Interpersonal conflict at work has shown to generate both negative and positive consequences for organizations and their members (Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012; Todorova et al., 2014). However, the potential positive consequences are contingent upon highly specific circumstances (e.g. De Wit et al., 2012). Accordingly, an important task is to identify the conditions under which the benefits of conflict can be retained while its harmful consequences are minimized (Bradley et al., 2012; Gelfand et al., 2012; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Tjosvold, 2008).
Hoogenboom et al. (2023) propose a more nuanced perspective on these conditions by distinguishing the conflict issue itself from individuals’ personal experience of the conflict, thereby pointing to the tendency to take conflict personally (see also Hample & Dallinger, 1995). Previous studies suggest that conflict personalization is related to negative outcomes for individuals, teams, and, therefore, for organizations (e.g., Worley & Aloia, 2019; Jehn et al., 2008; Rispens & Demerouti, 2016). These findings demonstrate the importance of examining factors that may prevent individuals from personalizing conflict.
One such potentially protective factor discussed in the conflict management literature is the adoption of a pro-social problem-solving conflict management approach (Gray, 1989; Rahim, 2002), which is associated with lower levels of negative affective reactions following interpersonal conflict (Dijkstra et al., 2012; Kuriakose et al., 2019a; Kuriakose et al., 2019b). However, individuals differ in the extent to which they persist in employing a problem-solving approach in confrontational situations.
Such persistence seems to be dependent on their belief that basic human capabilities are malleable, known as a growth mindset (Dweck, 2007; Hong et al., 1999; Moser et al., 2011; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). Individuals with a growth mindset have been shown to display greater persistence in problem-solving behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Miele et al., 2011; Miele & Molden, 2010; Mueller & Dweck, 1998) and a greater tendency to utilize prosocial conflict responses (Yeager et al., 2011; Yeager et al., 2013a), which, in turn, have been linked to a greater tendency to engage in problem-solving conflict management (De Dreu et al., 2000).
Apart from these studies, which collectively imply a direct relationship between a growth mindset and an individual’s inclination to favor a problem-solving conflict management approach (e.g. Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Miele et al., 2011; Miele & Molden, 2010; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Yeager et al., 2011; Yeager et al., 2013a), there is limited to no research that has specifically examined such a direct association to date. Consequently, the objective of the current study is to explore this relationship. Considering the adverse effects associated with personalizing conflicts and the protective role of a problem-solving conflict management approach in this regard, the central question the current study seeks to address is: “Is a growth mindset related to more problem-solving conflict management, and does it, through this problem-solving conflict management, weaken the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization?”
The primary contribution of this study is to introduce and empirically examine the role of a growth mindset as a determining factor of conflict personalization within the context of employing a problem-solving conflict management approach to interpersonal conflict. The findings may contribute to further expanding theoretical knowledge surrounding growth mindset, conflict management, and conflict personalization. In doing so, the study responds to numerous researchers who have emphasized the importance of gaining a deeper theoretical understanding of how these variables operate within interpersonal conflict (e.g., Curran & Allen, 2016; Hoogenboom et al., 2023; Kuriakose et al., 2019a; Yeager et al., 2011).
More practically, this study contributes by identifying protective factors against conflict personalization—specifically, a growth mindset and problem-solving conflict management—offering a promising avenue for developing interventions to diminish such personalization in the future. Indeed, previous research has collectively demonstrated that a growth mindset intervention is effective in mitigating negative affectivity resulting from interpersonal conflict, which highlights the potential of such interventions in addressing conflict personalization (Iqbal & Dar, 2015; Yeager et al., 2011; Yeager et al., 2013b), thereby benefiting both the organization and the well-being of its employees.
Theoretical Background
Interpersonal conflict is a broad concept encompassing various types of conflicts, each with its own set of outcomes. Within the commonly used Conflict Type Approach (CTA), interpersonal conflict is either characterized as “conflict related to the tasks the group is performing” (i.e., task conflict; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954, p. 369) or as conflict arising from “[…] personal issues that are not task-related” (i.e., relationship conflict; Jehn et al., 2008, p. 467). Previous research suggests that “pure” task conflict relates to positive outcomes (De Wit et al., 2012; Meier et al., 2014), whereas non-task-related relationship conflict is typically associated with negative outcomes (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
However, in their literature review, Hoogenboom et al. (2023) conclude that, despite conceptual differences between task and relationship conflict, these constructs are strongly intertwined. Moreover, the disentanglement of these two conflict types, that is needed to harvest the benefits of task conflict while at the same time avoiding the negative consequences of relationship conflict, appears to be a difficult undertaking. Hoogenboom et al. (2023) therefore propose separating the conflict issue from the conflict experience and highlighting the personal experience of the conflict, rather than the issue, to gain a better understanding of the consequences of interpersonal conflict. To this last purpose, they developed an integrative definition holding that conflict personalization is “the negative affective as well as cognitive reaction to the self being threatened and/or in danger as a result of a social interaction about perceived incompatibilities” (Hoogenboom et al., 2023, p. 322). In line with this conceptualization, where conflict personalization is, by definition, a response that is potentially associated with interpersonal conflict, the first hypothesis of the current study (see H1 in Figure 1) asserts a positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization.
Previous studies suggest that conflict personalization is related to adverse effects such as deteriorated mental and physical health (Worley & Aloia, 2019), impaired trust, respect, satisfaction, and cohesion (Behfar et al., 2008; Jehn et al., 2008), reduced performance in both in-role and extra-role capacities (Rispens & Demerouti, 2016), and increased avoidance and revenge motivations toward the conflict offender (Miller & Roloff, 2014). These findings suggest that the negative outcomes associated with interpersonal conflict arise more from the conflict experience (i.e., the personalization of the conflict) than from the type of conflict (i.e., the conflict issue) at hand. In line with this suggestion, researchers emphasize the importance of investigating the factors that might reduce employees’ tendency to personalize conflict (e.g., Curran & Allen, 2016; Hoogenboom et al., 2023). Indeed, prior research indicates that a solution-focused communication approach is associated with lower levels of conflict escalation and conflict personalization (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013; Rognes & Schei, 2010).
