The Impact of Personality Structure on Mediation Process and Outcomes
Jennifer A. Ellison
Associate Professor Jan Grant; Dr Jenny Thornton; Dr Nick Barrett – Curtin University
OSA Group Organisational Development Team
251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth.
Email address jellison@osagroup.com.au
Abstract
Workplace mediation has emerged as a distinct discipline over the last three decades. The majority of
studies on workplace mediation consistently suggest that situational variables influence the mediation
outcome more strongly than personality variables. However, there is an emerging interest in the
impact of personality variables on mediation outcomes. The overall aim of this research is to
investigate how personality and defense styles impact satisfaction with mediation outcomes. The
research integrates organizational and clinical models of psychology.
The concept of a person’s capacity to cope with a mediation intervention is unexplored in workplace
mediation literature. In most cases the criteria that mediators use to proceed within mediation are
situational. Workplace mediators report however that it is easier to resolve workplace conflict with
some people more than others, irrespective of the situation.
The research utilises a correlational design to examine the relationship between personality factors
and mediation outcomes. Opportunity sampling is used; All mediation participants at OSA Group
(WA) over a three year period have been and will be invited to participate in the study. This paper
outlines the research process and measures in detail and briefly reports on some of the emerging
preliminary results.
The overall objective of the research is to identify personality structures that may impact on
satisfactory outcomes from mediation and to provide tailored strategies for mediators to accommodate
specific personalities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Impact of Personality Structure on Mediation Process and Outcomes
Jennifer A. Ellison
Associate Professor Jan Grant; Dr Jenny Thornton; Dr Nick Barrett – Curtin University
OSA Group Organisational Development Team
251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth.
Email address jellison@osagroup.com.au
The research integrates organizational and clinical models of psychology and has been approved for
candidacy for a PHD in Psychology at Curtin University. The purpose of this paper is to present to
mediation practitioners and researchers the rationale, emerging results and future research directions
from the pilot study. The results are based on a sample of 17 participants. A sample size of 60 subjects
is desired. Over the remaining 18 month period of data collection period it is expected that a sufficient
sample can be recruited.
Existing research
There is at present limited research that investigates the specific relationship between stable
personality structure and mediation outcomes (Ozer & Reise, 1994; Wall & Lynn, 1993; Wall, Stark
& Standifer, 2001). A literature review of research conducted over the last three decades reveals little
1
integration between the fields of mediation and psychological assessment. However, there is an
emerging interest in the interaction between personality patterns and workplace mediation. (King,
1990; Kressel, 1997; Shell, 2001; Terhune, 1970; Ungerer, 1997; Utley et al., 1989; Wall et al.;
Womack, 1988).
The mediation process has been developed in the last four decades over a diverse range of disciplines.
Various disciplines such as psychology, law, and politics have developed their own specific
frameworks, but as yet there is no central body of literature that has integrated mediation research
across disciplines. The existing psychological research on mediation is fairly limited and is mostly
found amongst organisational psychology research. Most workplace mediation models refer to
conflict as a normal part of work life and/or a symptom of organisational culture (Fisher & Ury, 1992;
Kressel; OSA, 2002). Workplace mediation is a process whereby an external mediator provides a
structure for parties in conflict, to clarify their concerns, identify required interpersonal behavioural
outcomes, and negotiate new behaviours to improve their workplace relationship.
As workplace mediation evolves as a viable alternative to more cumbersome organisational
interventions such as disciplinary processes, the need for ongoing research becomes apparent.
Throughout the research literature on mediation, it has been suggested that there is a need for a clearer
understanding of what constitutes effective mediation and the factors that determine these outcomes
(King; Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Wall et al.; Womack).
The debate focuses on the factors that determine mediation outcomes. The majority of reviews on
workplace mediation consistently suggest that situational variables influence the mediation outcome
more strongly than personality variables (Kressel & Pruitt, 1997; Shell, 2001; Utley et al.; Wall &
Lynn, ; Wall et al.,2001; Womack, 1988). There are, however, a small number of studies and reviews
that support the notion that personality factors may have an impact on mediation outcome (King,
1990; Terhune, 1970; Utley et al., 1989). Utley found personality does play a role in response to
conflict, but situational factors should also be considered, especially when looking at the target of the
conflict. Terhune argued that personality and situation were the two main influences on behavioural
conflict, but that the more complex the situation, the more difficult personality effects were to detect.
