Journal of School Psychology

44 (2006) 105 – 121

Teachers’ conflict management styles:

The role of attachment styles and classroom
management efficacyB
Britta K. Morris-Rothschild *, Marla R. Brassard
Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA
Received 21 September 2005; received in revised form 18 January 2006; accepted 20 January 2006

Abstract

Constructive conflict management strategies are important in maintaining a positive classroom

environment yet little is known about interpersonal or school variables associated with teachers’ use of
such strategies with students. Teachers high in self-reported classroom management efficacy (CMEFF)
and security of attachment (low on avoidance, anxiety) were predicted to endorse use of positive
classroom management strategies (e.g., integrating, compromising) more than insecure teachers and
those low in CMEFF. Teachers (N = 283) from eleven schools (seven elementary), largely female and
white, responded to a questionnaire in their boxes (29.4% response rate). School and teacher
demographic variables were included in a multivariate regression after preliminary analysis suggested
that ignoring the multilevel structure of the data made little difference in results; school variances were
small compared with teacher variances. CMEFF and years teaching had positive, significant effects on
use of integrating and compromising strategies, while avoidance had negative effects on both and
anxiety on integrating strategies. Implications for teacher development are discussed.
D 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teachers’ conflict; Attachment styles; Self-reported classroom management efficacy (CMEFF);
Teacher development

B
This paper is based upon the first author’s doctoral dissertation, which was sponsored by the second author.
Special thanks to Professor Terri Orr, Department of Organizational Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia
University, who was part of the first author’s dissertation committee.
* Corresponding author. Box 001, Teachers College, Columbia University, Department of Health and Behavior
Studies, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA.
E-mail addresses: bkr7@columbia.edu (B.K. Morris-Rothschild), mrb29@columbia.edu (M.R. Brassard).

0022-4405/$ - see front matter D 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.01.004
106 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

Novice and veteran teachers alike cite classroom management as a major concern
(Goyette, Dore, & Dion, 2000) and teacher–student conflict as a frequent characteristic of
difficult to manage classes (Diamond, 1992). It is the primary reason that new teachers
leave the profession after only a few years (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003) and it has been
related to experienced teachers’ high levels of stress and burnout (Schottle & Peltier,
1991).
Despite the importance of constructive conflict management strategies in the
maintenance of a positive classroom environment, much of the research in the area of
classroom management has emphasized what teachers are doing in the classroom to
maximize student engagement and compliance (for example, by modifying the classroom
setting) and how they are doing it (with respect to both instructional and emotional
support) (Rimm-Kaufman, LaParo, Downer, & Pianta, 2005). The literature has failed to
address the possible reasons why teachers tend to rely on certain approaches to classroom
and conflict management; specifically, few studies have examined the intrapersonal
variables that are associated with teachers’ use of specific conflict management strategies,
and none have investigated the role of teachers’ attachment styles and classroom
management efficacy in predicting their use of specific conflict management styles.
The limited research that has investigated the impact of attachment styles upon conflict
management strategies has been primarily conducted within the context of romantic
relationships (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Pistole, 1989) and has failed to consider the
potential impact of self-efficacy as a possible predictor, despite the fact that a number of
studies have indicated that secure individuals are highly self-efficacious (Collins & Read,
1990; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995) and the degree of self-efficacy influences behavior
(Bandura, 1991).
The attachment literature suggests that adult attachment styles, perhaps because they
reflect fundamentally different internal working models of relationships, may determine
differences in conflict style (Cohn, Silver, Cowan, & Parson, 1992; Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-
Gillies, & Fleming, 1993). Conflict and other stressful situations are believed to increase
an individual’s need for psychological support from his or her attachment figure, resulting
in increased accessibility, and salience of that individual’s internal working models (Kobak
& Duemmler, 1994; Pistole & Arricale, 2003).
Attachment theory is derived from Bowlby’s (1969) contention that infants construct
working models based on their interactions with attachment figures, which provide a
framework for later personality organization. Internal working models consist of
bgeneralized expectations, beliefs and goals about the self, others, and the relationship
between the two. These working models are thought to guide how people perceive,
interpret, and respond to their social interactionsQ (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997, p. 1409).
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) described a model of four attachment styles (secure,
dismissing, preoccupied and fearful) that individuals may approximate to varying degrees,
in which two types of internal working models are postulated; namely, a model of the self
and a model of others. These internal working models can be dichotomized as positive
(self as worthy of love and attention; other as trustworthy, caring and available) or negative
(the self as unworthy of love; the other as uncaring, rejecting and distant). The four
prototypes can be distinguished from each other by their unique internal working models
of self and other which delineate characteristic patterns of behavior and emotional
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 107

