An Empirical Study of Behavioral Biases in Conflict Resolution in the Bulgarian Service Sector
Bozhidar Nedev & Ivanka Mihaylova
What the paper says
Employees’ interactions in organisations are always marked by conflicts and may significantly affect employees’ and the organisation’s performance. Behavioural biases are considered as both sources of conflicts and obstacles to conflict resolution. Despite this, there is a research gap regarding the role of behavioural biases in conflict resolution, particularly in integrating conflict management theory with the behavioural biases’ perspective. The paper aims to investigate prevailing behavioural biases of employees in the Bulgarian service sector, the level of conflict resolution and the intercept between both. Using a Google Forms questionnaire, data were collected from 372 employees on their perceived conflict resolution effectiveness and their propensity to 17 behavioural biases. The statistical analysis used includes descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test, exploratory factor analysis, one-sample t-test, Cohen’s d coefficient, and Spearman’s Rho correlation analysis. Results indicate that employees consider their workplace conflicts well-managed. The behavioural biases displayed are conservatism, confirmation, overconfidence bias, halo effect, representativeness, herding, self-attribution, optimism and wishful thinking, illusion of control, regret aversion bias (errors of commission), and horn effect. Multiple positive correlations are observed between different biases. The highest positive correlation is identified between conservatism and confirmation bias, while a negative correlation is found only between conservatism and out-group bias, and representativeness and implicit bias. The level of conflict resolution is positively correlated with conservatism, confirmation bias, halo, herding effect, optimism and wishful thinking, overconfidence, representativeness, illusion of control and self-attribution bias. The study provides insights for managers in developing effective interpersonal conflict management strategies that consider behavioural factors.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.