Introduction
Group 4 (Maryam Sultana,Hajra,Unza)
A large body of research shows that conflict between people is common in human nature,
whenever people interact and get into relationships, there is a probability of disagreements and
conflicts (Birditt, Brown, &Orbuch, 2010; Coser, 1956; Dew & Dakin, 2011; Fisher, 1970;
Gottman, 2014; Horney, 1937; Iqbal, Gillani, & Kamal, 2013; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977; Mack,
1966; Watkins, 1974)
In reality, disagreements can be constructive (Coser, 1956; Williamson, Liku, McLoughlin,
Nyamongo, &Nakayima, 2006). Relationships can be strengthened if the interpersonal
disagreements are managed in a healthy manner (Dew & Dakin, 2011; Downs & Downs, 2009;
Teven, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1998; Tuval-Mashiach & Shulman, 2007).
The discriminations between “good conflict” and “bad conflict” gave rise to the concept of
disagreement tolerance (Burgoon, Heston, & McCroskey, 1974; Crowley, 2006; Mayer, 2010;
O‟Gallagher, 2015).
In 1976, McCroskey and Wheeless differentiated disagreements from conflicts, proposing that
disagreements merely refer to difference in opinions, while conflicts are associated with hostility,
mistrust and aggression. According to them, people with healthier relationships will have lower
instances of disagreements turning into conflicts, as compared to people who lack positivity in
their relationships. They used the term "tolerance for disagreement" in order to explain the
threshold people have for dealing with interpersonal conflicts (Teven et al., 1998).
1.1 Tolerance for Disagreement
Using the definition of Disagreement as "a difference of opinion on
substantive or procedural matters," and the definition of Conflict as "disagreement plus
negative interpersonal affect," Knutson et al. (1978) speculated that the likelihood of conflict
in a dyad or organization increases as a function of either low tolerance for disagreement
among one or all participants, or a low degree of positive affect among two or more of the
participants. From this perspective, conflict is viewed in a negative light (leading to
dissatisfaction with the conflict-generating environment) but disagreement is viewed as
positive unless either tolerance for disagreement is low or positive affect is low.
Tolerance for disagreement is a product of interaction between people (Crowley, 2006;
McCroskey &Wheeless, 1976). Individual difference orientation was also explained by Knutson,
McCroskey, Knutson, and Hurt (1979) by further expanding the concept of tolerance for
disagreement. This approach was used by them to explain the reason behind the perceptions of
people about conflict, which is the reason why some people are subjected to get involved in
conflicts sooner while others don’t. Disagreement was defined by them as “disagreement on
substantive and procedural matters” and conflict was considered to be “disagreement involving
negative interpersonal affect”. Since this conceptualization, the construct of tolerance for
disagreement has been studied in organizational (Chan, Huang, & Ng, 2008) and interpersonal
contexts (Carr, 2009)
Based on this concept, McCroskey (1992) proposed that “people with a high tolerance for
disagreement are relatively conflict resistant, whereas people with a low tolerance for
disagreement are highly conflict prone” (p. 172). High tolerance for disagreement enables a
person to present their ideas and frame the arguments more appropriately (Richmond &
McCroskey, 2010).
Disagreements or differences in opinion are inevitable but if one is armed with good
communication skills then the outcome can be constructive without allowing it to become a
conflict (Teven, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1998). Some dispositional factors may determine
how an individual may communicate and what degree of tolerance for disagreement may be
expected of them (McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001)
Tolerance does not require you to see every argument as equal in value. It only gives you the
ability to see both sides of the picture and make a better more informed decision. John Stuart
Mill argued that one must allow conflicting views to surface because dialogue and exchange of
ideas will give you a vivid picture of your own reality (Gillmorr, Barron, Simon, & Terry, 1990).
1.12. Theories of tolerance for Disagreement
Disagreement tolerance would not only shape your own
perceptions but it will also influence how others see you. Teven (2000) has applied the concept
of tolerance for disagreement in academic settings and attempted to create a measure especially
for teachers. He also explored how tolerance for disagreement affected the perceptions of
students regarding their teachers. Teven’s findings (2000; 2005) suggest that the teacher was
viewed as more caring when the teacher’s disagreement tolerance was higher in student’s
perception and they reported higher affect for the course and less cognitive learning loss.
[Link] conceptualization was also in line with the work of McCroskey, Knutson, and Hurt
(1975). They argued that disagreements not involving personal issues and remaining just
disagreements on procedural and substantive matters are merely harmless disagreements.
Disagreements on personal issues are called as interpersonal conflict by some researchers.
According to these theorists, disagreements become conflicts when the abovementioned aspects
get combined. This idea was much easier to grasp for the lay persons as compared to the earlier
advanced idea of good/bad conflict. They also confessed that it might be difficult for some
people to differentiate between disagreement and conflict no matter if the person is a participant
in the communication or an observer of the conversation. They considered this trait to be present
in different intensity in different people as there are individual differences in the perceptions of
conflicts and some people might perceive a conflict to be present in the conversation sooner than
others.