Problem-Solving Conflict Management
Conflict management refers to an individual’s behavior in relation to the intensification, reduction, or resolution of tension resulting from interpersonal conflict (De Dreu et al., 1999). Based on the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964), Pruitt and Rubin (1986) introduced a framework that categorizes conflict management based on two underlying motivations. These two motivations—concern for own (conflict) outcomes and concern for the outcomes of others—combine into the preference for one of four conflict management strategies. A forcing conflict management strategy represents a high concern for self and a low concern for others, whereas problem-solving represents a high concern for both self and others. Yielding embodies a low concern for self, combined with a high concern for others, while avoiding reflects a low concern for both self and others.
Prior empirical research by Dijkstra et al. (2012) found that actively addressing conflict is associated with lower levels of conflict-associated strain, whereas passive conflict management is related to higher levels of such strain. From this, they formulated the “Activity Reduces Conflict-Associated Strain” (ARCAS) model. Considering that interpersonal conflict is a potent stressor (e.g., Karasek, 1979; Newton & Keenan, 1985), the premise of the ARCAS model is consistent with research in the stress literature, which has shown that actively coping with stressors is related to a decrease in their negative impact (Parkes, 1990), while passive coping related an increase in their negative impact (Carver & Scheier, 2013). In their empirical studies, Kuriakose et al. (2019a) and Kuriakose et al. (2019b) discovered only partial support for the ARCAS model. They observed that among the active conflict management approaches, a problem-solving conflict management weakened the relationship between interpersonal conflict and negative affect. However, this finding did not extend to the other active conflict management approach, forcing.
Based on these results it can be proposed that problem solving conflict management reduces the experience of negative affect stemming from interpersonal conflict; this negative affect is a fundamental element of conflict personalization (Hoogenboom et al., 2023). Furthermore, Van de Vliert and Euwema (1994) argue that individuals who prioritize a problem-solving conflict management approach tend to remain more agreeable and active in addressing conflict and consequently, are less inclined to experience conflicts as personal attacks. This argument is in line with findings reported by Nicotera and Mahon (2013) and Rognes and Schei (2010), which indicate that a solution-focused communication approach during interpersonal conflict is associated with lower levels of conflict escalation and hurt feelings. We therefore hypothesize that the positive relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization is weaker to the extent that individuals report a stronger tendency to adopt a Problem-solving conflict management approach (see H2 in Figure 1). In addition, we aim to investigate the factors that contribute to an inclination towards a problem-solving conflict management approach, such as a growth mindset.
Fixed Versus Growth Mindset
Individuals differ in their approach to using information to arrive at causal explanations for events, including their successes and failures, a phenomenon outlined within attributional theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1979). Early research on attributional theory highlighted two implicit self-theories individuals may hold: an entity theory, portraying personal attributes as fixed, and an incremental theory, presenting personal attributes as flexible and subject to change (Dweck et al., 1995; see also Dweck, 2000). The entity attribution system aligns with a fixed mindset in which ability is a static ‘thing’ measured by one’s effort. In contrast, the incremental attribution system aligns with a growth mindset in which ability is a dynamic ‘thing’ powered by one’s effort (Hong et al., 1999). As a result, individuals adhering to an entity theory prioritize performance goals, demonstrating their fixed abilities, while those with an incremental theory prioritize learning goals, investing effort to enhance these abilities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Individuals with a fixed mindset tend to exhibit a greater inclination to avoid further challenges when confronted with confrontational situations (Hong et al., 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Moser et al., 2011; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). In contrast, individuals embracing a growth mindset exhibit stronger confidence in the effectiveness of effort and employ mastery-oriented coping mechanisms when faced with confrontational situations (Hong et al., 1999; Robins & Pals, 2002). Since interpersonal conflict usually involves the occurrence of confrontational communication (and is therefore typically a confrontational situation; Kolb & Putnam, 1992), individuals with a fixed mindset should be inclined to adopt a passive avoidance attitude in encountering interpersonal conflicts, while individuals with a growth mindset should be more likely to exhibit an active and persistent approach in handling interpersonal conflicts. Yeager et al. (2011) indeed showed that a growth mindset predicts an individual’s tendency to utilize prosocial conflict responses, which De Dreu et al. (2000) demonstrated leads individuals to engage in more problem-solving conflict management. Accordingly, we hypothesize that there is a direct positive association between Growth mindset and Problem-solving conflict management (see H3 in Figure 1).
As previously mentioned, the central question of the current study is: “Is a growth mindset related to more problem-solving conflict management, and does it, through this problem-solving conflict management, weaken the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization?” The central hypothesis stemming from this research question is that a Growth mindset moderates the relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization through its relationship with the Problem-solving conflict management approach and is addressed by collectively examining the three sub-hypotheses previously described.
Figure 1 Conceptual Conditional Mediation Model Study Variables
Note. X = explanatory variable; M = mediating variable; Y = response variable; W = moderating variable
Method
Sample
A convenience sampling method facilitated data collection within the available time and resource constraints, as the target population was readily accessible. However, as over 90% of respondents were employed by different organizations, organization-specific sampling bias was minimized, enhancing the generalizability of the findings and thus attenuating the primary limitation of convenience sampling (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Furthermore, in line with Spector (2019), a cross-sectional design was aptly utilized as an initial step to explore the theoretically grounded relationships within the model. The survey invitation was disseminated online to 207 working individuals via the researchers’ personal and professional networks, thereby using a convenience sampling method, of whom 146 initiated participation (70.5%). A total of sixteen (11.0%) participants were excluded from the analyses because vital data were missing from these individuals; in line with Pepinsky (2018) listwise deletion was applied as a conservative choice, as assumptions required for more complex missing‑data techniques could not be justified. All remaining responses were subsequently visually inspected during data collection for atypical response patterns; none were found to warrant exclusion on these grounds. As a result, the study sample comprised 130 participants, with 59 (45.4%) being male and 71 (55.6%) being female. Age ranged from 16 to 72 years (M = 39.63, SD = 14.73). Among the participants, none had attained a Doctoral Degree (PhD, EdD, MD, JD), 16 (12.3%) a Master’s Degree, 60 (46.2%) a Bachelor’s Degree, 3 (2.3%) an Associate’s Degree, 32 (24.6%) secondary Vocational Education and Training (VET) Degree, and 19 (14.6%) had completed only primary or secondary school. The participants’ average workweek length ranged from 4 to 50 hours (M = 31.00, SD = 10.60).
