This investigation examines some of the potential underlying processes and factors associated with marital stability. Two studies were guided by Karney and Bradbury's vulnerability-stress-adaptation (VSA) model of marital development. Variables examined included negative affectivity, educational attainment, work and family stressors, conflict resolution styles, mutual problem solving, marital satisfaction, personal commitment, and divorce proneness. Study one used an existing data set consisting of 194 married couples and tested a part of the VSA model. Results indicate that high negative affectivity is associated with the endorsement of negatively toned conflict styles. In comparison to husbands, wives' negative affectivity and use of negatively toned conflict styles were found to be more detrimental to marital quality in general. Conflict resolution styles were able to explain the relationship between negative affectivity and marital quality for husbands more so than wives. Study two examined 186 newly married couples and tested additional paths of the VSA. The enduring vulnerability, negative affectivity, played a significant role in wives' and husbands' perceived stress and lower marital quality. Marital quality was significantly associated with how spouses personally communicated with their spouses about problems and concerns. Additionally, mutual problem solving was related to increased levels of stress for wives and husbands. There were partner effects for husbands' mutual problem solving on wives' perceived stress, but not vice versa. Last, mutual problem solving significantly mediated some of the relationships between enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events, and marital quality. Both studies highlight the impact communication processes have on a dyadic level in marital relationships. These findings will allow scholars, clinicians, and married individuals to further understand some of the factors and processes that contribute to dyadic adjustment and stable marriages.

The aim of this present study was to investigate the predictive power of value similarity of wives and husbands and conflict resolution of spouses on marital adjustment of wives, husbands, and couples. Data is collected by means of questionnaires (&ldquo / Schwartz&rsquo / s Value Survey&rdquo / , &ldquo / Dyadic Adjustment Scale&rdquo / , and &ldquo / Conflict Resolution Styles Scale&rdquo / ), from a sample of one hundred and forty (140 women, 140 men) Turkish married couples. The results of the study indicated that after eliminating the effects of demographic variables, tradition, hedonism, stimulation value type similarities of spouses, and power value type dissimilarities of spouses have positively predicted marital adjustment of wives and couples. However, value similarities of spouses did not have significant effect on marital adjustment of husbands. Although, conflict resolution styles of husbands had a significant effect on marital adjustment of wives, conflict resolution styles of wives did not have significant contribution in predicting marital adjustment of husbands after eliminating the effects of demographic variables and value similarity of spouses. The usage of negative conflict resolution styles by husbands had negative effects on marital adjustment of wives. When the marital adjustment of couples was considered, it was found that conflict resolution styles of wives and husbands have significant contribution in predicting marital adjustment of couples. The results further indicated that negative conflict resolution styles of wives and husbands negatively predicted marital adjustment of couples. Furthermore, it was found that spouses high in positive conflict resolution style and low in negative conflict resolution style have higher scores on marital adjustment than spouses low in positive conflict resolution style and high in negative conflict resolution style. The findings of the present study were discussed in the light of the related literature. Additionally, limitations of the study and suggestions for future researches were investigated.

Gottman's (1994a) three stable conflict resolution styles (CRSs), validating, volatile, and avoidant, are different on several dimensions, yet all are predictors of good marital satisfaction. Despite the CRSs equality in marital satisfaction and stability research, teaching couples a validating style is often explicitly more preferential in therapeutic settings. Relationship self-regulation (RSR), described as relationship “work”, is also a strong predictor of relationship satisfaction. Identifying the CRS environment in a relationship that most contributes to the practice of RSR can inform clinical and couple relationship education interventions. Based on its success in improving marital satisfaction in therapeutic settings, a validating CRS was hypothesized to be more closely associated with the practice of RSR by husbands and wives compared to a volatile or avoidant style. A third variable, commitment to the relationship, characterized by a desire to stay rather than an obligation to remain, also was tested as a moderator of the relationship between stable CRSs and RSR. Data from first-married men (856) and women (1406) taking the RELATionship Evaluation (RELATE) online questionnaire was used in correlational and MANCOVA analyses to test the research questions. All three stable CRSs were found to be positively related to RSR. However, the validating style was found to be the most predictive of both RSR effort and strategies compared to the other two styles. Commitment was a moderator between CRSs and RSR for only validating and avoidant CRSs for RSR strategies but not effort. Results generally support the theoretical model tested. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

No description available.