References Of Tolerance for Disagreement :
Birditt, K. S., Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., &McIlvane, J. M. (2010). Marital conflict behaviors and
implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1188-1204.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Dew, J., & Dakin, J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. Journal of
Financial Therapy, 2(1), 7.
Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech
Monographs, 37, 53-66.
Gottman, J. M. (2014). What predicts divorce?:The relationship between marital processes and
marital outcomes. Psychology Press.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W. W. Norton.
Iqbal, N., Gillani, N., & Kamal, A. (2013). Conflict Management Styles and its Outcome among
Married Couples. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 33.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced choice measure of conflict
handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37,
309-325.
Watkins, C. (1974). An analytic model of conflict. Speech Monographs, 41, 1-5.
Williamson, N. E., Liku, J., McLoughlin, K., Nyamongo, I. K., &Nakayima, F. (2006). A
qualitative study of condom use among married couples in Kampala, Uganda. Journal
Reproductive Health Matters,14(28), 89-98.
Dew, J., & Dakin, J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. Journal of
Financial Therapy, 2(1), 7.
Tuval‐Mashiach, R., & Shulman, S. (2006). Resolution of disagreements between romantic
partners, among adolescents, and young adults: Qualitative analysis of interaction discourses.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(4), 561- 588.
Burgoon, M., Heston, J. K., & McCroskey, J.C. (1974). Small group communication: A
functional approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Crowley, A. K. (2006). The relationship of adult attachment style and interactive conflict styles
to marital satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2008). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 68, 3744.
Mayer, B. (2010). The dynamics of conflict resolution: A practitioner's guide. John Wiley &
Sons.
Teven, J. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). Measurement of tolerance for
disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 209-217.
McCroskey, J. C., & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Introduction to human communication. Boston,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
[Link], P. K., McCroskey, J. C., Knutson, T., & Hurt, H. (1979). Tolerance for
disagreement: Interpersonal conflict reconceptualized. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the Western Speech Communication, Los Angeles, 1979. [Link]
McCroskey, J. C., Knutson, T. J., & Hurt, H. T. (1975). New perspectives on conflict
management. Panel presentation at the annual convention of the West Virginia Speech
Association, Weston, WV.
Chan, K. W., Huang, X., & Ng, P. M. (2008). Managers‟ conflict management styles and
employee attitudinal outcomes: The mediating role of trust. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
25(2), 277-295.
Carr, K. R. (2009). Emotional intelligence, tolerance for disagreement, and the motivation to
sustain serial arguments: Implications for relational satisfaction and closeness (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas Christian University).
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). An introduction to communcation in the classroom. Edina, MN:
Burgess International.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2010). Tolerance for disagreement. (T. Avtgis, & A.
Rancer, Eds.)
Knutson, P. K., McCroskey, J. C., Knutson, T., & Hurt, H. (1979). Tolerance for disagreement:
Interpersonal conflict reconceptualized. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
Western Speech Communication, Los Angeles, 1979.
Teven, J. J., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Measurement of Tolerance for
Disagreement. Communication Research Report , 15 (2), 209-217.
McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V. P. (2001). Eysenck's BIG THREE and
Communication Traits: Three Longitudinal Studies. Communication Monographs , 68 (4), 360-
366.
Gillmorr, D. M., Barron, J. A., Simon, T. F., & Terry, H. A. (1990). Mass Communication Law.
St. Paul, MN: West.
Teven, J. J. (2005). Teacher socio-communicator style and tolerance for disagreement and their
association with student learning in the college classroom. Texas Speech Communication Journal
, 30, 23-35.
Teven, J. J. (2000). The development of teacher tolerance for disagreement measure. Iowa
Journal of communication , 32, 117- 130.
KNUTSON, P.K., McCROSKEY, J.C., KNUTSON, T., & HURT, H. Tolerance for
disagreement: Interpersonal conflict reconceptualized. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the Western Speech Communication, Los Angeles, 1979.
1.2. Fear of Negative Evaluation.
Definition:
Fear of negative evaluation (FNE) was originally defined as a trait related to
“apprehension about others’ evaluations, distress over their negative evaluations, avoidance of
evaluative situations and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively” (Watson
& Friend, 1969, p. 449). Social evaluations are an integral part of day-to-day interactions in
social groups (Schoeneman, 1983). They are also a means of hierarchically organizing social
networks (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004).
According to Gilbert (2014) closely monitoring these evaluations in order to appropriately
regulate behavior might have been evolutionary advantageous. Certain individuals, however,
exhibit particularly strong and stable, fearful cognitions regarding the consequences of such
evaluations. Such pronounced fears of evaluation were shown to go along with negative
consequences in several domains of social, emotional and cognitive functioning (Reichenberger
& Blechert, submitted), which has intrigued researchers from several domains alike and
motivated additional research on the nature and correlates of such evaluation centered fears. FNE
lies at the core of most conceptualizations of social anxiety (e.g., Clark & Wells, 1995;
Heimberg, Brozovich, & Rapee, 2010).
