that conflict in the workplace can have important organizational and personal

consequences for employees, however there are few ways to assess conflict in the

workplace. AS a result, I am working on the development of a conflict scale that can

measure this important source of stress more effectively than the measures currently

being used. Your discussion today will be very important in the development of such

scale.

I would like you to know that everything you say here today will remain strictly

confidential. Any notes that I take will be written in such a manner that no individual can

be identified. Also, your participation is voluntary.

I will first pass out a paper with six demographic questions that will be used for research

purposes only. At the end of the session, I will ask you to write down two incidents that

you may described throughout our discussion in which you experienced or observed

conflict in the workplace. These two incidents will be anonymous, as you will not write

your name or any identifiable information on them.

1. What do you think defines conflict in the workplace?

2. In a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is everyday, do you encounter conflict

in the workplace?

83
 Appendix A (Continued)

3. Tell me about an instance when you experience conflict at work? Has anyone else

experienced a similar situation?

4. What are some sources of conflict in your workplace?

5. Do you think that your reaction to conflict varies depending on the source of the

conflict?

6. In a scale of 1 to5, where 1 is never and 5 is every time, how often do you think

your conflict has been resolved?

7. In a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is always, how often do you think

conflict can be seen as being positive?

8. Can you give me some examples of times when conflict was positive?

9. Can you now give me some examples of times when conflict was negative?

10. Do you think that others in your department experience the same amount of

conflict that you do?

11. Would you say that you are encountering more conflict in your current job than in

a past job?

12. Do you think conflict in your workplace varies as a function of time (e.g., day,

month, or year)?

13. In a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is always, do you think that conflict is

a consequence of your emotional state?

14. How often do you think that incivility precedes conflict? For example, someone

being rude to you.

15. Do you think conflict is associated with gender or race?

84
 Appendix B: Demographical Information

1. Gender: _______ Male _______ Female

2. Age: _______

3. How many hours a week do you work in your current job(s)? _______

4. How long have your worked in your current job? _______years _______months

5. Mark with an ‘x’ the group that best describes you:

___ Asian/Pacific Islander ___ Black Non-Hispanic ___ Hispanic
___ American Indian/Alaskan Native ___White Non-Hispanic ___ Other

6. Mark with an ‘x’ the industry sector you work in:

___ Manufacturing ___ Retail ___ Education
___ Government ___ Entertainment ___ Financial Services
___ Hospitality ___ Communications ___ Technology
___ Medical/Social service ___ Service ___ Military
___ Other (please specify) ______________

*7. Is your job

___White collar ___Blue collar

*8. How many days have you missed from work other than vacation in the past 90 days?

* Questions appeared only in Phase II

85
 Appendix C: Original Items of the Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale

The following questions ask about your interpersonal relationships at work. Please
indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your present job by placing an
X in the appropriate box. Answer each item as accurately as possible even if it appears to
be similar to another. Please note that your answers will be used for research purposes
only.
1. Do you disagree with someone on the goals of a work task?
2. Do you get into disagreements with others at work over non-work related issues?
3. Are you in a dispute with someone at work caused by differences in
organizational power?
4. Do you have differences in opinion regarding the recognition that you deserve?
5. Do you argue with someone over how you manage your work task(s)?
6. Do you have conflicts with others at work due to gossip over personal matters?
7. Are you in disagreement with someone at work because of a company policy?
8. Do you have different viewpoints regarding a work task?
9. Are you in conflict with someone at work because of organizational changes?
10. Do you get into disagreements with others at work because of differences in
personality?
11. Are you in disagreement with someone over salary issues?
12. Do you disagree with someone because of something you or they do in
performing the work task(s)?
13. Are you in conflict with someone over how work tasks are assigned?
14. Are you in disagreement with someone over personnel staffing issues?
15. Do you disagree with someone over who is responsible for specific work task(s)?
16. Do you have differences in opinion regarding what should be the end product of a
work task?
17. Do you get into disagreements with others at work caused by jealousy?
18. Are you in a dispute for not following the standard procedures for performing a
work task?
19. Do you have differences in opinion regarding when a work task should be
performed?
20. Do you disagree with someone about the hiring decisions in your organization?
21. Do you disagree with someone on what is the content of a work task to be
performed?
22. Do you disagree with someone at work due to differences in personal values?
23. Do you get into conflicts with someone over issues related to the office
equipment?
24. Are you in conflict with someone because they do not follow through on their part
of a work task?
25. Do you argue with someone at work because of racial tensions?
26. Do you argue with someone over how work tasks are assigned?
27. Do you disagree with someone over how to plan your work task(s)?
28. Do you argue with someone at work because you do not like working together?
29. Do you argue with someone at work over issues related to absenteeism/tardiness?