Before completing the online Dutch-language survey, all participants provided informed consent by signing a form outlining the purpose of the study, procedures, anticipated risks of participation (expected to be non-existent), confidentiality (ensuring anonymity), the voluntary nature of participation, and contact information. The survey consisted of 39 items and was administered in a fixed order that was identical for all participants, consistent with the original ordering of the items in the validated scales used. No extrinsic incentives were offered, as intrinsic motivation limits satisficing (e.g., superficial responding) and thus encourages more thoughtful responses (Krosnick, 1991). Following their participation in the study, participants were debriefed with additional information regarding the study’s purpose, its practical implications, and appreciation for their participation. The debriefing also stated that if the participant wished to receive information regarding the research findings, such a service would be available upon request. Subsequently, the collected data underwent anonymous processing.
Measures
All study variables were assessed using previously validated multi‑item self‑report scales. For each construct, item responses were combined into a composite scale score by averaging the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of the respective construct.
Interpersonal Conflict
We used two subscales of the Dutch translation of the Interpersonal Conflict Scale (ICI; Jehn et al., 2008), as validated by Rispens and Jehn (2012). For control purposes, a principal axis factor analysis was conducted on the 10 items with direct oblimin rotation. As anticipated, the scree plot displayed two eigenvalues surpassing 1 (see Appendix B), with all factor loadings exceeding .30 on the corresponding factors, suggesting no need for item removal. A 5-point Likert scale was employed (very little – little – neutral – much – very much), with higher scores reflecting greater levels of interpersonal conflict. Reliability analysis revealed good internal consistency for the task conflict subscale, (6 items, α =.83, an example item being: “We often disagreed about work things”). Internal consistency for the relationship subscale was relatively low (4 items, α = .69, an example item being: “We fought about non work things”). Removing item 8 could marginally increase this internal consistency (3 items; α = .71); however, in line with the advice of Rogelberg (2002), doing so was estimated to be unbeneficial as this increase was disproportionate to the decrease in the variance of the complete scale (4 items; 4.32) compared to the scale with the item removed (3 items; 2.89). Reliability analysis demonstrated a good internal consistency for the aggregated scale (10 items; α = .84).
Conflict Personalization
We employed a sub-scale of the Dutch-translated version of the Taking Conflict Personally Scales (TCP Scales; Hample & Dallinger, 1995). English-native-speaking researchers from the Department of Organizational Sciences at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam conducted the item translations. The original TCP Scale comprises 37 items covering six dimensions. Only the seven items from the direct personalization subscale were used within the current research, as they represent a direct and comprehensive operationalization of the general core dimension of conflict personalization (Hample, 2015). A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on the 7 items with direct oblimin rotation. As anticipated, the scree plot displayed only one eigenvalue surpassing 1 (see Appendix B), with all factor loadings exceeding .30 on this factor. The respondents could provide answers to these items using a 6-point Likert scale (completely disagree - disagree - somewhat disagree - somewhat agree - agree - completely agree) whereby higher scores imply a stronger degree of conflict personalization. Reliability analysis demonstrated a good internal consistency (7 items; α = .89, an example being: “I usually take criticisms personally.”). All items were retained, as their removal would not have increased the scale’s reliability.
Growth Mindset
The Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale - Self-Theory Version (ITI), developed by De Castella and Byrne (2015) and translated into Dutch by Nieuwenhuis et al. (2023), was utilized to measure respondents’ implicit beliefs about their capacity to change their intelligence level. The scale encompasses two subscales, each containing four items: the incremental self-beliefs subscale (i.e., growth mindset) and the entity self-beliefs subscale (i.e., fixed mindset). A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on the 8 items with direct oblimin rotation. The analysis revealed no necessity for item removal as the scree plot displayed only one eigenvalue surpassing 1 (see Appendix B), with all factor loadings exceeding .30 on this factor. This result aligns with the anticipation of unidimensionality of the aggregated scale, as both subscales assess the extremes of a shared continuum. Accordingly, the four entity items were reverse‑scored and combined with the four incremental items to create a single Growth mindset score. All items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (completely disagree - disagree - somewhat disagree - somewhat agree - agree - completely agree), with higher scores indicating a stronger growth mindset endorsement. Reliability analysis revealed a strong internal consistency for this aggregated growth mindset scale (8 items; α = .93). It also revealed good internal consistency for the incremental self-beliefs subscale (4 items; α = .88, an example item being: “I believe I have the ability to change the basic level of how clever I am considerably over time.”) and strong internal consistency for the entity self-beliefs subscale (4 items; α = .90, an example item being “I do not think I personally can do much to increase how clever I am.”). No items were removed, as removal would not have improved the scale’s reliability.
Problem-solving Conflict Management
We utilized the subscale of the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH), as developed by Van de Vliert (1997) and updated by De Dreu et al. (2001), to measure the variable of Problem-Solving conflict management. Principal axis factor analysis indicated that item removal was not necessary; as anticipated, the scree plot displayed only one eigenvalue surpassing 1 (see Appendix B), with all factor loadings exceeding .30 on this factor. Respondents could provide answers to the items using a 6-point Likert scale (completely disagree - disagree - somewhat disagree - somewhat agree - agree - completely agree). A higher score indicates a greater inclination to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach during interpersonal conflict. Reliability analysis revealed good internal consistency (4 items; α = .84, An example item being: “I stand for my own and others’ goals and interests.”). Removing item 1 could marginally increase this internal consistency (3 items; α = .86); however, in line with the advice of Rogelberg (2002), doing so was estimated to be unbeneficial as this increase was disproportionate to the decrease in the variance of the complete scale (4 items; 8.62) compared to the scale with the item removed (3 items; 5.12).
