Abstract
When two or more individuals with different values, interests, and experiences work together, interpersonal conflicts are inevitable. Conflicts, in turn, can hinder or delay successful task completion. However, certain types of conflicts may also have beneficial effects. The literature differentiates between task conflicts (TCs) and relationship conflicts (RCs). Whether TCs are detrimental or beneficial for performance largely depends on the simultaneous occurrence of RCs. However, the reasons for the differential effects of TCs with and without RCs remain largely unknown. Therefore, we explored the underlying fine-grained mechanisms of the conflict-performance relationship in two studies. We used event-sampling methodology to track employees’ conflicts in the field (study 1) and we examined conflicts in a controlled laboratory setting (study 2). We found that RCs during TCs made participants feel disrespected and thereby increased negative affect. Further, RCs during TCs impaired knowledge gain, which decreased positive affect. In turn, low positive affect explained why TCs with RCs led to poorer performance than TCs without RCs. However, neither of the two studies supported the assumption that high negative affect from RCs during TCs—by itself—had adverse effects on performance. Our results confirm previous findings of the destructive character of RCs during TCs and additionally provide new insights into the nature and complexity of workplace conflicts by introducing positive affect as a missing piece of the puzzle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We invited several researchers not involved in this study to evaluate the quality of the items and asked them for formulation suggestions.
We performed two additional path analyses in which we contrasted pure TCs with interactions without any conflicts to investigate the mere effects of pure TCs. Here, we also found that participants experienced more positive affect during pure TCs (than during interactions without conflicts) as mediated by knowledge gain (estimate = .069 (.027), CI95% = [.021, .128]). Furthermore, participants performed better during pure TCs (than during interactions without conflicts) as mediated by positive affect (estimate = .020 (.011), CI95% = [.002, .047]) but not as mediated by negative affect (estimate = .004 (.012), CI95% = [− .018, .029]). However, participants experienced not only more positive affect but also more negative affect during pure TCs (than during interactions without conflicts) as mediated by feelings of respect (estimate = .496 (.074), CI95% = [.362, .653]). This finding is unsurprising as during pure TCs, one’s opinions and arguments are rejected, which lowers feelings of respect and increases stress. Yet, compared with TCs with RCs, individuals still feel relatively respected and relaxed during pure TCs.
Furthermore, we performed two additional path analyses in which we contrasted the absence and presence of TCs during RCs to investigate whether the amount of conflict may explain why TCs with RCs are “bad” conflicts in contrast to pure TCs. We found that pure RCs are more damaging than TCs with RCs as follows: Participants experienced more negative affect during pure RCs (compared with TCs with RCs) as mediated by feelings of respect (estimate = .244 (.134), CI95% = [.002, .528]). Further, participants experienced less positive affect during pure RCs (than during TCs with RCs) as mediated by knowledge gain (estimate = − .392 (.141), CI95% = [− .712, − .150]). Furthermore, pure RCs hindered performance more than TCs with RCs (estimate = − 1.434 (.329), CI95% = [− 2.080, − 0.788]). However, neither negative nor positive affect acted as a mediator here. Hence, the amount of conflict was less essential for the conflict’s consequences than the type of conflict.
The TOST procedure (Lakens, 2016) indicated that the observed effect size was significantly within the equivalence bounds of a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = − 0.5 and Cohen’s d = 0.5), t(34) = 2.16, p = .019.
The TOST procedure (Lakens, 2016) indicated that the observed effect size was significantly within the equivalence bounds of a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = − 0.5 and Cohen’s d = 0.5), t(34) = 2.61, p = .007.
We adapted the German version of Jehn’s (1995) conflict scale by Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2011) to suit the laboratory setting. Specifically, we asked about the presence or absence of conflicts (e.g., “Did you experience disagreements with your interaction partner regarding the content of the work being done?”), and, if conflicts were present, participants were asked to rate the intensity rather than the frequency of conflicts (e.g., “How intense were these disagreements with your interaction partner?”), on a 6-point response scale (from 1 = mild to 6 = intense).
Prior to the analysis, we performed a baseline correction.
As control analyses (in which we eliminated the participants who reported suspicion that they were not interacting with a real person) increased rather than decreased the size of the coefficients, we decided to use a more conservative approach and report the results based on all participants.