King found that conflict styles influence mediation outcomes but that there was a need for measures
that have greater reliability and validity.
Numerous clinicians and researchers have categorised personality structure in different constellations
consistent with their theoretical preferences. The most commonly used criteria for defining and
differentiating normal and pathological personality structure is derived from the Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) (American
Psychiatric Association 4th ed., 1994). The DSM-IV emphasises enduring patterns of personality
structure in its definition of personality disorders in Axis II, as well as specific defense mechanisms in
a Defensive Functioning Scale. Axis II is considered a major reference point in the conception of
psychopathology (Millon, 1997).
The DSM-IV defines personality traits as: patterns of perception, thought, and behaviour that manifest
in a range of situations. Personality disorders are defined as inflexible and pervasive patterns of
perception, thought, and behaviour that manifest in a range of situations, differ from cultural norms,
and lead to distress or impairment in functioning. Personality disorders are distinguished from
personality patterns by their inflexibility, stability over time, and the distress or impairment that
results. Subsequent to the definition of Axis II, research interest in personality disorders emerged in
numerous empirical studies (Costa & Widiger, 1994; Ozer & Reise; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005).
Millon conceptualises personality structure on a continuum from normal to pathological, where the
intensity of patterns, as well as the combination with other personality factors, are considered together
as a unique prototype for each individual.
2
It is widely believed that defense mechanisms shape coping, adjustment, and psychopathological
symptoms. Moreover, an awareness of defensive styles commonly used in everyday life is
advantageous in understanding and coping with individuals who unexpectedly change their
characteristic behaviour and become angry, compliant, or forgetful (Andrews et al., 1993).
The DSM-IV manual defines a defense mechanism or coping style as: An automatic psychological
process that protects the individual against anxiety and from the awareness of internal or external
dangers or stressors. Individuals are often unaware of these processes as they operate. Defense
mechanisms mediate the individual’s reaction to emotional conflicts and to internal and external
stressors. (p. 751).
Although there is an extensive research literature on personality and a reasonable literature on
mediation, the study of personality and workplace mediation as a combined field is limited. The
seminal work of Blake & Mouton (1964) introduced the concept of personality and conflict resolution
styles. The model was developed on two dimensions based on the concept of ‘concern for self’ and
‘concern for others’. Blake and Mouton’s (1964) classification of styles has been adapted by a series
of researchers who have attempted to refine the original model. Some of these include Lawrence and
Lorsch (1967), Thomas and Kilmann (1974) and Rahim and Bohoma (1979). All rely on Blake and
Mouton’s original conceptualisation of conflict management and continue to use a five-style
configuration of conflict resolution styles (King, 1990). These models are based on the assumption
that the style of bargaining that an individual utilises in negotiation has a large impact on the outcome
of the mediation (King, 1990; Shell,; Womack). Existing research indicates that effective mediation
outcomes can be gained by modifying situational conflict resolution styles. This contradicts the
underlying premise that personality structure is relatively stable across a range of situations (Rahim,
1983; Shell). This contradiction has yet to be addressed and explored within and across both fields of
organisational and clinical paradigms.
Significance of the study
From a theoretical perspective, the research may provide a broader understanding of the stable
individual differences between parties in workplace mediation (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Ozer & Reise,
1994; Wall & Lynn; Wall et al, 2001). From a practical perspective, the research may provide an
increased awareness of the impact of personality factors and defensive styles commonly used in
everyday life in resolving conflict in the mediation process. This may lead to the capacity to
differentiate and manage such variables more effectively as well as increase understanding of
unexpected or inexplicable behaviour in workplace mediation (Andrews et al.). This may provide
possible recommendations for mediators on how to alleviate the potential emotional stress of
subjecting individuals to ineffective and/or inappropriate attempts at mediation by modifying the
generic model of mediation to accommodate different personality structures and defensive
behaviours. There are clear economic advantages for organizations and individuals, if they are able to
develop a scientific and tailored mediation process that meets the needs of different levels of
personality organization. This is likely to be more effective in reducing workplace conflict, which can
have hidden and chronic costs on many levels to both the individual and the organization. The
research may also enhance and clarify the ethical implications that ensure best practice, as opposed to
a generic hit-and-miss approach, without a consistent and reliable methodology.