Procedure
Prior to initiating the research project, the study was reviewed and approved by the FSW Research Ethics Review Committee (2024) through an ethics review self-check. The recruitment process for the study entailed utilizing personal networks, particularly through social media platforms and direct outreach. Following this, interested individuals were provided with an electronic survey link in order to participate in the study. Prior to completing the questionnaire, all participants carefully reviewed and signed a consent form. This form outlined detailed information regarding the study’s purpose and procedures, including the right to withdraw at any time, anticipated risks of participation (expected to be non-existent), confidentiality measures to ensure anonymity, the voluntary nature of participation, and relevant contact information. This process ensured that all participants were fully informed and aware of the nature of their involvement. Following their participation in the study, participants received a debriefing that provided additional information about the study’s purpose, practical implications, and expressions of gratitude for their involvement. The debriefing also stated that if the participant wished to receive information regarding the research findings, such a service would be available upon request. Subsequently, the data collected from participants underwent anonymous processing.
Results
Assumptions
Boxplot analysis revealed no significant outliers in the dataset (see Appendix C). The calculated Variance Inflation Factor indicated no multicollinearity among the explanatory variables (Problem-solving, VIF = 1.053; Interpersonal conflict, VIF = 1.002; Growth mindset, VIF = 1.560). The results of the One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated a violation of the normality assumption for all variables (p < .05). Since, as dictated by the central limit theory, the sample is large enough (> 30 participants), the violation of the assumption of normality is not problematic for the current research (Agresti, 2018). Furthermore, visual examination of the histograms ascertains that the distributions exhibit approximate normality (see Appendix D). Visual inspection of the scatterplots indicated no violations of the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity (see Appendix E). Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity results indicated the suitability of the data for confirmatory factor analysis for Interpersonal conflict (KMO = .82, p < .001), Conflict personalization (KMO = .84, p < .001), Growth mindset (KMO = .91, p < .001), and Problem-solving conflict management (KMO = .80, p < .001). To assess the potential influence of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted using an unrotated exploratory factor analysis including all 29 study items. Results revealed that six factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.00, and the first factor accounted for 20.20% of the total variance. Because no single factor emerged and the first factor explained less than 50% of the variance, common method bias was not considered a serious concern in the present study.
Descriptive Statistics
The original dataset comprised 146 employees. However, vital data were absent for 16 participants, necessitating their exclusion. Given the remaining sample size of 130 participants, the post-hoc power analysis indicated a statistical power of .95 (β = .05), indicating that the sample size was sufficient for conducting a conditional mediation analysis.
The Bivariate Pearson Correlation revealed a significant positive correlation between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization (r = .26, N = 130, p = .003), which implies that interpersonal conflict is associated with elevated levels of conflict personalization. In addition, the analysis findings revealed a significant negative correlation between Problem-solving conflict management and Conflict personalization (r = -.21, N = 130, p = .019), which implies that elevated levels of problem-solving conflict management correspond to diminished levels of conflict personalization. Furthermore, the Bivariate Pearson Correlation displayed a significant positive correlation between Growth mindset and Problem-solving conflict management (r = .23, N = 130, p = .01), which implies that growth mindset is associated with elevated levels of problem-solving conflict management. The analysis also revealed an unanticipated significant negative correlation between the average number of working hours per week and Conflict personalization (r = -.22, N = 130, p = .01), which implies that the average number of hours the respondents worked per week is associated with reduced levels of conflict personalization. To control for the possible influence of the average number of working hours per week on the associations outlined within the research model, this potentially confounding variable is incorporated as a covariate in all analyses where conflict personalization serves as the response variable. Since Gender, Age, and Educational attainment did not correlate with the independent variable, the main analyses did not incorporate these variables as control variables.
Main Analyses
The forthcoming section will present the findings on the central hypothesis that Growth mindset moderates the relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization through its relationship with the Problem-solving conflict management approach. The three following sub-hypotheses collectively address this central hypothesis.
H1. There is a positive relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization.
H2. The positive relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization is weaker to the extent that individuals report a stronger tendency to adopt a Problem-solving conflict management approach.
H3. There is a direct positive association between Growth mindset and Problem-solving conflict management.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for Study Variables
Note. N = 130. Measures of dispersion and center are derived from the computed mean of the individual scores per scale for each participant. Potential ranges reflect the response scale of each measure; observed ranges reflect the minimum and maximum composite (item‑averaged) scores in the present sample. PR = Potential Range; OR = Observed Range; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; *p < .05. **p < .01. a Problem-solving conflict management. b Highest educational attainment. c The average number of working hours per week.
Central Hypothesis Test: A Conditional Mediation Analysis
A conditional mediation analysis examined whether Growth mindset moderates the relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization through its relationship with the Problem-solving conflict management approach. In the initial regression analysis, Interpersonal conflict and, subsequently, the cross-product of Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset were entered into the regression equation to predict Conflict personalization while controlling for the average number of working hours per week. This examination of the moderating role of Growth Mindset in the association between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization constitutes a methodologically necessary step in testing for mediated moderation. Following the analytical framework outlined by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005), we first ascertain whether a moderation effect is present, which subsequently shows a reduced magnitude after statistically controlling for Problem-solving conflict management—a methodologically requisite test for moderation despite the absence of a theoretical rationale (and, therefore, formulated hypothesis).
