ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 16, 143-155 (1976)

Support for a Two-Dimensional Model of Conflict Behavior

THOMAS L. R U B L E
Rider College

AND

KENNETH W . THOMAS

University of California, Los Angeles

The limitations of the unidimensional "cooperative-competitive" classification

of interpersonal conflict-handling behavior are discussed, and a model is proposed
which includes two dimensions: a cooperative dimension and an assertiveness
dimension.
Two studies were conducted to investigate whether individuals use the two
dimensions in understanding another's conflict-handling behavior. In Study L 150
subjects engaged in a negotiation task. Each subject rated another's use of five
conflict-handling modes and described the person on a semantic differential. A
factor analysis of the semantic differential yielded an evaluative factor and a
dynamism factor. Next, ratings of the o t h e r ' s conflict-handling modes were
collapsed into indices of cooperation and assertiveness. The index of cooperation
was correlated with the evaluative factor but not with the dynamism factor. In
contrast, the index of assertiveness was correlated with the dynamism factor but
not the evaluative factor. In Study !I, 65 subjects completed semantic differentials
in response to hypothetical conflict-handling behavior of another. A factor analysis
again identified evaluative and dynamism factors. The mean ratings of the
evaluative and dynamism factors for the five conflict-handling modes were
consistent with the expectations based on the two-dimensional model. Thus, two
studies using different designs yielded rather consistent results supporting the two-
dimensional model.

The overwhelming majority of studies on organizational conflict have

treated conflict as a unidimensional variable. In many respects, the study
of conflict behavior has been the study of "cooperation" vs. "competi-
tion," a single dimension which has reduced the complexity of conflict
phenomena to an easily manageable level.
However, this single dimension may not be the most meaningful
classification scheme for individuals in a conflict situation. Semantic
differential research (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) has indicated
that individuals tend to use two primary dimensions of connotative
meaning when rating persons and their behaviors: evaluative (good vs.
bad) and dynamism (strong and active vs. weak and passive) dimensions.

A portion of this research was supported by the Institute of Industrial Relations,

UCLA.
143
Copyright © 1976 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
144 RUBLE AND THOMAS

The two dimensions have also been identified in conflict research. Kelley,
Shure, Deutsch, Faucheux, Lanzetta, Moscovici, Nuttin, Rabbie, and
Thibaut (1970) asked subjects at eight research Sites to rate their own
expected behavior in a mixed-motive negotiation task, using a set of
bipolar, semantic differential scales which included a cooperative-competi-
tive scale. Factor analyses of the ratings yielded both evaluative and
dynamism factors. The cooperative-cofnpetitive dichotomy was not
consistently related to either of these factors, loading upon the evaluative
factor at some research sites, the dynamism factor at others, and neither
factor at another. The authors concluded that "the cooperative--competi-
tive distinction does not have a constant meaning but, rather, varies from
one situation or set of subjects to another" (p. 435).
An additional interpretation is that the cooperative-competitive dimen-
sion is insufficient to reflect the complexity of subjects' perceptions of
conflict behavior: This single dimension may collapse or cut across two
behavioral dimensions which are separately meaningful to individuals.
Bierman (1969) and Carson (1%9) cite converging evidence from concep-
tual and factor analytic studies in several fields which indicate that much
of interpersonal behavior can be represented by two major interpersonal
dimensions. The first dimension has been variously called "assertiveness"
(Borgatta, 1960), "dominance" (Leary, 1957), and "active expressive-
ness" (Bierman, 1969), and seems to involve the dynamic pursuit of one's
own needs. The second dimension has been labeled "love" (Leary, 1957),
"sociability" (Borgatta, 1960), and "acceptance" (Bierman, 1969), and
appears to involve concern for the welfare of others.
These dimensions appear isomorphic to Thomas' (Note 4) revision of
the two-dimensional model of conflict behavior developed by Blake and
Mouton (1964). As presented in Fig. 1, that revised model separates two
analytically independent dimensions of behavior in conflict situations: (1)
assertiveness, defined as a party's attempt to satisfy his own concerns,
and (2) cooperativeness, defined as attempts to satisfy the concerns of the
other person. These two dimensions are used to identify five "conflict-
handling modes": competing (assertive, uncooperative), avoiding (unasser-
tive, uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), collabo-
rating, (assertive, cooperative), and compromising (intermediate in both
assertiveness and cooperation). In contrast to the "cooperation-competi-
tion" dichotomy, this two-dimensional model proposes that the alternative
to cooperation is not necessarily competition, and vice versa: Competition
is defined as only one (assertive) uncooperative mode, and cooperation is
divided into assertive and unassertive varieties. In addition, an intermedi-
ate mode is specified. A key implication of the two-dimensional model has
been the identification of the assertive, cooperative mode, "collaborat-
 MODEL OF CONFLICT BEHAVIOR 145