The pivotal role that R&D plays in a nation’s development is well recognized globally. Even India has made long strides in this area post-independence. However, it is plagued by issues such as lack of investment, dearth of research work force, poor quality of research output, lower enrollment and inefficient policies. India has for the last few years; strongly felt the need for the increase in the quality and the quantity of research output. This has direct implications on research scholars who are considered as foot soldiers of research institutions in India. Besides the pressure to outperform, research scholar’s face challenges on multiple fronts— academic, personal, financial, and social. To successfully navigate through these challenges a cordial relationship with the research supervisor is most desirable. However, this is not easily achieved as there can be various conflict situations arising between a supervisor and a research scholar. Resolving these conflicts amicably is essential for smooth sailing of the research journey. Thus, studying the nature of conflicts between research scholars and supervisors; and investigating the patterns in conflict resolution behavior of research scholars is a challenging and complex research problem. This was accomplished in three phases. In the first phase, we analyzed the relationship between the Big Five Personality types (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness and Consciousness) and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Resolution Styles (Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating, Competing, and Avoiding). This was motivated by past studies linking personality and conflict resolution behavior. In the second phase, we used a Narrative based instrument to determine the dominant styles of Conflict Resolution employed by the research scholars. This was motivated by the strength of Narrative approach in effecting a change in the belief systems of individuals as demonstrated in past studies. The third phase involved modeling two Conflict Resolution Styles — Collaborative (high assertion and high cooperation) and Competitive (high assertion and low cooperation) — using influence functions applied to the research scholar – supervisor relationship. Results from the first study indicated that Accommodation and Avoiding were the two most preferred styles of conflict resolution employed by research scholars. We found association between personality types and conflict resolution styles: Agreeableness with Accommodation, Avoiding and Competing; Openness with Accommodation and Competing; Neuroticism with Accommodation; and Extraversion with Avoiding. Further, research scholars in advanced stage (>3 years) were found to be more Accommodating than those in the early stage (<3 years). Our second study showed that research scholars while evaluating a conflict situation objectively as an observer, consistently suggested co-operative styles of conflict resolution (Collaboration and Compromising). It also highlighted the role of the nature of conflict situation and the supervisor response, on choice of conflict resolution styles. The third study emphasized the effectiveness of Collaboration style of conflict resolution in maintaining a fruitful relationship with the supervisor in the long-term. In summary, the results emphasized and provided future directions to encourage research scholars to seek out co-operative ways of resolving conflicts with supervisors.

The purpose of the study was to construct a psycho-social model for team cohesion at a financial institution. The financial institution had been in existence for 127 years, and had faced significant challenges throughout its history of acquisitions and mergers to establish working teams that would give it a competitive edge in global financial markets. The research objective was to develop a psycho-social model for team cohesion by investigating the interrelationships and overall relationships amongst the independent constructs (self-worth, personality preferences and conflict resolution styles) and the relevant outcome (team cohesion). Furthermore, the study also scientifically tested the possible moderating effect of the employees’ socio-demographic characteristics (race, gender, age, level of education, job level and tenure) on the fostering of team cohesiveness. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design approach was selected and applied to a simple probability sample (N = 463) using standardised, valid and reliable measuring instruments. The population consisted of permanent employees, and the results revealed significant relationships between the construct variables. The canonical correlation indicated a significant overall relationship between the contingencies of self-worth domains, personality preferences and conflict resolution styles, and the team cohesion-related dispositions of cohesiveness and engaged. The structured equation modelling indicated a good fit of the data between the individuals’ contingencies of self-worth domains (family support, God’s love, virtues, competition, work competence, physical appearance and pleasing others), the accommodating conflict resolution style, an extraversion personality preference, and team cohesion. Hierarchical moderated regression showed that race, age, educational level and job tenure significantly moderated the relationship between the participants’ psycho-social attributes and team cohesion. Tests for significant mean differences revealed significant differences in terms of the socio-biographical variables. On a theoretical level, the study deepened understanding of the antecedent constructs (self-worth, personality preferences and conflict resolution styles) and team cohesion construct. On an empirical level, the study produced an empirically tested psycho-social model for team cohesion. This study will add significant practical, valuable knowledge to the organisation in managing the future establishment and enhancement of team cohesion, and when integrating new team members to the environment during organisational restructuring and re-alignment after acquisitions and mergers, without negatively affecting organisational effectiveness. These findings invariably provided new insight in managing and understanding inherent interpersonal conflict among employees in the workplace and the enhancement of team cohesion practices, thus adding to the existing body of knowledge in the fields of Consulting Psychology and Industrial and Organisational Psychology, more specifically in financial organisations. / Psychology / D. Phil. (Consulting Psychology)