OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATOR STYLE IN RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENTS THAT ARISE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS by Peter M. Wharton A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Higher Education and Administration 1979 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATOR STYLE IN RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENTS THAT ARISE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS by Peter M. Wharton Statement of the Problem This study was planned to investigate and measure administrator effectiveness in conflict situations and attempt to identify a communicator style that is most effective in managing conflicts. It was assumed that a study of the effects of communi- cator style in resolving conflicts between administrators and teachers might identify a style that is more effective than others. Sources of Data and Methodology Three videotape recordings of the manipulated independent variable, communicator style, were randomly assigned to three intact groups of teachers. The independent variable was manipulated at three different levels: positively reinforcing style, neutral style, and condescending style. Four dependent variables consisted of perceived credibility, perceived interpersonal attractiveness, perceived outcome of the conflict, and amount of information retained by teachers from the conflict transaction. After viewing Peter M. Wharton the videotape recordings the subjects filled out a questionnaire containing measures of the dependent variables. Major Findings and Conclusions The findings in the study indicated no significant differences in the use of communicator style on the perceptions of the principal's qualification and dynamism, the principal's interpersonal attractiveness, prediction of outcome and information retention. However, the results reported for Hypothesis l suggest that teachers' perceptions of a principal's qualification may be influenced by a principal's communicator style. The principal was perceived as most qualified when using a neutral style and least qualified when using a positively reinforcing style with the condescending style falling in between. This could be attributed to the adversarial role of the principal or the expectations a teacher might have of a principal's communicator style when involved in a conflict situation. The fact that no significant relationships were identified should not be viewed as discouraging. These research findings could be of importance in providing insights for administrators managing and dealing with conflict daily. The lack of significant findings may be attributable to the limitations of the study. Perhaps, the manipulations of the communicator style variable was not strong enough. This would be difficult to assess given the lack or prior research indicating how strong the manipulations should have been. Another limiting factor may have been the Peter M. Wharton re-enacted conflict. It is possible that it may not have been a valid simulation of these types of conflicts. The researcher feels that the aforementioned are some of the more important variables to be considered. It is recognized that there are many other variables that may be just as significant in contributing to the limitations of the study. The teachers are consistently biased in favor of the teacher in conflict situations. The bias was suggested from the assessment of the responses to the questionnaire. Also, the findings suggest that the bias was partially responsible for the researcher not being able to attain the reliability even when using scales that had demonstrated reliability in previous research studies. Implications From these findings and conclusions it is suggested that: 1. Teachers as individuals and as a group should consider the following: a. Is the teacher bias suggested by the findings conscious or unconscius? b. Is the suggested bias of teachers consistent with their goals? 2. Administrators should know that communicator style appears to have little effect on resolving conflicts in dispute settlements pertaining to classroom observa- tions. The reason is the suggested teacher bias identified in this study. However, communicator style does affect teachers' percpetions of an administrator's credibility. It seems that a teacher's perception of an administrator's credibility is based on "Qualification." DEDICATION This volume is dedicated to my wife, Sharon, and to my children Kelly, Michael, and William. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and support of many people who helped him with this dissertation. Grateful thank you's to: All the members of my Committee, Dr. Samuel A. Moore 11, Dr. Norman E. Fontes, Dr. Richard Gardner, and Dr. Vandel Johnson, for their intellectual inspiration and continual support and guidance. I would particularly like to extend my sincere apprecia- tion to my chairman and friend, Samuel A. Moore. He is not only a gifted scholar, but a unique individual. His understanding and direction have been of immense importance in my graduate work and career. Dr. Walter Johnson for his assistance in the preparation of the final document and being present during the oral exam. Dr. Fontes for all that he has taught me and his friend- ship. His compassion and understanding coupled with his intellect have helped make my research study and graduate career a rewarding experience. Sherrie Jones, for her friendship, intellect, assistance and constructive criticism. Dr. Sally Bell, without whose help, friendship, and concern this study would have been much more difficult. My wife, Sharon, for all her kindness, patience, support and assistance. My children for being so understanding and considerate. iv LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . INTRODUCTION . Purpose of this Study . Need for the Study . . Importance to Education Definition of Tenns . . Limitations of the Study . Hypotheses . Procedures for Analysis of Data Overview . . . . Footnotes . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . Part l: Conflict and Conflict Resolution Part 2: Communication and Communicator Styles Footnotes . DESIGN Selection of Measures . Sample . . . Instrumentation . Procedure . Analysis Footnotes . TREATMENT AND FINDINGS Hypothesis l . Hypothesis 2 . Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4.. . Analysis of Demographic Data Summary of Findings of the Original Hypothesis. Page vii Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Implications . . Recommendations for Further Study. Footnotes . . . . . SELECTED REFERENCES APPENDICES A. DAVITZ (1964) CHARACTERISTICS OF VOCAL EXPRESSIONS B. THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TEACHER . . C. HELP WANTED NOTICE FOR AN ACTOR AND ACTRESS D. QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE TEACHER-ADMINISTRATOR CONFLICT SITUATION. . E. ANSWERS TO THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE (Information Retention Section Pages 2-9 and Questions 1-34) . . . . . . . F. THE EXPLANATION PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS WHO VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE . . . vi 78 83 9O 93 117 119 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Percent of Total and Common Variance: Evaluating Message Sources . Percent of Total and Common Variance: Evaluating Message Sources . A Summary of the Three Levels of the Independent Variable and the Four Dependent Measures A Three Factor Solution: Factor Loadings of Credibility Items . . . . . . A Two Factor Solution: Factor Loadings of Credibility Items . . . . . Mean and Analysis of Variance: Summary of the Effects of Communicator Style on the Assessment of the Principal's Perceived Qualification . Means and Analysis of Variance: Summary of the Effects of Communicator Style on the Assessment of the Principal's Perceived Dynamism Means and Analysis of Variance: Summary of the Effects of Communicator Style on the Perceptions of the Interpersonal Attractiveness of the Principal Chi-Square: Summary of Prediction of Outcome . Means and Analysis of Variance: Summary of the Effects of Communicator Style on Teachers' Informa- tion Retention . . . . . . . . . Chi-Square: Summary of Subjects' Sex Means and Analysis of Variance: Summary of Subjects' Ages Chi-Square: Summary of the Subjects' Educational Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 38 4O 46 50 52 53 55 56 57 59 61 62 63 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I understand a fury in your words But not the words 1 Shakespeare, Othello, Act IV Conflict management is an important aspect of school administration. Implicit in this, the administrator must be able to handle conflict situations effectively at the building level. It is, therefore, pertinent to know whether a particular communica- tor style, as defined by paralinguistic and nonverbal cues, is more effective than another in managing conflicts that arise between administrators and teachers. Also, it is useful to know the components of a particular communicator style. This would facilitate control and assist administrators in monitoring cues they are exhibiting. For these same reasons it is equally important to have an understanding of ineffective communicator styles and their major components. Purpose of this Study The researcher's purpose in this study was to measure administrator effectiveness in conflict situations and identify, if possible, a communicator style that is most effective in managing conflicts. School administrators encounter conflicts as an integral part of managing their buildings. Not all administrators, however, respond equally well to conflict. It was, therefore, hoped that a study of the effects of corrmunicator style in resolving conflicts between administrators and teachers would identify a style that is more effective than others. This type of finding might prove useful to people who find themselves in conflict situations in which they could use the more effective style if they were capable of doing so. In addition, a study such as this advances that aggregate of knowl- edge endemic to communication science. It ought to be useful to those specializing in this field. Need for the Study Butman states that the "essence of conflict resolution techniques, as presented in the literature, points to one basic strategy, that is, confront the conflict."2 However, in order to confront conflict one must have an understanding of the conflict itself and appropriate conflict coping strategies. In addition, an understanding of comnunicator styles could further help in resolving conflicts that arise in dispute settlements between administrators and teachers. Thus it is important for an administrator to select an appropriate conmunicator style when attempting to resolve a conflict with a teacher. Fink stated that "the existing diversity of empirical and theoretical approaches to the study of social conflict has produced a state of conceptual and terminological confusion, which impedes both comparisons between distinct classes of conflict phenomena and the process of theoretical integration."3 This statement provides somewhat of a basis for certain of the more recent literature. It should be noted and stressed that the scope of strategies for coping with and managing conflict is not nearly as extensive as the range of the theoretical bases from which it was derived. Again, this supports the need for further research into identifying effective communicator styles. However, according to authorities, confrontation has not always been a popular strategy for resolving conflicts. Authorities, such as Goodsell, Coleman, and Groth and Lohman, present surveys of possible strategies that suggest avoidant behaviors, such as accom- modation, withdrawing, and smoothing may be the prevailing strategies.4 This could be attributed to having not only an under- standing of the conflict situation itself, but also having an understanding of the theoretical bases for the conflict and an understanding of strategies to deal with a conflict. Thus, if administrators are lacking in one or more of these areas, they may choose to avoid dealing with conflict. This further suggests a need for conflict coping strategies. Bailey's work on conflict in educational administration deals with the difficulty in training administrators to handle conflict situations. He notes that most people learn only through 5 experience. Learning by experience is helpful but not necessarily the most desirable way for new administrators or administrators faced with a new situation and in need of guidance. Barnes agrees but adds that before administrators can effectively manage conflict they must first understand the nature of conflict.6 Research findings on conflict resolution lend support and direction to managing conflicts thus advancing the field. Many studies, such as Bernardin and Alvares, suggest that there is a need for further empirical research to determine managerial effectiveness in resolv- ing conflicts. A simple theory of leadership effectiveness appears to be lacking.7 It therefore seems that further research is needed to determine which communicator style is most effective in dealing with conflict situations. Importance to Education One purpose ascribed to education has been to add to existing knowledge. The researcher intended in this study to bring together knowledge of research on conflict management and/or resolution and knowledge regarding effective communicator styles and, using this knowledge as a basis to develop new knowledge on the effects of communicator style in resolving conflicts. It was intended that through this study, the researcher would add to existing knowledge and literature a description of communicator styles that are effective in resolving conflicts and means to measure administrator effectiveness in conflict situations. The research of Barnes and Deutsch, contains informa- tion on various aspects of conflict ranging from definitions to 8 9 situational descriptions. ’ Mehrabian's work describes aspects of communicator styles as defined by paralinguistics and nonverbal cues.10 Little has been done to correlate the relationship between communicator style and its effect on reducing conflict. The researcher strove to add to existing knowledge of communication science and its relation to conflict coping strategies that can be effectively used by administrators. It was the researcher's intent to add to the existing literature: reliable means to measure communicator effectiveness in conflict situations: delineation of an