Relationship between personality portraits of university students and interpersonal conflict resolution strategies: a latent profile analysis

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the relationship between personality types and conflict resolution strategies among university students. ‘Personality’ is a stable individual characteristic that provides a framework for explaining individual behaviors, feelings, and motivations. Moreover, the strategies that individuals choose and use when coping with conflict are also closely related to personality. In this study, a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted on 975 university students using the Chinese Congress Five Personality Inventory (CBF-PI-B) measure as an indicator to explore their personality subtypes and the Student Version of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) was utilized to measure the four types of conflict resolution strategies, namely collaboration, compliance, dominance, and avoidance. The effect of personality subtype on each strategy was examined. The best-fit model revealed three distinct personality types among university students: the dual-concern type (283 individuals), the stable type (654 individuals), and the control type (39 individuals). Dual-concern individuals had a stronger tendency to use all strategies than stable individuals and a stronger tendency to use all strategies except compliance than control individuals; stable individuals were more likely to use collaboration and avoidance strategies than control individuals. In conclusion, this study suggests that university students’ propensity to use conflict resolution strategies can be meaningfully grouped based on personality type.

Introduction

“Conflict” is an interactive process of incompatibility or discord within or between social entities¹. Interpersonal conflict is often viewed as one of the primary sources of distress in daily life². Nonetheless, not all long-term effects of conflict are adverse³. Indeed, appropriate interpersonal conflicts can allow adolescents to learn to balance individuality with belonging⁵. Additionally, conflict is closely related to personal development, with conflicts in childhood associated with cognitive and social development outcomes in adolescence and adulthood³. Considering the inevitability of interpersonal conflicts in peer interactions, effective management, and resolution are essential for social adaptation. The outcomes of conflicts depend on the resolution strategies employed, with different approaches leading to varied consequences.

Conflict resolution strategies refer to how individuals deal with interpersonal conflicts⁷, and researchers have developed different theoretical models to describe individuals’ conflict resolution strategies in interpersonal interactions, with the most widely used being the dual-concern model⁸, which classifies different approaches based on the degree of concern for self and others in a conflict. These include problem-solving (high focus on self and others), compromising (moderate focus on self and others), forcing (high focus on self, low focus on others), smoothing (high focus on others, low focus on self), and avoidance (withdrawal, lack of concern for both self and others).

A problem-solving orientation is considered the most constructive strategy to resolve conflicts, such as calmly communicating disagreements⁹. Problem-solving orientation strategies are associated with positive post-conflict mental health outcomes and can buffer the effects of peer victimization on adverse psychological consequences, such as depression and loneliness¹⁰. Although coercive and submissive strategies also encompass resolving disagreements through direct communication, coercive and submissive strategies more inclined to defend only the needs of one party to the conflict may make the other party’s interests suffer, potentially leading to rivalry and confrontation. On the other hand, avoidance strategies are the most negative⁹ and are considered a maladaptive conflict resolution strategy.

Influences on conflict resolution strategies can be distinguished from both individual and situational perspectives. As a stable trait reflecting individual differences and providing a framework for understanding individuals and explaining their behaviors, feelings, and motivations¹¹, personality has received close attention in choosing conflict resolution strategies¹². Much of the research on personality is based on the Big Five theory of personality, which covers five essential personality elements: extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness¹⁴. Personality influences an individual’s choice of conflict resolution strategies through different motivational, cognitive, and behavioral processes, and individuals with various personality traits may differ in their level of concern for themselves and others in conflict situations, which in turn influences the choice of conflict resolution strategies. Research on the association between the two dates to the 1960s, when Ringuette (1965) explored participants’ conflict resolution patterns (e.g., compromise, arbitrary, equivocation, and blocking) in a variety of conflict situations and showed that there is an association between conflict resolution patterns and personality traits to a certain extent. Subsequently, the association between personality and conflict resolution strategies has received a great deal of attention from researchers and has been explored in groups of children⁶, adolescents¹⁵, university students¹⁶, and even people with personality disorders¹⁷. Desirability is characterized by a positive concern for the interests of others, which may take into account the demands of others in times of conflict¹⁹, and is closely related to the individual’s interpersonal conflict and adaptive processes⁶, with individuals high in desirability tending to make positive attributions for potentially conflicting behaviors; extroverted individuals may share information with others, which increases the likelihood of pursuing a win-win solution¹², whereby both parties to the conflict have their needs are both attended to and met to some degree. Highly committed individuals are likely to place more emphasis on co-operative strategies that satisfy the concerns of both parties¹² than on competitive strategy at the other party’s expense. Openness helps to overcome the bias of ignoring potential win-win opportunities in a conflict²⁰. It allows people to see potentially missed cooperation opportunities and be more receptive to the other party’s point of view²¹.