Research Question
Specific models of clinical practice include a preliminary evaluation of each person’s history,
temperament, defenses, stressors, and other factors. The tentative understanding that a psychologist
gains from this evaluation provides a preliminary formulation of the person’s capacity to cope with a
specific intervention (McWilliams, 1999). The concept of a person’s emotional readiness or capacity
to cope with an intervention is unexplored in mediation literature. In most cases, the criteria that
3
mediators use to proceed with mediation are situational. Whilst these criteria account for some
sources of conflict, they do not account for the personality factors that influence conflict and it’s
resolution. Certainly workplace mediators report that it is easier to resolve workplace conflict with
some people more than others, irrespective of situational factors. The research question is: What is the
relationship between personality patterns, defensive structures and mediation outcomes?
Research Design
This research is exploratory, as there are few existing studies that investigate the specific overlap
between personality structure, defensive processes, and mediation outcomes. The study utilizes a
correlation design to examine the relationship between personality factors, defensive structures and
satisfaction with mediation process and outcomes. Opportunity sampling is being used. All mediation
participants at OSA during 2006/7/8 until the end of 2009 have been and will be invited to participate
in the study. The following processes have been used to increase response rates: Face to face
administration of questionnaires, prior contact with participants so that they are expecting the
questionnaire, an absence of coercion to participate, and a system that promotes confidentiality and
anonymity. Questionnaires that are highly personal or threatening and therefore induce anxiety have
been shown to lower response rates (Hayes, 2000). It has emerged from the pilot study over 20006/7/8
that the response rate was extremely low (7 questionnaires over a year of active collection) and it is
hypothesised that based on the response rate to date in this study, the personal, clinical nature of the
psychometric questionnaires does influence the response rate. In order to address the low response
rate, questionnaires have been converted to an online format as an additional option and modification
to the statistical design has been made to accommodate a smaller sample.
Hypotheses
Based on general research in the fields of personality structure and mediation outcomes, it is
anticipated that higher scores on the Clinical Personality Patterns scale of the MCMI-III, Severe
Personality Patterns scale of the MCMI-III, and Immature and Neurotic Defense Variables scale on
the DSQ-40 will be correlated positively with lower levels of satisfaction with the Mediation Process
and Outcome. In addition it is anticipated that higher scores on Mature Defense variables on the DSQ40, will be correlated positively with higher levels of satisfaction with the Mediation Process and
Outcome. The specific variables that are being investigated in this study include:
 Clinical Personality Patterns: schizoid, avoidant, depressive, dependent, histrionic,
narcissistic, antisocial, sadistic, compulsive, negativistic and masochistic.
 Severe Personality Patterns: borderline, schizotypal and paranoid.
 Immature Defenses: projection, passive aggression, acting out, isolation, devaluation, autistic
fantasy, denial, displacement, dissociation, splitting , rationalization and somatization.
 Neurotic Defenses: undoing, pseudoaltruism, idealization and reaction formation.
 Mature Defenses: sublimation, humour, anticipation, suppression.
 Satisfaction with Mediation Process: effective mediator, empowerment of client, impartiality
of mediator, focus on issues and impact on work relationships.
 Satisfaction with Mediation Outcome: satisfaction with agreement and emotional satisfaction.
Study 1: Quantitative Analyses
Two step univariate hierarchical multiple regression analyses will be conducted with the two
measures from the Mediation Outcome Scale (Outcome and Process) as the criterion variables. On
the first step the control variables of age and gender will be entered. On the second step the set of
predictors will be entered. The predictors comprise the two personality measures from the MCMI-III
(Clinical and Severe personality styles) and three defensive measures from the DSQ-40 (Immature,
4
Neurotic and Mature defences). Since separate MRA will be conducted for each criterion variable a
corrected alpha level of .025 will be adopted. The assumptions underlying the parametric test statistic
F will be examined. Normality of the measures, in particular, may be an issue for this data. If non
normality is problematic a robust non parametric regression analysis test statistic L (Puri and Sen,
1985) will be conducted. This technique has been shown to have good power. Another issue for this
research is non-independence of the outcome measures. Kenny (1990) has outlined techniques for
dealing with nonindependence in dyadic data which require that each member of the dyad be
measured on the research variables. However, the pilot data has indicated that typically only one
member of each mediation pair has agreed to participate in the research.