86
 Appendix C (Continued)

30. Are you in a disagreement with someone over issues related to the organizational
culture?
31. Do you have differences in opinion regarding how a work task should be
performed?
32. Do you have misunderstandings with others at work due to differences in cultural
backgrounds?
33. Do you differ in opinion with someone at work because you simply cannot get
along?
34. Do you disagree with someone over organizational-related issues that do not
pertain to a specific work task? (i.e., fringe benefits, parking, etc).
35. Do you get into conflicts with someone over what should be done in a work task?
36. Do you get into conflicts with others at work because of a lack of personal trust?
37. Do you have incompatible ideas regarding what should be the outcome of a work
task?
38. Do you argue with others at work because they do not keep their personal
problems to themselves?
39. Do you dispute with someone at work because of poor organizational leadership?
40. Do you quarrel with someone because they tell you how to perform your work
task(s)?
41. Do you argue with others at work due to differences in the social groups you or
they belong to?
42. Do you have disagreements with someone over issues related to a promotion?
43. Do you argue with someone at work because of implied organizational policies?
(i.e., being expected to work late even though it is not a formal requirement)

The following questions ask about behaviors that you may engage in or experience in
your workplace. Please indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your
present job by placing an X in the appropriate box.
44. Do YOU prevent OTHERS from completing their work task(s)?
45. Do OTHERS prevent YOU from completing your work task(s)?
46. Do YOU block OTHERS from completing THEIR work tasks in the manner in
which THEY want to?
47. Do OTHERS block YOU from completing YOUR work tasks in the manner in
which YOU want to?
48. Do YOU interfere in the personal life of OTHERS at work?
49. Do OTHERS at work interfere in YOUR personal life?
50. Do YOU block OTHERS from attaining THEIR objectives because of differences
in organizational power?
51. Do OTHERS block YOU from attaining YOUR objectives because of differences
in organizational power?
52. Do YOU block OTHERS at work from accomplishing THEIR personal goals?
53. Do OTHERS at work block YOU from accomplishing YOUR personal goals?

87
 Appendix C (Continued)

54. Do YOU interfere with the way in which OTHERS manage their work task(s)?
55. Do OTHERS interfere with the way in which YOU manage your work task(s)?
56. Do YOU say negative things about OTHERS that jeopardize how THEY are
viewed at work?
57. Do OTHERS say negative things about YOU that jeopardize how YOU are
viewed at work?
58. Do YOU impede OTHERS from accomplishing the goals of their work task(s)?
59. Do OTHERS impede YOU from accomplishing the goals of your work task(s)?
60. Do YOU get OTHERS into trouble at work because YOU do not like THEM?
61. Do OTHERS get YOU into trouble at work because THEY do not like YOU?
62. Do YOU interfere with SOMEONE'S goals because of a salary related issue?
63. Does SOMEONE interfere with YOUR goals because of a salary related issue?
64. Do YOU interfere with SOMEONE'S job making it difficult for THEM to finish
THEIR work task(s)?
65. Does SOMEONE interfere with YOUR job making it difficult for YOU to finish
YOUR work task(s)?
66. Do YOU impede SOMEONE's work because an organizational policy allows
YOU to?
67. Do OTHERS impede YOUR work because an organizational policy allows
THEM to?
68. Do YOU interfere with what OTHERS think should be done in a work task?
69. Do OTHERS interfere with what YOU think should be done in a work task?
70. Do YOU do things to annoy OTHERS at work because you cannot get along?
71. Do OTHERS at work do things to annoy YOU because you cannot get along?
72. Do YOU make OTHERS look bad because of delays in completing YOUR work
task(s)?
73. Do OTHERS make YOU look bad because of delays in completing THEIR work
task(s)?
74. Do YOU obstruct OTHERS from performing their work tasks at the time when
THEY want to?
75. Do OTHERS obstruct YOU from performing your work tasks at the time when
YOU want to?
76. Do YOU make it impossible for OTHERS to enjoy THEIR jobs because YOU
simply do not like THEM?
77. Do OTHERS make it impossible for YOU to enjoy YOUR job because THEY
simply do not like YOU?
78. Do YOU prevent OTHERS from following the procedures for performing a work
task?
79. Do OTHERS prevent YOU from following the procedures for performing a work
task?
80. Do YOU make SOMEONE's life more difficult over an organizational-related
issue that does not pertain to your specific work tasks? (i.e., fringe benefits,
parking, etc)

