The s udy o s yles o handling in e -
pe sonal con lic has inc eased in impo -
ance in ecen decades. Among di e en
Psico hema, 1997. Vol. 9, nº 1, pp. 145-153
ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG
145
STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL
CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Lou des Mundua e, Ped o Luque & Miguel Ba ón
Uni e si y o Se ille
Es ilos de ges ión del con lic o in e pe sonal: Un es udio obse acional. El p opósi o
del p esen e es udio es el de co obo a si los hallazgos sob e los es ilos de ges ión del con-
lic o hallados en es udios p e ios (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei o, 1994; Rahim, 1992),
se con i man u ilizando una me odología dis in a. En luga de analiza los au oin o mes de
los di ec i os sob e los es ilos u ilizados en si uaciones p e ias de con lic o, como se ha ea-
lizado en los es udios indicados, el obje i o eside en analiza expe imen almen e los es ilos
di ec amen e obse ados en sus in e acciones de con lic o. Se conside a ambién la inciden-
cia del es a us ela i o y las ác icas de in luencia. Con una mues a de 45 suje os insc i os en
p og amas de pos g ado, se simula una si uación de con lic o en el labo a o io, en la que se
a modi icando el es a us ela i o de los pa icipan es - con cómplices de los in es igado es
que desempeñan el ol de supe io es, compañe os o subo dinados -, y la ác ica de in luencia
empleada - ase i as, de bloqueo, y acionales. Se ilman las in e acciones de con lic o, y
pos e io men e dos jueces codi ican los es ilos empleados po los di ec i os - e i ación, do-
minación, in eg ación, comp omiso y se ilismo. Los esul ados indican que los es ilos ob-
se ados en las conduc as de los di ec i os, di ie en de los es ilos empleados según los au-
oin o mes de los di ec i os en es udios p e ios. Se obse a ambién que los es ilos a ían en
unción del es a us je á quico ela i o y la ác ica de in luencia empleada.
One expe imen al s udy was conduc ed in o de o obse e con lic handling s yles
used by manage s. The objec i e was o de e mine i he majo indings in p e ious esea -
ches (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei o, 1994; Rahim, 1992) could be eplica ed wi h di -
e ences in me hodology. Ra he han conside ing he pe cep ions o he subjec s in ela ion
o hei s yles o handling wi hin con lic si ua ion, he aim was o analyze expe imen ally he
ac ual s yles o handling con lic using an obse a ional me hodology. The incidence o he
ela i e s a us and he in luencing ac ics we e also conside ed. Wi h a sample o 45 subjec s
egis e ed in pos g adua e educa ional p og ammes, a con lic si ua ion was simula ed. By
using accomplices, he expe imen e manipula ed he ela i e s a us among subjec s - supe-
io s, pee s and subo dina es - and he in luencing ac ic used - asse i eness, blocking and
a ionali y. Then, he s yles o handling con lic s - a oiding, comp omosing, obliging, domi-
na ing and in eg a ing - used by subjec s we e obse ed. S uc u ed obse a ions showed ha
he e a e some ele an di e ences be ween indings go by sel - epo o con lic handling
s yles in p e ious esea ch and obse a ions o manage s beha io . S yles also a ied by he
e ec s o ela i e s a us and in luence ac ics.
Co espondencia: Lou des Mundua e
Dp o. de Psicología Social. Facul ad de Psicología
Uni e sidad de Se illa
A da. San Fco. Ja ie , s/n. 41005 Se illa (Spain)
app oaches ca ied ou o dis inguish and
classi y s yles - see Blake & Mou on,
1964; P ui , 1983; Rahim & Bonoma,
1979; Thomas, 1976, 1992; Tjos old,
1989; Van de Vlie & P ein, 1989 and Van
de Vlie & Ho dijk, 1989 -, empi ical
e idence shows an impo an suppo o
GRID’s i e s yle o con lic handling be-
ha io app oach (Ruble & Thomas, 1976;
Rahim, 1983a; Van de Vlie & Kabano ,
1990). This ca ego y, ca ied ou by Tho-
mas (1976, 1992) and Rahim (1992), is
based on a wo-dimensional app oach - a -
emp o sa is ay one’s own conce ns and
a emp o sa is y he conce ns o he o he
pe son. As is shown in Figu e 1, a combi-
na ion o he dimensions esul s in g id’s
i e di e en con lic handling s yles: in-
eg a ing, comp omising, obliging, domi-
na ing and a oiding.