COMPETING COLLABORATING
I

CO
W
Z
LU
> COMPROMISING
nc
I..IJ
O9

AVOIDING ACCOMMODATING
Uncooperative Cooperative

COOPERATIVENESS
FI6. 1. Two-dimensional model of conflict behavior.

ing," as a viable behavior in conflict situations. This mode, which has also
been termed "problem solving" (Blake, Shepard, & Mouton, 1964;
Walton & McKersie, 1965), "integrating" (Follet, 1941), and "confront-
ing" (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), has been recommended by proponents
of the two-dimensional model as an approach to conflict which transcends
zero-sum assumptions. Essentially, collaborating is an attempt to problem
solve with the other person find solutions which result in high degrees of
satisfication for both parties.
Although this two-dimensional model has been used in several studies
of organizational conflict, I the meaningfulness of this model to subjects
has not been tested. The present research used two separate studies to
examine the relationship between this two-dimensional model and the
semantic differential dimensions of connotative meaning which subjects
use to rate actual or hypothetical others in conflict situations. It was our
expectation that ratings of a target person on the dynamism dimension of
the semantic differential would vary with the perceived use of the
assertive versus unassertive conflict-handling modes, while ratings on the
evaluative dimension would vary with the perceived use of the coopera-
tive versus uncooperative modes. The expected relationship between
assertiveness and dynamism is obvious. A relationship between coopera-
tiveness and positive evaluation was expected for two reasons. First,
positive evaluation or regard may tend to result from goal-facilitating

1 Blake and Mouton (1964), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Burke (1970), Thomas and
Walton (Note 5), Renwick (Note 1), Ryan and Clemence (Note 3), Jamieson and
Thomas (1974).
146 RUBLE AND THOMAS

behavior from others. Second, through the socilization process, persons

may internalize norms which equate " g o o d " behavior with behavior
which shows concern for the welfare of generalized others.

STUDY I
Study I provided a semistructured conflict situation which allowed pairs
of participants to determine their own behavior toward each other. No
attempt was made to randomly assign the subjects to experimental
conditions or to employ a control group, so that Study I may be
characterized as a pre-experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1%6).
Subjects
The subjects were 150 students enrolled in introductory management at
a California State University, with a median age of 25 years. The students
formed a very heterogenous sample with over one-half (53%) from
minority ethnic backgrounds.
Procedure 2
Subjects were presented with a case exercise in interdepartmental
relations in which two major departments faced the allocation of an
limited budget. The subjects were randomly assigned to play the roles of
two managers meeting to negotiate the budget allocation. Each subject
received instructions which described a set of departmental projects (five
or six) that could be funded and emphasized the importance of funding
one's own projects.
The task was structured so that four types of outcomes were possible:
(a) a compromise--the easiest solution was merely to sprit the funds down
the middle; (b) win-lose, where one person gained at the other's expense;
(c) lose-lose, where both come out lower than a simple compromise due to
a lack of agreement or inability to discern a better solution; and (d) an
"integrative" or collaborative solution which maximized the joint payoff.
These four outcomes were based on certain combinations of the projects
to be funded and were not specifically identified to the subjects in
advance. Fifteen minutes were allowed for negotiation.
After the negotiation session, the subjects completed a questionnaire
with two main sections focusing on the respondent's behavior and his
" coordinate' s" behavior. The section focusing on the coordinate is
relevant to the present paper. Five questions asked the respondent to rate
his coordinate's use of each of the conflict-handling modes on six-point
scales from "very little" to "very much." Items used were: (a) "the other
person took a stand and stuck to it" (competing); (b) "the other person
tried to avoid the task of negotiating" (avoiding); (c) "the other person

