Gender, Self‐Esteem, and Focus of Interest in the Use of Power Strategies by Adolescents in Conflict Situations Schwarzwald and Koslowsky

Abstract

Considerable evidence indicates that an individual's preference of power strategies for gaining compliance is associated with personal and social variables thatmay affect the quality of the relationship between the parties involved. This study examined how adolescents manage conflict situations and tested the importance of personal and situational characteristics in choosing power strategies for influencing others. Using Raven's (1992Raven's ( , 1993 power interaction model of interpersonal influence, hypotheses regarding the relationship between gender, self-esteem, and focus of interest (self versus group), on the one hand, and power choice, on the other hand, were formulated. Eighth graders (N = 356) were given scenarios of conflict situations and were asked to indicate the extent to which they would resort to each of the power strategies listed in the questionnaire to influence the other party in the scenario. Gender and focus of interest explained most of the observed variance. Boys, as compared to girls, indicated greater influence attempts regardless of strategy type. Adolescents with a self-interest focus, as compared to those with a group interest focus, resorted more to coercion and less to dependence. Low-self-esteem adolescents preferred reciprocity when compared with highself-esteem ones. Because gender differences explained the bulk of the variance, the discussion emphasized social ramifications concerning cross-cultural differences and gender role development as they relate to power strategy preferences.Conflict is a fact of life that can be destructive or productive, depending on how it is controlled and channeled. It is all around us, ranging from mild disagreements to mortal combat. Raven and Kruglanski (1970) perceived interpersonal

Conflict Strategies and Intimacy: Variations by Romantic Relationship Development and Gender

“…Although some studies have found gender differences in conflict strategies (Feldman & Gowen, 1998;Hojjat, 2000;Schwarzwald & Koslowsky, 1999), gender differences were not found for either positive or negative conflict strategies in the current study. This finding supports theory and research suggesting that the gender gap may be closing in some areas of relationship development (Shulman, Levy-Shiff, Kedem, & Alon, 1997).…”

Gender Role Ideology as a Moderator of the Relationship between Social Power Tactics and Marital Satisfaction

“…Their findings supported these expectations and are consistent with the literature indicating that men are perceived as employing tactics such as reward, coercion, and legitimacy and women as preferring reference, helplessness, and indirect information (Gruber and White 1986;Johnson 1976Johnson , 1978. Although studies done in various settings have indicated a gender distinction in power usage (Bui et al 1994;Gruber and White 1986;DuBrin 1991;Eagly and Johnson 1990;Falbo and Peplau 1980;Schwarzwald and Koslowsky 1999), the present study is the first one to investigate this relationship by applying the IPIM to the case of Israeli married couples. In organizations, for example, women were found to use soft power tactics, such as personal and negotiation strategies, altruism and rationality while men tended to use hard power tactics such as coercion, reward and punishment (Offerman and Kearney 1988;Schrier 1985, Harper andHirokawa 1988.…”

“…In a cross-cultural study on managerial attitudes and behaviors associated with gender socialization, the pattern of response differences between men and women in five countries, including the United States and Israel, was quite similar (Konrad et al 2001). Finally, in a study of Israeli adolescents in conflict situations, Shwarzwald and Koslowsky (1999) reported that power usage was indeed associated with gender such that males are expected to prefer harsh tactics and females, soft ones. The authors explained their findings in terms of gender stereotype differences.…”

Gender, status and the use of power strategies

“…Although fine distinctions may well exist in the exercise of different strategies, such an analytical approach ensures a more comprehensive and integrative categorization of strategies, thus providing a more reliable measure (Koslowsky & Schwarzwald, 2001). Strategy coding was based on the literature, which suggests that coercion, reward, expertise and legitimacy are often perceived as male power bases while information sharing and dependence are perceived to be feminine strategies Gender, status and the use of power 111 (Carli, 1999;Gruber & White, 1986;Johnson, 1976Johnson, , 1978Offerman & Schrier, 1985;Schwarzwald & Koslowsky, 1999). As the participants chose from a potential repertoire of strategies, the behavior measurement here resembles a form of forced choice, wherein scores are ipsative (Anastasi, 1988).…”

“…Accordingly, women are less accepted as influencing agents because they are presumed to be less competent and knowledgeable than men (Carli, 1999(Carli, , 2001Ridgeway, 2001;Wagner & Berger, 1997). As a result, evidence that women are less persistent and use less varied strategies than men when attempting to achieve influence (Gruber & White, 1986;Instone et al, 1983;Schwarzwald & Koslowsky, 1999) may originate from women's lower levels of compliance expectations (Falbo & Peplau, 1980). Gender, status and the use of power 107 Based on gendered expectations, it may be hypothesized that women would resort more to influence strategies which are stereotypically perceived as 'feminine', whereas men would prefer using strategies which are stereotypically perceived as 'masculine'.…”