The ela ions be ween hese s yles o
con lic managemen ha e been con as ed
using sel - epo ing ques ionnai es -wi h
sa is ac o y le els o eliabili y- ha we e
speci ically designed o e lec he i e
s yles o con lic managemen . S udies ca-
ied ou in Spain on his subjec (Mun-
dua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei ó, 1994),
using he adap ion o ROCCI-II (Rahim,
1983b), ha e shown ha in eg a ing is he
s yle mos widely used by Spanish mana-
ge s, ollowed by comp omising and a oi-
ding. Obliging and domina ing ea u e as
he leas used.
The indings conce ning he in luence
o he hie a chical posi ion o he o he
pa y, indica e ha he s yle o con lic
managemen adop ed by he speake a-
ies depending on whe he he con lic is
wi h a supe io , a subo dina e o a pee . I
has been shown ha subjec s adop a s yle
o domina ion in he esolu ion o di e-
ences wi h subo dina es (Philips and
Ches on, 1979; Lee, 1990); while hey
adop a comp omising s yle when bo h
pa ies in a con lic si ua ion hold a simi-
la sha e o powe -among pee s, o
example- (Lee, 1990; Philips & Ches on,
1979; Rahim, 1983a; 1986). Finally, su-
bo dina es end o adop an obliging s yle
mo e in cases o con on a ion wi h a su-
pe io han in hose wi h pee s o subo di-
na es (D ake, Zammu o and Pa asu aman,
1982; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide,
1993).
Resea ch Objec i es and Hypo hesis
Lee p oposes (1990) he need o empi-
ical s udies which analyze he ac ual s y-
les o con lic managemen , ins ead o
analyzing he pe cep ion ha subjec s ha-
e abou hei s yles o con lic manage-
men h ough e ospec i e ield s udies,
as has been he case in mos o esea ch o
da e. In ac , o he s udies in p in , only
Lee’s (1990) es ablishes he s yles used by
manage s in hei ela ions wi h supe io s,
pee s and subo dina es by obse ing hei
beha io in he momen o con on a ion.
A di e en app oach o ha adop ed h-
ough sel - epo ed ques ionnai es -in spi-
e o ob aining e ospec i e da a-, is ha
adop ed by Kabano & Van de Vlie
(1993). They ha e used manage s’ epo s
STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
146 Psico hema, 1997
Figu e 1. S yles o handling in e pe sonal con lic .
abou hei in e en ions in eal con lic si-
ua ions which a e hen e alua ed and
classi ied by code s. Cosie & Ruble’s
(1981) s udy also mo es away om sel -
epo ed ques ionnai es using an expe i-
men al game wi h a compu e p og am.
The p incipal objec i e o he p esen
s udy is o es ablish whe he he indings
abou he s yles o con lic managemen
a e con i med using a di e en me hodo-
logy. The i s speci ic objec i e is o es a-
blish whe he manage s a e mo e inclined
o use he s yle o in eg a ion, ollowed by
comp omise and a oidance, in hei con-
lic in e ac ions in o ganiza ions.