Details of the procedures, supporting materials, and questionnaires for Study I and
Study II may be found in Ruble (Note 2).
 MODEL OF CONFLICT BEHAVIOR 147

gave in to my position" (accommodating); (d) "the other person suggested

a middle ground or compromise" (compromising); and (e) "the other
person communicated all of his/her information and encouraged me to do
the same" (collaborating). The subject then rated the other person on 10
semantic differential scales selected to cover evaluation and dynamism.
Results
The semantic differential ratings were factor analyzed according to the
steps outlined by Nie, Bent, and Hull (1970). A Varimax orthogonal
solution extracted three factors which accounted for 68.7% of the total
variance in the scales. The factors and their loadings are presented in
Table 1.
The first two factors were identified as an evaluative factor and a
dynamism factor and are quite similar to those identified by Kelley et al.
(1970). The third factor appeared to define a secondary evaluative factor
with moral implications (e.g., honesty and fairness). This factor was not
included in further analysis since it accounted for only 10.9% of the total
variance compared to 36.4% for the evaluative factor and 21.4% for the
dynamism factor.
Factor scores were computed for the evaluative and dynamism factors
by simply adding the ratings on the separate scales which comprised the
factors. The adjectives which define the evaluative factor were hostile-
friendly, hard-soft, unfair-fair, greedy-not greedy, and stubborn--willing to
give and take. The dynamism factor was defined by weak-strong,
passive-active, and ineffective--effective.
Indices of the two underlying dimensions of the conflict model were

TABLE 1
F A C T O R L O A D I N G S O F S E M A N T I C D I F F E R E N T I A L R A T I N G S OF T H E O T H E R ' S B E H A V I O R a

Factors

Adjective pairs 1 2 3

Hostile-friendly 61 -- --
Hard-soft 66 -- --
Deceptive-open -- -- 59
Dishonest-honest -- -- 86
Weak-strong -- 56 --
Unfair-fair 67 -- 51
Passive-active -- 59 --
Greedy-not greedy 73 -- --
Ineffective-effective -- 85 --
Stubborn-willing to give and take 78 -- --

Percent of variance 36.4 21.4 10.9

a Factor loadings l e s s t h a n .50 a r e n o t s h o w n . Decimal points are omitted.

148 RUBLE AND THOMAS

calculated by combining ratings on separate conflict-handling modes. A

cooperation index was computed by adding the ratings on the cooperative
modes (accommodating and collaborating) and subtracting the ratings on
the uncooperative modes (avoiding and competing). Similarly, an asser-
tiveness index was computed by adding ratings on the assertive modes
(competing and collaborating)and subtracting ratings on the unassertive
modes (avoiding and accommodating). Because compromising was ex-
pected a priori to be exactly intermediate or neutral on both dimensions, it
was not included in either index. The correlation between the two indices
was very low (r = -.04, n = 150), suggesting that the two dimensions
were independent for this sample.
Table 2 presents correlations of the factor scores with the indices of the
other's cooperation and assertiveness and with the other's use of the
separate conflict-handling modes. The cooperation index had a strong,
positive association with the evaluative factor (r = .61, n = 141, p < .001)
and a nonsignificant, negative correlation (r = - . 1 6 , n = 141) with
dynamism. In contrast, the assertiveness index had a significant, positive
correlation with the dynamism factor (r = .45, n = 141, p < .001) and a
nonsignificant, negative correlation (r = -:15, n = 141) with evaluation.
These correlations suggest that the two dimensions of conflict-handling
behavior had relatively independent meanings for the present sample. The
results supported our expectations that cooperation would be viewed with
positive evaluation while assertiveness would be perceived as dynamic.
The correlations for the separate modes were largely consistent with the

TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE OTHER'S CONFLICT-HANDLING BEHAVIORAND SEMANTIC
DIFFERENTIAL RATINGS a

Semantic differential ratings for the

other

Other's conflict-handfingbehavior Evaluative Dynamism

Dimension indices
Cooperation .61"* - . 16
Assertiveness - . 15 .45**
Conflict-handling modes
Competing -.50"* .36"*
Avoiding -.31"* - . 16
Accommodating .43** -.36**
Compromising .34** .08
Collaborating .21" .14

a N = 141; data rounded to two places.

*p < .05.
**p < .001.
 M O D E L OF C O N F L I C T B E H A V I O R 149

expectations derived from the model. For example, competing was

negatively associated with the evaluative factor (r = -.50, p <.001) and
positively associated with the dynamism factor (r = .36, p <.001), while
accommodating was positively associated with the evaluative factor
(r = ,43, p <.00l) and negatively associated with the dynamism factor
(r -.36, p <.001). Some correlations, although in the expected direction,
were not strong enough to be statistically significant. Avoiding was
negatively associated with the evaluative factor (r = -.31, p <.001) but
had only a weak negative relation with the dynamism factor (r = -.16,
n.s.). Likewise, collaborating was positively correlated with the evaluative
factor (r = .21, p <.05) but had a weak positive relation with the
dynamism factor (r --.14, n.s.). The clearest deviation from the model
concerned compromising, which had been expected to be intermediate or
neutral in both cooperativeness and assertiveness, and therefore to show
no significant relationship with either semantic differential factor. Although
compromising was unrelated to dynamism (r = .08, n.s.), it showed a
strong positive correlation with the evaluation factor (r = .34, p <.001).

S T U D Y II
Study II was a simulation with the manipulation of conditions
accomplished by written descriptions of hypothetical conflict-handling
behaviors. Thus, the present study may be characterized as a controlled,
experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1%6).
Subjects
The subjects were 65 different undergraduate students enrolled in three
sections of introductory management courses at a Califonia State
University. Although personal background data were not obtained, the
subjects seemed quite heterogenous, as in the first study.
Procedure
The study was introduced as a case exercise in interdepartmental
relations, using case materials similar to those in Study I. Briefly, the
situation involved two department managers assigned the task of dividing
a fixed budget allocation to finance their own projects. After the students
read the case, the instructor explained that the case was in the process of
being developed for use as a role-playing exercise in future classes. The
students were asked to participate in the development of the exercise by
responding to a questionnaire as if they were actually engaged in the
negotiations. At this point, the questionnaire was distributed and the
students were given 20 rain to complete it.
The questionnaire was constructed to place each subject in the role of
one department manager meeting with another. Each subject was asked to
react to four hypothetical situations involving a conflict handling mode
150 RUBLE AND THOMAS

used by the other and four probable reasons (attributions) for that
particular behavior (e.g., "The other person takes a stand and sticks to it.
You think that this is probably because he has that kind of personality").
For each subject, the four hypothetical situations consisted of only one
conflict-handling mode paired each time with a different reason (N = 13
subjects per mode). Descriptions of the others' hypothetical conflict-
handling modes used essentially the same wording as the questionnaire
items used to rate the others' behavior in Study I. The four probable
reasons were included as part of a larger study on the mediating influence
of causal attributions and are not central to the analysis of the two-
dimensional model (see Ruble, Note 2). 3 Following each hypothetical
situation were a series of questions concerning the subject's reactions to
the other person, including his rating of the other on the 10 semantic
differential scales used in Study I. The other questions did not bear
directly upon perceptions of dynamism or evaluation and will not be
disucssed here.
Construction of the Dependent Variables
In order to construct evaluative and dynamism scales, the semantic
differential data from Study II were factor-analyzed using the same
procedures as those in Study I. However, due to the design of the
questionnaire in Study II, there were four sets of semantic differential
data to analyze, one set associated with each attribution category.
Because different attributions were expected to influence the factor
structure, separate factor analyses were performed on the semantic
differential ratings for each of the four attributional categories.
As expected, two basic factors emerged from the four analyses, an
evaluative factor and a dynamism factor, although the structure of the
evaluative factor varied somewhat over the four separate analyses. The
differences in factor structures were in line with the expectations
concerning the mediating effects of attributions on a person's perceptions
of a conflict actor. Nevertheless, the varied factor structures required some
decisions in constructing the dependent variables.
Two of the scales, deceptive-open and dishonest-honest, loaded on the
evaluative factor in all four analyses and two more, unfair-fair and
stubborn-willing to give and take, were present in three of the analyses.
These four scales were clearly appropriate to include in the construction
of the evaluative factor score. Another scale, hostile-friendly, loaded on
the evaluative factor in two of the analyses. Since this scale would have
been included on an a priori basis, it was decided to include it in