effective communicator style or styles to resolve conflict; integration of the current research findings in both communicator style and conflict resolution to research the effects of communicator style on conflict resolution. The researcher defined conflict resolution as strategies employed by an administrator to settle or resolve a conflict. Communicator style was defined by the researcher as the manner of conduct or action exhibited by the administrator in attempting to resolve a conflict situation involving a teacher. The component parts of the style were paralinguistic and nonverbal cues. The researcher manipulated communicator style using three different levels and videotape simulations. An explication of the videotape procedure can be found in Chapter III. Harpole points out that "conflict is one of the most basic aspects of human interchange and one of the most complex since it involves both reason and emotion, shared interests and differences, and varying levels of information among the persons or groups in the conflict."H Keefe states that "conflict can be a positive phenomenon, a usable one. A manager can build on it if he understands what conflict, in what circumstances, contributes to the organization's betterment, to decision-making, to creativity and innovation."12 Thus, it is important for an administrator to have an understanding of conflict to determine the usefulness or inappropriateness of it in dealing with various situations. Konrad's work on conflict points out that school boards encounter conflict as an integral part of managing school systems. Not all administrations respond equally well to conflict. When there is a failure to manage conflict, it may become dysfunctional.13 Numerous studies, such as Pennington and Hatley, suggest that further research on conflict be conducted with several new concep- tual and methodological directions. The question as to whether role conflict and role conflict resolution modes are uniquely ordered relative to issue specificity and hierarchial position within the organization must be raised and answered in future empirical investigations.14 Communication is an important element in the management of interpersonal and intergroup conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the relationship between communicator style and conflict management. To date, little has been done to determine which style may or may not be effective in conflict resolution; nor has an investigation of paralinguistic cues as component parts of communicator style been conducted. However, various researchers have studied linguistic uses and paralinguistic cues which would support the position that one could empirically evaluate that style or set of paralinguistic cues which might be effective in managing conflict. Definition of Terms Administrator: An elementary principal responsible for the supervision of both primary and intermediate levels in a school. Communicator Style: The manner of conduct or action exhibited by the administrator in attempting to resolve a conflict situation involving a teacher. Three types of styles were utilized in this study including positively reinforcing communicator style, neutral communicator style, and condescending communicator style. Positively reinforcing communicator style is the manner of conduct characterized by the following major components: frequent eye contact, head nod, hand and arm gestures. Also, exhibitions of a number of positive facial expressions, such as, smiles and pleasant- ness. The body position would be leaning toward the person when addressing them. The paralinguistic components for this style were a higher speech rate and a lower rate of speech disturbance. The neutral communicator style is the manner of conduct character- ized by the following major components: moderate eye contact, head nod, hand and arm gestures. Also, exhibitions of minimal facial expressions and sitting in a vertical position when addressing a person. The paralinguistic components for this style were a normal speech rate and an average or moderate rate of speech disturbance. The condescending communicator style is the manner of conduct characterized by the following major components: minimal eye contact, head nod, hand and arm gestures. Also, exhibition of negative facial expressions and leaning away from a person when addressing them. The paralinguistic components for this style were a slow speech rate and a lower rate of speech disturbance. Conflict: According to Lohman and Groth "conflict is two or more human parties in an interdependent relationship faced with a choice involving incompatible or mutually exclusive alternatives where the differences regarding each party's commitment to one alternative or the other are based upon incompatible self-interests or values."15 Conflict Resolution: Strategies employed by an administra- tor to settle or resolve a conflict. The author tried to expand this definition by identifying the most effective conmunicator style which might help in conflict resolution. Dispute Settlement: An agreement reached between two conflicting parties. Information Retention: The amount of information presented by the participants in a conflict situation that a teacher remembers at the conclusion of the conflict. Intact Groups: The subjects that receive the experimental treatment. Each intact group consisted of thirty certified elemen- tary teachers who volunteer to participate in the research. Nonverbal Communication: The exchange of information through nonlinguistic cues. The symbols and signs which are primarily nonlinguistic exhibited by a communicator.- The cues manifested by a communicator that are nonverbal and nonlinguistic. Paralinguistic Cues: These are voice qualities including pitch range, pitch control, rhythm control, tempo, articulation control, resonance, glottis control, and vocal lip control according l6 to Harrison. Perceived Credibilityzg Teachers' evaluations of the per- formance of a principal in conflict situations based on the follow- ing three dimensions: Safety: safe-unsafe; just-unjust; kind-cruel; friendly- unfriendly; honest-dishonest. Qualification: trained-untrained; experienced-inexperienced; skilled-unskilled; qualified-unqualified: informed-uninformed. Dynamism: Aggressive-meek; emphatic-hesitant; bold-timid; active-passive; energetic-tired. The principal's perceived credibility by teachers was based on these dimensions. Percevied Interpersonal Attractiveness: The subjects indicated on a rating scale whether they liked or disliked a person and if they would enjoy working with that person. Perceived Outcome of the Conflict: The subjects were asked if the simulated conflict situation was resolved or appealed. 10 Teacher: Certified personnel responsible for the instruction of elementary students in either primary or intermediate levels in an elementary school. Limitations of the Study The researcher examined the effects of three communicator styles in resolving conflicts in dispute settlements that arise between administrators and teachers. The results of the examina- tion were limited by the following: 1. The type of conflict in the study was based on a classroom observation. The nature of the sample was confined to elementary teachers in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. The Grosse Pointe Elementary Teaching Staff is different from most other elementary teacher groups. The reasons for this are: (a) Grosse Pointe is an affluent community, (b) the teachers are of a very high caliber and compensated accordingly and (c) the community is very supportive of its schools. There was a limited amount of previous research. The subjects viewed a videotape simulation. It would have been better if they could have viewed a live conflict. Hypotheses Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be preceived by teachers as more credible than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more credible than principals who use condescending cues. Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be preceived by teachers as more interpersonally attractive than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more interpersonally attractive than principals who use condescending cues. 11 H3: Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will have more settled conflict outcomes than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will have more settled outcomes than principals who. use condescending cues. H4: Teachers involved in conflicts with principals who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will retain more information provided by the principals than teachers interacting with principals who employ neutral cues, and teachers in conflict with principals who use neutral cues will retain more information than teachers interacting with principals who use condescend- ing cues. Procedures for Analysis of Data The problem was to identify and manipulate a particular communicator style, as defined by paralinguistic and nonverbal cues, if any, that is more effective than another in managing conflicts that arise in dispute settlements between administrators and teachers. A questionnaire containing items measuring the dependent variables was employed in the study. The questionnaire also contained demographic indicants that allowed the researcher to examine the comparability of the groups to ensure that no differences existed across subjects that would confound the results. A review of the literature on communicator style in resolving conflicts in dispute settlements that arise between administrators and teachers revealed agreement that an effective communicator style could contribute to effective leadership which is essential to conflict resolution. Studies examined included the 12 role of communication environments in conflict management, group problem solving, and conflict resolution and managerial effective- ness. For the purposes of this study, four dependent variables were identified. They were: l. Perceived Credibility of the Principal Perceived Interpersonal Attractiveness of the Principal Perceived Outcome of the Conflict--accepted or appealed (A) c» N o o 0 Amount of Information Retained by Teachers from the the Conflict Transactions It was hypothesized that scores on the dependent variables would by systematically influenced by the different communicator styles included in this study. Study participants were randomly assigned to the three experimental treatment conditions. The three videotape recordings of the manipulated independent variable, communicator style, were randomly assigned to the three intact groups of teachers. The independent variable, communicator style, was manipulated at three different levels. The three levels were: l. Positively Reinforcing Style 2. Neutral Style 3. Condescending Style The styles were conceptually defined in terms of the nonverbal and paralinguistic cues associated with each of the respective styles. Each subject was provided an opportunity to respond to a questionnaire which contained items designed to measure (l) perceived source credibility, (2) perceived interpersonal 13 attractiveness, (3) perceived outcome of conflict, and (4) amount of infbrmation retained. The analyses of these measures would then provide a degree of relationship supporting an effective communica- tor style. The hypotheses were tested using a one by three independent groups design. A total of 90 subjects was selected from a popula- tion of elementary teachers, primary and intermediate levels, of the Grosse Pointe Public School System in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. H1: Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be perceived as more credible than princiapls who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more credible than principals who use condescending cues. Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be perceived by teachers as more interpersonally attractive than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more interperson- ally attractive than principals who use condesceding cues. Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will have more settled conflict outcomes than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will have more settled outcomes than principals who use condescend- ing cues. Teachers involved in conflicts with principals who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will retain more information provided by the principals than teachers interacting with principals who employ neutral cues, and teachers in conflict with principals who use neutral cues will retain more information than teachers interacting with principals who use condescend- ing cues. The .05 level of significance was used for all statistical tests of these hypotheses. 14 Overview Following this general introduction to the study, related readings and research are reviewed M1Chapter II. In Chapter III the author reported the methodology used in the study with various summaries of the collected data appearing in Chapter IV. Implica- tions of these data and recommendations for future action are considered in Chapter V. A bibliography and various appropriate appendices conclude the study. CHAPTER I FOOTNOTES 1William Aldis Wright, The Complete Workg of William Shakespeare (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1936), p. 967. 2Jean W. Butman, Final Formative Evaluation and Negptiative Problem Solving Teachin Com etencies Pro ram (Washington: National Institute of Education DHEW , 9 7 , p. 4. 3Clifton F. Fink, "Some Conceptual Difficulties in the Theory of Social Conflict," The Journal of Conflict Resolution, ed. Bruce Russett (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1978), p. 416. 4David R. Goodsell, "Adult Leadership and Conflict Resolu- tion," Adult Leadership, ed. Nicholas P. Mitchell (Washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association of the United States, 1974),p. 236; Peter Coleman, “The Increased Pluralism and Politicization of Public Education--Coping With Conflict," Address to the Annual Meeting for District Superintendents (Toronto, 1976): and John Lohman and G. Groth, Social Conflict and Negptiative Problem Solving (Portland: Northwest Regional—Educational Laboratory, 1976), p. 22. 5Steven Bailey, "Preparing Educational Administrators for Conflict Resolution," Address to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting_(New_York: 1971). 6Roland E. Barnes, "Understanding the Nature of Conflict: Neglected Dimension," Educational Administration (Pittsburg: Center for the Study of Desegregation and Conflict, University of Pittsburg, 1974), p. 4. 