88
 Appendix C (Continued)

81. Does SOMEONE make YOUR life more difficult over an organizational-related
issue that does not pertain to your specific work task(s)? (i.e., fringe benefits,
parking, etc)
82. Do YOU thwart SOMEONE'S goal/objectives because of personal differences?
83. Does SOMEONE at work thwart YOUR goals/objectives because of personal
differences?
84. Do YOU impede OTHERS from doing THEIR job because YOU do not have the
resources necessary to complete YOURS?
85. Do OTHERS impede YOU from doing YOUR job because THEY do not have
the resources necessary to complete THEIRS?
86. Do YOU make SOMEONE'S life more difficult at work because of personal
differences?
87. Does SOMEONE make YOUR life at work more difficult because of personal
differences?
88. Do YOU affect the work of OTHERS because of changes to YOUR job?
89. Do OTHERS affect YOUR work because of changes to THEIR job?
90. Do YOU meddle with SOMEONE'S process for completing their work task(s)?
91. Does SOMEONE meddle with YOUR process for completing your work task(s)?
92. Do YOU interfere with SOMEONE's objectives because the organizational
culture supports this type of behavior?
93. Does SOMEONE interfere with YOUR objectives because the organizational
culture supports this type of behavior?
94. Are you in a physical fight with someone at work because of personal matters?

The following questions ask about emotions you may experience as a result of your
interpersonal relationships at work. Please indicate how often each of the following
events occurs in your present job by placing an X in the appropriate box.
95. Do you feel frustrated with others because you are asked to complete work tasks
that are not a part of your job?
96. Do you feel angry with others due to differences in opinions regarding how you
should complete your work task(s)?
97. Do you feel annoyed by others because of the requirements of a work task?
98. Do you feel irritated by personal differences in your workplace?
99. Do you feel frustrated with others because they interfere with you achieving the
goals of a work task?
100. Do you feel mad at someone else's attempt to thwart your goals/objectives
because they dislike you?
101. Do you feel irritated with others because you do not agree with the goals of a
work task?
102. Do you feel frustrated with others at work over issues related to salary?
103. Do you feel mad because of personal friction with others in your workplace?
104. Do you feel annoyed by others at work because they make your work task(s) more
difficult to complete?