3The probable reasons given were: "because he has that kind of personality,"
"because he chose that strategy this time," "because the rules of the game determined
his behavior," and "because the instructions were not clear this time."
 M O D E L OF C O N F L I C T B E H A V I O R 151

constructing the evaluative factor score. In contrast to the evaluative

factor, the dynamism factor was relatively easy to interpret. The scales
loading on this factor in Study I (weak-strong, active-passive, and
ineffective--effective) were strong again in this present study. Thus, the
same scales were included in Study II. The hard-soft scale also loaded on
the dynamism factor in three of the analyses but it was not included in the
final factor score because it had also loaded on the evaluative factor in
two of the analyses. To ensure that these judgments did not materially
influence the results and conclusions of the present research, an alternate
factor analysis was performed and different factor scores were computed
for two other reasonable interpretations of the factors. Subsequent
analysis using these alternate factor scores did not materially affect the
results or conclusions. 4
Results
The conflict-handling behavior of a hypothetical actor was the independ-
ent variable in the present study, while ratings of the actor on the
evaluative and dynamism factors were the dependent variables. A
subject's factor score was computed by summing ratings on the scales
included in the factor and averaging across the four attributions. Table 3
presents the mean ratings of the hypothetical conflict actor on the
evaluative and dynamism factors for each conflict-handling mode. Differ-
ences in the mean ratings were tested for significance by separate analyses
of variance for each dependent variable.
The analysis of variance of the mean evaluative ratings indicated that
the overall differences in ratings for different modes were signficant
(F = 8.05, d f = 4, 60, p <.001). These differences were expected, as the
data in Study I indicated that two of the modes were rated negatively

TABLE 3
MEAN EVALUATIVE AND DYNAMISM RATINGS a

A c t o r ' s conflict-handling m o d e s b

Accommo- Compro- Collabo-

Factor C o m p e t i n g Avoiding dating mising rating X c

Evaluative 15.08 16.25 19.62 19.42 19.02 17.88

Dynamism 12.12 8.69 9.08 10.27 11.29 10.29

a Higher scores indicate m o r e positive evaluations and m o r e d y n a m i c behavior.

bN = 13 per mode.
CN = 65.

4A technical report on the additional factor analysis and alternate data a n a l y s e s is