References
Adler, D. A., McLaughlin, T. J., Rogers, W. H., Chang, H., Lapitsky, L., & Lerner, D. (2006). Job performance deficits due to depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1569–1576.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Arend, M. G., & Schäfer, T. (2017). Estimating statistical power in multilevel models. A practical tutorial. Manuscript in preparation, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz.
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression. New York, NY: Springer.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Bernstein, M. J. (2016). Research in social psychology: Consequences of short- and long-term social exclusion. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion (pp. 51–72). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. W. (2010). Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 194–227). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, R. K., & Weisbuch, M. (2004). Predicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 683–688.
Blincoe, S., & Harris, M. J. (2011). Status and inclusion, anger and sadness: Gendered responses to disrespect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 508–517.
Bodenhausen, G., Sheppard, L., & Kramer, G. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62.
Boge, L. (2011). Consequences of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace: A look at anger, cognitive depletion and productivity. Unpublished manuscript, Humboldt-University, Berlin.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311–344.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 243–272.
Butcher, K., Sparks, B., & O’Callaghan, F. (2003). Beyond core service. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 187–208.
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship of state and trait anxiety to performance on figural and verbal creative tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 269–283.
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204.
Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. (2008). Workplace conflict and how businesses can harness it to thrive. CPP Global human capital report, July 2008. Retrieved from http://response.cpp.com
Coyne, J. C., Burchill, S. A. L., & Stiles, W. B. (1991). An interactional perspective on depression. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 327–349). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Learning, “flow,” and happiness. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Applications of flow in human development and education (pp. 153−172). Dordrecht: Springer.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345–357.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390.
de Wit, F. R. C., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 177–189.
DeBono, A., & Muraven, M. (2014). Rejection perceptions: Feeling disrespected leads to greater aggression than feeling disliked. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 43–52.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 559–578.
Diebig, M., Bormann, K. C., & Rowold, J. (2017). Day-level transformational leadership and followers’ daily level of stress: A moderated mediation model of team cooperation, role conflict, and type of communication. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 234–249.
Dijkstra, M. T., van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at work and individual well-being: The mediating role of flight behaviour and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 119–135.
Drevets, W. C., & Raichle, M. E. (1998). Suppression of regional cerebral blood during emotional versus higher cognitive implications for interactions between emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 353–385.
Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 736–748.
Elo, A. L., Leppänen, A., & Jahkola, A. (2003). Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 29, 444–451.
Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Anxiety and cognitive-task performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 579–586.
Fischhoff, B., Gonzalez, R. M., Lerner, J. S., & Small, D. A. (2005). Evolving judgments of terror risks: Foresight, hindsight, and emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 124–139.
Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 3–23.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frisch, A. (2012). Das Biopsychosoziale Modell und die Wahrnehmung von Ressourcen während sozialer Interaktion. Unpublished manuscript, Humboldt-Unverisity, Berlin.
Gee, P., Ballard, T., Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2012). Measuring affect over time: The Momentary Affect Scale. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Experiencing and managing emotions in the workplace (Vol. 8, pp. 141−173). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Girardi, D., Falco, A., De Carlo, A., Benevene, P., Comar, M., Tongiorgi, E., & Bartolucci, G. B. (2015). The mediating role of interpersonal conflict at work in the relationship between negative affectivity and biomarkers of stress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 922–931.
Hambleton, R. K., & De Jong, J. H. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127–134.
Harris, L. M., & Menzies, R. G. (1999). Mood and prospective memory. Memory, 7, 117–127.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499–519.
Hess, U. (2014). Anger is a positive emotion. In W. G. Parrott (Ed.), The positive side of negative emotions (pp. 55–75). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hess, U., & Blairy, S. (2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 129–141.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.
Isen, A. M., Rosenzweig, A. S., & Young, M. J. (1991). The influence of positive affect on clinical problem solving. Medical Decision Making, 11, 221–227.
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., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242.
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56–73.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors and psychological strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6, 151–156.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 740–752.