Conside ing he in e ac i e ocus o
he analysis o con lic si ua ions pu o -
wa d by Kabano & Van de Vlie (1993),
and d awing on esea ch in o p ocesses o
social in luence (Mosco ici, 1976; Mugny
& Doise, 1978), we ha e picked up on he
design s udy used by Lee (1990). This ap-
p oaches om he s andpoin ha in in e-
ac ions o con lic wi h a supe io , a pee
o a subo dina e, one o he ac o s ha in-
luences he s yle o con lic managemen
adop ed by he manage is he ac ic o in-
luence used by he o he pa y. In o he
wo ds, he subjec ends o adop a di e-
en ac ic depending on whe he she/he is
dealing wi h a boss, a pee o a subo dina-
e, and his in u n a ec s he s yle o con-
lic managemen adop ed by he o he
pa y (Lee, 1990). Linked o he esul s o
he e ec s o hie a chical posi ions on so-
cial in luence (Lemaine, Lasch & Rica e-
au, 1971-1972; She i & She i , 1969),
Kipnis, Schmid & Wilkinson (1980) poin
ou ha subjec s end o use di e en ac-
ics o in luence depending on he ela i e
s a us o he o he pa y: supe io s will
end o use asse i e ac ics, pee s, bloc-
king ac ics, and subo dina es, a ional
ac ics.
The second objec i e o he p esen
s udy is o analyze he s yle o con lic
managemen used by manage s, depen-
ding on he ela i e s a us and he ac ics
o in luence o he o he pa y, wi h he o-
llowing p edic ions:
– Hypo hesis 1: di e ences will be
ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con-
lic managemen depending on whe he
hey a e dealing wi h supe io s, pee s o
subo dina es, in he ollowing di ec ion:
he e will be a endency o use an obliging
s yle mo e wi h supe io s han wi h pee s
o subo dina es; ha o comp omise mo e
wi h pee s han wi h subo dina es o supe-
io s and, inally, domina ing mo e wi h
subo dina es han wi h pee s o supe io s.
– Hypo hesis 2: di e ences will be
ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con-
lic managemen , depending on he ac-
ics o in luence adop ed by he o he pa y
in he ollowing di ec ion: he e will be a
endency owa ds using he obliging s yle
mo e when he o he pa y uses asse i e
ac ics; comp omise when he o he uses
blocking; and domina ing when he o he
u ns o a ional a gumen s.
– Hypo hesis 3: Di e ences will be
ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con-
lic managemen depending on who s/he
is dealing wi h -a supe io , pee o subo -
dina e- and he ac ics o in luence used
by ha pe son -asse i e, blocking o a-
ional-, in he ollowing di ec ion: hey
will end o use he obliging s yle mo e
when he supe io uses asse i e ac ics;
he comp omising s yle mo e when he pe-
e uses ac ics o blocking, and domina ing
mo e when he subo dina e u ns o a io-
nal a gumen s.
Me hod
Sample. F om a class o subjec s a en-
ding a pos -g adua e manage ial cou se,
45 subjec s we e selec ed (27 men and 18
women, wi h an a e age age o 31). The
subjec s’ jobs in ol ed hem in asks o a
LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN
Psico hema, 1997 147
manage ial na u e, o hei cu iculum was
one which would lead o hem assuming
esponsibili y, as his was one o he c i e-
ia o hem being accep ed on he cou ses.
Expe imen al design. A 3x3 ac o ial
design was used wi h he ollowing in e -
g oup a iables: Rela i e s a us o he ma-
nage and Tac ics o in luence used by he
manage s. The i s o he a iables has h-
ee dimensions: Rela ions wi h supe io s
s. Rela ions wi h pee s s. Rela ions wi h
subo dina es. The second independen a-
iable has h ee dimensions: Asse i e ac-
ics s. Blocking ac ics s. Ra ional ac-
ics. The dependen a iable is he s yle o
con lic managemen adop ed in each ex-
pe imen al condi ion, acco ding o he o-
llowing i e dimensions: in eg a ing, com-
p omising, obliging, domina ing, and
a ioding.
P ocedu e. The 45 subjec s a e an-
domly assigned o one o he g oups o six
subjec s, om he nine expe imen al con-
di ions. Each g oup is made up o i e ex-
pe imen al subjec s and an accomplice.