89
 Appendix C (Continued)

105. Do you feel tense because of disagreements over non-work related issues?
106. Do you feel tense because of conflicts caused by a lack of personnel?
107. Do you feel angry at the people you work with because they do not "follow
through" on their work task(s)?
108. Do you feel angry at others because of arguments caused by racial tensions?
109. Do you feel anxious due to the actions of someone with more organizational
power?
110. Are you edgy with others over what the outcome of a task should be?
111. Do you feel anxious due to personality differences with others at work?
112. Do you feel irritated with others because they keep you from performing your
tasks at the time that you want to?
113. Do you feel annoyed by others because they want you to perform your works
tasks in a different way?
114. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related to a company policy?
115. Do you feel angry with others because they interfere with what you think should
be done in a work task?
116. Do you feel upset with others because of issues related to a promotion?
117. Do you feel frustrated with others at work because you cannot get along?
118. Do you feel frustrated with others over the outcome of a work task?
119. Do you feel apprehensive about coming to work due to personality clashes with
others at work?
120. Do you feel upset with others because of the way in which work task(s) are
delegated/assigned?
121. Do you feel mad due to conflicts over organizational changes?
122. Do you feel annoyed by others because they get in the way of you completing
your work tasks as you plan to?
123. Do you feel tense because others in your organization do not value your work?
124. Do you feel frustrated with others over who is responsible for specific work
task(s)?
125. Do you feel tense working with others in your workplace?
126. Do you feel tense because of disagreements caused by not following the standard
procedures for performing a work task?
127. Do you feel angry with the people at your workplace because you do not like
them?
128. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related to personnel staffing?

90
 Appendix D: Final Items on the Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations Scale

Task Outcome Subscale

The following questions ask about your interpersonal relationships at work. Please
indicate how often you experience each of the following events in your present job.

1. Do you disagree with someone on the goals of a work task?

2. Do you have differences in opinion regarding what should be the end product of a
work task?
3. Do you disagree with someone on what is the content of a work task to be
performed?
4. Do you get into conflicts with someone over what should be done in a work task?
5. Do you have incompatible ideas regarding what should be the outcome of a work
task?

The following questions ask about behaviors that you may experience or engage in at
work. Please indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your present job.

6. Do OTHERS prevent YOU from completing your work task(s)?

7. Do OTHERS impede YOU from accomplishing the goals of your work tasks?
8. Does SOMEONE interfere with YOUR job making it difficult for you to finish your
work task(s)?
9. Do YOU impede OTHERS from accomplishing the goals of their work task(s)?
10. Do YOU interfere with SOMEONE's job making it difficult for them to finish their
work task(s)?
11. Do YOU interfere with what OTHERS think should be done in a work task?

The following questions ask about emotions you may experience as a result of your
interpersonal relationship at work. Please indicate how often each of the following events
occurs in your present job.

12. Do you feel angry with others because they interfere with what you think should be
done in a work task?
13. Do you feel frustrated with others over the outcome of a work task?
14. Do you feel irritated with others because you do not agree with the goals of a work
task?
15. Are you edgy with others over what the outcome of a work task should be?
16. Do you feel annoyed by others at work because they make your work task(s) more
difficult to complete?

Task Process Subscale

The following questions ask about your interpersonal relationships at work. Please
indicate how often you experience each of the following events in your present job.

91
 Appendix D (Continued)

1. Do you argue with someone over how you manage your work task(s)?
2. Do you disagree with someone because of something you or they do in performing
the work task(s)?
3. Are you in conflict with someone over how work task(s) are assigned?
4. Do you have differences in opinion regarding WHEN a work task should be
performed?
5. Do you have differences in opinion regarding HOW a work task should be
performed?

The following questions ask about behaviors that you may experience or engage in at
work. Please indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your present job.

6. Does SOMEONE interfere with the way in which YOU manage your work task(s)?
7. Do OTHERS obstruct YOU from performing your work task(s) at the time when you
want to?
8. Do OTHERS prevent YOU from following the procedures for performing a work
task?
9. Do YOU block OTHERS from completing their work task(s) in the manner in which
they want to?
10. Do YOU interfere with the way in which OTHERS manage their work task(s)?
11. Do YOU obstruct OTHERS from performing their work tasks at the time when they
want to?

The following questions ask about emotions you may experience as a result of your
interpersonal relationship at work. Please indicate how often each of the following events
occurs in your present job.

12. Do you feel angry with others due to differences in opinion regarding how you should
complete your work task(s)?
13. Do you feel irritated with others because they keep you from performing your tasks at
the time that you want to?
14. Do you feel annoyed by others because they want you to perform your work tasks in a
different way?
15. Do you feel frustrated with others over who is responsible for specific work tasks?
16. Do you feel annoyed by others because they get in the way of you completing your
work tasks as you planned to?