In contrast, highly neurotic individuals are more prone to negative emotions and make negative judgements²². When experiencing conflict, neurotic individuals are more inclined to compete or avoid the conflict altogether²³, which implies, to some extent, low concern for the other party, and neuroticism is negatively correlated with negotiation efficacy²⁴, i.e., neuroticism makes it difficult to resolve conflict through negotiation strategies. A neuroimaging-based study showed that individuals with high neuroticism and low extraversion are sensitive to emotional conflict during the processing of emotional expressions and that conflict-induced activation in the amygdala is increased during the processing of negative expressions, which may lead to elevated levels of anxiety and depression²⁵, thereby interfering with the use of adaptive conflict resolution strategies. Research carried out in patients with borderline personality disorder has shown that symptom severity is associated with ineffective communication and conflict resolution strategies¹⁸, with inpatients making greater use of reactivity and dominance, two conflict resolution strategies considered ineffective and destructive to interpersonal relationships²⁶. This predisposition may stem from a fear of empathy for others²⁷. This fear may reduce non-judgmental and compromise-based strategies, which are more likely to alleviate conflict and increase the use of strategies such as avoidance and aggression, exacerbating conflict²⁸. In conclusion, the above research suggests a strong association between personality and conflict resolution strategies, and the conflict resolution strategies used may vary across personality traits.

However, there are limitations in previous research. Previous research on the association between personality traits and conflict resolution strategies is mainly based on a variable-centered approach, primarily examining the relationship between a single personality trait and conflict resolution strategies from a single personality trait, but personality is a multidimensional composite structure; each trait does not exist in isolation, and an individual can have multiple personality tendencies at the same time, so focusing on a single trait alone does not provide a comprehensive and profound understanding of personality¹¹. Research has shown that a personality system that combines multiple personality traits provides a better understanding of personality differences²⁹. From the ‘individual-centered’ research perspective, personality is an integrated system, and the personality system of an individual is associated with different trait dimensions³¹. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) offers an effective approach for examining within-group categorization using probabilistic models. It classifies individuals into a limited number of mutually exclusive latent categories based on their responses to various external variables. This approach maximizes variance between categories while minimizing variance within each category. This methodology allows for examining the overall expression of the Big Five personality dimensions in individuals, creating a personality profile that, in turn, explores the relationship between the complete personality system and conflict resolution strategies.

Therefore, the present study proposes to identify the subtypes of adolescent personality from an individual-centered perspective and to examine the relationship between these personality types and conflict resolution strategies. This approach could provide a valuable contribution to the research on personality traits and conflict resolution strategies. The study has two primary objectives: (1) to identify personality subtypes through LPA and to analyze the differences and associations between different subtypes, and (2) to explore the potential associations between personality systems and conflict resolution strategies based on the LPA findings.