The g oup is asked o ca y ou an exe ci-
se, and each subjec is gi en a ole which
speci ies he depa men hey a e going o
ep esen as well as he posi ion hey hold
wi hin i . Gene al in o ma ion is also gi-
en abou he o ganiza ion and he aims o
he mee ing which is he same o all he
pa icipan s. They a e gi en wen y minu-
es o p epa e he exe cise du ing which i-
me hey a e no allowed o exchange in-
o ma ion. The accomplice subjec is ea-
ed in he same way as he es o he
membe s o he g oup so as no o a ouse
suspicion, bu his posi ion a he able has
been p e iously ag eed so as o gi e him
he planned ole.
As he exe cise un olds a con lic si ua-
ion de elops. The exe cise consis s o he
alloca ion o a hal -yea ly budge in which
each membe assumes he manage ial ole
o a ce ain depa men and has o nego ia-
e wi h he o he subjec s -ac ing as mana-
ge s o o he depa men s- he quan i y co-
esponding o each one. They mus each
an ag eemen wi hin he 40 minu es allo-
wed o he mee ing. The accomplice p o-
okes he con lic si ua ion by eques ing
an excessi e p opo ion o he o e all bud-
ge . In each o he nine expe imen al si-
ua ions he accomplice is assigned a di -
e en manage ial ole - high- anking,
low- anking, o same hie a chical le el-,
and adop s di e en ac ics o in luence -
asse i e, blocking, and a ional. The mee-
ings o he nine expe imen al si ua ions
a e ilmed om he con ol oom o sub-
sequen e alua ion o he a iables.
E alua ion o he dependen a iable.
Two code s ca ied ou s uc u ed obse a-
ions o he ideos. The ca ego ial sys em
used o codi y he in e ac ions co esponds
o he i e s yles o con lic managemen ,
and also includes a six h s yle labelled mis-
cellaneous which ca e s o hose beha-
io s ha canno be included in he p e-
ious ca ego ies and ha will be le ou o
la e analyses. The uni s o obse a ion se-
lec ed o he codi ying o he in e ac ions
a e he in e en ion u ns. These u ns a e
he u e ances ha he subjec s make du-
ing he sessions. Each in e en ion u n
mus be codi ied in o one o he ca ego ies
men ioned. The aspec s o he in e en ion
u ns ha a e eco ded ha e a mainly se-
man ic con en while no uling ou he
possibili y o eco ding non- e bal aspec s
when hese clea ly subs i u e u e ances.
The in e code eliabili y o 0.91, cal-
cula ed using Cohen’s Kappa coe icien
(1968) is e y sa is ac o y. The disag ee-
men s in codi ica ion o he ca ego ies o
analysis a e esol ed by going back o e
he ideos, discussing hem and ag eeing
on a codi ica ion. To se le di e ences in
he e en o a disag eemen pe sis ing, he
codi ica ion is ca ied ou by a hi d obse -
e . E e y ou in e en ion u ns he ob-
STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
148 Psico hema, 1997
se e s compa e o see whe he hey ha e
been codi ying he same in e en ion u n
-by compa ing he i s and las ph ase o
he u n codi ied. The disag eemen s o e
in e en ion u ns a e so ed ou a ha
poin by he obse e s.
The success o he expe imen al mani-
pula ion. To es whe he he accomplices
ha e co ec ly ul illed hei oles as supe-
io s, pee s and subo dina es, obse a ions
a e made o hese beha io s by he judges
wi h coe icien s being ob ained o 0.93,
0.93, and 0.94 espec i ely. The same p o-
cedu e is epea ed o he ac ics o in-
luence used by he accomplices, wi h co-
e icien s being ob ained o 0.95, 0.85 and
0.87 o a ional, blocking and asse i e
ac ics, espec i ely. In sho , he success
o he expe imen al manipula ion o bo h
a iables is con i med.