regulation. The secure prototype is comprised of a positive sense of self and a positive
sense of other, experiencing comfort with intimacy and high self-worth. The preoccupied
prototype is characterized by a negative sense of self and a positive view of others. These
individuals are emotionally needy, searching for self-affirmation through their relation-
ships. When their needs are not met, they become quite distressed. The fearful prototype
has a negative sense of self and others. Individuals with fearful styles lack trust in others
and they tend to avoid close relationships for fear of getting hurt. Yet, they seek validation
of their self-worth through others. Lastly, the dismissing prototype consists of a positive
sense of self and negative view of others. According to Bartholomew and Horowitz
(1991), individuals with dismissing attachment styles emphasize independence and self-
reliance because they mitigate the importance of close relationships, thus maintaining their
feelings of self-worth.
Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) conceptualized these four prototypes as regions in a
two-dimensional space, which they described as avoidance (self-reliance/discomfort with
closeness) and anxiety (need for approval/fear of rejection). Attachment anxiety
incorporates a negative model of self with a positive model of others, whereas avoidance
is characterized by the reverse. The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS) was
developed by Brennan and colleagues (1998) to measure these dimensions and it has
become one of the most widely used instruments in this area.
A growing body of literature suggests that these attachment styles predict the manner in
which romantic couples deal with conflict. Kobak and Hazan (1991) found that during
problem-solving interactions, spouses who have secure working models tend to regulate
their emotions more constructively than insecure spouses. Nordling (1993) found that
avoidant and anxious attachment styles were negatively associated with couples’ use of
adaptive conflict management strategies such as accommodation and integration. Other
studies showed that secure attachment style predicted positive relationship characteristics
and constructive approaches to conflict, while the anxious and avoidant styles were
negatively associated with these features (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Levy & Davis,
1988; Pistole & Arricale, 2003). Since these attachment styles reflect generalized working
models of relationships, not solely romantic relationships, it seems reasonable to conclude
that teacher’s views of self and other would also guide their responses to teacher–student
conflict.
Research on internal working models has shown that security in attachment is also
correlated with a sense of self-control and self-efficacy (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Self-efficacy has been defined as
individuals’ judgments regarding their ability to perform a given activity (Bandura, 1977).
Individuals can believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes,
but if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the necessary
activities, such information does not influence their behavior (Bandura, 1977, p. 193).
Efficacy expectations impact the duration and intensity of efforts put out in the face of
adversity. bThe stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active the effortsQ (Bandura,
1977, p. 194).
Self-efficacy begins to develop within the context of the infant–caregiver relationship
(Frankel & Bates, 1990; Lutkenhaus, Grossmann, & Grossmann, 1985; Matas, Arend, &
Sroufe, 1978; Oppenheim, Sagi, & Lamb, 1988). Sroufe (1983) explained that sensitive
108 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

caregivers who effectively meet infants’ needs will foster the development of the belief
that, as children, these infants can influence the world to meet their needs and achieve their
goals. As adults, these securely attached individuals’ confidence in their own skills leads
them to open their schemas to threatening information and revise erroneous beliefs, such
that they are able to develop more flexible and constructive coping plans (Mikulincer &
Florian, 2000). These attributes not only form the basis of secure attachment, but they are
also related to the skills for effective conflict management (Deutsch, 1993).
Teacher efficacy for classroom management remains an unexplored area for
researchers. Yet, some studies have supported the theoretical implication that personal
teaching efficacy may have an impact on teacher behaviors, beliefs and outcomes.
Teachers with low personal teacher efficacy have been found to criticize students for
failure and demonstrate a tendency to give up easily when faced with difficult situations
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Similarly, Ashton and Webb (1986) showed that the behavior or
beliefs of teachers with low personal teaching efficacy were associated with control-
oriented discipline techniques, use of positional authority, and use of verbal embarrass-
ment and removal from class. In contrast, teachers with high levels of personal teaching
efficacy have been found to devote more time to students’ needs and praise their
accomplishments readily (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). High personal teaching efficacy has
been associated with more humanistic pupil control ideologies (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990),
instructional effectiveness (Guskey & Passaro, 1994), less referrals of students to special
education (Soodak & Podell, 1993) and the ability to assist the development of positive
interpersonal relationships among students (Cheung & Cheng, 1977; Rich, Lev, & Fisher,
1996). According to Rosenholtz (1989), if the teacher’s sense of personal teaching efficacy
is strong, then positive outcomes for that teacher’s students should occur.
Within the context of this study, these positive outcomes are defined by conflict
management styles that incorporate a concern for self as well as for others, as defined by
Rahim and Bonoma (1979) and are very similar to Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991)
two types of internal working models (model of self and model of others). A combination
of the two dimensions results in five specific styles of handling interpersonal conflict.
When an individual demonstrates low concern for the goals of self and other, the
individual stays out of a situation that provokes controversy or remains neutral (avoiding).
An individual who has a greater concern for another person’s goals than his own, may
smooth over the conflict by appeasing the other individual (obliging). People with
intermediate concerns for self and other settle the conflict by means of a compromise
(compromising). Individuals who have a high concern for both their own and another’s
goals use creative problem-solving to satisfy all the individuals involved (integrating).
bUnlike compromising, integrating is a win–win strategy aimed at optimizing rather than
at sacrificing for the partiesQ (VandeVliert, 1997, p. 36). Integrating is not as clear cut as
compromising, because when two people compromise, the goal (a distribution or
exchange) is clear and so is the manner of obtaining that goal (splitting difference). When
integrating is used, both the seemingly incompatible goals of both parties must be
redefined in order to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement in which both parties win
(Burton, 1990). Finally, people who have a one-sided concern for their own goals feel that
the conflict can be controlled by overpowering it and suppressing their opponent
(dominating). This is also referred to as a bwin–lose power struggleQ (VandeVliert, 1997,
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 109