Methods

Sampling and procedure

This study distributed questionnaires to students from four Chinese universities using the online survey platform https://www.wjx.cn/. Participants were informed about the survey’s anonymity, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time before completing the questionnaire. After removing disqualified responses (e.g., those taking less than 300 s or more than 2000 s to complete), the final 975 participants (M age = 19.45, SD age = 1.25) consisted of 513 (52.6%) females and 462 (47.4%) males; 254 freshmen (26.1%), 437 sophomores (44.8%), and 150 juniors (15.4%) were included. Informed consent has been obtained from all subjects and their legal guardians.

Data collection tools

The student version of the Rahim organizational conflict inventory-II (ROCI-II)

University students’ conflict resolution strategies were assessed using the revised version of the ‘Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) Student Version’ by Zhang and Liu³². The revised questionnaire consists of four dimensions–collaboration, compliance, dominance, and avoidance–comprising 28 items. Responses are rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores in each dimension indicating a stronger preference for that particular conflict management strategy. In this study, the overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.871, with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values for collaboration, compliance, dominance, and avoidance strategies subscales being 0.871, 0.804, 0.663, and 0.718, respectively.

The Chinese big five personality inventory brief version (CBF-PI-B)

The study used the version of the Chinese Big Five Personality Questionnaire developed by Wang and Dai³³. The CBF-PI-B is administered as a self-report measure consisting of 40 items. Items 5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 32, and 36 are scored reversely. Each item is answered on a six-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 6 (“agree strongly”), Including agreeableness, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, with higher scores indicating a greater inclination towards that personality type. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each dimension were 0.819, 0.783, 0.814, 0.824, and 0.872, respectively.

Data processing

LPA was performed using Mplus 8.3, where models were compared to determine the optimal number of profiles based on the following criteria: the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), the BIC adjusted for sample size (aBIC), the classification accuracy (entropy), and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT). Lower values of AIC, BIC, and aBIC indicate a better model fit, and a significant BLRT suggests that the class k model outperforms the class K-1 model. Entropy was used to assess classification accuracy, with values close to 1 indicating higher accuracy and values higher than 0.8 indicating more than 90% accuracy.

LPA is a statistical method for categorizing individuals and identifying group heterogeneity based on their different response patterns on category-explicit variables³⁴. It assumes that there is a category latent variable (usually one) that influences subjects’ responses to test questions and thus can be used to classify subjects by inverting the response patterns of individuals into categories, placing individuals with similar response patterns into the same latent class, keeping within-class differences as minor as possible and between-class differences as significant as possible, rather than simply classifying them based on their total score (see Clogg³⁵ for a detailed description of the LPA).

Common method biases

To assess the severity of potential bias, we performed Harman’s single-factor test with an unrotated exploratory factor analysis on all variables³⁶. The results revealed 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the first factor accounting for 22.775% of the variance, well below the critical value of 40%. This result suggests no severe common method bias in this study.

Ethics statement and role of the funding source

All procedures involving human participants in this study adhered to the ethical standards set by the institutional and/or national research committee, in line with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Yangzhou University Medical School. The corresponding author had full access to the data and the decision to submit the study for publication.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations between the main variables in the study. Age was positively correlated with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness (all p < 0.05) and insignificantly correlated with neuroticism and extraversion (all p > 0.05). Concerning Conflict Resolution Strategies, age was negatively correlated with collaborative strategies only (r = − 0.108, p < 0.01) and showed no significant correlation with the rest of the strategies (all p > 0.05).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables of interest.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Gender	–	–	1
2. Age	19.45	1.25	0.043	1
3. Neuroticism	3.2	0.91	− 0.070*	− 0.010	1
4. Conscientiousness	4.37	0.74	− 0.030	− 0.093**	− 0.317**	1
5. Agreeableness	4.47	0.71	− 0.076*	− 0.091**	− 0.205**	0.460**	1
6. Openness	4.31	0.8	0.002	− 0.066*	− 0.264**	0.558**	0.482**	1
7. Extraversion	3.79	0.94	− 0.036	− 0.041	− 0.386**	0.395**	0.408**	0.588**	1
8. Collaboration	3.98	0.61	− 0.128**	− 0.108**	− 0.155**	0.475**	0.462**	0.451**	0.301**	1
9. Compliance	3.4	0.62	0.020	0.003	0.211**	0.108**	0.246**	0.118**	0.011	0.504**	1
10. Avoidance	3.68	0.65	0.021	−  0.037	0.089**	0.230**	0.267**	0.200**	0.078*	0.616**	0.616**	1
11. Dominance	2.96	0.71	0.059	0.052	− 0.009	0.059	− 0.103**	0.180**	0.185**	0.193**	0.273**	0.298**	1
12. Conflict resolution strategy	3.61	0.49	− 0.005	− 0.027	0.046	0.284**	0.277**	0.314**	0.192**	0.756**	0.788**	0.839**	0.616**	1

