Abstract
Siding in a dyadic conflict is important because it precipitates escalation. Nevertheless, little is known about how and why a nonprofessional outsider (P) reacts when a conflict party puts him under pressure to take sides. Coalition and role conflict theories suggest four behavior alternatives (taking sides, compromise, avoidance, and conflict resolution) and two behavior determinants: the sanction power and the legitimate power each of the conflict parties exerts over P. This article delineates the relationships among these variables (power hypothesis), and introduces the further assumptions that P will gather information before he selects one of the four behavior alternatives (process hypothesis) and that escalating siding behavior will be his most frequent reaction (escalation hypothesis). In a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data on behavior in role conflict situations, the power hypothesis and the escalation hypothesis are confirmed. Finally, the theoretical and practical significance of the theory are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
