University dormitory conflicts refer to contradictions that occur among members within university dormitories. These conflicts manifest as emotional hostility, indifference, tension, disharmony, or even physical disputes in emotional, verbal and behavioural aspects due to the temporary inability to coordinate needs, interests, goals, or opinions in events such as study, life, and emotions ( Cao, 2006 ).

Dormitory exclusion mainly has five main characters: 1) There are specific occasions, which means this phenomenon often occurs in the dormitory; 2) Dormitory exclusion is one of the subjective perceptions. The situation and individual differences will affect the reaction to the same behaviour. 3) The intention of dormitory exclusion is ambiguous. Some of the exclusions are intentional by the members, while some are completely unconscious; 4) Dormitory exclusion is a “cold violence”, which is primarily characterized by attitude indifference and behavioural ostracism. 5) The external manifestations of dormitory exclusion are neglect and avoidance, which are usually more indirect and hidden. People’s perception of fairness affects their level of trust ( Teng, Jin, & Liu, 2016 ). Xiao (2011) ’s research suggests that significant reasons for others’ exclusion of an individual are inappropriate behaviours exhibited by employees in the workplace. Scott, Restubog, & Zagenczyk (2013) have found that employees who display uncivil behaviours in the workplace are more likely to experience exclusion from others. They confirmed that the lack of personal skills such as interpersonal harmony and situational awareness can make employees more likely to be excluded by others ( Wu & He, 2015 ). In summary, university students are prone to interpersonal conflicts in dormitory life, such as communication barriers, differences in daily routines, competition for shared resources, loss of personal interests, and differences in social interactions. These negative conflicts are more likely to lead students to be excluded by their dormitory mates. Therefore, the present study proposed the following hypothesis:

H₁: Dormitory conflict has a positive impact on dormitory exclusion

H_1a: Communication barriers have a positive impact on dormitory exclusion

H_1b: Differences in daily routines have a positive impact on the dormitory exclusion

H_1c: The competition for shared resources has a positive impact on the dormitory exclusion

H_1d: The loss of private interests has a positive impact on the dormitory exclusion

H_1e: The difference in human behaviour has a positive impact on dormitory exclusion

Shen (2016) studied conflicts in university students’ romantic relationships and found that the greater the level of conflict, the more inclined individuals are to choose competitive strategies for resolving the conflict rather than accommodating their partner Wu (2014) found that communication barriers, daily routines, competition for resources, perceived loss of private interests, interpersonal skills, and conflict resolution through competition are significantly positively correlated. Therefore, the present study proposed the following hypothesis:

H₂: Dorm conflicts have a positive impact on competition

H_2a: Communication barriers have a positive impact on competition

H_2b: Differences in sleep and rest habits have a positive impact on competition

H_2c: The competition for public resources has a positive impact on the competition

H_2d: The loss of private interests has a positive impact on the competition

H_2e: Differences in human behaviour have a positive impact on competition

Conflict itself is not the key to the problem, instead, how to deal with the conflict is crucial ( Thomas, 1992 ). Floyd (2009) ’s statement suggests that every choice we make might impact our relationships. Facing the same conflict situations, there are many different strategies for conflict resolution. However, not everyone can employ the most appropriate strategy. The research conducted by Zhang & Fan (2003) indicates that university students mainly use three strategies to resolve interpersonal conflicts: cooperative compromise, avoidance and accommodation, and competitive strategies. Research by Xu & Liang (1998) demonstrates that some university students adopt less proactive and inappropriate conflict resolution methods, which are fundamental causes of subsequent violent behaviour. Whether conflict resolution strategies are rational and appropriate directly impacts individuals’ subsequent behaviours, fostering either friendly and peaceful behaviours or retaliatory violence. Studies indicate that interpersonal satisfaction was higher when university students used a collaborative conflict ( Liang & Duan, 2018 ). Moreover, individuals who adopt competitive solutions in conflict tend to be highly concerned about themselves and less concerned about others ( Yang, 2020 ). Also, they will rely on authority or power to defeat the opponent in solving interpersonal conflicts. According to Scott, Restubog, & Zagenczyk (2013) ’s research on corporate employees, when an employee is in a low-value position that does not benefit others, the likelihood of that employee being excluded increases. Additionally, some studies point out that in the corporate culture, excessive emphasis on competition is easy to induce workplace exclusion ( Xiao, 2011 ). The researchers showed that due to excessive competition, employees are unwilling to share their work skills and some important information or resources with colleagues, and colleagues are likely to isolate and suppress each other and induce exclusion. In addition, research has shown that the competitive behaviour of college students is significantly related to the dormitory relationship, and the competition might largely lead to the deterioration of the dormitory relationship ( Zhao & Su, 2015 ). Therefore, the current study proposed the following hypothesis (See Figure 1 ):

H₃: Competition has a significant mediating effect between dormitory conflict and dormitory exclusion.