p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**, p < 0.001***.

Gender was significantly correlated only with neuroticism in personality traits, agreeableness, and collaborative strategies in conflict resolution strategies (all p < 0.05). Specifically, males had lower levels of neuroticism and agreeableness and used collaborative strategies less often than females. Neuroticism was negatively correlated with collaborative strategies, positively correlated with compliance and avoidance strategies, and showed no significant correlation with scheduling strategies. Conscientiousness was not significantly correlated with dominance strategies, while agreeableness was negatively correlated with dominance strategies. The remaining personality traits were significantly positively correlated with conflict resolution strategies.

Latent profile analysis of university student personality

This study used the dimensions of the Big Five Personality Traits as analytical indicators for university students’ LPA, with categories set from 1 to 6. The results in Table 2 indicate a gradual decrease in AIC, BIC, and aBIC values with an increase in category numbers, peaking at five categories. BLRT tests showed significance across all category numbers. The highest Entropy value, 0.844, was observed in three categories. Although the lowest AIC, BIC, and aBIC values were at six categories with Entropy above 0.8, the smallest category comprised less than 3% of the sample, questioning its representativeness³⁷. Thus, considering all the above information, the three-category model was chosen as optimal, supported by a profile plot in Fig. 1. The probabilities of latent categories within this model were 84.3%, 91.4%, and 91.3%, demonstrating its high reliability.

Table 2.

Model fit information.

Profiles	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	BLRT	Membership percentages
2	12,901.005	12,979.124	12,928.308	0.779	< 0.001	0.66/0.34
3	12,717.437	12,824.851	12,754.978	0.844	< 0.001	0.04/0.29/0.67
4	12,566.235	12,702.943	12,614.015	0.787	< 0.001	0.37/0.12/0.02/0.49
5	10,543.990	10,709.993	10,602.009	0.785	< 0.001	0.02/0.04/0.37/0.44/0.13
6	10,486.078	10,681.376	10,554.336	0.801	< 0.001	0.02/0.43/0.05/0.05/0.13/0.32

AIC Akaike information criteria, BIC Bayesian information criteria, ABIC adjusted Bayesian inform criteria.

The final profile solution is bolded.

Fig. 1.

Latent profile analysis of personality types of university students.

Table 3 displays the scores of the three identified categories across the five personality dimensions. The first category scored significantly lower than the other two on extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness while scoring higher on neuroticism (all p < 0.001). This profile suggests a tendency toward self-focus that may impact interactions with others, leading to a “control” type classification. This category included 39 participants (4%).

Table 3.

Comparison of the differences of the five personality traits in personality subcategories.

