» Articles » PMID: 37546435

Are You Threatening Me? Development and Validation of the Conflict Escalation Questionnaire

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2023 Aug 7
PMID 37546435
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument for measuring conflict escalation based on Glasl's conflict escalation model, which can also be used for measuring bullying conflicts. The instrument should be applicable both as a self-assessment and as an interviewer-assessment. In the first study, a first set of items measuring the stages of Glasl's model was developed and validated in an independent cross-sectional sample of 154 participants who completed the self-assessment. In 142 cases, interviews were conducted, and thus self and interviewer-assessments could be compared. In a second study, the final set of items was cross-validated on a second independent cross-sectional sample. In total, 105 participants completed the self-assessment only and 114 were part of the interview study. Because Glasl's model is complex, scale validation was based on a combination of classical statistical validation procedures. Both studies indicate good validity of the new instrument and provide evidence for Glasl's conflict escalation model. As expected, conflict escalation was positively related to negative affect, irritation, and depression. Relationship conflict was more prevalent in more highly escalated conflicts as compared to lower escalated conflicts. Victims of workplace bullying were classified in high escalation levels and showed higher inferiority in conflict situations compared to non-victims with highly escalated conflicts. The present instrument can be used to assess qualitative differences in conflict escalation and thus complements existing instruments to measure conflicts. It is especially useful for practitioners, as they can assess conflict escalation more accurately and thus better choose the appropriate form of intervention.

Citing Articles

Assessing Workplace Violence: Methodological Considerations.

Magnavita N, Larese Filon F, Giorgi G, Meraglia I, Chirico F Med Lav. 2024; 115(1):e2024003.

PMID: 38411977 PMC: 10915676. DOI: 10.23749/mdl.v115i1.15186.

References
1.
Spector P, Chen P, OConnell B . A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 85(2):211-8. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.211. View

2.
Dormann C, Zapf D . Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive symptoms: testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 84(6):874-84. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.874. View

3.
Meier L, Gross S, Spector P, Semmer N . Relationship and task conflict at work: interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. J Occup Health Psychol. 2013; 18(2):144-56. DOI: 10.1037/a0032090. View

4.
Clark L, Watson D . Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess. 2019; 31(12):1412-1427. PMC: 6754793. DOI: 10.1037/pas0000626. View

5.
WATSON D, Clark L, Tellegen A . Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(6):1063-70. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. View