7John Bernardin and Ken Alvares, The ManagerialtGrid as a Predictor of Conflict Resolution Method apleanagerial Effectiveness (Washington, D. C.: NationaTTThstitute of Education (DHEW), 1971), p. 4. 8Barnes, pp. 1-19. gMorton Duetsch, "Conflict and Its Resolution," Conflict Resolution: Contributions of The Behavioral Sciences, ed. Glagett G. Smith, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), pp. 23-37. 10A. Mehrabian, "Methods and Designs: Some Referents and Measures of Nonverbal Behavior," Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation (New York: Basic Books,—1969), pp. 203-207. 15 16 11Charles H. Harpole, "Conflict Management in Communication Environments" (Washington: National Institute of Education (DHEW), 1974), pp. 353-358. 12William F. Keefe, Listen Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 151-156. 13Abram G. Konrad, "Social Status and Conflict Management in Local School Districts," Abstract of Ph.D. Dissertation Stanford University, 1966. 14Buddy R. Pennington, Richard V. Hatley, "Role Conflict Resolution Behavior of Kansas Public High School Principals," Paper presented at the American educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1974. 15Lohman and Groth, p. 11. 16Randall P. Harrison, Beyond Words: An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 25. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In Chapter I, the rationale and general overview of the study were presented. In Chapter II, the author examined, in two parts, current related readings and research in: 1. Conflict and Conflict Resolution. 2. Communication and Communicator Style. Part 1: Conflict and Conflict Resolution John Dewey states: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheeplike possivity, and sets us at noting and contriving . . . conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.1 Conflict as defined by Groth and Lohman, is two or more human parties in an interdependent relationship faced with a choice involving incompatible or mutually exclusive alternatives where the differences regarding each party's commitment to one alterna- tive or the other are based upon incompatible self-interests or values.2 Most often in the literature conflict is accepted as meaning a struggle over values and claim to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals according to Coser.3 17 18 Conflict resolution is defined as strategies employed by an administrator to settle or resolve a conflict. Harpole points out that "conflict is one of the most basic aspects of human interchange and one of the most complex since it involves both reason and emotion, shared interests and differences, and varying levels of information among the persons or groups in the conflict."4 Furthermore, communication is a key to the management of the differences in interpersonal and intergroup conflict. Therefore, it seems important to have a more thorough understanding of the relationship between corrmunicator style and conflict management. An understanding of this relationship should assist in enabling administrators to effectively deal with conflict situations and enhance their efficiency in dealing with teachers at the building level. Keefe states that "conflict is life and the spark of life when all is said and done." He also feels that if we listen according to the rules--and learn what conflict can teach you of the speaker or speakers; and remember that it is normal and can produce creativity, innovation, inventiveness, problem resolutions; and judge it not on the basis of whether it is inherently "bad" or "good" but on the basis of its end intent as far as the organiza- tion is concerned: then you have the key to both allowing and utilizing it.5 Deutsch has outlined several variables involved in conflicts of different types of units--individuals, groups, organizations and nations: (a) (b) (C) (e) (f) 19 The characteristics of the parties in conflict (their values and motivations; their aspirations and objectives; their physical, intellectual, and social resources for waging or resolving conflict; their beliefs about conflict, including their conceptions of strategy and tactics); Their prior relationship to one another (their attitudes, beliefs, and expectations about one another, including the beliefs about the other's view of oneself, and particularly the degree of polariza- tion which has occurred on such evaluations as "good- bad," "trustworthy-untrustworthy"): The nature of the issue giving rise to the conflict (its scope, its rigidity, its motivational significance, its formulation,its periodicity, etc.); The social environment within which the conflict occurs (the facilities and restraints, the encourage- ments and deterients it provides with regard to the different strategies and tactics of waging or resolv- ing conflict, including the nature of the social norms and institutional forms for regulating conflict); The interested audiences to the conflict (their relationships to the parties in conflict and to one another; their interests in the conflict and its outcomes: their characteristics); The strategy and tactics employed by the parties in the conflict (in assessing one another's utilities, disutilities, and subjective probabilities: influencing the other's conceptions of one's own utilities and disutilities through tactics which vary along such dimensions as legitimacy, illegitimacy, the relative use of positive and negative incentives such as promises and rewards or threats and punishments, freedom of choice-coercion, the openness and veracity of communication and sharing of information, the degree of credibility, the degree of commitment, the types of motives appealed to, and so on); The consequences of the conflict to each of the participants and to other interested parties (the gains or losses relating to the immediate issue in conflict, the precedents established, the internal changes in the participants resulting from engaging in conflict, the long-term effects on the relationship 20 between the parties involved, the reputation that each party develops in the eyes of the various interested audiences). According to Rausch and Wohling "interpersonal conflict can have many sources. In perhaps its most basic form, it is the result of differences in ideological or philosophical outlook between two people or between two groups."7 Interpersonal conflict can also be a result of differences in personalities or a discord of emotions. Another important aspect of conflict is incompatibility. Incompatability is often times a commonly recognized goal of conflicting parties. Schmidt and Kochan believe "perception of goal incompatibility is a necessary precondition for either conflict or competition. This implies that goal attainment by one unit is seen to prevent others from achieving their goals under "8 In other the same circumstances or with equivalent outcomes. words, the extent that goals are incompatible and the severity of the disagreement may determine the appropriate strategy for coping with the conflict. The domain of sources of conflict entails the greatest infraction of variables which results in an influence on strategies to choose from in coping with conflict. Main and Roark identify four sources of conflict: conflict of interest; conflict of values; control of power; and misperception.9 Woturba poses a different set of origins: conflict over purpose, conflict over role and conflict over authority. The 21 various sources of conflict can have an influence on the choice of an appropriate strategy. An example of this would be a collabora- tive problem solving strategy may be effective in resolving a conflict over scarcity of resources, but it would not be appropriate fbr dealing with a value conflict.10 While conflict is generally viewed in a negative context, it should be pointed out that there are many positive functions of conflict as well. Deutsch and Hilyard found that conflict prevents stagnation and stimulates interest and curiosity. Conflict is a process through which problems can be disclosed. In addition, conflict is often regarded as a contributing factor to personal and social change. Simply stated, conflict can be a constructive process if dealt with effectively.n As previously stated, conflict resolution is defined as strategies employed by an administrator to settle or resolve a conflict. According to Harpole "the history of studies on conflict shows that earlier attempts at understanding its mechanisms centered upon conflict resolution. This approach failed to recog- nize two important, perhaps overriding, aspects of the subject: that not all conflict is, in itself, bad, and that few, if any, serious human conflicts can actually be resolved with assured finality. Thus, recent investigations have concentrated upon the approach and concepts implicit in a term of current and more accurate usage--conflict management."12 22 Barnes identifies a list of characteristics for the administrator who would be able to effectively manage conflicts. Barnes' remarks outline what could be called the anticipatory approach to conflict resolution. The anticipatory approach is essentially a way of thinking about conflict. It contains an understanding of conflict dynamics and the factors that may be at play in a conflict situation. It prescribes certain simple behaviors and skills for enhancing the posssibilities of construc- tively working onaiconflict, e.g., sensitivity to the other party, communication skills, information sharing.13 A more specific approach to a conflict situation is cooperative problem-solving as defined by Deutsch. As Deutsch describes it, coopertive problem-solving is used when "a conflict can be viewed as a common problem in which the conflicting parties have the joint interest of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution."14 It involves a complete sharing of information so as to accurately identify the conflict, its issues and limits. Once the conflict is identified, the parties work together to produce creative alternatives until they are able to arrive at a satis- factory solution. Ideally this strategy provides for a "win-win" solution and is an often recommended approach for this very reason.15 Another conflict coping strategy is "the power strategy." Walton defines this as "the relationship of effective power between the conflicting parties. Opposing positions are taken and the 23 negotiative process is used to find areas of common ground and areas for tradeoff and compromise. Final resolution depends on the balance of power."16 Groth and Lohman state: "If the basis of the conflict appears to be right vs. wrong, a matter of the one best way, or the product of ignorance, deception of selfishness then win-lose may be appropriate."17 There has not been a great deal written about the win-lose strategy and it has not been adequately evaluated. It is often seen represented by coercive and competitive behaviors in discus- sions of the range of responses to conflict, but in the context of the way people are most often known to react, not the way they should react.18 Deutsch has stated that "conflict is a pervasive and inevitable aspect of life."19 Education is no exception to Deutsch's view. There is a definite need to better understand conflict. Findings such as Coser's point out that "agreements as to goals and determination of outcome shorten the conflict. Once a goal has been reached by one of the parties and is accepted as a clue to the acceptance of defeat by the other, the conflict is ended. Struggles such as those engaged in by unionism, given its limited goals, provide for the contending parties an opportunity for settlement and furnishes them at the same time with recogniz- able signals as to the opportune moment for ending a conflict. Specific outcomes are related to the aims of the contenders. The 24 smaller the sacrifice a party demands from an opponent, the more limited the aims, the higher the chances that the potential loser will be ready to give up. The loser must be led to decide that peace is far more attractive than the continuation of the conflict. If an opponent is to be made to comply with one's will, one must place him in a situation which is more oppressive (burdensome) to him than the sacrifice one demands. Leaders differ from subordinates by their social perspectives and cognitive horizon. Leaders are able to assess consequences and relative advantages more rationally than the led. There is a need for research toward an understanding of symbols which move men to accept compromise. Thus, contributing to the understanding of conflict and conflict resolution."20 As pointed out by Schofield, "conflict variety and its study can be bewildering. Easy answers for conflict management or resolution do not exist; much of the applicable value can be learned, however, from literature and research."21 Part 2: Communication and Communicator Styles Randall Harrison provides an overview on communication. He states: At first, it seems it should be simple to map communica- tion. We all communicate from birth. It is as obvious-- and yet as unnoticed--as breathing. But under scrutiny, communication begins to look more complex, It is familiar but subtle. Is is unique and universal. It is slippery and inescapable. It may be one person making one gesture to someone. And even that simple act is multidimensional, multifaceted, multileveled. Or it may be an ongoing code system such as a language, or music, or an art form, which lasts thousands of years and encompasses millions of people. 