Resul s
Al hough Table 1 con i ms he g ea e
o e all use o he in eg a ion s yle, he
highligh o he indings in his pape is
he use o domina ion in second place.
The e is hen a la ge dis ance o he s yle
o comp omise which, acco ding o in-
dings in p e ious s udies, should ha e be-
en in second place.
As o Hypo hesis 1, conce ning he in-
cidence o ela i e hie a chical s a us o
he o he pa y on he s yle o con lic ma-
nagemen , he e is con i ma ion (see Table
2) o he ollowing: he use o in eg a ion
mo e o en wi h supe io s han pee s;
comp omise mo e wi h pee s han supe-
io s; and domina ion mo e wi h subo di-
na es and pee s han supe io s. The e is
no hing o show ha an obliging s yle is
used mo e wi h supe io s.
In he case o Hypo hesis 2 abou he in-
cidence o he ac ics o in luence used by
he o he pa y on he s yle o con lic ma-
nagemen (see Table 3), he e is only con-
i ma ion o he g ea e use o domina ion
when he o he u ns o a ional a gumen s.
The p edic ions in Hypo hesis 3 abou
he in e ac i e e ec o bo h a iables a e
no con i med (see Table 4).
LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN
Psico hema, 1997 149
Table 1
Mean ecuency o con lic managemen s yles
and di e ences in using hem Summa y com-
pa isons o meansa
S yles M SD 1 2 3 4 5
In eg a ing 17.40 10.13 11.49** 2.91** 11.15** 8..44**
Obliging .11 .44 –9.7** –3.82** –5.62**
Domina ing 11.31 7.81 9.05** 5.63**
A oiding .73 1.01 4.63**
Comp omising 3.80 4.42
a
Means compa isons a e based on he « » S uden es .
** p < .01 * p < .05
Table 2
Ta ge s a us and mean equency o con lic
managemen s yles
Rela i e S a us
Supe io Pee Subo dina e F
In eg a ing
M 21.33 12.86b 18.00ab 2.99**
SD 11.94 8.29 8.48
Obliging
M .13 .20 .00 .80
SD .51 .56 .00
A oiding
M .80 .53 .86 .44
SD 1.20 .74 1.06
Comp omising
M 2.20 6.13b 3.06ab 3.68
SD 2.27 5.93 3.43
Domina ing
M 7.00a 13.06a 13.86b 3.93*
SD 6.52 9.30 5.66
* p < 0.5; ** p < 0.1

Discussion
The da a abou he g ea e use o he
s yle o in eg a ion con i ms he endency
obse ed in manage s in ecen yea s o
add essing he in e es s o o he pa ies as
well as hei own, seeking new and imp o-
ed al e na i es o bo h sides (Mundua e,
Ganaza, Alcaide and Pei ó, 1994; Rahim,
1992). Howe e , wha s ands ou is ha
domina ion is he s yle leas used by Spa-
nish manage s acco ding o he sel - epo -
ing ques ionnai es (Ga cía-Eche a ía,
1991; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide,
1993; Oso io, 1992; Se ano & Remesei-
o, 1987; Vidal Abascal, 1991), and he se-
cond o las s yle used by Ame ican mana-
ge s (Rahim, 1992), while in his pape i
appea s as he second mos widely used
s yle. This seems o indica e a di e ence
be ween he indings p e iously ob ained
h ough manage s’ epo s abou hei s y-
les o con lic managemen , and hose ob-
ained h ough he obse a ion o hei be-
ha io in con lic in e ac ions.
The di e ences ound conce ning he
use o di e en s yles depending on he e-
la i e s a us o he o he pa y, con i m da-
a om Kabano & Van de Vlie (1993)
and Mannix, Thompson & Baze man
(1989) abou he in luence o ela i e po-
we . They s a e ha as he imbalance in he
powe ela ions g ows, he likelihood o
mu ual coope a ion in he esolu ion o he
con lic dec eases. In ac , we ha e obse -
ed ha al hough manage s a e seen o be
mo e in eg a ing wi h supe io s han wi h
pee s, and ha e a g ea e endency owa ds
comp omise wi h pee s han wi h supe-
io s, hey do, howe e , end o use a do-
mina ing s yle wi h subo dina es and pee s.