available from the first author.
152 RUBLE AND THOMAS

(competing and avoiding) and three of the modes were rated positively
(accommodating, compromising, and collaborating). Newman-Keuls post-
hoc tests indicated that the mean ratings of competing (J~ = 15.08) and
avoiding (J~ = 16.25) were significantly lower than the mean ratings of
accommodating (X = 19.62), compromising (J~ = 19.42), and collaborating
(J~ = 19.02) with a p-value less than .01 for all comparisons. Overall, two
"negative" modes and three "positive" modes were found. Basically,
these evaluative ratings support the premises of the two-dimensional
model of conflict-handling behavior. However, the ratings of compromis-
ing again deviated from the model, as this mode was rated quite positively
rather than falling between the cooperative and uncooperative modes.
The analysis of variance of the dynamism ratings also indicated that the
overall differences were significant (F = 7.43, df= 4, 60, p < .001).
Newman-Keuls post hoc tests indicated that competing was rated
significantly higher than avoiding (p < .01"), accommodating (p < .01), and
compromising (p < .05), while collaborating was rated significantly higher
than avoiding (p < .01) and accommodating (p < .05). Competing and
collaborating did not differ significantly. Similarly, avoiding and accommo-
dating did not differ significantly. Thus, avoiding and accommodating were
viewed as nondynamic modes, competition and collaborating,were viewed
as dynamic modes, and compromising fell in the middle. These results
suggest that the assertiveness dimension proposed by the two-dimensional
model was a meaningful dimension for the subjects in Study II. The
analysis of the dynamism ratings conformed quite closely to the assertive-
ness dimension of the model.
The results of Study II are graphed in Fig. 2, with each conflict-
handling mode plotted according to mean ratings on the evaluative and

xCOMPETING
12
xCOLLABORATING
rr"
11
£
o xCOMPROMtSING
10

xACCOMMODATING
9
xAVOIDING

,< 8
Z

15 16 17 18 19 20

EVALUATIVE FACTOR RATINGS

FXG. 2. Representation of mean evaluative and dynamism ratings of conflict-handling
modes.
 M O D E L OF C O N F L I C T B E H A V I O R 153

dynamism dimensions. Although the location of each mode does not

conform exactly to the two-dimensional model presented earlier in Fig. 1,
the relative locations are quite consistent with the general expectations of
the model. The single exception is the location of compromising, which
was expected to be intermediate on both dimensions but actually came out
high on the evaluative dimension.

DISCUSSION
The results of the two studies were quite consistent and seem to
indicate that individuals are sensitive to two rather distinct dimensions of
interpersonal conflict behavior: cooperativeness and assertiveness. The
semantic differential ratings of competing, accommodating, and avoiding
conformed closely to the expectations of the two-dimension model. The
ratings of collaborating were in the expected direction, but the strength of
these ratings was somewhat less than expected, particularly in Study I.
Finally, the dynamism ratings of compromising were as expected, but the
evaluative ratings of this mode deviated from the model in both studies.
The explanation for the somewhat lower ratings of collaborating is not
clear at this time. It is possible that the particularly low ratings in Study I
were influenced by the payoff structures. There was some asymmetry in
the payoffs so that one party gained more under collaboration than the
other party. The party gaining less may have responded less postively and
may have been perceived as less dynamic. However, since both parties
were "better off" with a collaborative solution than with a compromise,
the lower evaluative ratings of collaborating relative to compromising still
raise a question as to the dynamics of the interpersonal evaluation.
Moreover, since the ratings in Study II were not based on realized
outcomes, it appears that factors other than the payoff structure may be
operating.
Compromising was expected to receive rather neutral ratings on the
evaluative dimension but, instead, was rated quite positively in both
studies. One interpretation is that compromising is seen primarily as a
cooperative gesture--a "movement towards" another (Homey, 1945),
even though compromising is also partially a holding back. This emphasis
on the cooperative aspect of compromising is consistent with Bales' (1950)
classification of compromising as a social maintenance activity. A second
interpretation is simply that compromising is valued highly within our
pragmatic culture. Finally, it may be that the cooperative (evaluative)
dimension is more of a dichotomous dimension than a continuous
dimension--particularly in conflict situations.
Two different designs were used in the present research in order to
minimize the effects of a particular methodology on the results. However,
although the studies were different in many respects, there were some
important similarities in the two studies which may have contributed to
154 RUBLE AND THOMAS