Relationship Subscale

The following questions ask about your interpersonal relationships at work. Please
indicate how often you experience each of the following events in your present job.

92
 Appendix D (Continued)

1. Do you get into disagreement with others at work because of differences in

personality?
2. Do you disagree with someone at work due to differences in personal values?
3. Do you argue with someone at work because you do not like working together?
4. Do you differ in opinion with someone at work because you simply cannot get
along?
5. Do you get into conflicts with others at work because of a lack of personal trust?

The following questions ask about behaviors that you may experience or engage in at
work. Please indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your present job.

6. Do OTHERS say negative things about YOU that jeopardize how you are viewed at
work?
7. Do OTHERS get YOU into trouble at work because they do no like you?
8. Do OTHERS at work do things to annoy YOU because you cannot get along?
9. Do YOU say negative things about OTHERS that jeopardize how they are viewed at
work?
10. Do YOU get OTHERS into trouble at work because you do not like them?

The following questions ask about emotions you may experience as a result of your
interpersonal relationship at work. Please indicate how often each of the following events
occurs in your present job.

11. Do you feel mad because of personal friction with others in your workplace?
12. Do you feel anxious due to personality differences with others at work?
13. Do you feel frustrated with others at work because you cannot get along?
14. Do you feel apprehensive about coming to work due to personality clashes with
others at work?
15. Do you feel tense working with others at your workplace?

Non-task Organizational Subscale

The following questions ask about your interpersonal relationships at work. Please
indicate how often you experience each of the following events in your present job.

1. Are you in a dispute with someone at work caused by differences in organizational

power?
2. Are you in a disagreement with someone at work because of a company policy?
3. Do you disagree with someone about the hiring decisions in your organization?
4. Do you disagree with someone over organizational-related issues that do not pertain
to a specific work task? (i.e. policies, organizational culture, benefits)
5. Do you dispute with someone at work because of poor organizational leadership?

93
 Appendix D (Continued)

The following questions ask about behaviors that you may experience or engage in at
work. Please indicate how often each of the following events occurs in your present job.

6. Do OTHERS impede YOUR work because an organizational policy allows them to?
7. Does SOMEONE make YOUR life more difficult over an organizational-related issue
that does not pertain to a specific work task? (i.e., policies, organizational culture,
benefits)
8. Do OTHERS block YOU from attaining your objectives because of differences in
organizational power?
9. Do YOU make SOMEONE's life more difficult over an organizational-related issue
that does not pertain to a specific work task?(i.e., policies, organizational culture,
benefits)
10. Do YOU block OTHERS from attaining their objectives because of differences in
organizational power?
11. Do YOU impede SOMEONE's work because an organizational policy allows you to?

The following questions ask about emotions you may experience as a result of your
interpersonal relationship at work. Please indicate how often each of the following events
occurs in your present job.

12. Do you feel anxious due to the actions of someone with more organizational power?
13. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related to a company policy?
14. Do you feel mad due to conflicts over organizational changes?
15. Do you feel tense because others in your organization do not value your work?
16. Do you feel frustrated with others because of issues related to personnel staffing?

All items are rated:

1 = Never
2 = Once or Twice
3 = Once or Twice a MONTH
4 = Once or Twice a WEEK
5 = Every Day

94
 Appendix E: Jehn’s (1995) Conflict Scale

Please indicate how much/often the following events occur in your workplace:

1= None
2= Very Little
3= Some
4= A Great Deal
5= A Very Great Deal

1. How much friction is there in your workplace?

2. How much are personality conflicts evident in your workplace?

3. How much tension is there among people at your work?

4. How much emotional conflict is there among people at your work?

5. How often do people you work with disagree about opinions regarding the work

being done?

6. How frequently are there conflicts about ideas at your work?

7. How much conflict about the work you do is there?

8. To what extent are there differences of opinion in your workplace?

95
 Appendix F: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale

Please indicate how often the following events occur in your present job.