As a conclusion o he p esen pape , we
should highligh he signi ican di e ences
be ween manage s’ pe cep ion o he way
hey ac in con lic in e ac ions, and hei
ac ual beha io . One explana ion o his
STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
150 Psico hema, 1997
Table 3
Accomplices’ in luence ac ics and mean
equency o con lic handling s yles
In luence ac ics
Asse i eness Bloking Ra ional F
In eg a ing
M 15.80 19.93 16.46 .71
SD 11.64 11.15 7.19
Obliging
M .26 .06 .00 1.54
SD .70 .25 .00
A oiding
M .53 1.00 .66 .84
SD .63 1.36 .89
Comp omising
M 2.86 4.00 4.53 .54
SD 3.46 4.76 5.01
Domina ing
M 8.53a 9.93a 15.46b 3.71
SD 4.80 7.84 8.83
* p < 0.5; ** p < 0.1
Table 4
Con lic handling s yles as a unc ion o
ela i e s a us and in luence ac ic
FP
In eg a ing
Ta ge s a us 2.96 .064
In luence ac ic .804 .456
In e ac ion 1.39 .256
Obliging
Ta ge s a us .778 .467
In luence ac ic 1.44 .249
In e ac ion .444 .776
A oiding
Ta ge s a us .429 .655
In luence ac ic .796 .459
In e ac ion .673 .615
Comp omising
Ta ge s a us 3.37 .046
In luence ac ic .572 .570
In e ac ion .328 .857
Domina ing
Ta ge s a us 4.29 .021
In luence ac ic 4.09 .025
In e ac ion .422 .792
could lie in he beha io -a i ude inconsis-
ency desc ibed by LaPie e back in 1934,
and which has eme ged as he di e ence
be ween he cogni i e, a ec i e, and beha-
io al componen s o a i udes. The cul u al
and social changes which Spanish socie y
has unde gone in ecen yea s may explain
he de elopmen o s yles o con lic mana-
gemen on a cogni i e le el, bu no on a be-
ha io al le el. A s udy ca ied ou by Po a
(1970), o analyce he in luence o cul u al
di e ences in he way execu i es o a ious
coun ies handle con lic , indica ed ha
when Spanish execu i es o he beginning
o he se en ies eached ag eemen s, hey
did so in sho e imes han Danes, Swiss o
B i ish, bu ha Spanish execu i es ended
o lead nego ia ion o a ze o-sum si ua ion
in which bo h pa ies los . They adop ed
ha d and in lexible ac ics, higly coe ci e,
when hey could no a i e a an ag eemen
in he i s pa o he p ocess. Al hough he
da a in he p esen pape abou he p esence
o in eg a ion and domina ion as he mos
widely used s yles ie in wi h he endency
desc ibed by Po a (1970), he empo al
phases o he p ocess ha e no been analy-
zed. As Hai e, Ghiselli & Po e (1963)
poin ed ou in hei s udy abou manage ial
s yles in di e en coun ies, we see he ab-
sence o a link be ween he ideas abou ma-
nage ial p ac ices - ha end o be based
a ound pe suasion and pa icipa ion- and
basic belie s abou human na u e - ha end
o emain adi ional and unchanging. The
au ho s poin ou ha his pa adox be ween
a basic lack o con idence in o he people
and a he same ime a endency owa ds
g oup-based pa icipa i e s yles may be
showing he e ec o a pa ial accep ance o
mode n manage ial concep s (Mundua e,
Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei ó, 1994). I may be
possible o s e ch his explana ion o co e
he disc epancies be ween he desc ip ions
ha he manage s ga e abou hei s yles o
con lic managemen , and he ac ual s yles
o con lic managemen hey we e seen o
adop . In ac , al hough he use o ba gai-
ning s yles simila o in eg a ion and com-
p omise ha e been p esen in s udies on he
subjec in ecen yea s (Ga cía-Eche a ía,
1991; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide, 1993;
Oso io, 1992; Se ano & Remesei o, 1987;
Vidal Abascal, 1991), he da a ob ained in
he p esen s udy by using an obse a ional
me hodology show ha manage s con inue
o all back on p essu e s yles on mo e oc-
casions han hey a e willing o admi .