Lakens, D. (2016). TOST equivalence testing R package (TOSTER) and spreadsheet. Retrieved from http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2016/12/tost-equivalence-testing-r-package.html
Landmann, N., Kuhn, M., Piosczyk, H., Feige, B., Riemann, D., & Nissen, C. (2014). Entwicklung von 130 deutschsprachigen Compound Remote Associate (CRA)-Worträtseln zur Untersuchung kreativer Prozesse im deutschen Sprachraum [Construction of 130 German Compound Remote Associate (CRA)–Word puzzles to investigate creative processes in the German-language area]. Psychologische Rundschau, 65, 200–211.
Lazarus, R. R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2011). Task and relationship conflict at work: Construct validation of a German version of Jehn’s Intragroup Conflict Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 171–178.
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574.
Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115–137.
Loughry, M. L., & Amason, A. C. (2014). Why won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubborn results. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 333–358.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.
Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict at work: Interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 144–156.
Mendes, W. B., Major, B., McCoy, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278–291.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). CA: Los Angeles.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.
Nicholls. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Nixon, A. E., Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2017). Grin and bear it?: Employees’ use of surface acting during co-worker conflict. Stress and Health, 33, 129–142.
O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26, 236–260.
O’Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J. W., Hoffart, G. C., Woodley, H. J. R., & Allen, N. J. (2015). The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44, 811–836.
Orlić, A., Grahek, I., & Radović, T. (2014). The influence of valence and arousal on reasoning: Affective priming in the semantic verification task. Psihologija, 47, 201–213.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123−137.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209−233.
Reio, J. T. G., & Callahan, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: A path analysis of antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 3–22.
Riaz, M. K., & Junaid, F. A. (2011). Types, sources, costs, and consequences of workplace conflict. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2, 600–611.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1438–1451.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Saleem, M., Anderson, C. A., & Barlett, C. P. (2015). Assessing helping and hurting behaviors through the Tangram help/hurt task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1345–1362.
Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 379–386.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic reasoning. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgements (pp. 55–71). London: Pergamon Press.
Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28, 121–143.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2007). Occupational stress research: The “stress-as-offense-to-self” perspective. In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational Health Psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice (pp. 43–60). Castelo da Maia: ISMAI publishing.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391–400.
Shikiar, R., Halpern, M. T., Rentz, A. M., & Khan, Z. M. (2004). Development of the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ): An instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health. Work, 22, 219–229.
Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 79–85.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., Martinez, J. L., & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
Smith, A. M., Ortiguera, S. A., Laskowski, E. R., Hartman, A.D., Mullenbach, D. M., Gaines, K. A., Larson, D. R., Fisher, W. (2001). A preliminary analysis of psychophysiological variables and nursing performance in situations of increasing criticality. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76, 275–284.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a nice evening?” A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 674–684.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194.
Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 451–467.
Tsai, M.-H., & Bendersky, C. (2016). The pursuit of information sharing: Expressing task conflicts as debates vs. disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups. Organization Science, 27, 141–156.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981–1002.
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45–96.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yuen, E. Y., Liu, W., Karatsoreos, I. N., Feng, J., McEwen, B. S., & Yan, Z. (2009). Acute stress enhances glutamatergic transmission in prefrontal cortex and facilitates working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 14075–14079.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Antonia Föhl, Annika Walther, Katharina Heise, Nadine Panzlaff, Kirsten Wagner, and Laura Linke for their help with the participant recruitment and participant care as well as with the data collection and preparation of the stimulus material for study 2.
Funding
Data collection of this study was supported by a grant from the structured graduate program “Self-Regulation Dynamics Across Adulthood and Old Age: Potentials and Limits” (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) to Heidi Mauersberger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
All procedures performed in the two studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
Fig. A. Overview of results from model 1 and model 2 in study 1, controlled for task conflict intensity. Coefficients are standardized. Sample size varies slightly between models due to missing data. Pure TCs, task conflicts without relationship conflicts; TCs with RCs, task conflicts with relationship conflicts. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (PDF 47 kb)
ESM 2
(DOCX 227 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mauersberger, H., Hess, U. & Hoppe, A. Measuring task conflicts as they occur: a real-time assessment of task conflicts and their immediate affective, cognitive and social consequences. J Bus Psychol 35, 813–830 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09640-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09640-z