25 When we begin to draw the boundaries of communication, we are forced to ask: What precisely is it we wish to denote? What do we want to mean by communication? Is is something which only happens among humans? Or does it occur among animals, among insects, among computers? Does it require a language? And, if so, what do we mean by language? Is the honey dance of the bee a language? Does communication require both a sender and receiver? Or is sending enough? Or receiving? Must it be done with intent? Or can we communicate unintentionally? Must it be done with awareness? Or can we be oblivious to some of the messages we send and receive? Does it involve only the conent of our messages? Or does it include the many cues we use to regulate our inter- actions? Does it include the transmission of feelings? Or should it only deal with the rational and cognitive? Most of our traditional definitions of communication have focused on (a) humans, (b) verbal symbols, and (c) cognitive messages. Our models of communication have tended to be source-oriented; we see communication starting with a source who wants to get an idea across (rather than a receiver who is seeking information). Our models have been linear and one-way, with informa- tion flowing from source to receiver (rather than flowing many ways within a system). We have focused on situa- tions in which communication is purposeful and done with intent, where the outcome involves persuasion or influence. But explorations of the nonverbal domain have challenged some of these assumptions.22 An important aspect of communication and communicator styles is communicator effectiveness. Communicator effectiveness is defined as giving or interchanging information or the like by writing, speaking or nonverbal behavior to accomplish a purpose. Harrison feels, "that by knowing about nonverbal cues, by under- standing the process of nonverbal communication, we can be more effective in our relations with other people."23 Various researchers have studied linguistic cues and paralinguistic cues which would support the position that one could empirically evaluate that style or set of paralinguistic cues which 26 might be effective in managing conflict. For example, Burgoon and Saine state "that numerous vocal qualities affect our evaluations of another person's credibility include speech rate, pitch level 24 and variation, confluency and dialect." McCroskey and Arnold support this by stating "that overall good delivery increases credibility."25 It is also known, as pointed out by Pearce and Brummel, "that a conversational speaking style, one that is calm and not intense, slow, low in volume creates more favorable judgments of trustworthiness."26 Addington associated personality traits with voice qualities. In his research he found that a rotund voice (full, clear) for males was associated with an energetic, healthy, artistic, sophisticated, proud, interesting, enthusiastic personality trait.27 Schweitzer found that listeners rated the dynamic speaker as significantly less humble, more refined, more aggressive and solid, and more energetic and warmer. This implies that dynamism is perceived as transmitting essential, positively reinforcing cues.28 Pearce and Conklin found that conversational delivery rated high on being honest and people oriented.29 Markel, Phillis, Vargus and Howard found the soft-fast voice correlated with being enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky, adventuresome, thick-skinned, confident, self-secure, radical, phlegmatic, composed, optimistic, nonconforming, independent and composed under stress.30 Pearce and Brummel have found that a conversational speaking style-éone that is calm, not intense, slow, and low in volume--creates more 27 favorable judgments as to trustworthiness, honesty, sociability, and likeableness than does a dynamic style; there appear to be no effects on judgment of competence.31 Clore, Wiggins, and Itkin found the following behaviors transmit warmth: Looking into an individual's eyes when speaking, smiling frequently during the conversation, having a happy face, smiling with your mouth open, grinning when communicating, nod head affirmatively while talking, use expressive hand gestures while speaking, stretch during the 32 Reece and Whitman have identified body language discussion. components which lead to being perceived as a "warm" person. They include a shift of posture toward the one person, a smile, direct eye contact, and hands remaining still.33 Mehrabian and Williams found that speakers with more eye contact were perceived to be persuasive, truthful, sincere and credible.34 Davitz was able to cite characteristics of vocal expressions contained in the test of emotional sensitivity and they are summarized and presented in Appendix A, p. 80.35 Based upon these findings and other research, these are the types of cues that are indicative of behavior that is positive reinforcipg: 1. Eye contact (frequent) 2. Head Nod (frequent) 3. Hand and Arm Gestures (frequent-very active). Use gestures to illustrate points being made or to augment what is being said. According to Mehrabian active gestures such as the ones just stated express interest in the individual being addressed. 28 4. Facial Affect Displays (a number of positive facial expressions such as smiles and pleasantness). 5. Body Position (lean toward the person being addressed). The paralinguistic components identified by Mehrabian for this style are as follows: a higher speech rate, longer communica- tions, and a lower rate of speech disturbance (or less halting quality of speech).36 The neutral style is characterized by exhibitions of the following cues. The neutral cues identified by Addington associated personality traits with voice qualities. In his research he found that a thin voice for males was associated with having a neutral relationship to a personality trait.37 Markel, Phillis, Vargus, and Howard found the soft-slow voice was associated with being competitive, aggressive, enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky, adventurous, thick-skinned, reckless and carefree; but withdrawn and introspec- 38 tive under stress. Davitz was able to cite characteristics of vocal expressions contained in the test of emotional sensitivity and they are summarized and presented in Appendix A, p. 81.39 Using these findings and other research, the types of cues that are indicative of behavior that is neutral are as follows: 1. Eye Contact (moderate) 2. Head Nod (moderate) 3. Hand and Arm Gestures (minimum) 29 4. Facial Affect Displays (minimal facial expressions) 5. Body Position (set in a vertical position) The following paralinguistic components to be included in this style were taken from Davitz and Mehrabian: a normal speech rate, neutral tone, and an average rate of speech disturbance (or less halting quality of speech).40’4] Research focusing upon nonverbal communication has isolated a number of cues associated with a condescending communication side- In his research, Addington investigated relationships between personality traits and voice qualities. He found that a tense voice for males was associated with having an old or unyield- 42 Markel, Phillis, Vargus and Howard found ing personality trait. the slow voice was associated with being aggressive, competitive, confident, self-secure, radical, self-sufficent and resourceful; tending toward rebelliousness for its own sake.43 Burgoon and Saine state that the low-pitched fluent, non-accented voice conveys self-confidence, authority and education which contributes to enhanced perceptions of status. In addition, a moderately fast rate, high volume and full resonance may carry the sound of a voice of authority--one that commands attention.44 Reece and Whitman have identified body language components which lead to being perceived as a "cold" person. They include a person who looked around the room, slumped, drummed fingers and did not 45 smile. Davitz was able to cite characteristics of vocal 30 expressions contained in the test of emotional sensitivity and they are summarized and presented in Appendix A, p. 82.46 These findings and other research suggest that these types of cues are indicative of behavior that is condescending: 1. Eye Contact (minimal) 2. Head Nod (minimal) 3. Hand and Arm Gestures (The types of gestures that will be included in this study are those used for controlling the other person's behavior. Gestures will be directed toward the teacher, i.e., the administrator pointing toward the teacher saying, "You are going to do things this way.") 4. Facial Affect Displays (negative facial expressions, such as, stern, frown, sneers, etc.) 5. Body Position (lean away from the person being addressed) Using Mehrabian's findings the following paralinguistic cues have been identified for this style: a slow speech rate, longer communications, and a lower rate of speech disturbance (or less halting quality of speech).47 The aforementioned types of cues are the five most reliable indicators of a communicator's attitude toward his addressee according to Mehrabian.48 There are a number of things one must be concerned about when communicating with other individuals. Some of those things in conflict situations that one has to be concerned about include the perceived credibility_of the administrator, the perceived interpersonal attractiveness, the outcome of the conflict and the amount of information retained from the transaCtion. It is 31 important that one be concerned with these because of the potential effects they may have on message recipients' perceptions. Conflict management is an important aspect of school administration. Implicit in this, the administrator must be able to handle conflict situations effectively at the building level. It is, therefore, pertinent to know whether a particlar communicator style, if any, as defined by paralinguistic and nonverbal cues, is more effective than another in managing conflicts that arise between administrators and teachers. Also, it is useful to know the components of a particular communicator style. Just as important is an understanding of ineffective communicator styles and their major components. It was the researcher's purpose in this study to measure administrator effectiveness in conflict situations and identify, if possible, a communicator style that is most effective in managing conflicts. It was hoped that this type of finding would provide useful to peOple who find themselves in conflict situations. To provide this information is one of the researcher's purposes in this study, and to begin to snythesize a foundation of the effects of communicator style in resolving conflicts in dispute settlements that arise between administrators and teachers. CHAPTER II FOOTNOTES 1Dewey, p. 30. 2Lohman and Groth, p. 22. 3Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: The Free Press, 1956), p. 8. Harpole, pp. 353-358. Keefe. PP. 151-156. 0101::- Deutsch, pp. 23-37. 7Erwin Rausch and Wallace Wohlking, Handling Conflict Management (Westbury: R. B. Enterprise, Inc., 1969), p. l. BStuart M. Schmidt and 1. A. Kochan, "Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity," Administrative Science Quarterly(New York: New York University, 1972), pp. 359-370. 9A11en P. Main and A. E. Roark, "A Consensus Method to Reduce Conflict," Personnel and Guidance Journal (College Station: T23 Uggversity Council for EducationaTTAdministration, 1975), pp. 10Richard T. Woturba, "Innovative Changes from Conflict," NASPA Journal (Arlington: NASPA, 1973), pp. 25-30. 11 12 Deutsch, pp. 22-31. Harpole, p. 355. 13Barnes, pp. 4-9. 14 15 Deutsch, p. 23 Butman, p. l6. l6 . R. E. Walton, Inter ersonal Peacemakin : Confrontations and Th1rd Party Consultations (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969), pp. 167-169. 32 33 17 18 Lohman and Groth, p. 16. Butman, p. 16. 19Deutsch, pp. 23-37. 20Lewis A. Coser, "The Termination of Conflict," in Clagett G. Smith Conflict Resolution: Contributions of the Behavioral Sciences (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), p. 87. 210ee Schofield, "Conflict Management--What Principals Should Know About It," National Association of Secondary,School Principals, (New York: Bulletin #61, 1977), pp. 8-15. 22Harrison, p. 27. 23Ibid.. p. 182. 24Judee K. Burgoon and Thomas Saine, An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978), pp. 80-84. 25a. c. McCroskey and A. Arnold, An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972), p. 6. 26W. B. Pearce and B. J. Brummel, "Vocalic Communication in Persuasion," Quarterly Journal of Speech (New York: 1972), pp. 298- 306. 27D. W. Addington, "The Relationship of Selected Vocal Characteristics to Personality Perception," Speech Monographs, (New York, 1968), pp. 492-503. 28D. A. Schweitzer, "The Effect of Presentation on Source Evaluation," Quarterly Journal of Speech, (New York, 1970), pp. 33-39. 29W. B. Pearce and F. Conklin, "Nonverbal Vocalic Communica- tion and the Perception of a Speaker," Speech Monographs (Chicago, 1971), pp. 235-241. 3°N. N. Markel, J. A. Phillis, R. Vargas and K. Howard, "Personality Traits Associated with Voice Types," Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Boston: 1972), pp. 249-255. 3lPearce and Brummel, pp. 298-306. 323. L. Clore, N. H. Wiggins and s. Itkin, "Judging Attraction from Nonverbal Behavior: The Gain Phenomena," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (New York: 1975), pp. 491-497. 34 33M. Reece and R. Whitman, "Expressive Movements, Warmth, and Verbal Reinforcement," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (New York: 1962), pp. 234-236. 34A. Mehrabian and M. Williams, "Nonverbal Congemitants of Perceived and Intended Persuasiveness," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (New York: 1969), pp. 37-58. York: 35J. R. Davitz, The Conmunication of Emotional Meaning (New McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 63. 36Mehrabian and Williams, pp. 37-58. 37Addington. pp. 492-503. 38Markel, Phillis, Vargas and Howard, pp. 249-255. 39Davitz, p. 63. 40Ibid. 4‘Menrabian and Williams, pp 37-58. 42Addington. pp. 492-503. 43Markel, Phillis, Vargas and Howard, pp. 249-255. 44Burgoon and Saine. pp. 80-84. 45Reece and Whitman, pp. 234-236. 46Davitz, p. 63. 