p. 38). A dominating or competing person goes all out to win his objective and, as a result,
often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party.
The main purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between the
independent variables (attachment styles and classroom management efficacy) and the
individual conflict management styles. We hypothesized that teachers with self-reported
secure attachment styles, who have a positive view of themselves and others, would
endorse constructive bwin–winQ conflict management styles such as integrating and
compromising (which incorporate a high concern for one’s own, as well as another’s
goals) more than insecure teachers who are characterized by a negative view of self,
others, or both. Similarly, attachment avoidance and anxiety was predicted to be negatively
associated with mutually focused conflict management styles such as compromising and
integrating, and positively associated with avoiding and obliging, respectively.
Perceived classroom management efficacy was hypothesized to predict those conflict
management styles (integrating and compromising) associated with positive outcomes for
self and others (bwin–winQ strategies). Although previous studies have considered perceived
self-efficacy a mediator between attachment styles and conflict (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt,
2000), we were interested in examining the differential impact of a personality trait such as
attachment styles and a context-dependent variable such as perceived classroom management
efficacy upon self-reported conflict management styles in light of the contention that
situationally specific perceived expectations of self-efficacy would be a better predictor of
behavior when under stress than personality traits (Bandura, 1982; Mischel, 1968).
We also included individual teacher demographic variables in the analyses, such as years
teaching, which we predicted to be associated with an increased reported use of mutually
focused conflict management styles, since previous research has shown that teachers with
less experience were likely to turn to other school personnel for assistance in handing
behavioral issues (Gutkin & Ajchenbaum, 1984). Gender was initially included in the
preliminary data analyses, but was found to be unrelated to any of the dependent variables,
probably due to the fact that a majority of the teachers in the sample were women.
Finally, our experience in schools suggested that school context may influence
teachers’ conflict management strategies. While there is a literature on school context and
teacher efficacy, we could find no literature on its relationship to teachers’ conflict
management styles. We explored the question by examining the relative contribution of
school versus teacher variance in accounting for teachers’ conflict management styles and
then by including the individual school variables that were significant in our final
analyses. For school variables, we used electronically available measures of the schools in
which we collected data. These included school level (elementary, secondary), school size,
percent white, and percent receiving free lunch.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and eighty-three teachers from 7 elementary schools and 4 secondary
schools comprising two school districts in upstate New York, voluntarily responded to 962
110 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

anonymous questionnaires placed in teachers’ mailboxes during the spring of 2001, after a
presentation at each schools’ faculty meeting (29.4% response rate).
Participants were predominantly female (79.5%), Caucasian (97.8%), evenly split
between elementary (48.4%) and secondary (50.9%) settings, and experienced in teaching
(44%, 4–15 years; 36%, 16+ years; 21%, 3 years or less). Most of the teachers who
responded to the questionnaire had some training in conflict management (ranging from
one workshop to a college course); only 26% had no training.
Schools ranged in size from 235 students to 1761 students and varied by 70.1% to
96.3% white and 6.5% to 26.8% receiving free lunch.

Procedure

After obtaining written permission from the Superintendents of each school district, a
5-min presentation was made at each school’s monthly faculty meeting. Teachers were
told that the information obtained from the completed questionnaires would be used as
part of the first author’s dissertation. It was also stated that participation was completely
voluntary and anonymous. Following the presentation, questionnaires were placed in the
teachers’ mailboxes.
Teachers were told that everyone who returned their questionnaire in the self-addressed,
stamped envelope, would be automatically entered into a raffle for fifty dollars. It was
explained that each questionnaire was individually coded for the purpose of identifying the
school from which it originated. In addition, the codes corresponded to a tear-off label
which was kept by the teacher, so that he/she could later use the label code to claim the
raffle prize. It was clearly stated, and written on the cover sheet of the questionnaire, that
each winner would have to identify him or herself. A memorandum was to be distributed
to all the teachers, notifying them of the winning code and the number to call in order to
claim the money. Teachers were informed that the raffle would take place 2 weeks
following questionnaire distribution; thus, all teachers who wanted to be considered for the
raffle should make sure that their questionnaires were mailed on time. After being
contacted by the prospective winner, the first author met the teacher at his/her school for
validation of the label code and to award the prize.

Instruments

The Experiences in close relationships scale (ECRS; Brennan et al.,1998) is the most
extensively developed and validated adult attachment questionnaire to date. It was
developed from survey responses of more than 1000 undergraduates to over 300 items
from every self-report adult attachment measure that had been known. The ECRS is
comprised of two 18-item scales which assess attachment style along two dimensions,
avoidance and anxiety. The avoidance scale is comprised of items which reflect an
individual’s reticence in engaging in close relationships (i.e., bI prefer not to be close to
othersQ). The second scale assesses the level of anxiety in relationships (i.e., bI worry about
being abandonedQ). A 7-point Likert scale was used for responses (1 = disagree strongly,
7 = agree strongly). Brennan et al. (1998) reported internal reliability coefficients of .91
and .94, respectively, for the anxiety and avoidance subscales. The ECRS also provided
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 111