Variable	Neuroticism (SE)	Conscientiousnes (SE)	Agreeableness (SE)	Openness (SE)	Extraversion (SE)
‘Control’ type (C1)	3.788 (0.189)	2.997 (0.089)	3.247 (0.03)	2.757 (0.114)	2.552 (0.117)
‘Dual-concern’ type (C2)	3.417 (0.031)	4.158 (0.022)	4.267 (0.022)	4.040 (0.022)	3.440 (0.028)
‘Stable’ type (C3)	2.638 (0.052)	5.040 (0.035)	5.068 (0.035)	5.126 (0.030)	4.718 (0.040)
F	96.272***	347.906***	279.514***	526.81***	390.267***
Post Hoc	1 > 2 > 3	3 > 2 > 1	3 > 2 > 1	3 > 2 > 1	3 > 2 > 1

The second category comprised 283 participants (29%) and had significantly lower scores in neuroticism and significantly higher scores in extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness compared to the other categories (all p < 0.001). This group showed vital concern for both sides of a conflict¹², suggesting it could be labeled the “dual-concern” type.

The third category, comprising 653 participants (67%), had significantly lower scores for extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than the dual-concern type and higher scores than the control type (all p < 0.001). The opposite was true for the neuroticism score, with all scores falling between the other two categories. It was characterized by gentleness, cooperation, and emotional stability and could be named the ‘stable’ type. The distribution of the scores for each category is shown in Fig. 1.

Relationship between personality types and conflict resolution strategies

To investigate the effects of different personality subclasses on conflict resolution strategies, we conducted regression analyses with gender, age, and only child as control variables, the results of LPA’s personality classification as the independent variable, and each conflict resolution strategy as the dependent variable, respectively (Table 4). The results showed that females were more likely to use collaborative strategy (β = − 0.13, p < 0.001) than males (β = 0.10, p = 0.026). In contrast, males were more likely to use the dominant strategy (β = 0.10, p = 0.026), but there was no difference between males and females in terms of the use of submissive and avoidant strategies; only children had a lower frequency of all strategies than non-only children (all p < 0.05). Using the control subgroup as a reference, the results showed that both stable (β = 1.08, p < 0.001) and dual-concern individuals (β = 0.58, p < 0.001) had a higher tendency to use collaborative strategy than control. On compliance strategy, stable individuals (β = 0.24, p = 0.026) had a higher propensity to use than controls, but there was no significant difference between dual-concern individuals and controls (β = 0.12, p = 0.243). On avoidance strategy, both stable (β = 0.59, p < 0.001) and dual-concern individuals (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) had a higher propensity to use than control individuals. On the dominance strategy, stable (β = 0.32, p = 0.009) had a higher propensity to use than control individuals. Still, there was no significant difference in propensity to use between dual-concern and control individuals (β = 0.18, p = 0.144).

Table 4.

Multiple linear regression analysis of influencing factors of interpersonal conflict resolution strategies of university students (n = 975).

Variable	Model 1 (collaboration)				Model 2 (compliance)				Model 3 (avoidance)				Model 4 (dominance)
	β	SE	t	p	β	SE	t	p	β	SE	t	p	β	SE	t	p
(Intercept)	3.72	0.55	6.75	< 0.001	3.70	0.63	5.87	< 0.001	3.46	0.66	5.28	< 0.001	2.92	0.72	4.06	< 0.001
Moderate (C2)	1.08	0.10	11.35	< 0.001	0.24	0.11	2.23	0.026	0.59	0.11	5.25	< 0.001	0.32	0.12	2.60	0.009
low neuroticism (C3)	0.58	0.09	6.27	< 0.001	0.12	0.11	1.17	0.243	0.40	0.11	3.62	< 0.001	0.18	0.12	1.46	0.144
Gender (male)	− 0.13	0.04	− 3.73	< 0.001	0.04	0.04	0.95	0.342	0.04	0.04	0.99	0.325	0.10	0.05	2.24	0.026
age	− 0.01	0.03	− 0.50	0.620	− 0.02	0.03	− 0.72	0.475	− 0.01	0.04	− 0.26	0.798	− 0.01	0.04	− 0.37	0.710
grade2	− 0.11	0.05	− 2.23	0.026	0.07	0.06	1.27	0.204	− 0.03	0.06	− 0.59	0.557	0.16	0.06	2.47	0.014
grade4	0.11	0.40	0.28	0.779	0.66	0.46	1.44	0.150	0.27	0.48	0.57	0.572	0.57	0.52	1.08	0.279
only child	− 0.07	0.04	− 2.00	0.046	− 0.12	0.04	− 3.09	0.002	− 0.10	0.04	− 2.39	0.017	− 0.09	0.05	− 1.94	0.053
F	40.66				3.52				6.65				4.24
p	< 0.001				< 0.001				< 0.001				< 0.001
R2	0.23				0.03				0.05				0.03
Adj-R2	0.23				0.02				0.04				0.02