Ag adecimien os
This esea ch was suppo ed by a g an om
he Spanish CICYT (Comisión In e minis e ial
de Ciencia y Tecnología)(PB91-0955).
Pape p esen ed a he 8 h annual con e en-
ce a he In e na ional Associa ion o Con lic
Mamagemen e, Elsino e, Denma k, June 11-
14, 1995.
LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN
Psico hema, 1997 151
Re e encias
Blake, R.R. & Mou on, J.S. (1964). The Mana-
ge ial G id. Hous on: Gul Publishing.
Cohen, J.A. (1968). Weigh ed kappa: Nominal
scale ag eemen wi h p o ision o scaled di-
sag eemen o pa ial c edi . Psychological
Bulle in, 70, 213-220.
Cosie , R.A. & Ruble, T.L. (1981). Resea ch
on Con lic -Handling Beha io : An expe i-
men al App oach. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal, 24, 816-831.
D ake, B.H., Zammu o, R.F. & Pa asu aman,
S. (1982). Fi e con lic S yles: Fac o e
s uc u e and social desi abili y issues un-
de lying he con lic mode ins umen . Pa-
pe p esen ed a he Annual Mee ing o he
Ame ican Ins i u e o Decision Sciences
Ga cía-Eche e ía (1991). Di ección de la Em-
p esa y el ejecu i o del u u o [Managemen
and he execu i e o he u u e] Al a Di ec-
ción, 157, 59-176.
Hai e, M., Ghiselli, E. & Po e , L.W. (1963). Cul-
u al Pa e ns in he Role o he Manage .Ins i-
u e o Indus ial Rela ions, 2, 95-117.
Kabano , B. & Van de Vlie , E. (1993). Beha-
iou Symme y in Con lic Dyads and i s Re-
la ion o In e powe and Con lic Ou comes.
Pape p esen ed o he Six h Annual Con e-
ence o he In e na ional Associa ion o
Con lic Managemen . Hou halen, Belgium.
Kipnis, D., Schmid , S.M. & Wilkinson, Y.
(1980). In ao ganiza ional In luence Tac ics:
Explo a ions in Ge ing one’s way. Jou nal
o Applied Psychology. 65(4), 440-522.
LaPie e, R.T. (1967). Type- a ionaliza ions o
g oup an ipa hy. Social Fo ces, 15, 32-238.
Lee, Ch.W. (1990). Rela i e s a us o employe-
es and s yles o handling in e pe sonal con-
lic : An expe imen al s udy wi h Ko ean
Manage s. The In e pe sonal Jou nal o
Con lic Managemen . 1 (4), 327-340.
Lemaine, G., Lasch, E. & Rica eau, P. (1971-
72). L`in luence sociale e les sys èmes
d`ac ion: Les e ecs d`a ac ion e de épul-
sion dans une expé ience de no malisa ion
a ec “I`allociné ique”. Bulle in de Psycho-
logia, 25, 482-493.
Mannix, E.A., Thompson, L.L. & Baze man,
M.H. (1989). Nego ia ion in small g oups.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 74, 508-
517.
Mosco ici, S. (1976). Social in luence and so-
cial change. Lond es: Academic.
Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cogni i-
e con lic and s uc u e o indi idual and
collec i a pe o mance. Eu opean Jou nal
o Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.
Mundua e, L., Ganaza, J. & Alcaide, M.