In line with hypothesis 1, regression analysis revealed a significant effect of Interpersonal conflict on Conflict personalization (b(SE) = 0.31 (0.11), t(127) = 3.00, p = .004, 95% CI [0.10, 0.52]); it also revealed a significant interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset on Conflict personalization (b(SE) = -0.02 (0.01), t(127) = -2.29, p = .02, 95% CI [-0.04, -0.00]; see Figure 2, β1 and β2 respectively). These results imply that interpersonal conflict is associated with increased levels of conflict personalization and that this relationship weakens in the presence of a stronger growth mindset.
In the second regression analysis, the model included Growth mindset to predict Problem-solving conflict management while simultaneously controlling for the interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset on the response variable, Problem-solving conflict management. In line with hypothesis 3, the relationship between Growth mindset and Problem-solving conflict management reached significance (b(SE) = 0.08 (0.03), t(128) = 2.61, p = .01, 95% CI [0.02, 0.15]; see β3 in Figure 2). The interaction effect between Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset did not reach significance (b(SE) = 0.00 (0.01), t(128) = 0.61, p = .54, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01]). These results imply that a growth mindset is associated with higher levels of problem-solving conflict management and that this association is direct rather than stemming from its interaction with interpersonal conflict.
In the third analysis, the model included the interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset, as well as the interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Problem-solving conflict management, to predict Conflict personalization while controlling for the average number of working hours per week. In this analysis, not in line with hypothesis 2, the expected interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Problem-solving conflict management on Conflict personalization did not reach significance (b(SE) = 0.04 (0.04), t(127) = 0.80, p = .36, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.12]; see β4 in Figure 2); the standardized effect sizes of the initially significant interaction between Interpersonal conflict and Growth mindset on Conflict personalization increased (b(SE) = -0.03 (0.01), t(126) = -2.55, p = .01, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.01]); see β2’ in Figure 2). These results imply that the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization is not weaker among individuals who report a stronger tendency to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach. The full model explained 14.0% of the variance in conflict personalization (R2 = .14, F(4, 125) = 5.01, p < .001). The pattern of results implies that a growth mindset is related to more problem-solving conflict management and weakens the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization; however—not in line with the central hypothesis within the present study—a growth mindset does not weaken the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization through problem-solving conflict management. Additional separate analyses for task conflict and relationship conflict revealed the same pattern for both conflict types.
Figure 2 Conditional Mediation Analysis Study Variables
Note. X = explanatory variable; M = mediating variable; Y = response variable; W = moderating variable; ns = not significant; *p < .05.
Discussion
Conflict personalization poses a challenge as it is related to both diminished organizational performance (e.g., Jehn et al., 2008; Rispens & Demerouti, 2016) and deteriorated individual well-being (e.g., Worley & Aloia, 2019). To address this challenge, the present study explored potential protective factors against conflict personalization among employees. Specifically, it addressed whether a growth mindset is related to a stronger tendency to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach and whether it, through this problem-solving conflict management, is related to a weakened positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization. The results indicated that a stronger growth mindset was indeed associated with higher levels of problem-solving conflict management and, in addition, to a weakened positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization. Interestingly, however, this problem-solving conflict management did not function as the hypothesized mediator within the research model.
The results of the present study supported the first sub-hypothesis (H1), which posited that interpersonal conflict is positively related to conflict personalization. The finding indicated that elevated levels of interpersonal conflict experiences are associated with a stronger degree of conflict personalization among employees, which is consistent with the assertion by Hoogenboom et al. (2023) that conflict personalization is, by definition, a response that potentially emerges due to interpersonal conflict. Drawing on the outcomes of their systematic literature review, they defined conflict personalization as “the negative affective as well as cognitive reaction to the self being threatened and/or in danger as a result of [emphasis added] a social interaction about perceived incompatibilities [interpersonal conflict]” (p. 322). Accordingly, this finding aligns with those empirical studies indicating that conflict personalization is indeed a consequence of interpersonal conflict, for example, by demonstrating that negative communication spirals rooted in unresolved interpersonal conflict are related to conflict personalization (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013). Additionally, research conducted by Todorova et al. (2014) demonstrated that both relationship conflict and intense task conflict experiences are associated with more negative affect, which represents a fundamental aspect of conflict personalization (Hoogenboom et al., 2023). Likewise, additional empirical studies demonstrate that interpersonal conflict, whether task-related (Kuriakose et al., 2019a) or non-task-related (Kuriakose et al., 2019b), is associated with negative affect among employees. In short, conflict personalization entails a negative emotional response to participating in interpersonal conflict (Hample & Dallinger, 1995); therefore, the experience of interpersonal conflict is a direct antecedent of conflict personalization.
Furthermore, the results showed that the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization is weaker to the extent that individuals have a stronger growth mindset. These findings are consistent with the study previously mentioned by Yeager et al. (2011), which demonstrated that an experimentally induced growth mindset predicts reduced negative affective responses to interpersonal conflict among adolescents. According to this study, adolescents who adopt a growth mindset exhibit a decreased susceptibility to feelings of shame and hatred after experiencing interpersonal conflict, as they perceive themselves as capable of change and improvement rather than as perpetual victims. Moreover, the results are comparable to previous studies, which indicated that individuals adopting a fixed mindset report more negative feelings about themselves, such as self-blame, loneliness, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth, after experiencing social conflict with a peer compared to individuals adopting a growth mindset (Graham et al., 2006; Graham & Juvonen, 1998).
The second hypothesis (H2), which posited a direct positive association between a growth mindset and problem-solving conflict management, was also supported by the results of the present research. The findings suggest that a stronger growth mindset is associated with a greater propensity towards using a problem-solving conflict management approach among employees. A stronger growth mindset may thus encourage employees to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach, which is congruent with prior empirical research demonstrating that a growth mindset is related to an individual’s inclination toward employing prosocial conflict responses (Dweck, 2012; Yeager et al., 2011), which – as De Dreu et al. (2000) showed in their meta-analysis - is associated with more problem-solving conflict management by these individuals. Indeed, problem-solving conflict management is formulated within the dual concern model as a prosocial conflict management approach because it implies a high concern for the (conflict) outcomes of others (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Furthermore, a growth mindset is related to increased levels of empathy (Schumann et al., 2014; Weisz et al., 2021), which is a trait also associated with problem-solving conflict management (De Wied et al., 2007).