for the categorization of teachers into discrete attachment styles (secure, preoccupied,
fearful and dismissing) according to SPSS-PC scoring instructions outlined by Brennan et
al. (1998).
The Scale for teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline (Emmer &
Hickman, 1991) consists of three factors: External Influences (the influence of variables
beyond the teacher’s control), Personal Teaching Efficacy (reflects teachers’ beliefs about
their skills to bring about student learning) and the Classroom Management/ Discipline
factor (consisting of 11 items, scored on a Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree), which were related to teachers’ self-perception of competence in the
area of management and discipline, such as bI can keep a few problem students from
ruining an entire classQ. Only the latter was used in this study. The authors report
acceptable reliability (coefficient alpha .79; test–re-test reliability .75).
The Rahim organizational conflict inventory-II (ROCI-II; Rahim, 1990), one of the
most well-known questionnaires on styles of conflict management, consists of 28, 5-point
Likert items (strongly disagree to strongly agree) that comprise five distinct subscales: (a)
integrating reflects a dwin–winT philosophy endorsed by individuals who have an equally
strong concern for others as for themselves (i.e., bI exchange accurate information with my
students to solve a problem togetherQ), (b) compromising involves sacrifice on behalf of
both parties (i.e., bI usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocksQ), (c) obliging
is a dlose–winT strategy used by individuals who have an overriding concern for the other
party’s goals (i.e., bI try to satisfy the expectations of my studentsQ), (d) dominating (dwin–
loseT) strategies (i.e., bI sometimes use my power to win in a competitive situationQ), and
(e) avoiding reflects minimum concern for oneself and others (i.e.,Q I try to avoid
unpleasant exchanges with my studentsQ).
The ROCI-II items were chosen from the final factor analysis ratings of 35 items from a
national sample of 1219 managers (Rahim,1990). The five factors explained more than
89% of the total variance and supported the independent conflict styles. Test–retest
reliability obtained from 119 college students has shown acceptable alphas of .60 to .83.
Correlations between the five conflict scales and the Crowne and Marlowe measure of
social desirability (1960) were minimal and range from .11 for avoiding to .29 for
integrating.

Results

Descriptive statistics and alpha coefficients are presented in Table 1. Of the 283
teachers, 32% were classified as securely attached, 21% were fearful, 10% preoccupied,
and 37% dismissing. Chi-squares were conducted to examine the relationship between the
attachment styles (secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful) and high, medium and low
levels of the various conflict management styles. Teachers with self-reported secure
attachment styles were significantly over-represented in the high integrating category.
More than half (51.4%) of the securely attached teachers were in the high integrating
category. In contrast, those teachers who were dismissing had half the proportion (25.7%)
of the high integrators, whereas 12.2% of teachers with fearful attachment styles and
10.8% of teachers with preoccupied attachment styles were high integrators.
112 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the study variables for the entire samplea
Measure a Mean S.D. Range in data
Experiences in close relationships
Anxious subscale .91 2.96 1.06 1–6
Avoidant subscale .88 3.08 .90 1–6
Classroom management efficacy .86 5.63 .75 3–7

ROCI-II
Obliging subscale .66 4.30 .79 1–6
Compromising subscale .77 5.06 1.01 2–7
Dominating subscale .79 3.99 1.17 1–6
Avoiding subscale .79 4.06 1.21 1–7
Integrating subscale .87 5.56 .90 2–7
a
Higher scores indicate greater anxiety over relationships, less comfort with closeness, greater sense of
classroom management efficacy, and greater use of the five conflict management styles.

The basic goal of the analysis, however, was to examine the relationship between the
independent variables and the five conflict management strategies. This could be done via
a multivariate regression model, with the five conflict management strategies serving as
the dependent variables. The multivariate approach has advantages over univariate
regression, such as the fact that it recognizes that the dependent variables are correlated,
whereas performing five separate regressions would ignore this (the multivariate approach
also controls the Type I error rate, has higher power, and gives correct standard errors). We
used multivariate regression, a special case of SEM, because, like multiple regression, it is
designed for exploratory analysis while SEM requires a theoretical model. Fig. 1 shows an
example of a multivariate regression model, using the diagramming conventions of
structural equation modeling (e.g., see Kline, 2005); to simplify the diagram, only three
dependent variables and two predictors are shown. Fig. 1 shows that the model
simultaneously considers all of the dependent variables and the curved arrows among
the error terms show that the dependent variables are correlated.
A further complication is that the data has a multilevel structure, in that it examines
teachers clustered within different schools. The clustering could be taken into account by
embedding the multivariate regression model discussed above within a multilevel model,
which would give a multilevel multivariate model (see Hox, 2002; Raudenbush, Rowan,
& Kang, 1991). A problem with this approach, however, is that we had data for only 11

Y1 e1
X1

Y2 e1

X2
Y3 e3

Fig. 1. A structural equation diagram of a multivariate regression model.

 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 113

Table 2
Means, variances, and intraclass correlations for each dependent variable (N = 228)
Dependent variable Mean Variance School Teacher ICC
Variance Variance
Integrating 5.45 .84 .06 .78 .07
Compromising 4.98 .96 .03 .93 .03
Obliging 4.27 .60 .02 .58 .03
Dominating 3.97 1.39 .09 1.30 .07
Avoiding 3.93 1.37 .06 1.31 .04

schools, and a multilevel analysis usually requires a larger number of level two units (e.g.,
see Snidjers & Bosker, 1999). Another consideration is that whether or not a multilevel
analysis will make much of a difference depends in part on the size of the intraclass
correlations (ICC), which are also usually examined as a first step in multilevel analysis in
order to see how large the effects of clustering are. Table 2 shows the means, (total)
variances, school variances, teacher variances, and ICC for each dependent variable; one
observation was lost because of missing values. The table shows that the school variances
are quite small whereas the teacher variances are considerably larger. As a result, the ICCs
are small (e.g., Raudenbush & Liu, 2001, suggest values of .05 or less as small). This
suggests that ignoring the multilevel structure in this case should make little difference in
the results, because the correlations within schools are small. Because of this, and because
of the small number of level two units (schools) (which led to estimation problems with
the multilevel model), multivariate regression was used instead of multilevel multivariate
regression.
The data were first examined using univariate and multivariate regressions. These
analyses suggested that teacher gender, school size and school level (elementary and
secondary) had no relation to any of the outcomes, and so they were not included in the
multivariate regression model.
Table 3 shows the estimates of the regression coefficients and standard errors for each
dependent variable (the five conflict management styles) and predictor (CMEFF,
Avoidance, Anxiety, years teaching, percent white, and free lunch). (Note that N = 227