Discussion

The latent profile of university students’ personalities

This study analyzed the personality types of university students from an individual-centered perspective. It classified them into three types: control, stable, and dual-concern, which is consistent with the personality types under different groups and ages and reflects the cross-group stability of the personality types³⁸. Among the three personality types identified In this study, the “stable” type had the highest prevalence, followed by the “dual-Concern” type, with the “control” type being the least common. This finding aligns with the results from Wu et al.’s study on nursing students personality types⁴⁰. In this study, the “stable” and “dual-concern” types together represented over 90% of participants, reflecting the general personality traits of Chinese university students⁴¹. This trend is likely influenced by socioeconomic growth, which has fostered social stability and cultural prosperity, contributing to rising extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness among university students.

Higher levels of extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and lower levels of neuroticism characterize dual-concern individuals. Their scoring trends bear similarities to the “psychologically resilient” type described by Robins et al.⁴². In contrast, the control type, which exhibits an opposing profile to the dual-concern type, resembles Robins and Colleges “overly controlled” type, with both groups showing higher levels of neuroticism and lower levels in other traits. This study did not observe the uncontrolled type—characterized by high neuroticism and extraversion, along with low agreeableness and conscientiousness. However, the stable type was present, showing moderate levels across all personality traits. This suggests that cultural differences may influence personality segmentation. Collectivist cultures emphasize responsibility and security, and individuals are brought up to form beliefs about adherence to social norms⁴³. When highly neurotic individuals perceive that their ideas conflict with social expectations, they are more inclined to avoid or repress the self rather than express it. In addition, influenced by the mediocrity of traditional Chinese culture, Chinese people seek the beauty of the ‘middle’ and do not pursue the more antagonistic ends of the spectrum when dealing with internal and interpersonal conflicts⁴⁴. As a result, the proportion of stable individuals is the highest, and their personality tendencies are all at a moderate level.

The relationship between the latent categories of university students’ personalities and conflict resolution strategies

The study reveals significant variations in conflict resolution strategy scores across personality types among university students. Notably, the dual-concern type consistently scores higher in all strategies than the stable and control types, aligning with findings from prior variable-centered research. This personality type is distinguished by elevated extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and low neuroticism. These traits are associated with enhanced perspective-taking and acceptance of different viewpoints⁴⁵, indicating a vital concern for self and others. This propensity for perspective-taking fosters the adoption of positive conflict resolution strategies like collaboration and compliance⁴⁶. Additionally, their high extraversion promotes active social engagement and emotional expression in conflicts rather than avoidance⁴⁷. Traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness, which reflect kindness, understanding, generosity, and a desire for positive interpersonal relationships⁴⁸, along with mindfulness, adaptive emotion regulation⁴⁹, and strong self-control⁵⁰, enable dual-concern individuals to avoid using dysfunctional and uncontrollable conflict resolution strategies.

The study also shows that individuals with a dual-concern personality are more inclined to use an avoidance strategy, typically considered a non-adaptive strategy, compared to those with stable and controlled personalities, which is inconsistent with previous studies⁹. A plausible explanation could be the cultural context’s impact on the perceived functionality of avoidance⁵¹. For instance, in individualistic societies, avoidance is considered harmful and non-adaptive, as it is incompatible with self-confidence, autonomy, and competition¹⁵. In contrast, collectivist cultures may see avoidance as an adaptive conflict resolution method, promoting interpersonal relationships and group harmony¹⁵.