H_3a: Competition has a significant mediating effect between communication barriers and dormitory exclusion.

H_3b: Competition has a significant intermediary effect between the difference in work and rest habits and dormitory exclusion.

H_3c: Competition has a significant intermediary effect between the competition for public resources and the dormitory exclusion.

H_3d: Competition has a significant intermediary effect between the loss of private interests and dormitory exclusion.

H_3e: Competition has a significant mediation effect between interpersonal differences and dormitory exclusion.

On four university campuses in Liaoning Province, questionnaires were randomly distributed to undergraduates in libraries and classrooms in 2023. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, and 377 valid responses were collected, with a valid response rate of 94.25%. Among all the participants, there are 212 boys, 165 girls, 96 freshmen, 83 sophomores, 92 junior students, and 106 seniors. The students’ ages ranged from 17 to 24, with an average age of 20 (±2).

To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement, this study employs well-established scales previously developed by scholars to measure dormitory conflicts and competition. The dormitory conflict scale used in this study is based on the scale compiled by Jing (2007) , consisting of a total of 20 items. It covers five dimensions, which are communication barriers, differences in daily routines, competition for shared resources, damage to personal interests, and differences in interpersonal behaviour. After pre-testing, item number 17 was deleted from the scale. Moreover, the measurement of competition in this study used the competitive subscale from the Dormitory Conflict Resolution Scale compiled by Jia (2009) , which consists of 4 questions. In addition, dormitory exclusion was measured through interviews with students and modifications to the Occupational Exclusion Scale ( Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008 ), which consists of 4 questions.

SPSS 24.0 was used for correlation analysis, regression analysis, and mediation effect hypothesis testing.

Since the questionnaires in this study are all answered by the same participants, there is a significant risk of common method variance (CMV). To avoid this issue, the questionnaire was designed to be answered anonymously during the research design phase. The instructions were crafted using neutral words to avoid explicitly stating the true purposes and intentions of the study to achieve a good psychological separation. Additionally, before conducting a formal analysis, an examination of CMV was performed. Following the method proposed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff (2003) , an exploratory factor analysis of the entire questionnaire was conducted without rotation. The first principal component factor accounted for 27.45% of the variance, which did not constitute a majority. This indicates that none of the measurement scales show significant loading on the same factor, suggesting that the CMV is unlikely to impact the research conclusions.

A total of 377 valid responses were collected in this study, including 212 male students, 165 female students, 96 freshmen, 83 sophomores, 92 junior students and 106 senior students, as shown in Table 1 .

The mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients of the variables are shown in Table 1 . Dormitory conflict and its dimensions are significantly positively correlated with competition and dormitory exclusion, which indicates that the hypotheses in this study are preliminarily supported. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of each scale were greater than 0.70. This indicates a good reliability of these scales.

1) Overall hypothesis testing analysis

As shown in Table 2 , after controlling for demographic variables (i.e., gender, only-child status, grade, and place of origin), the independent variable dormitory conflict was included in the regression equation against the dependent variable dormitory exclusion. It has been found that dormitory conflict had a significant positive effect on competition (M2, β = 0.44, p < 0.01) and dormitory exclusion (β = 0.53, p < 0.01). Therefore, both primary hypothesis (H1) and secondary hypothesis (H2) were supported.

Pour: *representation p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, same below; Cronbach’s α value in parenthesis of the diagonal.

The dormitory exclusion was set as the dependent variable. After adding the intermediary variable, which is the competition, the regression coefficient of dormitory conflict on dormitory exclusion changed significantly (M2, β = 0.29, p < 0.01). This shows that the competition had a partial mediation effect between dormitory conflict and dormitory exclusion. Thus, the hypothesis H3a was supported.