The third hypothesis (H3), which posited that the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization is weaker to the extent that individuals report a stronger tendency to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach, was not supported by the results of the present study. This finding is interesting: the results do not demonstrate that, insofar as employees display a stronger tendency to adopt a problem-solving conflict management approach, elevated levels of interpersonal conflict experiences are less strongly associated with increased levels of conflict personalization. This null finding holds, while simultaneously the results also support both the positive direct relationship between growth mindset and a problem-solving conflict management approach, as well as the moderating function of growth mindset in the relationship between workplace conflict and conflict personalization. Additionally, the Bivariate Pearson Correlation (see Table 1) revealed a significant negative correlation between problem-solving conflict management and conflict personalization, indicating that elevated levels of problem-solving conflict management correspond to diminished levels of conflict personalization directly. The observed orthogonal relationship between interpersonal conflict and problem-solving conflict management, along with their direct association with conflict personalization, therefore, implies that these variables are independently associated with (reduced) conflict personalization.
Because the results of the current research did not support the third hypothesis, it follows that the central hypothesis, which posited that a growth mindset moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization through its relationship with the problem-solving conflict management approach, was also not supported. The overall pattern of results indicated that although a growth mindset moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization, it does not do so through problem-solving conflict management. These findings appear to contradict previously mentioned research, which demonstrates that adopting a problem-solving conflict management approach mitigates the experience of negative affect stemming from interpersonal conflict (Dijkstra et al., 2012; Kuriakose et al., 2019a; Kuriakose et al., 2019b). Additionally, they also appear to contradict prior research demonstrating that an internal locus of control - a trait that shares strong similarities with a growth mindset (Nallapothula et al., 2020) - through its relationship with the problem-solving conflict management approach, moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and negative affective reactions such as feeling miserable, panicky, upset, and worried (Dijkstra et al., 2011).
Elaborating further on the absence of the predicted moderation effect in the current study one might consider that the negative affect found in apparently comparable studies (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2011; Dijkstra et al., 2012; Kuriakose et al., 2019a; Kuriakose et al., 2019b) is not necessarily an indicator of conflict personalization. From this reasoning, it follows that negative affect can only serve as a direct indicator of conflict personalization insofar as it a “reaction to the self being threatened and/or in danger” (Hoogenboom et al., 2023, p. 322). For example, the previously mentioned study conducted by Yeager et al. (2011) demonstrated that adherence to a growth mindset enables individuals to experience reduced negative affectivity in the form of shame stemming from interpersonal conflict; this shame is an indicator of the experience of a threat to the self (Dallinger & Hample, 1995). However, in both previously mentioned studies conducted by Dijkstra et al. and Kuriakose et al., no such indicator was reported in the context of the problem-solving conflict management approach, which suggests that the individual’s negative affectivity may not have been a response to the experience of a threat to the self. In short, conflict personalization is, by definition, related to negative affect; however, negative affect—even when stemming from interpersonal conflict—is not necessarily related to conflict personalization. Thus, these insights arouse the alternative proposition that (the mere application of) a problem-solving conflict management approach, while resulting in diminished levels of negative affect, does not necessarily also prevent conflict personalization among employees.
Limitations, Implications, and Directions for Future Research
A limitation of the current study is its cross-sectional research design, which restricts the ability to draw causal inferences (Morling, 2017). Future research could re-examine (components of) the relationships from the current research model in an experimental context. To this end, manipulating the variables of interpersonal conflict and growth mindset would contribute to establishing causal relationships within the research model of the current study. A further limitation is that all variables in the study were measured using the same method, which may influence the results through common method variance (i.e., spurious variance arising from, and thus attributable to, the measurement method rather than to constructs within the research model; Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, since Harman’s single-factor test revealed that no single factor emerged and the first factor explained less than 50% (20.20%) of the variance, common method bias was not considered a serious concern in the present study. Still, following the advice of Chang et al. (2010), future research should extend the present study by collecting data on the response and explanatory variables in the model from multiple sources of information (e.g., both the employer and the employee). To address both the limitations regarding causality and common method variance, future research could also extend the present study by employing a longitudinal design. Conventionally, this research design could allow for data collection on the same variables from the same individuals at different points in time. A longitudinal design would therefore provide evidence of temporal precedence—thereby enhancing causal inference—and simultaneously serve as an effective method for addressing common method variance.
Another limitation concerns the atypically large proportion of highly educated participants within the current research sample. This proportion amounts to 58.5%, contrasting with the 35.5% highly educated individuals in the national population, as found by Van Der Mooren and De Vries (2022), from which comparable research by Dijkstra et al. (2012) drew their sample (i.e., the Netherlands). Previous research shows that education level is a robust predictor of job level (Ng et al., 2005) and that individuals occupying higher-level positions within the organization are better able to avoid interpersonal conflict from escalating; indeed, De Wit et al. (2012) argue that these individuals are more inclined to adopt alternative conflict management approaches by virtue of being more politically savvy and being under greater time constraints. Consequently, the current sample may provide a limited reflection of problem-solving conflict management as a specific mode of conflict management.
The present research has contributed to a better understanding of several protective factors against conflict personalization among employees. To this end, it indicated that adherence to a growth mindset reduces the employees’ tendency to personalize interpersonal conflict. It also indicated that a growth mindset is related to problem-solving conflict management. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of the problem-solving conflict management approach in addressing negative affectivity stemming from interpersonal conflict (Dijkstra et al., 2012; Kuriakose et al., 2019a; Kuriakose et al., 2019b). Moreover, previous research has also demonstrated that this negative affectivity results in adverse effects for both the organization and its employees (e.g., Jehn et al., 2008; Rispens & Demerouti, 2016). Therefore, an intervention program aimed at fostering a growth mindset, thereby reducing employees’ tendency to personalize interpersonal conflict and experience negative affect resulting from it, becomes recommendable.