47Menrabian and Williams, pp. 37-58 48Ioid. CHAPTER III DESIGN In order to fulfill the purposes set for this study, to deal with the problem of constructing an appropriate representation to present elementary public school teachers with simulated situa- tions, the following procedures were used in the development and implementation of a study design. Three videotapes of re-enacted conflicts between an amdinistrator and teacher were prepared using a script developed by the author. A copy of the script is included in Appendix B. The script was written by the author with the aid of an elementary teacher, an actor and actress, and several professors. The script was designed so that in each videotape different sets of nonverbal and paralinguistic cues were manipulated in conjunction with the dialogue. The paralinguistic and nonverbal cues manipulated were those manifested by the actor who was playing the role of the administrator. The cues were constant for the actress who was playing the role of the teacher. Each videotape was approximately ten minutes in length. The actor portraying the role of the elementary administrator was trained when and how to emit the different cues prior to videotaping. The three videotaped 35 36 recordings of the manipulated independent variable, communicator style, were randomly assigned to three intact groups of teachers. After the videotape recordings were prepared, the author developed a research instrument which contained items designed to measure (1) perceived credibility; (2) perceived interpersonal attraction; (3) perceived outcome of the conflict; and (4) amount of information retained. The discussions of the reliability and validity of the instrument are included in the selection of measures section. The data collected using this instrument were then analyzed to test the hypotheses that had been developed. These findings are reported in Chapter IV. Selection of Measures In this section conceptual and operational definitions will be formulated for the following constructs: (1) perceived credibility, (2) perceived interpersonal attractiveness, (3) perceived outcome of conflict, and (4) the amount of information retained. Teachers' pprceptions of the credibility of principals was conceptually defined as teachers' evaluation of the performance of principals in conflict situations based upon the following three dimensions identified by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz: (1) safety, (2) qualification, and (3) dynamism.1 Safety was defined by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz as "a general evaluation of the affiliative relationship between source and 37 receiver, as perceived by the receiver. The following bi-polar scales were suggested as most representative: safe-unsafe; just- unjust; kind-cruel; friendly-unfriendly: honest-dishonest.“2 Qualification was defined by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz as "a dimension of evaluative meaning that is peculiar to the situation in which information transmission is involved."3 The major qualification scales empirically identified by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz were: "trained-untrained, experienced-inexperienced, skilled-unskilled, qualified-unqualified, informed-uninformed."4 Berlo, Lemert and Mertz indicate that dynamism "is a combination of the potency and activity factors of general connota- tion, The dynamism factor appears to tap an evaluative dimension that could be referred to as disposable energy, i.e., the energy available to the source which can be used to emphasize, augment and implement his suggestions.5 Dynamism scales suggested as representative by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz were: "aggressive-meek, emphatic-hesitant, bold-timid; active-passive, energetic-tired."6 The aforementioned scales developed by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz for perceived source credibility were used in the operationali- zation (measurement) because they appear to be valid for measuring perceived source credibility. This was demonstrated in two factor analytic studies conducted by them which produced three meaningful and statistically independent dimensions for evaluating the credibility of message sources. Procedures and findings for the two studies were similar; however, for purposes of clarity the findings will be sdmmarized separately as follows: 38 In the first study product-moment correlations were computed on the over-all matrix of sources and scales. The correlation matrix was submitted to a principal-axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Given the preliminary nature of the study and the absence of hypotheses about factor structure, two liberal criteria were used for selecting the most appropriate solution: each factor must include at least one scale with a loading of .50 or more. and each factor must add a net of 2 percent or more to the explained variance. Using these two criteria, a four factor solution was selected. Scales were assigned to the factor on which they had their highest loading, however, the ranking of scales within a factor was based on a "factor purity" index. The index was determined by subtracting the scale's absolute loadings on the other three factors from its loading on the principal factor. The four factors used in the study accounted for 62 per cent of the total variance of the 83 scales. The first two factors, Safety and Qualification, accounted for 52 percent of the variance (27. 8 percent and 24.0 percent, respectively). Nearly half (39 of 83) of the scales had their highest loading on Safety, and it accounted for 45 percent of the common variance. Thirty-one scales had their highest loading the Qualification factor, and it accounted for 39 percent of the common variance. Although only 11 scales had their highest loading on Dynamism, it clearly is a meaningful and distinctive dimension of source evaluations. It accounted for almost 8 percent of the total variance and 13 percent of the common variance. The stability and meaningfulness of the fourth factor was dubious. The factor analytic study provided encouraging evidence that there are at least three meaningful dimensions which respondents use in evaluating sources of information. TABLE l.--Percent of Total and Common Variance: Evaluating Message Sources. Safety Qualifications Dynamism Percent of Total Variance 27.80* 24.01 7.78 Percent Common Variance 45.12 39.97 12.63 . SOURCE: David K. Berlo, James B. Lemert and Robert J. Mertz, "Dimensions for Evaluatin the Acceptability of Message Sources," Public Opinion Quarterly (1969): p. 574. 39 The second study and major study was conducted using similar procedures; however, there were four differences: 1) Scales were selected to conform with the "general meaning" of each factor, under the hypothesis that there are three or, possibly, four dimensions to source evaluations. 2) The number of sources in each of the four source categories was standardized at three, to equalize the contribution of each category to the over-all correla- tions. 3) The sample of respondents was selected to be more representative of the general adult population. 4) A somewhat more conservative criterion was employed as a basis for terminating rotations of the factors. On the basis of the results of the first study, it was hypothesized that there are three main factors in Source Evaluations: Safety, Qualification and Dynamism. From the three-factor and four-factor solutions of the over-all matrix, it was apparent that the three-factor solution was the more appropriate. It met the Kiel-Wrigley criterion, and accounted for 59.98 percent of the total variance. The stability of the basic three factors was high. The four-factor solution had only two additional scales that had factor load- ings on the fourth factor as high as .20, and there were no appreciable shifts in the factor loadings on the first three factors. It was clear that there were three, and only three, stable and meaningful dimensions of source evaluations. The eight scales that were hypothesized to be Qualification scales did load highest on that factor. No other scales had their highest loading on Qualification. The same was true for the Dynamism factor. All eight hypothesized scales, and no others, had their highest loading on Dynamism. Also, all of the hypothesized Safety scales loaded highest on the Safety factor. The three evaluative factors accounted for 60 percent of the total variance. Safety accounted for 34 percent, Qualifi- cation for 16 percent and Dynamism for 10 percent. Nineteen of the 35 scales had their highest loading on Safety, 8 on Qualification, and 8 on Dynamism.7 40 TABLE 2.--Percent of Total and Common Variance: Evaluating Message Sources. Safety Qualification Dynamism Percent Total Variance 33.80 15.62 10.51 Percent Common Variance 56.40 26.06 17.54 SOURCE: David K. Berlo, James B. Lemert and Robert J. Mertz, "Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources," Public Opiniofluarterly (1969): p. 574. Teachers' perceptions of the interpersonal attractiveness of principals was conceptually defined as teachers' evaluations of the principals interpersonal attraction in conflict situations based on Byrne's measure of attraction utilizing two simple rating scales. The scales request subjects to indicate whether they like or dislike a person and whether they believed they would enjoy or dislike working with that person.8 The scales that were used in the operationalization (measure- ment) are those that were developed by Byrne and Nelson for measur- ing interpersonal attraction.9 The item focusing upon subjects desire to work with a focal individual was modified. The word "experiment" was changed to "curriculum committee." This was more appropriate for this study because administrators and teachers would be more apt to serve on a curriculum committee as opposed to being involved in an experiment. Byrne and Nelson found in their study that: The measure of attraction consisted of two simple rating scales which essentially asked the two rather straightforward 41 questions most frequently utilized in sociometric research. With respect to the stranger, each subject was asked to indi- cate whether he felt that he would like or dislike this person and whether he believed he would enjoy or dislike working with this person. These two variables are each measured on a 7-point scale. They are scored from 1 to 7 and then summed to yield the measure of attraction which ranges from 2 (most negative) to 14 (most positive). This two-item response measure has been found to have a split-half reliability of .85 (Byrne and Nelson, 1965a). In order to disguise to some degree the major purpose of the experiment and to lend credence to the instructions concerning interpersonal judgment, the two attraction scales are embedded as the last two items in a 6-point Interpersonal Judgment Scale (IJS). The first four items call for evaluations of the stranger's intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, and adjustment. These four dimensions, incidentally, were based on intuitive speculations as to the way individuals 10 respond to others who agree with them or who fail to do so. Perceived outcome of conflict was conceptually defined as the perceptions of whether or not teachers involved in conflict situations accepted the principal's decision or rejected it. The variable was operationalized by having subjects respond to a dichotomous measure and indicate whether they thought the teacher accepted the principal's decision or rejected it. The amount of information retained by teachers was concep- tually defined as the amount of information presented by the participants in a conflict situation that a teacher remembered at the conclusion of the conflict. The variable was operationalized by having subjects respond to measuring items developed from the script. The information retention measuring instrument was developed after the script that the actors used to act out the conflict was developed. Significant information was to be taken from the script and used to develop questions. 42 The author used the previously mentioned information to develop and organize the questionnaire. The researcher's scales were designed to: 1. To measure whether the teacher involved in the conflict situation accepted the principal's decision or rejected it. 2. To assess the amount of information retained by teachers. The scales developed by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz to measure perceived source credibility were an important part of the 11 questionnaire. The scales developed by Byrne and Nelson to measure interpersonal attraction were also an important part of the questionnaire.12 All of the aforementioned instruments were contained within the questionnaire. The development of the questionnaire as well as the order and selection of scales to be included were done with the assistance of communication professors who were knowledgeable of the reliability and validity of these measuring instruments. In addition, references were cited previously for all of the scales that were used in conjunction with the author's scales. Sample After considering various methods of securing a population upon which to test the hypotheses, the method decided upon was the selection of three intact groups of elementary public school teachers. These individuals would be certified elementary teachers who were instructors for primary or intermediate levels in an 43 elementary school. The sample was confined to the Grosse Pointe Public School System. Individuals who participated did so on a volunteer basis. Instrumentation As stated previously, videotapes of a re-enacted conflict between a principal and a teacher were prepared. The information presented in each simulation was the same except for the paralinguis- tic and nonverbal cues. The two participants in the videotapes were experienced actors. The same two individuals were in all three videotapes. The actor was trained to manifest different cues in each videotape. The actress was instructed to act the same in each videotape. During training sessions and practice runs, using videotape recordings to allow the actors to examine the cues they were exhibiting, modifications were made pertaining to the cues that the actor was exhibiting. Each subject that viewed the videotape was asked to complete a twenty-one page questionnaire. The questionnaire is located in Appendix 0. Having completed the response instrument using the scales developed by Berlo, Lemert and Mertz, Byrne and Nelson, and the author, the sampling procedure was developed. Procedure Following the development of the instrumentation, the three intact groups of thirty certified elementary public school 44 teachers were identified. As previously mentioned, three experi- mental conditions were used in the study. Subject for the experi- ment consisted of elementary school teachers employed by the Grosse Point Public School System who volunteered to participate in this research project. The three different experimental conditions were randomly assigned to the three intact groups of thirty teachers. The experiment was conducted over a period of three afternoons using a large elementary classroom for each condition. To ensure that all of the subjects encountered no difficulties hearing or seeing the videotape, a large videotape monitor was used and the seats were arranged in semi-circles in each condition. The subjects or participants were seated in a room where they were provided with an explanation that they are about to view a videotape of a discussion of a classroom observation between a principal and teacher. The experimenter collecting the data explained that the teacher was being disciplined about her class- room management. The principal and the teacher involved consented to having the transaction videotaped to facilitate some research that, in fact, was being done to accommodate looking at teacher classroom performance. At this point, the researcher avoided permitting the subjects to determine that the effect of communica- tor style was the focus of the research. If they were to be told this before they responded to the questionnaire, the results of the study might well have been confounded. 