1= Never
2= Once or Twice
3= Once or Twice a Month
4= Once or Twice a Week
5= Every Day

1. How often do you get into arguments with others at work?

2. How often do other people yell at you at work?

3. How often are people rude to you at work?

4. How often do other people do nasty things to you at work?

96
 Appendix G: Depression Scale

Please indicate how often you have felt each of the following:

1= Almost Always
2= Very Often
3= Often
4= Sometimes
5= Seldom
6= Very Seldom
7= Never

1. I feel alone even when I am with others.

2. It is difficult for me to come to decisions.

3. I have sad moods.

97
 Appendix H: Job Affective Well-being Scale

Please indicate how often any part of your present job (e.g., the work, co-workers,

supervisor, clients, pay) has made you feel the listed emotion in the last 30 days.

1= Never
2= Once or Twice
3= Once or Twice a Month
4= Once or Twice a Week
5= Every Day

1. My job made me feel angry.

2. My job made me feel anxious.

3. My job made me feel bored.

4. My job made me feel depressed.

5. My job made me feel discouraged.

6. My job made me feel disgusted.

7. My job made me feel fatigued.

8. My job made me feel frightened.

9. My job made me feel furious.

10. My job made me feel gloomy.

98
 Appendix I: Physical Symptoms Inventory

Over the past 6 months, how often have you experienced each of the following

symptoms?

1= Less than once per month or never

2= Once or twice per month
3= Once or twice per week
4= Once or twice per day
5= Several times per day

1. An upset stomach or nausea

2. A backache

3. Trouble sleeping

4. Headache

5. Acid indigestion or heartburn

6. Eye strain

7. Diarrhea

8. Stomach cramps (Not menstrual)

9. Constipation

10. Ringing in the ears

11. Loss of appetite

12. Dizziness

13. Tiredness or fatigue

99
 Appendix J: Job Satisfaction Scale

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1= Disagree Very Much

2= Disagree Moderately
3= Slightly Disagree
4= Agree Slightly
5= Agree Moderately
6= Agree Very Much

1. In general, I don’t like my job.

2. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.

3. In general, I like working here.

100
 Appendix K: Turnover Intentions

Please indicate how often you have considered the following:

1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Somewhat Often
5= Quite Often
6= Extremely Often

1. How often have you seriously considered quitting your job?

101
 Appendix L: Counterproductive Work Behaviors

Please indicate how often you have done each of the following in your present job.

1= Never
2= Once or Twice
3= Once or Twice a Month
4= Once or Twice a Week
5= Every Day

1. Daydreamed rather than did your work.

2. Came to work late without permission.

3. Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you were not.

4. Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take.

5. Left work earlier than you were allowed to.

102
 Appendix M: Trust Scale

Please indicate the how often the following statements occur in your workplace.

1= Never
2= Very Seldom
3= Seldom
4= Sometimes
5= Often
6= Very Often
7= Always

1. The people I work with and I absolutely respect each other’s opinions.

2. Every employee shows absolute integrity.

3. The people I work with and I expect the complete truth from each other.

4. The people I work with and I are all certain that we can fully trust each other.

5. The people I work with and I count on each other to fully live up to our word.

103
 Appendix N: Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Item

1. Have you been diagnosed with any of the following? (Check all that apply)

___High blood pressures

___Coronary disease

___High cholesterol

___High triglycerides

___Does not apply

104
 Appendix O: Accidents/Injuries Item

1. How many times have you suffered an accident or injury in your current job?

___0

___1-2

___3-4

___5+

105
 About the Author

Valentina Bruk Lee was born in Caracas, Venezuela. She received her Bachelor

of Science in Communications from the University of Miami in 2000 with double majors

in Public Relations and Psychology. Valentina began the doctorate program in

Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of South Florida working under

the guidance of Dr. Paul E. Spector. She was the first graduate with a concentration in

Occupational Health Psychology from USF. Valentina has published in the Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology and has authored various book chapters and

encyclopedia entries. She has also presented her research at national conferences,

including the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychologists

and the Work, Stress, and Health conference.