More recently, a complementary construct was introduced, fear of positive evaluation (FPE),
described as feelings of discomfort in face of favorable evaluation, associated cognitions and
behavioral avoidance of such occasions. This less intuitive component of social anxiety is
explained in a psychoevolutionary framework.
Accordingly, positive evaluation results in a relative upward shift in the social hierarchy,
thereby bringing the individual in conflict with higher-ranking group members (Gilbert, 2001,
2014; Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks & Howell, 2012). Hence, FPE, by
avoiding positive evaluations, serves to avoid upward hierarchical movements and ensures a
stable intermediate position in social hierarchy and protection from rank-related conflict. The
same psycho-evolutionary account explains that negative evaluations decrease social status
(commensurate to social rank) with the risk of ultimate social exclusion. Thus, FNE supposedly
serves to avoid downward shifts in social hierarchy. Albeit related (and often positively
correlated), FNE and FPE have been repeatedly been shown to resemble partially independent
and unique constructs (e.g., Reichenberger, Wiggert, Wilhelm, Weeks, & Blechert, 2015; Weeks
et al., 2008). That is, each explains independent variance in socially anxious behaviors, but
produces particularly pronounced impairments when occurring together (Lipton, Weeks, & De
Los Reyes, 2016). In fact, impairments in individuals with FNE and FPE have been reported in
various domains (e.g., cognitive and behavioral), yet research on emotional correlates from
externally valid assessment approaches is limited (Reichenberger & Blechert, submitted).
1.2.1 Theories of Negative Evaluation.
[Link] Cognitive Theory:
The fear of negative evaluation (FNE) is considered to be a hallmark of social anxiety. Cognitive
theories posit that this fear may result from biased information processing, particularly when
anticipating a fearful event (Clark and McManus, 2002). Socially anxious individuals exhibit
maladaptive appraisal of social situations, which is characterized by the selective retrieval of
negative information about themselves (Rapee and Heimberg, 1997). This biased information is
then utilized to make negative self-evaluations (Rapee and Heimberg, 1997; Clark and
McManus, 2002).In most cognitive models it is postulated that individuals with social anxiety
display a variety of information processing biases (e.g., negative self-referential biases, increased
self-focused attention) that generate feelings of anxiety. This anxiety and the negative appraisal
of the self contribute to the maintenance of social anxiety by a series of vicious cycles (Clark and
McManus, 2002; Morrison and Heimberg, 2013).
[Link] Neurocognitive Theory:
Neurocognitive theories posit that these information processing biases
may be due to aberrant emotion regulation strategies, caused by impaired top-down regulation of
negative affect by prefrontal brain structures (Etkin and Wager, 2007; Etkin, 2010; Brühl et al.,
2011; Brühl et al., 2013). To date, however, the neural underpinnings of information processing
biases related to FNE remain poorly understood.
References:
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457. Doi: 10.1037/h0027806.
Schoeneman, T. J. (1983). Frequency of social evaluation in self-observed daily interactions.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 11, 77–80. Doi:
10.2224/sbp.1983.11.1.77.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is
threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1191–1216. Doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.
Reichenberger, J., & Blechert, J. (submitted). Malaise with praise: A narrative review of 10 years
of research on the concept of Fear of Positive Evaluation in Social Anxiety.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R.
Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and
treatment (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
(Gilbert, 2001Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: The role of attraction social
competition, and social hierarchies. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24, 723–751. Doi:
10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70260-4 2014; Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks &
Howell, 2012).
Reichenberger, J., Wiggert, N., Wilhelm, F. H., Weeks, J. W., & Blechert, J. (2015). “Don’t put
me down but don’t be too nice to me either”: Fear of positive vs. negative evaluation and
responses to positive vs. negative social-evaluative films. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 46, 164–169. Doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.10.004.
Lipton, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & De Los Reyes, A. (2016). Individual differences in fears of
negative versus positive evaluation: Frequencies and clinical correlates. Personality and
Individual Differences, 98, 193–198. Doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.03.072.
Reichenberger, J., & Blechert, J. (submitted). Malaise with praise: A narrative review of 10 years
of research on the concept of Fear of Positive Evaluation in Social.
Clark D. M., McManus F. (2002). Information processing in social phobia. Biol. Psychiatry 51
92–100 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01296-3.
Rapee R. M., Heimberg R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia.
Behav. Res. Ther. 35 741–756 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3.
Etkin A., Wager T. D. (2007). Functional neuroimaging of anxiety: a meta-analysis of emotional
processing in PTSD, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. Am. J. Psychiatry 164 1476–
1488 10.1176/[Link].2007.07030504.
Etkin A. (2010). Functional neuroanatomy of anxiety: a neural circuit perspective. Curr. Top.
Behav. Neurosci. 2 251–277 10.1007/7854_2009_5.
