How Would Pyrrho have been Socially Valued? Social Desirability and Social Utility of Conflict Regulation. Sommet, N., Quiamzade, A., & Butera, F. International Review of Social Psychology, July, 2017. ![How Would Pyrrho have been Socially Valued? Social Desirability and Social Utility of Conflict Regulation [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Mugny and his colleagues have shown that conflict is sometimes detrimental for learning, but other times beneficial, depending on how it is regulated. Yet, it is assumed that laypeople perceive conflict as uniformly negative. We argue that the valence of these lay perceptions depends on the mode of conflict regulation. Epistemic and relational protective conflict regulation behaviors (integrative and submissive response, respectively) can be described as more focused on the other than relational competitive conflict regulation (self-confirmatory response); thus, they should be perceived as more socially desirable. Moreover, epistemic and competitive regulations can be described as more focused on the self than protective regulation; thus, they should be perceived as more socially useful. First-year psychology students (N = 119) participants evaluated three bogus respondents allegedly regulating conflict in an epistemic, competitive, or protective manner. Results supported both hypotheses, suggesting that conflict is not to be avoided per se and can be positively valued as a function of its regulation.
@article{sommet_how_2017,
title = {How {Would} {Pyrrho} have been {Socially} {Valued}? {Social} {Desirability} and {Social} {Utility} of {Conflict} {Regulation}},
volume = {30},
copyright = {Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access ). All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on Educational Fair Use , please see this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries . All copyright of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners. Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are ©, ® or ™ of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner’s rights is intended or should be inferred.},
issn = {2397-8570},
shorttitle = {How {Would} {Pyrrho} have been {Socially} {Valued}?},
url = {http://www.rips-irsp.com/article/10.5334/irsp.88/},
doi = {10.5334/irsp.88},
abstract = {Mugny and his colleagues have shown that conflict is sometimes detrimental for learning, but other times beneficial, depending on how it is regulated. Yet, it is assumed that laypeople perceive conflict as uniformly negative. We argue that the valence of these lay perceptions depends on the mode of conflict regulation. Epistemic and relational protective conflict regulation behaviors (integrative and submissive response, respectively) can be described as more focused on the other than relational competitive conflict regulation (self-confirmatory response); thus, they should be perceived as more socially desirable. Moreover, epistemic and competitive regulations can be described as more focused on the self than protective regulation; thus, they should be perceived as more socially useful. First-year psychology students (N = 119) participants evaluated three bogus respondents allegedly regulating conflict in an epistemic, competitive, or protective manner. Results supported both hypotheses, suggesting that conflict is not to be avoided per se and can be positively valued as a function of its regulation.},
language = {eng},
number = {1},
urldate = {2018-03-16TZ},
journal = {International Review of Social Psychology},
author = {Sommet, Nicolas and Quiamzade, Alain and Butera, Fabrizio},
month = jul,
year = {2017},
keywords = {Conflict regulation, IP201, Judge paradigm, NIRA, Social desirability, Social utility, Socio-cognitive conflict, year8}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"TyWcWAoauGAvnte2t","bibbaseid":"sommet-quiamzade-butera-howwouldpyrrhohavebeensociallyvaluedsocialdesirabilityandsocialutilityofconflictregulation-2017","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-11-20T13:38:55.250Z","title":"How Would Pyrrho have been Socially Valued? Social Desirability and Social Utility of Conflict Regulation","author_short":["Sommet, N.","Quiamzade, A.","Butera, F."],"year":2017,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/urichle","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"How Would Pyrrho have been Socially Valued? Social Desirability and Social Utility of Conflict Regulation","volume":"30","copyright":"Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access ). All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on Educational Fair Use , please see this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries . All copyright of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners. Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are ©, ® or ™ of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner’s rights is intended or should be inferred.","issn":"2397-8570","shorttitle":"How Would Pyrrho have been Socially Valued?","url":"http://www.rips-irsp.com/article/10.5334/irsp.88/","doi":"10.5334/irsp.88","abstract":"Mugny and his colleagues have shown that conflict is sometimes detrimental for learning, but other times beneficial, depending on how it is regulated. Yet, it is assumed that laypeople perceive conflict as uniformly negative. We argue that the valence of these lay perceptions depends on the mode of conflict regulation. Epistemic and relational protective conflict regulation behaviors (integrative and submissive response, respectively) can be described as more focused on the other than relational competitive conflict regulation (self-confirmatory response); thus, they should be perceived as more socially desirable. Moreover, epistemic and competitive regulations can be described as more focused on the self than protective regulation; thus, they should be perceived as more socially useful. First-year psychology students (N = 119) participants evaluated three bogus respondents allegedly regulating conflict in an epistemic, competitive, or protective manner. Results supported both hypotheses, suggesting that conflict is not to be avoided per se and can be positively valued as a function of its regulation.","language":"eng","number":"1","urldate":"2018-03-16TZ","journal":"International Review of Social Psychology","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sommet"],"firstnames":["Nicolas"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Quiamzade"],"firstnames":["Alain"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Butera"],"firstnames":["Fabrizio"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"July","year":"2017","keywords":"Conflict regulation, IP201, Judge paradigm, NIRA, Social desirability, Social utility, Socio-cognitive conflict, year8","bibtex":"@article{sommet_how_2017,\n\ttitle = {How {Would} {Pyrrho} have been {Socially} {Valued}? {Social} {Desirability} and {Social} {Utility} of {Conflict} {Regulation}},\n\tvolume = {30},\n\tcopyright = {Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access ). All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on Educational Fair Use , please see this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries . All copyright of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners. Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are ©, ® or ™ of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner’s rights is intended or should be inferred.},\n\tissn = {2397-8570},\n\tshorttitle = {How {Would} {Pyrrho} have been {Socially} {Valued}?},\n\turl = {http://www.rips-irsp.com/article/10.5334/irsp.88/},\n\tdoi = {10.5334/irsp.88},\n\tabstract = {Mugny and his colleagues have shown that conflict is sometimes detrimental for learning, but other times beneficial, depending on how it is regulated. Yet, it is assumed that laypeople perceive conflict as uniformly negative. We argue that the valence of these lay perceptions depends on the mode of conflict regulation. Epistemic and relational protective conflict regulation behaviors (integrative and submissive response, respectively) can be described as more focused on the other than relational competitive conflict regulation (self-confirmatory response); thus, they should be perceived as more socially desirable. Moreover, epistemic and competitive regulations can be described as more focused on the self than protective regulation; thus, they should be perceived as more socially useful. First-year psychology students (N = 119) participants evaluated three bogus respondents allegedly regulating conflict in an epistemic, competitive, or protective manner. Results supported both hypotheses, suggesting that conflict is not to be avoided per se and can be positively valued as a function of its regulation.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2018-03-16TZ},\n\tjournal = {International Review of Social Psychology},\n\tauthor = {Sommet, Nicolas and Quiamzade, Alain and Butera, Fabrizio},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tkeywords = {Conflict regulation, IP201, Judge paradigm, NIRA, Social desirability, Social utility, Socio-cognitive conflict, year8}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Sommet, N.","Quiamzade, A.","Butera, F."],"key":"sommet_how_2017","id":"sommet_how_2017","bibbaseid":"sommet-quiamzade-butera-howwouldpyrrhohavebeensociallyvaluedsocialdesirabilityandsocialutilityofconflictregulation-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.rips-irsp.com/article/10.5334/irsp.88/"},"keyword":["Conflict regulation","IP201","Judge paradigm","NIRA","Social desirability","Social utility","Socio-cognitive conflict","year8"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["pyrrho","socially","valued","social","desirability","social","utility","conflict","regulation","sommet","quiamzade","butera"],"keywords":["conflict regulation","ip201","judge paradigm","nira","social desirability","social utility","socio-cognitive conflict","year8"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["GYFcaWGiKTgr2s4rS"]}