45 After the aforementioned explanation, the videotape was shown and the subjects viewed the conflict interaction between the principal and teacher. The length of viewing for each tape was approximately ten minutes. After viewing the tape the subjects filled out a questionnaire containing measures of the dependent variables that have been previously discussed. The questionnaire also contained demographic measures that allowed the researcher to assess the comparability of the intact groups used to insure that there were not any significant differences in those demographic characteristics that might confound the results. After completing the questionnaire, the subjects were debriefed and the researcher told them that he was looking for the effects of communicator style on the principal's perceived credibility by teachers; perceived interpersonal attraction by teachers; prediction of conflict outcome; and the amount of information teachers were able to retain. Also, an explanation was provided of the reasons why, in fact, the researcher did not tell the subjects that actual focus of the researcher at the outset. A text of the aforementioned procedure is presented in Appendix F. Analysis The design used to test the hypotheses was a one by three independent groups design in which intact groups of teachers were shown a videotape of the re-enacted conflict between a principal and a teacher. 46 TABLE 3.--A Summary of the Three Levels of the Independent Variable and the Four Dependent Measures. Positively Reinforcing Neutral Condescending Communicator Style Communicatory Style Communicator Style Perceived Perceived Perceived Credibility Credibility Credibility Perceived Interper- Perceived Interper- Perceived Interper- sonal Attractiveness sonal Attractiveness sonal Attractiveness Perceived Outcome Perceived Outcome Perceived Outcome of Conflict of Conflict of Conflict Amount of Informa- Amount of Informa- Amount of Informa- tion Retained tion retained tion retained The four hypotheses examined were: H]: Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be perceived by teachers as more credible than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more credible than principals who use condescending cues. Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will be perceived by teachers as more interpersonally attractive than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will be perceived as more inter- personally attractive than principals who use conde- scending cues. Principals involved in conflicts who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will have more settled conflict outcomes than principals who employ neutral cues, and principals who use neutral cues will have more settled outcomes than principals who use conde- scending cues. 47 Teachers involved in conflicts with principals who employ positively reinforcing nonverbal cues will retain more information provided by the principals than teachers interacting with principals who employ neutral cues, and teachers in conflict with principals who use neutual cues will retain more information than teachers interacting with principals who use conde- scending cues. The .05 level of significance was used for all statistical analyses of these hypotheses. The statistical tests used to examine the hypotheses were as follows: One Way Analysis of Variance One Way Analysis of Variance Chi-Square One Way Analysis of Variance The results of these analyses are presented in Chapter IV as Findings. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations based on these findings are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER III FOOTNOTES 1 2Ibid., p. 574. 3 4 Berlo, Lemert and Mertz, p. 575. Ibid., p. 574. 5Ibid. 6 7 8 Ibid. Ibid. 9 10 Ibid., p. 426. Ibid., PP. 52-53. 11 12 Berlo, Lemert and Mertz, p. 575. Byrne. PP. 52-53. 48 11 Don Byrne, The Attraction Paradigm (New York: Row, 1965), pp. 52-53. David K. Berlo, James B. Mertz and Robert J. Mertz, "Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Mess Public Opinion Quarterly, Michigan State Univer51ty e Sources," 969), p. 574. Harper and CHAPTER IV TREATMENT AND FINDINGS For all statistical tests an alpha of .05 was used. Analysis of the data yielded the following results. Hypothesis 1 The test of hypothesis one necessitated a factor analysis before the analysis of variance was executed. Principal components factor analyses with varimax rotation were used to factor analyze data from this study germane to credibility. A .60 - .40 criterion was used to identify those items that had acceptable factor loadings. Specifically, for an item to be retained it had to have a factor loading of .60 on one factor and not had higher than .40 on any other factor. The initial factor analysis yielded a three factor solution. Factor loadings on these credibility items indicated that items measuring a sources safety had high cross-loadings. The factor loadings of credibility items for the three factor solution are presented in Table 4. The items measuring safety that had high cross-loadings were deleted from subsequent analyses. These analyses suggested that subjects were not evaluat- ing the principal on a trustworthiness dimension. The amount of variance accounted for by the safety factor upon which only one 49 50 TABLE 4.--A Three Factor Solution: Factor Loadings of Credibility Items. Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 (Qua11f1cat1on) (Dynam1sm) (Safety) 1. Qualified-Unqualified .80* .03 .ll 2. Experienced-Inexperienced .60* -.03 -.01 3. Informed-Uninformed .11 -.Ol .60 4. Trained-Untrained .79* .14 .29 5. Skilled-Unskilled .84* -.09 .14 6. Safe-Unsafe .46 -.10 -.15 7. Kind-Cruel .13 -.42 .57 8. Just-Unjust .15 -.29 .69* 9. Honest-Dishonest .06 .42 .61 10. Friendly-Unfriendly .52 -.04 .38 ll. Energetic-Tired .55 .22 -.13 12. Active-Passive .27 .63* .28 13. Aggressive-Meek -.O7 .79* -.12 14. Emphatic-Hesitant -.06 .64* -.18 15. Bold-Timid -.08 '74* "07 *There items satisfied the .60-.40 criterion. 51 item loaded was so minimal the factor was dropped from subsequent analyses. There were ten items left after the safety items were deleted. Five of the items were qualifications and five were dynamism. These items were factor analyzed indicating that one qualification item and one dynamism item had high cross-loadings. The items that had high cross-loadings were dropped from the analysis. The final analysis yielded a two factor solution. The factor loadings for the two factor solution are presented in Table 5. There were four qualification items and four dynamism items which satisfied the .60 - .40 criterion. The findings posed the problem that the study participants evaluated the principal's perceived source of credibility on qualification and dynamism dimensions. The following items that loaded on the qualification factor were: qualified-unqualified; experienced-inexperienced; trained-untrained; and skilled-unskilled. There four items yielded an alpha coefficient of .81. The items that loaded on the dynamism factor included: active-passive; aggressive-meek; emphatic-hesitant; and bold-timid. There four items yielded an alpha coefficient of .69. Utilizing the results of this factor analysis, a one-way analysis of variance was executed on these two dimensions of credibility. The two dimensions were qualification and dynamism. The results reported in Table 6, while not statistically signifi- cant, indicated that qualification may be an important factor influencing teachers' perceptions of principal's in conflict 52 TABLE 5.--A Two Factor Solution: Factor Loadings of Credibility Items. Item Factor 1 Factor 2 (Qua11f1cat1on) (Dynam1sm) 1. Qualified-Unqualified .82* .07 2. Experienced-Inexperienced .64* -.19 3. Trained-Untrained .84* .11 4. Skilled-Unskilled .86* -.08 5. Active-Passive .34 .60* 6. Aggressive-Meek -.05 .86* 7. Emphatic-Hesitant -.11 .70* 8. Bold-Timid -.11 .80* *These items satisfied the .60-.40 criterion. 53 om.omm_ mm 4wuwmom m_»um cowumuwcaeeou mgu co mpxum powwowczseou co muommwm «so we agmeszm .cowpmuwmwpmao cm>wmucma m.~mawu:wca we» we newsmmmmm< "muewwcm> co mwmxpmc< use mcmmzii.m m4m

wuwmee epxom :ewueewezsseu mg» no ewxem eeueewc325eu we mueewwm esp we Aceeszm .Emwsecza ee>weeeee m.peeweewge use we uceEmmemm< "eeeewee> we mwmxpee< eee mceezii.w memwuwmee ewxpm seameweeseeu .Peeweewee ego we mmece>wueeeup< peeemgeeeepeu esp we meewueeeeee one so ewxum eeueewc355eu we mpeewwm ecu we weeEE=m "eecewee> we mwmapee< use meeeziu.m memwuwmee e—xum ceueewczeseu .eEeepao we eewueweeee we ageEE=m "eseaemiwcu--.m m4mwuwmee ewxum :ewueewezeeeu co ewxpm ceoeewceeeeu we mueewwm ego we acesszm .eewpeepez cowaeeLeweH .meegeeew fleecewee> we mwmxwec< eee mceezni.o_ Nemwawmee ewxum wepeewczeaeu .xmm .muuennsm we >yes—Em ”eweacmuw;01n.—P m4mwuwmea epapm eeueewezeeeu .83 .3833 we .2253 "8.5.2; we 6.5322 28 2321.3 39:. 63 me. A a .N n we .eN.N u x N 3 NF 2 .m.z\.<.z mN om mN .m.m\.<.m meweeeemeeceu weepeez mcweeewcwem awe>wpwmee ewxum eeueewezeeeu .m_e>ee Fecewpeeeem .mpeeneem we xwe553m ”eweacmnwsU1n.m_ m4mo exec me: eeewwm aeeoem coweeo_wee meweewm xweueeeeez peeeemem ecee_w new: new: mmee aweueeeee: Aweeeeeeez upewceeeo gee uwem cewpeeww< eoewa mmeeeeee eewpeed .meweeewewem awe>wpwmeeiime=u ewpmwemcwweeee eeccapm uezzesem Lewemem cow» -eweeeem 53px;“ eeezez eeewpm eaweoe_wee weswez epem peeeemem geezesem weeLez peacez cewpeewmwuem eeesww eepwe mmeeeeee mewweee .peeesezuimeeu ewemwemewwecee 82 eoeew_e peszesem eecezwm geezeaem eewpeweeeem Eeexem esezez nemwpm eewp_ee weeeeeo eeeeeeez eeweoe_wee “mew apogeeeeez 3ewm Apogeeeeez epem meweepm awepeceeez ececemem apogeeeeez eeeeww new: aweueceee: e» eecewu Peacez Peseez leash 3ee 3e; ea e» eueceeez eueeeeez eeeesem eeuwe mmeceeee mew—mew .meweeeemeeceoiimeee ewpmwemcwweeee APPENDIX B SCRIPT THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TEACHER 83 AN INTERACTION BETWEEN AN ADMINISTRATOR AND CLASSROOM TEACHER The following simulation is a dialogue between an administrator and classroom teacher in a conflict situation that develops after a classroom observation. The speakers will commit to memory a prepared text of similar content in order to standardize the interaction in the simulation. The content of the administrator's dialogue will be held constant and paralinguistic cues and nonverbal cues will be manipulated in three different conditions. The classroom teacher's dialogue will be held constant and the same cues will be exhibited in the three different conditions. Actor 1 - Principal - A male between the ages of 32-42 Mr. Tom Reed Actor 2 - Classroom Teacher - A female between the ages of 30-40 Mrs. Jane Clarke The simulation begins with the classroom teacher entering the principal's office. The principal had requested to see the classroom teacher earlier in the day. Principal: Good afternoon, Mrs. Clarke. How are you today? Teacher: I'm fine, Mr. Reed, thank you. Principal: The reason that I wanted to have this discussion with you concerns some observations I made the other day while visiting in your classroom. I think there may be a number of issues that are worth discussing. 84 Teacher: Principal: Teacher: 85 Fine! As you know we really have a difficult though rewarding job that we mutually share. I know that you are already aware of the importance of what we do here and of the problems that we have to deal with. Not only do we have to educate our children that are enrolled here but we have to ensure that we keep discipline problems to a minimum. Sometimes we have to make trade offs between what might be most educationally effective and the rules that we develop governing discipline. Now as I was visiting your classroom I noticed that the kids were carrying on a lot of conversa- tion while you were trying to teach. Now this could create a problem because some of them might be talking about things other than the subject matter you were presenting. It occurred to me that maybe the way the desks were arranged contributed to this problem. Those desks were arranged in circles so that you had a number of small groups in the classroom. It would be wonderful if children restricted their conversation to classroom material but it was somewhat apparent to me that they were talking about other things. I think that perhaps one way to correct this problem would be to arrange those desks in straight rows. Well, Mr. Reed, I appreciate your concerns and realize that if those desks were in straight rows there would be less chit- chatting among the students about things that are better talked about at recess, but, as you recall, I am sure when you hired me I pointed out that I had some less than Principal: Teacher: 86 traditional notions about classroom management. Kids are kids - no matter how you arrange those desks. There is going to be some socializing in the classroom. I just take that as a given. I did it when I was in school and I am certain that you did it and it kind of added to the enjoy- ment of going to school. I don't want to be the kind of teacher that makes school unenjoyable for children. You are probably right though - if I rearrange the desks there would be some reduction in the amount of socializing but it would make the educational environment more unenjoyable for them, and I am convinced that those kids would learn less. So, I would like to keep the desks the way they are. Well, Mrs. Clarke, I understand your position but don't necessarily agree with your assessment of how straight rows would adversely affect the learning environment. For example, it seems to me that if a young person is not listening to you and maybe interfering with other students' ability to hear you, that has a more detremental effect on learning than anything else. I am not saying that you are not doing a good job of teaching but I do think the overall learning environment could be improved by maintaining a little more discipline. I am sorry I just couldn't disagree more. I know that you have a lot of responsibility in terms of what goes on at the school and that you have a lot of other peOple to answer to. Principal: Teacher: Principal: Teacher: 87 But, I just can't believe that this is really that significant of a problem. I would really like to keep the desks arranged the way they are because the students get to know one another better and it gives them a chance to talk about the material we cover in class. Mrs. Clarke, as I indicated before, I understand_your position and I respect it but since I have the overall responsibility for the quality of the educational process here at the school, I'm going to have to ask you to rearrange the way you have the room set up. Believe me I will appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Mr. Reed, with all due respect I think that you may be over- reacting. I spend all of my time in that classroom with those children and I think I know what is best for them. I don't want to change the way I have my classroom set up because it allows me to do the best job that I can. Well, I'm not over reacting. I assure you that I have the authority to make a request of this nature. I am going to have to insist that you rearrange the room. Well, I am somewhat surprised by your reaction and I'm going to have to give this some thought. I am still not convinced that you have the prerogative to impose these kind of decisions upon teachers generally and me in particular. Before I make a decision I want to talk with my building representative and some other members of my educational Principal: Teacher: Princippl: 88 association. Please understand that I'm not trying to threaten you but I really think there is a very important principle involved here and that is that someone in your capacity as an administrator has the right to impose that degree of control over the conduct of my classroom. Mrs. Clarke, I think that you may not be over reacting to the situation, but, of course, you have every right to pursue this matter at a higher level. Mr. Reed, you know there is something that bothers me about the discussion we have had thus far. I have really worked hard to do a good job since I have been here and I think that I have done a pretty good job. During this conversa- tion you haven't mentioned anything positive about what goes on in my classroom. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever having a conversation with you where you have said anything positive about my teaching performance. I'm not suggesting that you have said anything negative either. It just doesn't seem that you have committed yourself one way or the other which is somewhat bothersome to me because it leaves me with a lot of uncertainty about my future here. This is the first time we have really had a chance to sit down and have a frank discussion. All we have talked about is how I have my classroom arranged. Well, as you can understand I am extremely busy trying to meet other obligations that I have and unfortunately I don't have the kind of time that it takes to have conversations of Teacher: Principal: Teacher: 89 this sort. Perhaps I could have started off our conversation on a different foot by reviewing a number of the positive things I observed. However, I want you to understand that the issue of classroom management is extremely important to me and I guess that is why I introduced that topic at the beginning of our discussion. There is no question that you are a highly motivated teacher and one obviously interested in the welfare of your students. I thought that your lesson was well-organized and you did a nice job of presenting the material. The visual aids that you used to help explain the material were quite appropriate. My only concern, as I have indicated before, is that there were a number of children who were so busy talking with one another that it was obvious that they weren't paying attention. Well, I appreciate those constructive comments but still disagree with your position regarding the way that I run my classroom and I intend to speak with my building representa- tive and members of the association. I will let you know in the next few days whether or not I am going to appeal your decision. Fine, I'll be talking with you. (Exits from the room) APPENDIX C HELP WANTED NOTICE FOR AN ACTOR AND ACTRESS 90 91 WANTED One actor to play the role of an elementary principal who is between the ages of 32-42. The actor will be videotaped to facilitate some research that is being done on conflict resolution. Times may be arranged during the day or evening to meet the actor's schedule. The date will be in early or mid-May. There will be money involved. The place will be on campus in S. Kedzie Hall. Additional information will be furnished by calling: 1-313-343-2277 8:00 - 5:00 or 1-313-885-0029 6:00 - 10:00 p.m. Please ask for Mr. Wharton. 92 WANTED One actress to play the role of an elementary teacher who is between the ages of 30-40. The actress will be videotaped to facilitate some research that is being done on conflict resolution. Times may be arranged during the day or evening to meet the actress's schedule. The date will be in early or mid-May. There will be money involved. The place will be on campus in S. Kedzie Hall. Additional information will be furnished by calling: 1-313-343-2277 8:00 - 5:00 or 1-313-885-0029 6:00 - 10:00 p.m. Please ask for Mr. Wharton. APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE TEACHER - ADMINISTRATOR CONFLICT SITUATION 93 Dear Participant: You have just viewed a videotaped record of a discussion of a classroom observation evaluation. We would like you to respond to a number of questions concerning this evaluation. First, we would like to find out whether or not you think Mrs. Clarke appealed Mr. Reed's decision concerning the arrangement of her classroom furniture or accepted his decision. Please chech (/) the appropriate response that indicated what course of action you think Mrs. Clarke took. Mrs. Clarke appealed Mr. Reed's decision concerning the arrangement of classroom furniture to a higher level. Mrs. Clarke accepted Mr. Reed's decision and rearranged the classroom furniture. 94 95 The following questions concern facts from the dialogue between the principal and teacher. Please read each question carefully and check the space opposite the correct answer. 1. What was the principal's major concern when he was in the classroom observing? (a) furniture arrangement (b) organization of the lesson (c) use of visual aids in the lesson (d) lack of enthusiasm on the part of the teacher While the principal was in the classroom the students were: ____(a) arguing with one another ____(b) carrying on a lot of conversation ____(c) reading books (d) throwing things at one another The principal favored desks being placed in: (a) clusters (b) small groups in circles (c) a horseshoe arrangement __(d) rows The teacher favored desks being placed in: ____(a) clusters .____(b) small groups in circles ____(c) a horseshoe arrangement ____(d) rows 96 The principal felt that the arrangement of furniture he favored would: _(a) _(b) _(C) _(d) foster student teacher interaction reduce chit-chatting among students make students pay closer attention to the teacher improve students' attitudes during discussions The teacher reminded the principal that when she was hired she had: _(a) _(b) _(C) (d) less than traditional notions about classroom management very traditional notions about classroom management an open mind and receptiveness to suggestions about classroom management middle of the road attitude about classroom management The teacher felt that in the classroom there is going to be some: _(a) _(b) _(C) _(d) misbehavior socializing arguing playing The teacher did not want to be the kind of teacher that makes school: _(a) _(b) _(C) _(d) a big joke unenjoyable for children all work like a playground 10. 11. 12. 97 The teacher felt that a rearrangement of desks would make the educational environment: ____(a) enjoyable _____(b) sterile ____(c) unenjoyable ____(d) boring The principal felt that students who were not listening and who were interfering with other students' ability to hear the teacher had: ____(a) to be punished to the full extent possible ____(b) a more detrimental effect on learning ____(c) an influence that needed to be dealt with ____(d) to be controlled via parents and principal intervention The principal felt that the learning environment could be improved by: .____(a) exercising a little more discipline _____(b) exercising a great deal more discipline ____(c) utilizing all available resources ____(d) excluding students that were being disruptive The teacher felt that in terms of what goes on at school the principal had: _____(a) little direct responsibility ____(b) a lot of responsibility .____(c) a lot more important matters to deal with (d) devoted his energies 13. 14. 15. 16. 98 The teacher felt that the principal had: __(a) carried outa directive from a higher level ____(b) a lot of other people to answer to ____(c) never liked the way she managed her classroom (d) a lot of nerve being so unreasonable The teacher felt that the problem was: ____(a) very serious _____(b) somewhat significant ____(c) not really that significant ____(d) not significant at all The teacher arranged desks in the manner in which she did in order to: (a) get students to know one another and talk about material covered in class (b) get students to emulate one another's behavior (c) get students to help one another with their work (d) get students to interact during discussion periods The principal felt that he had the: (a) overall right to make changes when indicated (b) overall responsibility for the quality of education in the school (c) overall knowledge to provide to teachers that were in need of it (d) authority to make the teacher be consistent with the overall philosophy of the building 17. 18. 19. 20. 99 The principal asked the teacher to: (a) (b) (C) _(d) rearrange the way the room was set up comply with his suggestions for bulletin boards have students walk while in the hallway use a variety of visual aids during presentations of lessons At one point in the conversation the teacher felt the principal was: __(a) _(b) _(c) (d) being absurd over reacting too serious overstepping his authority The teacher felt that since she spent all of her time in the classroom she knew: __(a) (b) (C) _(d) what types of problems her students had what each child's ability was what was best for her students what was needed to improve her students' school work The teacher had her classroom set up the way she did in order to: (a) (b) _(C) (d) facilitate learning on the part of the students allow students to feel free to ask her questions allow her to do the best job she could allow students to have a free flow exchange of ideas 21. 22. 23. 24. 100 The principal felt that it was within his authority to insist that: _(a) _(b) _(C) _(d) the teacher rearrange the room the teacher utilize visual aids in lessons the teacher spend more time providing instruction in reading the teacher utilize a variety of strategies to increase student interaction during lessons The teacher felt that the principal did not have the prerogative to: _(a) _(b) _(C) _(d) Who did (a) _(b) _IC) (d) impose these kinds of decisions impose one sided suggestions impose his own rules on her impose harsh restrictions on his staff the teacher want to talk to about the principal's decision? the building representative and some other members of her educational association to other teachers at her grade level the Director of Elementary Instruction the Superintendent The teacher felt that there was an important principle present and that she didn't think that someone in the capacity of a building administrator had: (a) _(b) _(C) _(d) the right to impose that degree of control over the conduct of a teacher's classroom the right to impose such strict directives the right to impose his own rules on teachers the right to tell teachers how to teach 25. 26. 27. 28. 101 The principal felt that the teacher was over-reacting to the situation and had every right to: ____(a) discuss this matter with her husband ____(b) solicit the help of grade level colleagues ____(c) pursue the matter to a higher level ____(d) discuss the matter with other administrators The teacher felt that when the principal was discussing her performance he neglected to say anything: ____(a) about the enthusiasm she generates ____(b) positive ____(c) the above and beyond time she spends with students ____(d) about how understanding she is with students Toward the conclusion of the discussion the teacher told the principal that she was left with a lot of: ____(a) hurt ____(b) uncertainty about her future ____(c) confusion ____(d) bad feelings When explaining why he had not had a lot of time to spend for conversations like the one he was having with the teacher the principal said that he was: ____(a) extremely busy trying to meet other obligations (b) involved in other projects (c) not convinced that this was a high priority in his duties (d) extremely tired from dealing with more important responsibilities 29. 30. 31. 32. 102 The issue the principal was discussing with the teacher was: (a) classroom management (b) absenteeism _____(c) organization (d) student safety The principal felt that the teacher was: (a) a traditional teacher (b) a highly motivated teacher (c) a poor teacher (d) a very stubborn teacher The principal felt that there wasn't any question about the teacher's interest in: (a) wanting to improve (b) the welfare of her students (c) updating when indicated (d) adhering to his directives The principal felt that the lesson being taught by the teacher was: (a) well organized (b) poorly organized (c) not geared to the students' levels (d) difficult for the students 103 33. The principal felt that the visual aids used in explaining the lesson were: (a) quite appropriate (b) obviously not as helpful as intended (c) detracting from the lesson (d) quite inappropriate 34. The principal felt that the children who were talking; _____(a) should be punished ____(b) helped other students better understand the lesson ____(c) weren't paying attention (d) were the ones who were usually in trouble In this section of the questionnaire we are interested in having you respond to a series of statements concerning your beliefs about the principal. Please read each of the statements carefully and then respond by placing a check (/) next to the statement which best represents your belief about the principal. There are no wrong or right answers. 1. Intelligence (check one) I believe that this person is very much above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is slightly above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is average in intelligence. I believe that this person is slight below average in intelli- gence. I believe that this person is below average in intelligence. I believe that this person is very much below average in intelligence. 