Previous research has demonstrated that growth mindset interventions can reduce negative affect resulting from interpersonal conflict (e.g., Iqbal & Dar, 2015; Yeager et al., 2011, 2013a, 2013b). Given that the present study found growth mindset to weaken the relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization, and considering that negative affect constitutes a fundamental element of this conflict personalization (Hoogenboom et al., 2023), such interventions would likely prove equally effective in addressing conflict personalization among employees. However, while this perspective offers a promising practical implication, further research is needed to examine such interventions in the context of conflict personalization more specifically. Moreover, it is essential to gain further insight into which additional factors prevent employees from personalizing conflict. The present study did not establish that a problem-solving conflict management approach moderates the association between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization. This unanticipated finding suggests there are other factors through which a growth mindset weakens the association between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization. Future research could, for example, explore the individual’s perceived utility of interpersonal conflict as one potential factor. Indeed, individuals with a growth mindset perceive greater utility in interpersonal conflict (Yeager et al., 2011), which is subsequently negatively related to conflict personalization (Hample, 2015). This future research could formulate its hypothesis as follows: “Growth mindset moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization through its relationship with the individual’s perceived utility of interpersonal conflict.” In addition, several other previously identified protective factors against conflict personalization are worth exploring in relation to the growth mindset for future research. These factors include, for example, communication confidence (Myers & Bailey, 1991), self-discipline, and the capacity for introspection (Hample & Cionea, 2010). Future research exploring these factors could formulate its hypotheses in one of the following three ways: “Growth mindset moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization through its relationship with- (1) communication confidence, (2) self-discipline, or (3) the capacity for introspection.”
Conclusion
The central question the present study sought to answer is: “Is a growth mindset related to more problem-solving conflict management, and does it, through this problem-solving conflict management, weaken the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization?” To this end, it demonstrated that a growth mindset is related to more problem-solving conflict management and weakens the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and conflict personalization, albeit not through this problem-solving conflict management, an unexpected finding with intriguing theoretical implications. Consequently, the present research exclusively supports the conclusion that a growth mindset is a protective factor among employees by reducing the experience of conflict personalization stemming from interpersonal conflict. This conclusion highlights the potential for developing intervention programs aimed at cultivating a growth mindset among employees, thereby reducing their tendency to personalize interpersonal conflict. Future research should, however, establish whether these interventions are indeed effective for this purpose. Interpersonal conflict may be beneficial to both the organization and its employees, but only if not personalized. Therefore, to attain these benefits, it is essential to explore those factors that enable employees to refrain from such personalization.
References
Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Pearson.
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 Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/256633
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf Publishing Company.
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024200
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2013). Perspectives on personality: Pearson new international edition. Pearson.
Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Curran, T., & Allen, J. (2016). Family communication patterns, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of direct personalization of conflict. Communication Reports, 30(2), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2016.1225224
Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1995). Personalizing and managing conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 6(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022766
De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory‐based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.107
De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 369–414). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889
De Wied, M., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2007). Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship relations among adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 33(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20166
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Cornelissen, R. A. W. M. (2012). The emergence of the activity reduces conflict associated strain (ARCAS) model: A test of a conditional mediation model of workplace conflict and employee strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028550
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Evers, A. (2011). Reducing conflict-related employee strain: The benefits of an internal locus of control and a problem-solving conflict management strategy. Work & Stress, 25(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.593344
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67(8), 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029783
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256
FSW Research Ethics Review Committee (2024, April 4). Research Ethics Review FSS. https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/research-ethics-review-fss
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029993
Graham, S., Bellmore, A. D., & Mize, J. (2006). Peer victimization, aggression, and their co-occurrence in middle school: Pathways to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9030-2
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700307
Hample, D. (2015). Taking conflict personally. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic203
Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. (2010). Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness. In T. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict (pp. 372–387). Routledge.
Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly, 43(3), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369978
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. W. N. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
Hoogenboom, L. M., Dijkstra, M. T. M., & Beersma, B. (2023). Conflict personalization: A systematic literature review and the development of an integrative definition. International Journal of Conflict Management, 35(2), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-09-2022-0142
Iqbal, N., & Dar, K. A. (2015). Negative affectivity, depression, and anxiety: Does rumination mediate the links? Journal of Affective Disorders, 181, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.04.002
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., Levine, S. S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Kolb, D. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The multiple faces of conflict in organizations. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130313
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
Kuriakose, V., Sreejesh, S., Jose, H., Anusree, M. R., & Jose, S. (2019a). Process conflict and employee well-being: An application of activity reduces conflict associated strain (ARCAS) model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(4), 462–489. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-12-2018-0142
Kuriakose, V., Sreejesh, S., Jose, H., & Jose, S. (2019b). Testing activity reduces conflict associated strain (ARCAS) model: A test of moderated mediation model of relationship conflict and employee well-being. Personnel Review, 49(1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-11-2018-0462
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8(2), 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13
Meier, L. L., Semmer, N. K., & Gross, S. (2014). The effect of conflict at work on well-being: Depressive symptoms as a vulnerability factor. Work & Stress, 28(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.876691
Miele, D. B., Finn, B., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered? It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397954
Miele, D. B., & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019745
Miller, C. W., & Roloff, M. E. (2014). When hurt continues: Taking conflict personally leads to rumination, residual hurt and negative motivations toward someone who hurt us. Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.890118
Morling, B. (2017). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y. (2011). Mind your errors: Evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mind-set to adaptive posterror adjustments. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1484–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419520
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
Myers, K. A., & Bailey, C. L. (1991). Conflict and communication apprehension in campus ministries: A quantitative analysis. College Student Journal, 25(1), 537–543.
