Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Summary Gross, Mason, and McEachern's theory of role conflict resolution is modified and a process theory is proposed which states that choice, solution, compromise, and avoidance are considered in this order. A reanalysis of data from five survey studies supports the following propositions of the revised theory: (a) in most situations only one of the conflicting role prescriptions is legitimate, has sanctions attached to it, or both (p<.001); (b) as a consequence of (a), choice is the most frequent reaction to role conflict (p<.001); (c) compromise and avoidance only play a part when the role prescriptions are both legitimate or illegitimate, and simultaneously associated or not associated with sanctions (p<.001).
Evert Van de Vliert (Sun,) studied this question.