104 2. Personal Feelings (check one) I feel that I would probably like this person very much. I feel that I would probably like this person. I feel that I would probably like this person to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably neither particularly like nor particularly dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person very much. 3. Adjustment (check one) ____I believe that this person is extremely maladjusted. ____I believe that this person is maladjusted. ____I believe that this person is maladjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is neither particuarly maladjusted nor particularly well adjusted. I believe that this person is well adjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is well adjusted. I believe that this person is extremely well adjusted. 105 4. Working Together on a Curriculum Committee (check one) I believe that I would very much dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee to a slight degree. I believe that I would neither particularly dislike nor parti- cularly enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee to a slight degree. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. 5. Knowledge of Current Events (check one) I believe that this person is very much below average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is below average in his (her) know- ledge of current events. I believe that this person is slightly below avearge in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is slightly above average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is above average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is very much above average in his (her) knowledge of current events. 106 6. Morality (check one) ____;This person impresses me as being extremely moral. ____This person impresses me as being moral. ____This person impresses me as being moral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being neither particularly moral nor particularly inmoral . This person impresses me as being immoral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being immoral. This person impresses me as being extremely immoral. Now we would like to ask you a few more questions about your opinion of this rinci a1. Please place a check mark (J) in the space beside the answer which best describes your opinion of this principal. For example, if you thought that this principal was somewhat strong, then you should place your check in the space beside "somewhat strong," for example: This principal was ..... very strong strong somewhat strong / undecided somewhat weak weak very weak 107 If you are undecided about a statement, if you have pp_ opinion about a statement, or if your opinion about a statement is neutral, then place your check mark in the space beside "undecided." This Principal Was . . . . _____very qualified ____yery unjust ____qualified ____unjust .____somewhat qualified ____somewhat unjust _____undecided ____undecided ____somewhat unqualified ____somewhat just _unqualified _just ____yery qualified ____yery just _____very safe ____yery inexperienced ____safe ____jnexperienced ____§omewhat safe ____somewhat inexperienced ____undecided .____undecided ____somewhat unsafe ____somewhat experienced ____unsafe ____experienced .____very unsafe ____yery experienced ____very cruel ____yery energetic ____pruel .___genergetic ____somewhat cruel .____somewhat energetic I____undecided .____undecided ____somewhat kind .____somewhat tired _____kind ____ytired very kind very tired 108 __very dishonest __very trained _di shonest __trained _somewhat dishonest __somewhat trained _undecided _undecided __somewhat honest __somewhat untrained __honest __untrained _very honest _very untrained _very friendly __very passive __friendly __passive _somewhat friendly __somewhat passive __und eci ded __undeci ded __somewhat unfriendly _somewhat active __unfriendly __active _very unfriendly _very active _very uninformed __very skilled __uni nformed ___s killed _somewhat uninformed __somewhat skilled _undecided _undecided _somewhat informed _somewhat unskilled __1 nformed __unskil led very informed very unskilled 109 ____yery meek ____yery bold ____meek ____bold ____somewhat meek ____somewhat bold ____undecided ____undecided ____somewhat aggressive ____somewhat timid ____eggressive ____timid ____yery agressive ____yery timid ____yery hesitant .____hesitant ____somewhat hesitant ____undecided ____somewhat emphatic __emphati c very emphatic In this section of the questionnaire we are interested in having you respond to a series of statements concerning your beliefs about the teacher. Please read each of the statements carefully and then respond by placing a check (l) next to the statement which best represents your belief about the teacher. There are no wrong or right answers. 110 1. Personal Feelings (check one) I feel that I would probably like this person very much. I feel that I would probably like this person. I feel that I would probably like this person to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably neither particularly like nor particularly dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person very much. 2. Knowledge of Current Events (check one) I believe that this person is very much below average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is below average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is slightly below average in his _(her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is average in his (her) knowledge of current events. _I believe that this person is slightly above average in his _(her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is above average in his (her) knowledge of current events. I believe that this person is very much above average in his _(her) knowledge of current events. 111 3. Working Together on a Curriculum Committee (check one) I believe that I would very much dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would dislike working with this person on a curriculum committee to a slight degree. I believe that I would neither particularly dislike nor particularly enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee to a slight degree. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this person on a curriculum committee. 4. Adjustment (check one) I believe that this person is extremely maladjusted. I believe that this person is maladjusted. I believe that this person is maladjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is neither particularly maladjusted nor particularly well adjusted. I believe that this person is well adjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is well adjusted. I believe that this person is extremely well adjusted. 112 5. Intelligence (check one) I believe that this person is very much above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is slightly above average in intelligence. I believe that this person is average in intelligence. I believe that this person is slightly below average in intelligence. _____I believe that this person is below average in intelligence. _____I believe that this person is very much below average in intelligence. 6. Morality (check one) ____This person impresses me as being extremely moral. ____;This person impersses me as being moral. ____;This person impresses me as being moral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being neither particularly moral nor particularly immoral. This person impresses me as being immoral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being immoral. This person impresses me as being extremely immoral. Now we would like to ask you a few more questions about your opinion of this teacher. Please place a check mark (/) in the space beside the answer which best describes your opinion of this teacher. For example, if you thought that this teacher was some- what strong, then you should place your check in the space beside "somewhat strong," for example: 113 This teacher was . . . . very strong strong somewhat strong / undecided somewhat weak weak very weak If you are undecided about a statement, if you have pg, TLt—Tltht 31322523224221."1.1mm}?23.23°E§.?d2'35fi'3§215a13.u This teacher was . . . . ____yery inexperienced ____yery timid ____jnexperienced ____timid ____somewhat inexperienced ____somewhat timid ____undecided _____undecided ____somewhat experienced ___somewhat bold ____experienced ____bold ____yery experienced ____yery bold ____yery unskilled ____yery meek ____unski11ed ____meek ____§omewhat unskilled ____somewhat meek ____undecided ____undecided ____somewhat skilled ____somewhat aggressive ____skilled ____aggressive very skilled very aggressive 114 ____very hesitant ____yery kind ____hesitant ____kind ____§omewhat hesitant ‘____somewhat kind ____undecided ____undecided ‘____somewhat emphatic ____somewhat cruel __empha ti c __cruel .____yery emphatic ____yery cruel ____yery trained ____yery unjust ____trained ____unjust ____somewhat trained ____§omewhat unjust ____undecided ____undecided ____somewhat untrained ____somewhat just ____untrained ____just ____yery untrained ____yery just ____yery honest ____yery safe ____honest ____§afe ____somewhat honest ____somewhat safe .____undecided _____undecided .____somewhat dishonest ____somewhat unsafe ____dishonest ____unsafe very dishonest very unsafe 115 _very uninformed _very unqualified __uni nformed __unqual if i ed _somewhat uninformed _somewhat unqualified _undecided _undecided _somewhat informed __somewhat qualified __i nformed _qual ified ___very informed __very qualified __very active __very energetic __active __energetic __somewhat active __somewhat energetic __undecided _undecided __somewhat passive ' __somewhat tired __passive _ti red __very passive _very tired __very friendly _friendl y __somewhat friendly _undecided __somewhat unfriendly __unfriendly very unfriendly 116 Now we would like to collect some information about you. This information is for research purposes and will be used in such a way that you will remain anonymous. 1. Sex: Female Male 2. Age: 3. Marital Status (check one): Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Separated ( ) Widow or Widower ( ) 4. Educational Level (check one): B.A./B.S. Degree ( ) Ph.D. ( ) M.A.IM.S. Degree ( ) 5. Level Currently Teaching (check one): Primary ( ) Intermediate ( ) 6. Have you any defects in your hearing? If so, has it been corrected? 7. Have you any defects in your vision? If so, has it been corrected? 8. How long have you lived in Wayne County? 9. Have you ever taken any college level courses in Communication? 10. Have you ever taken any college level courses in Conflict- Resolution? This is the end of the questionnaire. We want to thank you very much for helping us. Your participation is extremely important. APPENDIX E ANSWERS TO THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE (Information Retention Section Pages 2-9 and Questions 1-34) 117 118 ANSWERS TO THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE (Information Retention Section, Pages 2-9 and Questions 1-34) 1. a 19. 2. b 20. 3. d 21. b 22. 5. b 23. 6. a 24. 7. 25. 8. b 26. 9. c 27. 10. b 28. 11. a 29. 12. b 30. 13. b 31. 14. c 32. 15. a 33. 16. b 34. 17. a 18. b APPENDIX F THE EXPLANATION PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS WHO VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE 119 THE EXPLANATION PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS WHO VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE "Good Afternoon, ladies and-gentlemen. I appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedules to participate in this research project. Your cooperation is not only greatly appreciated, but will increase our knowledge of the educational system. The social significance will be of value to me and to others beyond me. This afternoon you will first view a videotape of a discussion of a classroom observation between an elementary principal and teacher. The teacher is being disciplined about her classroom management. This discussion is an actual discussion which was videotaped at an elementary school here in Michigan. The parties involved have agreed to participate in a program of research concerning teacher classroom performance. " "After you have viewed the videotape I would like you to complete a questionnaire. Please don't put your name on the questionnaire. The data will be grouped together in such a way that there is no way we can identify you: nor do we want to. Your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Please be certain to answer each and every question." "After you have completed the questionnaire, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the research. I will be able to answer questions after everyone has completed responding to the questionnaire. If you have to leave that is fine. I appreciate your cooperation. Please remember that I will be happy to answer questions 120 121 afterwards, if you would like to stay." ----View Videotape---- ----Distribute Questionnaires and Pencils---- "Before we get started please wait until I make a few comments about the questionnaire. The first thing I would like to do is comment about the length of the questionnaire. It is really not that long at all. There are a lot of choices to make. Some pages only have a few questions on them. Please read along with me as I read through the first page of the questionnaire. Please check the answer where you want it and then stop.” "As you turn the page you will find the instructions for the next questions. Additional instructions will also be found on pages 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21. Please notice the different set of instructions each time you come across a set of questions. Please read the questions carefully prior to responding to items you are responding to. If you have any questions about items contained in the questionnaire, please raise your hand and I will come and help you. As I mentioned previously, you are welcome to stay and I will attempt to explain in detail about the research. I will do this after all of the questionnaires have been submitted to me. If you are unable to stay and would like to know more about the research project or any additional information, please feel free to contact me at my home or office. My phone number at home is 885-0029 and the number at school is 343-2277." "Please do not tell others about the study if you stay and have the details explained to you. If this happened, the results I get would be invalidated." "‘4444444m