Table 3
Results for multivariate regression for each predictor with five conflict management outcomes
Predictor Dependent variable
Integrating Compromising Obliging Dominating Avoiding
estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate
CMEFF .33* (.08) .22* (.09) .24* (.07) .17 (.11) .05 (.11)
Avoidance .13** (.06) .21* (.07) .12** (.06) .14 (.09) .06 (.09)
Anxiety .17* (.05) .04 (.06) .01 (.05) .18 (.08) .14 (.08)
Years teaching .16* (.08) .12** (.09) .03** (.07) .10 (.11) .06 (.11)
% White .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .04** (.02) .01 (.02)
Free lunch .02**(.01) .02 (.01) .02 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01)
Standard errors are shown in parentheses.
* p b .01.
** p b .05.
114 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

because one teacher had missing values on some of the predictors.) The table shows that
the pattern of results was similar for the integrating, compromising, and obliging
management styles. For example, conflict management efficacy (CMEFF) had positive
and significant associations with the three management styles, and the number of years
teaching with two of them (it was negatively related to obliging). Avoidance had
significant negative effects on the use of integrating, compromising and obliging
management styles. In addition, for the integrating management style, anxiety had a
significant negative effect and the percent of students receiving free lunch had a
significant positive effect. In contrast, the dominating and avoiding styles clearly differed
from the other styles in that attachment and efficacy were not related to these conflict
management styles, The percent of white students in the school was associated with the
use of the dominating style. The values of R 2 for each dependent variable were 0.23,
0.11, 0.09, 0.08, and 0.03 for integrating, compromising, obliging, dominating, and
avoiding styles, respectively, which again shows that little of the variance of dominating
and avoiding was accounted for by the set of predictors, and only slightly more for
obliging.
In summary, the reported use of integrating, compromising, and obliging styles by
teachers was higher for teachers reporting higher classroom management efficacy and with
greater years teaching (for integrating and compromising), whereas the use of these three
styles was lower for teachers with more avoidance. Teachers high on anxiety were also
lower on use of integrating.
Table 4 shows the correlations between the error terms associated with each dependent
variable (and labeled as such). The error terms or residuals are more informative than the
zero order correlations between the actual measures because the error terms control for the
effects of the predictors. The table shows that the integrating, compromising, and obliging
styles are positively correlated with each other, which suggests that they might be related
to a higher-order aspect of management style (i.e., a second-order factor, see Kline, 2005).
The table also shows that dominating is negatively correlated with integrating and
compromising, and is positively correlated with obliging and avoiding. Together, the
results in Tables 3 and 4 suggest that integrating and compromising management styles are
related and are affected in similar ways by the predictors, whereas dominating and
avoiding styles might reflect aspects of another dimension of management styles. Obliging
shows a mixed pattern, correlating with integrating and compromising as well as
dominating.

Table 4
Correlations of errors for each dependent variable
Dependent variable Integrating Compromising Obliging Dominating Avoiding
Integrating 1.00
Compromising .51* 1.00
Obliging .25* .31* 1.00
Dominating .21* .18* .10 1.00
Avoiding .04 .01 .15** .32* 1.00
* p b .01.
** p b .05.
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 115

Discussion

This findings from this study indicate that teachers’ perceived classroom management
efficacy was the most significant predictor of the mutually focused conflict management
styles, suggesting a relationship between classroom management efficacy and a proactive
approach to managing teacher–student conflict. Teachers’ classroom management efficacy
was closely associated with those styles of conflict management (integrating and
compromising) that are characterized by a concern for the self and a concern for others
(Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). Efficacious teachers judge themselves as able to cope
effectively with environmental stressors, such as conflicts with their students, and are less
likely to become preoccupied with their own personal deficiency, which allows them to
engage in conflict management strategies that are beneficial for both themselves and their
students (Bandura, 1980). Studies have shown that highly efficacious teachers spend more
time solving individual students’ problems than teachers with a weak sense of self-efficacy
because they are more willing to take personal responsibility for addressing students’
behavioral issues within the classroom setting (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Gutkin &
Ajchenbaum, 1984; Hughes, Grossman, & Barker, 1990).
The finding that classroom management efficacy was positively associated with the
obliging style of conflict management was unexpected. Teachers who employ the obliging
style attempt to maintain harmony by acquiescing to the student’s needs. These are not
behaviors that one would expect from a teacher with a well-developed sense of classroom
management efficacy. However, Bandura (1986) posits that people may feel highly
efficacious for given tasks, but may not always possess the required skills to successfully
execute those tasks. This might cause the teacher to respond to conflicts by giving in. For
example, some studies have shown that teachers’ willingness to collaborate with a school
psychologist regarding students’ behavior problems varied as a function of their level of
teaching efficacy and severity of the behavior (DeForest & Hughes, 1992). High efficacy
teachers were only willing to consult if the students’ behavior problems were severe. For
mild behavioral problems, such as inattentiveness and excessive talking, efficacious
teachers usually did not seek assistance, presumably because they felt that they had the
skills to manage those behaviors.
Consistent with prediction, both the avoidance and the anxiety dimensions had a
significant negative effect on those styles of conflict management that involved concern
for self and others. Although they both negatively predicted the integrating style of conflict
management, only the avoidance dimension was also negatively associated with the
compromising and obliging styles, which may suggest that the discomfort with closeness
inherent in the avoidance dimension is so strong that teachers high in avoidance might
demonstrate a tendency to forgo the use of any conflict management strategies that take
the students’ viewpoint into account. However, the categorical data mentioned earlier, in
which the dismissing teachers endorsed the integrating conflict management style twice as
much as the fearful and preoccupied teachers, seems to disconfirm that conclusion. The
disparate results may stem from the nature of the variables. Individuals with dismissing
and fearful attachment styles are both high on the avoidance dimension, but only
individuals with the fearful style are high on the anxiety dimension, making the two
groups conceptually very different. Teachers whose self-report data placed them in the
116 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