Research Measures
Demographic Details
Demographic data relating to the participants will be collected. These include gender; age; marital
status; type of organisation, level in the organisation, years of service in current organisation, and
number of staff that are supervised. In addition, information relating to duration of conflict, intensity
of conflict, and motivation to resolve conflict will be collected.
Millon Clinical Personality Inventory (MCMI-III)
The inventory is a self-report instrument that is simple to administer. Computer scoring is available.
The inventory encompasses a continuum of personality structure including personality traits (minor
features that are clinically insignificant and found in normal populations), styles (a configuration of
traits that are subclinical) and personality disorders (patterns that are problematic enough to justify a
clinical diagnosis). In addition, the inventory captures 10 clinical syndromes; scales are grouped
according to the DSM-IV distinctions of Axis 1 and Axis 11. The MCMI-III uses a prototype concept
that is neither categorical nor dimensional in structure but an integration of both, by describing the
absence, presence, and level of each personality domain, for each individual in a profile (Millon,
1997). It therefore can provide valid profiles for individuals who are found on any point of the
continuum ranging from normal to pathological. In addition, it provides information on who may
meet discrete boundaries for personality disorders and/or criteria for multiple disorders. The inventory
is based on assumptions that there are no sharp divides between normal and pathological behaviour,
as they are points on a continuum. It provides a clear diagnostic cut-off point for specific personality
patterns, based on actuarial base rate data, rather than normalized standard score transformations. This
cut-off point can be linked to the DSM-IV nosology. The MCMI-III is regarded as a useful screening
device rather than a diagnostic assessment tool.
Two different levels of severity, BR 75 and BR 85 on the Clinical and Severe Personality Pattern
Scales of MCMI-III, define the presence of personality pathology. The higher the BR, the more likely
it is that personality pathology exists. Millon identifies three features that typically characterize
clinical personality patterns above BR 85. These include a likelihood of demonstrating a tenuous
stability under conditions of subjective stress, inflexibility, and a tendency to foster vicious circles.
The internal consistency of MCMI-III - the degree to which items intercorrelate - ranges from 0.66 to
0.9 on Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. Alphas exceed 0.8 for 20 of the 24 scales. The inventory can
therefore be regarded as demonstrating strong reliability. The test retest reliability for each scale
ranges from 0.82 to 0.96, with a median stability coefficient of 0.91. This strongly suggests that the
MCMI-III results are highly stable over a short time period. The external validity of the MCMI has
been established with the MMPI, indicating complementarity of the two instruments. Criterion
validity has been established against profiles of diagnostic groups as defined with the DSM-III-R (See
Appendix III).
The Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-IV).
The Defense Style Questionnaire developed by Andrews, Sing & Bond (1993) is a Self-report
Questionnaire designed to assess defenses along a developmental continuum from immature to
5
neurotic and to mature defenses. It originates from the work of both Vaillant (1971), who developed a
hierarchy of defences, and Bond (1983), who developed a questionnaire to measure conscious
derivatives of defense mechanisms. In 1989, Andrews modified Bond’s questionnaire to make it
consistent with the DSM-III-R. Statistical and methodological weaknesses led to the reconstruction of
a shortened 40-item inventory in 1989. The shortened questionnaire was designed to aim for greater
internal consistency than the 72-item questionnaire and provides a more practical inventory that
reduces fatigue. The inventory represents each defense with two items. Strong emphasis was given to
evaluating construct validity, criterion-related validity, and the test-retest reliability of each item
(Andrews et al.).
The test-retest reliability is based on the presumption that the defense style is presumed to be a
personality trait that is stable over time. This questionnaire is used to capture and measure the
subject’s “characteristic style of dealing with conflict, either conscious or unconscious, based on the
assumption that persons can accurately comment on their behaviour from a distance” (Andrews et
al., 1993). Test-retest correlations of 0.71 for the mature factor and 0.6 for the immature factor were
found. The construct validity of the revised 40-item questionnaire was 0.97, 0.93 and 0.95 amongst
the mature, neurotic and immature factors respectively. The questionnaire can therefore be regarded
as demonstrating adequate reliability and validity.