Nallapothula, D., Lozano, J. B., Han, S., Herrera, C., Sayson, H. W., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Maloy, J. (2020). M-LoCUS: A Scalable Intervention Enhances Growth Mindset and Internal Locus of Control in Undergraduate Students in STEM. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.1987
Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human Relations, 38(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800202
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x
Nicotera, A. M., & Mahon, M. M. (2013). Between rocks and hard places: Exploring the impact of structurational divergence in the nursing workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 90–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912458214
Nieuwenhuis, S., Van der Mee, D. J., Janssen, T. W. P., Verstraete, L. L. L., Meeter, M., & van Atteveldt, N. M. (2023). Growth mindset and school burnout symptoms in young adolescents: The role of vagal activity as potential mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1176477
Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312960
Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.399
Pepinsky, T. B. (2018). A note on listwise deletion versus multiple imputation. Political Analysis, 26(4), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.18
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022874
Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Conflict at work, negative emotions, and performance: A diary study. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12069
Rispens, S., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). De veelzijdigheid van een intrateam-conflict: Constructie en test van een Nederlandstalig instrument voor het meten van conflicttypen en conflictdimensies [The versatility of intrateam conflict: Construction and test of a Dutch-language instrument for measuring conflict types and conflict dimensions]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 25(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.5117/2012.025.002.177
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805
Rogelberg, S. G. (2002). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. Blackwell Publishing.
Rognes, J. K., & Schei, V. (2010). Understanding the integrative approach to conflict management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011013885
Schumann, K., Zaki, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). Addressing the empathy deficit: Beliefs about the malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036738
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(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.473
Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035134
Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: Theoretical frontiers. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776049
Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674
Van der Mooren, F., & De Vries, R. (2022). Steeds meer hoogopgeleiden in Nederland: Wat voor beroep hebben ze? [More and more highly educated individuals in the Netherlands: What occupation do they have?] Centraal Bureau Voor De Statistiek. Retrieved April 25, 2024, from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/statistische-trends/2022/steeds-meer-hoogopgeleiden-in-nederland-wat-voor-beroep-hebben-ze-?
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3
Weisz, E., Ong, D. C., Carlson, R. W., & Zaki, J. (2021). Building empathy through motivation-based interventions. Emotion, 21(5), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000929
Worley, T. R., & Aloia, L. S. (2019). Associations of taking conflict personally with mental and physical health: An allostatic load perspective. Southern Communication Journal, 84(3), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2019.1587641
Yeager, D. S., Miu, A. S., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013a). Implicit theories of personality and attributions of hostile intent: A meta‐Analysis, an experiment, and a longitudinal intervention. Child Development, 84(5), 1651–1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12062
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013b). An implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84(3), 970–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12003
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1090–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023769
Appendix
Appendix A: Survey Items As Articulated in the Dutch Language
Table 2 Survey items Interpersonal Conflict Scale (ICI)
Table 3 Survey items Taking Conflict Personally Scales (TCP Scales)
Table 4 Survey items Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH)
Table 5 Survey items Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale - Self-Theory Version (ITI) Scales
Appendix B: Supplementary Outputs Exploratory Factor Analysis Study Variables
Figure 3 Scree Plot Interpersonal Conflict Scale (ICI)
Table 6 Total Variance Explained Interpersonal Conflict Scale (ICI)
Note. The extraction method was principal components with an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation.
Figure 4 Scree Plot Taking Conflict Personally Scales (TCP Scales)
Table 7 Total Variance Explained Taking Conflict Personally Scales (TCP Scales)
Note. The extraction method was principal components with an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation.
Figure 5 Scree Plot Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale - Self-Theory Version (ITI)
Table 8 Total Variance Explained Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale - Self-Theory Version (ITI)
Note. The extraction method was principal components with an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation.
Figure 6 Scree Plot Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH)
Table 9 Total Variance Explained Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (DUTCH)
Note. The extraction method was principal components with an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation.
Appendix C: Visual Test for Outliers
Figure 7 Boxplot of Interpersonal Conflict
Note. ° = ≥ 1.5*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile; * = ≥ 3*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile. In the present study, only the * is considered an outlier.
Figure 8 Boxplot of Conflict Personalization
Note. ° = ≥ 1.5*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile; * = ≥ 3*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile. In the present study, only the * is considered an outlier.
Figure 9 Boxplot of Growth Mindset
Note. ° = ≥ 1.5*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile; * = ≥ 3*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile. In the present study, only the * is considered an outlier.
Figure 10 Boxplot of Problem-solving Conflict Management
Note. ° = ≥ 1.5*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile; * = ≥ 3*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile. In the present study, only the * is considered an outlier.
Figure 11 Boxplot of Average Number of Working Hours per Week
Note. ° = ≥ 1.5*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile; * = ≥ 3*IQR below the first quartile or above the third quartile. In the present study, only the * is considered an outlier.
Appendix D: Visual Test of Normality Study Variables
Figure 12 Histogram of Interpersonal Conflict
Figure 13 Histogram of Conflict Personalization
Figure 14 Histogram of Growth Mindset
Figure 15 Histogram of Problem-solving Conflict Management
Figure 16 Histogram of Average Number of Working Hours per Week
Appendix E: Visual Examination of Assumptions of Homoscedasticity and Linearity
Figure 17 Scatterplot with Fit Line of Conflict Personalization by Interpersonal Conflict
Note. -10.82 = 2 SD below mean; -5.41 = 1 SD below mean; .00 = mean; 5.41 = 1 SD above mean; 10.82 = 2 SD above mean; 16.23 = 3 SD above mean
Figure 18 Scatterplot with Fit Line of Problem-solving Conflict Management by Growth Mindset
Note. -23.69 = 3 SD below mean; -15.79 = 2 SD below mean; -7.90 = 1 SD below mean; .00 = mean; 7.90 = 1 SD above mean; 15.79 = 2 SD above mean
Figure 19 Scatterplot with Fit Line of Conflict Personalization by Problem-solving Conflict Management
Note. -8.81 = 3 SD below mean; -5.87 = 2 SD below mean; -2.94 = 1 SD below mean; .00 = mean; 2.94 = 1 SD above mean; 5.87 = 2 SD above mean