dismissing category are characterized by a positive view of themselves and negative view
of others, which suggests that those teachers might be willing to endorse an integrating
style of conflict management if the potential benefits of such an interaction for themselves
outweigh the possible costs to themselves. For example, rather than engage in a potential
power struggle with a noncompliant student, and perhaps lose face in front of the class, a
teacher with a dismissing style might proactively engage in the use of integrating strategies
with the student, where a teacher with a fearful style, lacking confidence in both herself
and the student, would not. Fearful individuals lack trust in others and they tend to avoid
closeness in relationships for fear of getting hurt. They would be expected to employ
solutions that would simply serve as band-aids for the underlying issue, rather than
collaborating with the student to find a mutually acceptable solution. This may negatively
impact the teacher–student relationship because the student’s needs have not been
acknowledged.
The association of the anxiety attachment dimension with a decreased endorsement of
the integrating conflict management style was expected (Johnson & Sarason, 1978). As
anxiety over relationships increases, interpersonal conflict causes unregulated stress in the
individual because the individual does not feel capable of adequately handling the conflict,
and is concerned about damaging the relationship with the disputant. This unregulated
affect has been linked to the use of less constructive conflict management strategies
(Pistole, 1989). Feelings of anxiety are inconsistent with the ability to interact
collaboratively with others and manage day-to-day activities effectively (Lopez, 1995).
Although the focus of this study involved intra-personal teacher characteristics, an
interesting ancillary finding suggested that the years a teacher spent in the classroom also
influenced her choice of conflict management styles. As teachers accumulated experience
in working with students, their tendency to endorse bwin–winQ conflict management styles
increased significantly and their endorsement of the blose–winQ (obliging) style decreased.
It was anticipated that an increased understanding of the relationship between
attachment styles, classroom management efficacy and the conflict management styles
of teachers would be useful in designing interventions and educational programs to assist
teachers in managing conflict effectively. The results of this study indicated that teachers
who endorsed items that reflected a high degree of attachment avoidance and anxiety were
less inclined to use integrating conflict management strategies. These teachers may be at
risk for maladaptive teacher–student relationships and increased interpersonal conflict.
Rholes, Simpson, and Stevens (1998) found that anxious–ambivalent individuals were less
positive about their relationships following a conflict. These negative perceptions were not
mediated by the quality of the conflict resolution interaction, which implies that internal
working models may have played a direct role in generating negative thoughts. Studies
have also shown that anxious individuals’ internal working models are captured in their
tendency to rely on emotion-focused coping strategies when under stress (Mikulincer &
Florian, 1995) and they have a great deal of difficulty regulating their initial response to
interpersonal conflict. In contrast, avoidants have been shown to take a defensive stance in
conflictual interactions, devaluing the viewpoint of others (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988;
Mayseless, 1996). This suggests that in order to facilitate change in the interpersonal
behavior of teachers, one must first assist them in attaining some insight into their beliefs
and their habitual approaches to others.
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 117