Client Assessment of Mediation Scale (CAMS)
The existing Client Assessment of Mediation Services Scale (CAMS) scale has been modified from a
scale measuring satisfaction with resolving family and divorce disputes (Kelly & Gigy, 1988) to a
scale that measures satisfaction with resolving work related disputes. The original scale is a reliable
and valid measure that can be used by researchers and mediation services to assess clients’
satisfaction. The scale is not uni-dimensional as it distinguishes between different aspects of the
mediation process and outcome. One entire factor of satisfaction with child-specific issues and
agreements has been omitted from the adapted scale as it is not relevant in a work related forum.
Adequate reliability of the scales is demonstrated by the alpha coefficients and there is evidence of
overall construct validity for the sample used to develop the scale. Reliability will be assessed by
measuring Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency in the sample used for this study
Model Adherence
In order to demonstrate that OSA Group were consistent in the mediation methodology it was
necessary to demonstrate that mediators used by OSA Group (staff and associates) had an adequate
level of model adherence. Susanne Goldie completed the model adherence study for practicum
requirements for the Masters in Psychology (organisational) at Curtin University.
The results of the model adherence study were documented in a report for OSA Group in October
2005. Nine mediators were involved in the study, five of which are considered internal employees of
OSA Group. This provided an acceptable representation of the mediator population.
The study provided evidence that the model used by OSA Group’s mediators has strong model
adherence (overall adherence rating of 79%), in that all mediators using the model adhered to the
recommended procedures with 71% accuracy. This is considered to be indicative of strong model
adherence across OSA Group mediators, particularly when the supporting comments are taken into
account.
Study 2: Qualitative Analyses
Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 10 to 20 participants in the study. An
interpretive phenomenological approach based on grounded theory will be used (Smith, 1995).
Additional techniques such as analysing transcripts in terms of domains and core ideas will be
incorporated into the analysis (Hill, et al, 1997). If possible, triangulation between the quantitative and
6
qualitative material will be used to sharpen the focus of the qualitative material. The qualitative
interview will be semi-structured, transcribed, interpreted and written up based on a master list of
domains and themes. The additional material obtained from the qualitative study is aimed to provide
further content and scope for future research. Specifically a pattern of personality styles and
behaviours that are manifesting in the research could be investigated further.
Emerging Results
The following results reflect preliminary trends emerging from the study. The results are based on
data from the first 17 participants.
Two variables reflected in mediation research literature influence satisfaction with the process and
outcome of mediation. These variables are the intensity of the level of conflict and motivation of
parties to resolve the conflict. A high intensity of conflict is considered to be a factor that decreases
the rate of satisfaction and a high level of motivation to resolve the conflict is considered to be a
factor that increases the rate of satisfaction.. In Figure 1, the emerging trend indicates that 11 of the 17
participants indicated that their perception of the intensity of the conflict was over five on a scale of
one to 10. All of the participants indicated that their level of motivation to resolve the conflict was
over six on a scale of one to 10. These variables will be accounted for by controlling for variance in
the statistical analysis.
Figure 1. Intensity of conflict and level of motivation to resolve conflict
6
q10 Intensity of Conflict
Numbe r of Respondents
q11 Level of motivation to resolve
4
2
0
Lo we st
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hig hest
In figure 2, the percentage of participants that utilise immature, neurotic and mature defences is
presented. For the 17 participants, 11% of the sample utilise neurotic defences, 89% utilise mature
defences and no participants utilise immature defenses.
7
Figure 2. Percentage of participants with Neurotic and Mature defenses
defense
Statistics : Percent
Neurotic
11.80%
Mature
88.20%
de fens e
Mature
Neurotic
Figure 3 indicates, that in the data collected so far, approximately 25% of the sample has a histrionic
personality disorder and 25% of the sample have a narcissistic personality disorder (Scores over 85
on the MCMI-III).
Figure 3. Percentage of Participants with Clinical Personality Disorders - Scores over 85 on MCMI-III
Percentag e of Responde nts
10 0%
75 %
50 %
25 %
Yes Percent
No Percent
0%
sc hi zo id 85
de pressi ve8 5
hi strion ic 85
an ti soc ia l8 5
co mpul si ve85
mas ochi sti c85
avo ida nt85
de pend ent85
na rc iss is ti c8 5
sa di sti c8 5
ne gativi sti c85
Figure 4 indicates that approximately 50% of the sample to date have a histrionic personality style,
40% of the sample have a narcissistic personality style, 25% of the sample have a compulsive style,
20% have a schizoid style and approximately 10% of the sample have depressive, negativistic and
masochistic styles (Scores over 75 on the MCMI-III).