The study’s findings reveal that individuals with a control personality use arrangement strategies less frequently than those with a dual-concern personality, contradicting previous research²³. Control personalities are marked by high neuroticism and lower levels of other personality traits. High neuroticism is commonly linked to ineffective self-control⁵³ and higher levels of anger when facing interpersonal stress⁵⁴. Despite dual-concern individuals using the dominance strategy most frequently, their overall use among all three personality types is lower than other strategies. This indicates that the dominance strategy might be considered an alternative when different strategies are ineffective. Additionally, the dominance strategy might be adapted to the more stringent “hierarchical” system within university campuses, where upper-level students might consider control and domination as reasonable strategies in interactions with first-year or second-year students.

Compared to other strategies, compliance strategy exhibits unique aspects. Specifically, only individuals with stable and dual-concern personalities exhibit differences in using this strategy, whereas those with other personality types do not significantly. This may be partly influenced by the Doctrine of the Mean, which is deeply rooted in Chinese traditional culture⁴⁴. Under the background of traditional culture, the Doctrine of the Mean has penetrated every aspect of how Chinese university students handle daily life events⁵⁵, and this may also influence their choice and implementation of strategies in interpersonal conflicts. The theory of extremeness aversion suggests that individuals have loss aversion during decision-making, i.e., a tendency to avoid extreme choices and their potential risks, and therefore are more inclined to choose a compromise solution⁵⁶. Compliance with others in conflict may also stem from loss aversion; individuals might prefer a compromise that resolves the conflict with minimal personal loss, and even those with a controlling personality tend to use a more compliant strategy. On the other hand, differences in compliance strategies between the control type and other personality types may be obscured by the relatively higher heterogeneity within the control type, characterized by the instability brought about by neuroticism⁵⁸. This is reflected in the higher standard errors for control individuals across various strategies, suggesting their strategy choices and implementations are not consistently stable, potentially obscuring the distinctions between the control type and other personality types.

Finally, the study also indicates that non-only children are more adept at using conflict resolution strategies, showing higher usage of collaboration, compliance, avoidance, and dominance strategies compared to only children. This might be a potential reason for the poorer conflict resolution abilities of only children found in previous research⁵⁹. Specifically, Non-only children, through experiences like resource allocation, conflict resolution, and cooperation with siblings⁶⁰, develop enhanced communication, coordination, and conflict resolution abilities⁶¹. Conversely, only children, due to the lack of prior practice in resolving conflicts in childhood, such as competing and coordinating with siblings, may have a lower tendency for competition or cooperation⁶², even dominant or evasive strategies, which are not usually seen as positive problem-solving, cannot be used effectively in the face of conflict.

In summary, based on the plasticity characteristics of personality, university educators can specifically cultivate and correct students’ personalities. Besides focusing on psychological counseling and intervention for university students, a more beneficial approach is to organize more group activities that increase interpersonal interaction, which helps develop communication, coordination, and conflict resolution skills, thus improving the harmoniousness of interpersonal relationships.

Conclusions

University students’ personality traits can be classified into three types: control, stable, and dual-concern, with the control type being the least common and the stable type the most prevalent. There are similarities and differences in the use of conflict resolution strategies by university students of different personality types. All personality types use the dominance strategy less frequently, but the dual-concern type uses all strategies, including avoidance and dominance, more often than both the stable and control types.

Author contributions

BinBing Zhong was the main author. She conceived the research question, developed the research strategy, Data processing, and drafted and revised the manuscript. Haichun Sun revised and edited the manuscript to make it better. Jun Yan were supervisors of this project. He contributed equally to the conception of the research problem, controlled the progress of the research, and revision of various versions of the manuscript. Other authors discussed the article and gave suggestions. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Data availability

The datasets generated during or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.