Most accounts of therapeutic interventions from an attachment theory perspective

involve a cognitive–affective revision of the client’s working models of attachment in
order to modify the effects of earlier insecure attachment experiences. This process entails
not only an awareness of the client with respect to the impact of previous attachment
experiences on current relationships but also the development of a more secure self within
the therapeutic relationship (Lyddon, Bradford, & Nelson, 1993, p. 394). Although teacher
training programs could not be expected to incorporate the therapeutic component of
cognitive–affective restructuring, they could provide teachers with a supportive
environment geared toward increased awareness of their attachment patterns (i.e., small
workshops with a limited number of participants). They can be trained to recognize the
cues that trigger these automatic response patterns and become proactive in implementing
cognitive strategies to reduce the impact of those triggers, thereby increasing their sense of
efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, 1998). This can be very empowering for teachers, who often
find themselves flooded with endless workshops on curriculum, classroom management
strategies and school violence, without being given the opportunity to self-reflect and
obtain constructive feedback.
Teachers also need to be made aware of the fact that the handling of conflicts in a
successful manner creates a positive experience that allows both sides to learn about
themselves and others, promotes cooperation and creates necessary changes within the
boundaries of a relationship (Coleman & Deutsch, 2000). A recent investigation into
middle school teacher’s perceptions of conflict (Dyson, 2000) revealed that teachers
primarily focused on the negative aspects of conflict. Increasing teachers’ knowledge in
the area of conflict theory and the different styles of conflict management would serve as
an appropriate base for any teacher education workshop or seminar, particularly if it is
coupled with the use of didactic instruction and role plays. The workshop facilitator can
assist teachers to create and role-play alternative ways of addressing various situations of
teacher–student conflict. Teachers need to practice these alternatives in order to gain the
skills required to implement styles of conflict management that may not be in their
repertoire (Marsick & Sauquet, 2000). According to Raider, Coleman, and Gerson (2000,
p. 500), these experiential exercises are powerful learning tools which shift the
responsibility for learning from the trainer to the participant. Of course, workshop
participants would need additional coaching in a supportive environment in order for
behavioral change to occur (Raider, 1995). Ideally, training would occur within schools so
that teachers within the same school could support each other in implementing skills
taught in the workshop.
Surprisingly, school variables, including school level (elementary, secondary), size, and
ethnic and class mix, accounted for minimal variance in teachers’ conflict management
strategies. While not restricted in size, the schools in the study lacked the geographic,
ethnic and economic diversity needed to fully assess the effects of these variables on
teachers’ self-reported behavior. If school context does affect teachers’ use of conflict
strategies, it may be that other variables, not assessed in this study, play more of a role. In
our experience, teachers’ perceptions of the conflict management style of the principal and
his or her administrative team and student characteristics are the most promising
contextual variables to study in the future. This study did not consider any student
characteristics that could contribute to the strategies used by teachers in managing
118 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

conflicts with their students. For example, disruptive students who are frequently off-task
are especially challenging to many teachers and are frequently noted as a source of teacher
stress. According to Coie and Koeppl (1990), teachers tend to respond to these students
with criticism and punishments. Future studies should consider the bi-directionality of the
teacher–student relationship and seek to determine the student’s influence upon the
teacher’s conflict management styles.
Although the effects of this study are clinically and statistically significant, with the
exception of the efficacy–conflict relationship, most of the findings were relatively weak.
Yet, it is a testament to the strength of attachment patterns, that an instrument designed to
measure attachment in close personal relationships rather than teacher–student relation-
ships, was able to uncover significant relationships between attachment styles and conflict
management styles. Future research involving attachment styles and teacher–student
relationships would benefit from the development of an instrument specific to the
uniqueness of the teacher–student relationship.
The composition of the sample has resulted in some limitations of this study. Most
of the teachers who participated were white, female, and volunteered to participate in
this study. They worked in schools that had largely white and non-poor students. The
characteristics specific to this subject pool may have had an impact on the results,
thus precluding the generalizability of the findings. Previous research has found some
cultural differences among conflict styles (VandeVliert, 1997) and recent studies
indicated that race could be associated with teacher’s sense of efficacy (Beatty, 1999;
Hadas, 2001).
The correlational nature of this study places limits upon the interpretation of the
findings because causality cannot be determined. Thus, future research in this area should
include longitudinal studies which would investigate the stability or malleability of
teacher’s efficacy and attachment styles across contexts and over time. This would allow
for a greater understanding of the directionality and nature of the relationships among
attachment styles, classroom management efficacy and conflict management styles.
Finally, the construct and measurement of conflict management strategies merits further
development. Our data suggested a second order factor in Rahim’s measure – positive
styles that focus on a win–win solution (integrating, compromising) and negative styles
that focus on one partner winning and the other losing (dominating) or neither winning
(avoiding). Obliging (letting one’s partner win) seems to be a non-specific, yet active
strategy that is correlated with all strategies except avoiding. Further work on the construct
validity of this measure, using multiple sources of information on individual teacher’s use
of each strategy (e.g., self as well as administrator and/or student ratings) as fully
conceptualized in Rahim’s model would further our understanding of an important and
modifiable teacher behavior.

References

Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New
York7 Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
6 – 11.
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 119