8
Figure 4. Percentage of Participants with Clinical Personality Patterns - Scores over 75 on MCMI-III
Percentag e of Responde nts
10 0%
75 %
50 %
25 %
Yes Row N %
No Row N %
0%
sc hi zo id 75
de pressi ve7 5
hi strion ic 75
an ti soc ia l7 5
co mpul si ve75
mas ochi sti c75
avo ida nt75
de pend ent75
na rc iss is ti c7 5
sa di sti c7 5
ne gativi sti c75
Figure 5 indicates that at this stage there are no participants with severe personality patterns or
disorders (Scores over 75 or 85 on the MCMI-III). The severe personality patterns and disorders
include borderline, schizotypal and paranoid personality structures.
Figure 5. Percentage of Participants with Severe Personality Pathology – Scores over 75 & 85 on
MCMI-III
Percentage of Respondents
10 0%
75 %
50 %
25 %
Yes Percent
No Percent
0%
sc hi zotyp al 75
bo rd erl i ne7 5
pa ra noi d75
Discussion
It is important to understand emerging results in terms of the purpose of the MCMI-III and DSQ-40,
which are designed to provide profiles for individuals as a preliminary screening device rather than a
diagnostic assessment tool. In study 2, a series of qualitative interviews have been conducted which
may provide additional depth of understanding to supplement this screening device and provide
further understanding of personality and defense structure.
The variables were tested for normality and approximately seventy five percent were normally
distributed. For consistency of reporting at the early stages of this study, it was decided to report
parametric results. The Pearson Correlations are in the direction as predicted in the hypotheses.
Although the strength of correlations is relatively weak there is some significance in individual
personality styles. There is a significant correlation between the sadistic and masochistic personality
styles (scores over 75 on the MCMI-III) and a low level of satisfaction with mediation process and
outcome. There is also some significance with the defense style of denial with a low level of
satisfaction with mediation process. Mediators may need to take this into account and adjust the
mediation process when these qualities are present in mediation clients. Alternatively, mediators may
need to consider alternative interventions before going ahead with workplace mediation.
9
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:
DSM-IV. (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Andrews, G., Sing, M., & Bond, M. (1993). The defense style questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 181(4), 246 - 256.
Costa, J., P. T, & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Summary and unresolved issues. In J. Costa, P. T & T. A.
Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Craig, R. J. C. (2005). New directions in interpreting the Millon clinical multiaxial inventory-III
(MCMI-III). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1992). Getting to Yes. Negotiating an agreement without giving in. London:
Century Business.
Fukushima, S. (1999). What You bring to the table: Transference and countertransference in the
negotiation process. Negotiation Journal, 15(2), 169. Retrieved: Apr 1999, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=399169431&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&V.
Goldie, S. (2005). Nipping it in the bud. Mediators' adherence to a manual-based model of mediation
intervention, Perth: Curtin University for Occupational Services Australia (OSA) Group.
Gray, B. (2003). In theory. Negotiating with your nemesis. Negotiation Journal, 19(4), 299 - 328.
Retrieved: October, 2003, from ABI/Inform Global database.
Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research. Gathering and analysing data. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Hill, C.E., Thompson, B.J. & Nutt Williams, E. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative
research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4),517 – 572.
Hogue, A., Liddle, H., & Rowe, C. (1996). Treatment adherence process research in family therapy: a
rationale and some practical guidelines. Psychotherapy, 33(2), 332 - 345.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Writing and evaluating test items. In Psychological testing:
Principles, applications and issues (6th ed.): Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Kelly, J. & Gigy,L. (1988). Measuring Clients’ Perceptions and Satisfaction. Mediation
Quarterly,19,43 – 52.
King, W., C. (1990). What we know - and don't know- about measuring conflict. An examination of
the ROCI-II and the OCCI conflict instruments. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(2), 222 242. Retrieved: November 1990, from ABL/INFORM Global database.
Kressel, K. (1997). Practice-relevant research in mediation: Toward a reflective research paradigm.
Negotiation Journal, 143 - 159.
Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (1989). Mediation research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Livesley, J., W., & Jang, K., L. (2005). Differentiating normal, abnormal, and disordered personality.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 257 - 268.
McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. Understanding personality structure in the clinical
process. New York: The Guilford Press.