2) Sub-hypothesis testing and analysis

As shown in Table 2 , the various dimensions of dormitory conflicts (i.e., communication barriers, differences in daily routines, competition for public resources, damage to private interests, and differences in interpersonal behaviour) were respectively entered into the regression equation. The results found that communication barriers (M3, β = 0.25, p < 0.05) and damage to private interests (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) have a significant positive impact on competition, supporting hypotheses H2a and H2d. However, hypotheses H2b, H2c, and H2e were rejected. Additionally, communication barriers (M6, β = 0.25, p < 0.05) have a significant positive impact on dormitory exclusion, supporting hypothesis H3a, while hypotheses H3b, H3c, H3d, and H3e were rejected. After adding the mediating variable (competition), the regression coefficient of communication barriers (M6, β = 0.25, p < 0.05; M9, β = 0.20, p < 0.05) on dormitory exclusion changed significantly, indicating that competition has a partial mediating effect between communication barriers and dormitory exclusion. Therefore, hypothesis H3a was supported, while hypotheses H3b, H3c, and H3d were rejected (See Table 3 ).

Note: M1 - M3 represents the regression model of the control variable and dormitory conflict and each dimension, while M4 - M9 represents the regression model of the control variable, dormitory conflict and each dimension, and the dormitory exclusion after competition.

The results show that dormitory conflict and communication barriers have a significant positive impact on dormitory exclusion behavior, which is consistent with previous studies on interpersonal conflict and social exclusion. As the main place for college students to study and live, if the conflict between dormitory members is not properly resolved, it will often lead to emotional alienation, behavioral exclusion, and even more serious campus violence. Communication barriers between roommates make it impossible for each other to accurately communicate their thoughts and feelings, make it difficult to understand and empathize, and easily lead to misunderstandings and suspicions. When roommates interpret each other’s behavior based on wrong assumptions and judgments, it is easier to exacerbate each other’s estrangement and exclusion.

The study also found that competition played a mediating role between dormitory conflict and dormitory exclusion, and also played a mediating role in communication barriers and dormitory exclusion. When college students are faced with dormitory conflicts, if they take a competitive approach to solve the problem, only looking out for their own interests and not being considerate of others, it will often exacerbate the tension between them. At the same time, poor communication can also lead to the accumulation of negative feelings such as “being misunderstood”, “targeted” and “being excluded”, resulting in negative emotions such as anger and frustration, which in turn leads to more dormitory exclusion behaviors.

This study has the following limitations: 1) The sampling of the survey samples in this study has regional limitations, as it only included four universities, which may not fully represent the entire student population in the area. 2) This study relied on questionnaire surveys where participants self-reported dormitory conflicts, competition, and dormitory exclusion, which may be influenced by subjective biases and intentional avoidance of true thoughts, thereby affecting the accuracy of the collected data. 3) In this study, the cross-sectional research method is used, which analyses and examines relationships between variables based on data collected at a single time point. This approach does not explain the developmental trends of these relationships, potentially limiting the interpretive power of the results. As a result of the limitations, some future directions are provided. Future studies should expand the scope of sampling, try to use operational tests to evaluate relevant variables, and explore the use of crossover design to deeply study the problem from horizontal and longitudinal dimensions. 4) This study discusses the possible effects of different dimensions of dormitory conflict on interpersonal competition and dormitory conflict, but does not further investigate potential differences in how specific conflict types relate to the mediating role of competition, which can be further discussed in future research.

This study provides the following insights: 1) The school should pay attention to students’ dormitory conflicts. On the one hand, dormitory assignments should consider students; differences in living habits and personalities to reduce the likelihood of conflicts from the outset. On the other hand, students’ dormitory conflict resolution abilities can be enhanced through education and training, enabling them to manage conflicts effectively. Additionally, organizing collective dormitory activities like dormitory design competitions can improve relationships among dormitory members. 2) Schools should pay attention to guiding students to view competition rationally. When roommates are facing competitions such as awards and honours, some students may feel that their roommates are not as good as themselves. When their roommates win awards, these students may feel envious or resentful, viewing their roommates as adversaries or enemies. This thus develops conflicts. During the educational process, it is important to guide students in developing virtues such as tolerance and kindness and to help them avoid negative attitudes like jealousy and selfishness. In dormitory life, respecting others and handling competition rationally are essential. 3) Emphasis should be placed on developing student’s communication skills. The key to addressing conflicts lies in guiding students to actively participate in dormitory activities and promote principles of equality, respect, sincerity, and enthusiasm in their interactions. They should be able to utilize communication techniques such as praise, empathy, listening, and smiling, to transform their irrational cognitions and overcome negative attitudes like hypersensitivity, suspiciousness, inferiority complex, and jealousy. They should learn to be tolerant and understanding of their roommates’ disadvantages, open up in their communications with roommates, strive to eliminate communication barriers and enhance mutual understanding. By breaking down psychological barriers and increasing psychological transparency, they can strengthen their sense of mutual trust, thereby eliminating misunderstandings and conflicts.