the consistency of the results. First, the operational definitions of the

conflict-handling modes were nearly identical, and the 10 pairs of
adjectives on the semantic differentials were the same. Second, the
measurement of the variables was quite similar, as all measures were self-
report and instructions were worded in a very similar manner. Of course,
it is impossible to assess the role of these definitions and measures in
producing consistency in the present research. Future studies should
consider using different definitions and measures to assess the generality
of the findings.
The present research appears to have some provocative implications for
further research and practice. The first implication is that the familiar
cooperation-competition dichotomy does not fully capture the richness of
behavioral alternatives which individuals perceive in conflict situations.
Although perceptions may narrow to a single behavioral dimension when
conflicts have polarized into win-lose contests, they appear more complex
in unpolarized situations such as the one in this investigation. Many
experimental tasks used for conflict research, such as the Prisoner's
Dilemma game, may therefore force conflict behavior into arbitrary
dichotomies which mask the more complex intents and perceptions of the
subjects. For example, Terhune (1970) has commented upon the difficul-
ties involved in interpreting the psychological significance of subjects'
"cooperative" and "uncooperative" choices in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
There appears to be a need for experimental situations which allow
subjects the richness of choice captured by the two-dimensional model.
Second, in terms of normative theory, the two-dimensional model
appears useful in highlighting alternatives to win-lose behaviors. The
primary normative use of the model has been to stress collaboration as a
viable alternative in conflict situations (Blake & Mouton, 1964). The
present findings appear to indicate that collaboration does have a different
meaning for subjects than win-lose behaviors (i.e., competition and
accommodation). Ironically, the cooperation-competition dichotomy,
which has been heavily used in peace research, may itself be a barrier to
the transcending of win-lose assumptions.
Finally, in terms of descriptive theory, the results suggest that the two-
dimensional model may be especially useful in accounting for affective
responses to behavior in conflict situations. The relationship of coopera-
tion to positive evaluation suggests that perceived cooperativeness may be
a determinant of positive regard, good will, liking, or attraction. Likewise,
the relationship of assertiveness to ratings of dynamism suggest that
perceived assertiveness may be a contributor to interpersonal respect.
REFERENCES
Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis: a method for the study o f small groups.
Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1950.
 MODEL OF CONFLICT BEHAVIOR 155

Bierman, R. Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation in psychotherapy and child

development. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 338-52.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964.
Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. Managing intergroup conflict in
industry. Houston: Gulf Pub., 1964.
Borgatta, E. F. Rankings and self-assessments: some behavioral characteristics replica-
tion studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 1960, 52, 297-307.
Burke, R. J. Methods of resolving superior-subordinate conflict: the constructive use of
subordinate differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1970~ 5,393-411.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
Carson, R. C. Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
Follett, M. P. Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett, H.
C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds,). New York: Harper, 1941.
Homey, K. Our inner conflicts: a constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton,
1945.
Jamieson, D. W., & Thomas, K. W. Power and conflict in the student-teacher
relationship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1974, 10, 321-36.
Kelley, H. H., Shure, G. H., Deutsch, M., Faucheux, C., Lanzetta, J. T., Moscovici,
S., Nuttin, J. M., Jr., Rabbie, J. M., & Thibaut, J. W. A comparative experimental
study of negotiation behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970,
16, 411-438.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 12, 1-47,
Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald, 1957.
Nie, N. H., Bent, D. H., & Hull, C. H. Statistical package for the social sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, J. G., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning.
Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1957.
Terhune, K. W. The effects of personality in cooperation and conflict. In P. Swingle
(Ed.), The structure ofconfl&t. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

REFERENCE NOTES
1. Renwick, P. A. The perception and management of interpersonal conflict in
organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
1972,
2. Ruble, T. L. The role of causal attributions in conflict-handling behavior. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 1973.
3. Ryan, S. G., & Clemence, J. B. Conflict resolution behavior, influence, and
organizational effectiveness: an integrative study. Proceedings of the lOth annual
meetings of the Eastern Academy of Management, 1973.
4. Thomas, K. W. Conflict and conflict management. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975. Vol. II,
in press.
5. Thomas, K. W., & Walton, R. E. Conflict-handling behavior in interdepartmental
relations. Research paper No. 38, Division of Research, Graduate School of
Management, UCLA, 1971.
RECEIVED: October 31, 1974