The major purpose of this study was to examine same and cross-gender conflict to determine whether the gender of the other party is related to the choice of conflict-handling behavior in a given situation. Within the context of multiple-choice responses to given conflict situations in a constructed instrument, this study examined the interaction of three variables: (1) the gender of the individual responding to the conflict situation; (2) the choice of conflict-handling behavior by that individual in a given situation; and (3) the gender of the other party as described in the conflict situation. The added dimension of the appropriateness (according to contingency conflict management theory) of the conflict-handling behavior chosen in response to the situation given, was also examined. Significant differences were found regarding choice of conflict-handling style in relation to the gender of the other party. The sex of the respondent was not found to relate to either of these variables. Specifically, subjects chose accommodating more often with females, and avoiding and compromising more often with males. Competing and collaborating were chosen with equal frequency, regardless of the gender of the other party. So-called appropriate choice of competing and accommodating was found more often with female others, while avoiding and compromising were chosen appropriately more often with male others. Women chose collaborating appropriately more often with other women. Men did not differ based on the other party\u27s gender in this regard. Other interesting results emerged from this study. Overall, women subjects chose the appropriate style, given the situation, more often than did men subjects. Also, appropriate choices were made more frequently in response to situations in which a male was described as the other party. This may reflect a male bias in the theory or perhaps gender bias in the workplace. Additional research is needed, both to further the development of the instrument constructed for use in this study, to identify whether a bias exists in available theory, and to identify intrapersonal processes that would provide greater understanding of these findings
