Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 21.7
Means and SD
of conflict ratings for TKI
conflict style (avoidant style
is omitted because it did not
appear as a dominant style)
TKI style
N
(percentage)
Mean
SD
Accommodation
736 (70.2 %)
3:82 3:1
Collaboration
221 (21.1 %)
2:60 3:37
Competition
41 (3.9 %)
2:15 2:69
Compromise
51 (4.9 %)
3:71 4:51
Total
1,049
3:49 3:27
Table 21.8
The result of
one-way ANOVA analysis on
the conflict ratings by TKI
style
Source df SS MS
F
Sig.
Between 3 334
111:43 10:7 0:0000
Within 1,045 10,881.91
10:41
Signif. codes: 0 “***” 0.001 “**” 0.01 “*” 0.05 “.”
accommodation
collaboration
competition
compromise
TKI style
Fig. 21.7
The means of conflict ratings by the student's dominant TKI style (number of
reports
D
1,049)
one-way ANOVA on the groups we find significant differences in conflict ratings
among TKI style groups (
F
(3,1045)
D
10.7,
p D 0:000
) (see Table
21.8
). Since the
conflict ratings do not necessarily follow a normal distribution, we ran the Kruskal-
Wallis test which also showed that TKI style has a significant impact on the conflict
ratings (
H
(3)
D
40.0453,
p
-value
D
1.042e
08). Moreover, a post-hoc Tukey test
showed that the conflict ratings reported by the students in the accommodation
group differed from those reported by the students in the competition group and
those in the collaboration group significantly at
p < 0:01
.
The conflict ratings reported by the students in the compromise group were not
significantly different from the other three groups, although some differences are
shown (see Fig.
21.7
).
Analysis and Discussion
The statistical analysis presented here shows that a
student's self-evaluation of her conflict management style has an impact on her
conflict ratings. It appears that the TKI style is linked to the student's judgement
about a conflict situation in terms of intensity. The students in the accommodation
Search WWH ::
Custom Search