McWilliams, N. (1999). Psychoanalytic case formulation. New York: Guilford Press.
Millon, T. (1994). Personality disorders: Conceptual distinctions and classification issues. In J. Costa,
Paul T. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of Personality (pp.
279 - 302). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Millon, T., Davis,R., & Millon, C. (1997). Millon clinical multiaxial inventory: MCMI-III Manual.
(2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc.
Millon, T. (1999). Personality-Guided Therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Millon, T. (2004). Millon index of personality styles: MIPS Revised Manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS
Pearson, Inc.
Muris, P., & Merckelbach. (1996). The Short verson of the Defense Style Questionnaire: factor
structure and psychopathological correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(1), 123 - 126.
O'Kearney, R., Garland, G., Welch, M., Kanowski, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2004). Factors predicting
program fidelity and delivery of an early intervention program for first episode psychosis in rural
Australia. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 3(2), 1 - 9.
OSA, G. (2002). Mediation kit. Nipping it in the bud. Unpublished manuscript.
10
Ozer, D., J., & Reise, S., P. (1994, 1994). Personality assessment. Curtin University. Retrieved:
03/13/05, 1994 from www.annualreviews.org/aronline
Paulson, R. I., Post, R. L., Herinck, H. A., & Risser, P. (2002). Beyond components: Using fidelity
scales to measure and assure choice in program implementation and quality assurance. Community
Mental Health Journal, 38(2), 119-128.
Puri, M.L., & Sen. P. K. (1985). Nonparametric methods in general linear models. New York: Wiley.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of handling interpersonal conflict. The Academy of Management
Journal, 26(2), 368 - 376.
Resnick, B., Inguito, P., Orwig, D., Yahiro, J., Hawkes, W., Werner, M., et al. (2005). Treatment
fidelity in behavior change research. Nursing Research, 54(2), 139 - 143.
Shell, G. R. (2001). Bargaining styles and negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode
instrument in negotiation training. Negotiation Journal, 17(2), 155. Retrieved: Apr 2001, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=417551241&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VN
Sinha, B. K., & Watson, D. C. (1999). Predicting personality disorder traits with the defense style
questionnaire in a normal sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13(3), 281. Retrieved: Fall 1999,
from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=45315966&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Sinha, B. K., & Watson, D. C. (2004). Personality disorder cluster and the defense style questionnaire.
Psychology and Psychotherapy [NLM - MEDLINE], 77(1), 55 -67.
Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In Rethinking Methods in
Psychology (eds.) R. Haure & L. Van Langenhaue: London: Sage
Smith, J. L., Rost, K. M., Nutting, P., A, Libby, A. M., Elliot, C. E., & Pyne, J., M. (2002). Impact of
primary care depression intervention's impact of subsequent employment and workplace conflict
outcomes: Is value added? Journal of Mental Health Policy & Economics, 5(1), 43 - 49.
Terhune, K. W. (1970). The structure of conflict. New York: Academic Press.
Ungerer, J., A. (1997). Defense Style and Adjustment in Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31, 375 - 384.
Ungerer, J. A. (1997). Defense style and adjustment in interpersonal relationships. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31, 375 - 384.
Utley, M. E., Richardson, D. R., & Pilkington, C. J. (1989). Personality and interpersonal conflict
management. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(3), 287-293.
Vaillant, G. E. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense. A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. special issue: Yearly review of
management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515 - 559. Retrieved: 1995, from
http:/infotrac.galegroup.com
Wall, J. A., & Lynn, A. (1993). Mediation: A current review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(1),
160 - 194.
Wall, J. A., Stark, J. B., & Standifer, R. L. (2001). Mediation: A current review and theory
development. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2001(3), 370 - 384.
Waltz, J., Addis, M., Koerner, K., & Jacobson, N. (1993). Testing the integrity of a psychotherapy
protocol: Assessment of adherence and competence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
61(4), 620 - 630.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder:
Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2), 110. Retrieved: Apr 2005, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=839418831&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQ
D
Womack, D. F. (1988). Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey. Management
Communication Quarterly : McQ
(1986-1998), 1(3), 321. Retrieved: Feb 1988, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=750145201&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQ
D
Yeomans, F. E., Clarkin, J. F., & Kernberg, O. F. (2002). A primer of transferencefocused psychotherapy for the borderline patient: Jason Aronson Inc
11