(1993). Es ilos de Ges ión del Con lic o In-
e pe sonal en las o ganizaciones [S yles o
handling con lic in o ganiza ions] Re is a
de Psicología Social. 8(1), 47-68.
Mundua e, L., Ganaza, J., Alcaide, M. & Pei ó,
J.M. (1994). Con lic Managemen in Spain.
En Rahim, R.A. y Blum, A. (Eds.). Global
Pe spec i es on O ganiza ional Con lic
(pp. 103-134). New Yo k: P aege .
Oso io, M. (1992). El di ec i o en Eu opa [The
Manage in Eu ope]. Ingenie os Consul-
o es, S.A. (ICSA). Comunicación in e na.
Phillips, E. & Ches on, R. ((1979). Con lic
Resolu ion: Wha Wo ks?. Cali o nia Ma-
nagemen Re iew. 21(4), 76-83.
Po a , A.M. (1970). C oss-cul u al di e ences
in esol ing union-managemen con lic h-
ough nego ia ions. Expe imen al Publica-
ions Sys em, 2, 069A.
Rahim, M.A. (1983a). A Measu e o S yles o
Handling In e pe sonal Con lic . Aca-
demy o Managemen Jou nal. 26, 368-376.
Rahim, M.A. (1983b). Rahim O ganiza ional
Con lic In en o y -II: Fo ms a, b, and c. Pa-
lo Al o, CA: Consul ing Psychologis P ess.
Rahim, R.A. (1992). Managing Con lic in O -
ganiza ions. (2nd Ed.). New Yo k: P aege .
Rahim, M.A. & Bononoma, T.V. (1979). Ma-
niging O ganiza ional Con lic : A Model
o Diagnosis and In e en ion. Psychologi-
cal Repo s, 16, 143-155.
Ruble, T.L. & Thomas, K.W. (1976). Suppo
o a Two-Dimensional Model o Con lic
Beha io . O ganiza ional Beha io and Hu-
man Pe o mance.16, 143-155.
Se ano, G. & Remesei o, C. (1987). Ac i udes
an e la negociación colec i a [A i udes o-
wa d collec i e ba gaining]. Bole ín de Psi-
cología, 14, 79-108.
She i , M. & She i , C.W.(1969). Social Psy-
chology. New Yo k: Ha pe and Row.
Thomas, K.W. (1976). Con lic and Con lic
Managemen . En Dunne e, M.D. (ed.).
Handbook o Indus ial and O ganiza ional
Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K.W. (1992). Con lic and Nego-
ia ion p ocesses in o ganiza ions. En M.D.
Dunne e y L.M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook o
indus ial & O ganiza ional Psychology,
( ol. 3, 2nd Ed., pp. 651-717). Palo Al o,
CA: Consul ing Psychologis s P ess.
Tjos old, D. (1989). In e dependence App o-
ach o Con lic Managemen in O ganiza
ions. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing
Con lic :An In e disciplina y App oach (41-
50). New Yo k, P aege .
Van de Vlie , E. & Ho dijk, J.W. (l989). A
Theo e ical Posi ion o Comp omising
Among o he s yles o Con lic Manage-
men , Jou nal o Social Psychology, 129
(5), 681-690.
Van de Vlie , E. & Kabano , B. (1990). To-
wa d Theo y-Based Measu es o Con lic
Managemen . Academy o Managemen
Jou nal. 33, 199-209.
STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
152 Psico hema, 1997
LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN
Psico hema, 1997 153
Van de Vlie , E. & P ein, H.C.M. (1989) The
Di e ence in he Meaning o Fo cing in he
Con lic Managemen o Ac o s and Obse -
e s.In A.Rahim (Ed.) Managing Con-
lic :An In e disciplina y App oach (pp.51-
63). New Yo k: P aege
Vidal Abascal, V. (1991). La ges ión emp esa-
ial en los años 90 [Business Managemen
in Nine ies]. Documen ación in e na.
Acep ado el 20 de mayo de 1996