Bandura, A. (1980). Gauging the relationship between self-efficacy judgment and action. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 4, 263 – 268.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122 – 147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey7 Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 248 – 287.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226 – 244.
Beatty, T. (1999). The relationship between teacher sense of efficacy and pupil control ideology in urban middle
schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Virginia.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Attachment, vol. 1. NY7 Basic Books.
Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative
overview. In J.A. Simpson, & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46 – 76).
New York7 Guilford Press.
Burton, G. E. (1990). The measurement of distortion tendencies induced by the win–lose nature of in-group
loyalty. Small Group Research, 21(1), 128 – 141.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky, & T.
Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300 – 323). Hillsdale, NJ7 L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cheung, W. M., & Cheng, Y. C. (1977). A multi-level analysis of teachers’ self-belief and behavior, and students’
educational outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P., & Parson, J. (1992). Working models of childhood attachment and
couple relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13(4), 432 – 449.
Coie, J., & Koepl, G. (1990). Adapting intervention to the problems of aggressive and disruptive rejected
children. In S. Asher, & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 309 – 337). NY7 Cambridge
University Press.
Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2000). Some guidelines for developing a creative approach to conflict. In M.
Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 355 – 365).
San Francisco, CA7 Jossey-Bass.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating
couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644 – 663.
Corcoran, K., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective taking, and conflict
resolution. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 473 – 483.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109 – 115.
DeForest, P., & Hughes, J. (1992). Effect of teacher involvement and teacher self-efficacy on ratings of consultant
effectiveness and intervention acceptability. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3(4),
301 – 316.
Dembo, M., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The
Elementary School Journal, 86, 173 – 184.
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 48, 510 – 517.
Diamond, S. C. (1992). Resolving teacher–student conflict: A different path. The Clearing House, 65(3),
141.
Dyson, J. (2000). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of conflict and their conflict management styles.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (06), 2190A (UMI No. 3057071).
Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 51, 755 – 765.
Frankel, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1990). Mother–toddler problem solving: Antecedents in attachment, home
behavior, and temperament. Child Development, 61(3), 810 – 819.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(4), 569 – 582.
Goyette, R., Dore, R., & Dion, E. (2000). Pupils’ misbehaviors and the reactions and causal attributions of
physical education student teachers: A sequential analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
20, 3 – 14.
120 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 627 – 643.
Gutkin, T., & Ajchenbaum, M. (1984). Teachers’ perceptions of control and preferences for consultative services.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 15(4), 565 – 570.
Hadas, A. (2001). Predictors of perceived self-efficacy among white and African-American psychologically
distressed older adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 511 – 524.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, N.J7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, J., Grossman, P., & Barker, D. (1990). Teachers’ expectancies, participation in consultation, and
perceptions of consultant helpfulness. School Psychology Quarterly, 5(3), 167 – 179.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership,
60(8), 30 – 33.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. (1978). Life stress, depression and anxiety: Internal–external control as a
moderator variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 22(3), 205 – 208.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NY7 Guilford
Press.
Kobak, R., Cole, H., Ferenz-Gillies, R., & Fleming, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion-regulation during
mother–teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231 – 245.
Kobak, R., & Duemmler, S. (1994). Attachment and conversation: Toward a discourse analysis of adolescent and
adult security. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood. Advances in
personal relationships, 5 (pp. 121 – 149). London7 Jessica Kingsley.
Kobak, R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: The effects of security and accuracy of working models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 861 – 869.
Levy, M., & Davis, K. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to each other and to
various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439 – 471.
Lopez, L. (1995). Correlations of selected cognitive styles with cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma game.
Psychological Reports, 77(1), 242.
Luetkenhaus, P., Grossmann, K., & Grossmann, K. (1985). Infant–mother attachment at twelve months and style
of interaction with a stranger at the age of three years. Child Development, 56(6), 1538 – 1542.
Lyddon, W. J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J. P. (1993). Assessing adolescent and adult attachment: A review of
current self-report measures. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71(4), 390 – 395.
Marsick, V. J., & Sauquet, A. (2000). Learning through reflection. In M. Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 382 – 399). San Francisco, CA7 Jossey-Bass.
Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between
quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547 – 556.
Mayseless, O. (1996). Attachment patterns and their outcomes. Human Development, 39(4), 206 – 223.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful situation: The contribution
of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 406 – 414.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience: Does
attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(2), 260 – 273.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York7 Wiley.
Nordling, W.J. (1993). The relationship of adult attachment styles to conflict resolution, quality of
communication, and satisfaction in intimate dyadic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54
(3-B), U.S.: University Microfilms International.
Oppenheim, D., Sagi, A., & Lamb, M. (1988). Infant–adult attachments on the Kibbutz and their relationship to
emotional development four years later. In S. Chess, & M. E. Hertzig (Eds.), Annual progress in child
psychiatry and child development (pp. 92 – 106). New York7 Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Accuracy of the five factor model in predicting perceptions of daily
social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 1173 – 1187.
Pistole, M. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict resolution and relationship
satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 505 – 510.
 B.K. Morris-Rothschild, M.R. Brassard / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 105–121 121

Pistole, M., & Arricale, F. (2003). Understanding attachment: Beliefs about conflict. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 81, 318 – 328.
Schottle, D. A., & Peltier, G. L. (1991). Should schools employ behavior management consultants? Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 23, 128 – 130.
Rahim, A. (1990). Rahim organizational conflict inventory-II. Palo Alto, California7 Consulting Psychologist’s
Press.
Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention.
Psychological Reports, 44, 1323 – 1344.
Raider, E. (1995). Conflict resolution training in schools: Translating theory into applied skills. In B.
Bunker, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: Essays inspired by the works of Morton
Deutsch (pp. 93 – 121). San Francisco, CA7 Jossey-Bass.
Raider, E., Coleman, P. T., & Gerson, J. (2000). Teaching conflict resolution skills in a workshop. In M. Deutsch,
& P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 499 – 521). San
Francisco, CA7 Jossey-Bass.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Lui, X. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on
power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387 – 401.
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Kang, S. J. (1991). A multilevel, multivariate model for studying school
climate with estimation via the EM algorithm and application to U.S. high-school data. Journal of
Educational Statistics, 16, 295 – 330.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict
resolution in close relationships. In P. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 166 – 188). NY7 Guilford Press.
Rich, Y., Lev, S., & Fisher, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 1015 – 1025.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., LaParo, K. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). The contribution of classroom
setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms. Elementary School
Journal, 105(4), 377 – 394.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for
teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 421 – 439.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel
modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage Publications.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral.
Journal of Special Education, 27, 66 – 81.
Sroufe, L. (1983). Infant–caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in pre-school: The roots of
maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology. Hillsdale,
New Jersey7 Erlbaum.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research,
68(2), 202 – 248.
VandeVliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. East Sussex, UK7 Psychology Press.
Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 81 – 91.