Journal of Applied Psychology

1984, Vol 69, No 2, 272-279

Copyright 1984 by the

American Psychological Association, Inc

Reducing Organizational Conflict: An Incompatible

Response Approach
Robert A. Baron
Purdue University
Previous research indicates that anger and aggression can both be reduced by
exposure to events that generate positive states incompatible with these reactions.
To determine if this principle could be applied to the reduction of organizational
conflict, male and female subjects played the role of executives and discussed
important organizational issues with another person This individual was actually
an accomplice who disagreed strongly with their views. Such disagreement was
expressed either in a calm and reasonable manner or in an arrogant and condescending fashion. Subjects were then exposed either to one of three treatment
conditions designed to induce positive states incompatible with anger (sympathy,
gratitude, amusement) or to a no-treatment control. Finally, they rated their current
mood, indicated then- impressions of the accomplice, and reported on their likelihood
of handling future conflicts with him through collaboration, avoidance, competition,
compromise, or accomodation. Results indicated that relative to the control condition, the three incompatible-response-generating treatments improved subjects'
moods, enhanced their impressions of the accomplice, and increased then" preference
for constructive as opposed to destructive modes of dealing with conflict. In addition,
disagreement expressed in a condescending manner produced significantly more
negative effects on all dependent measures than disagreement expressed in a reasonable fashion These findings were interpreted as suggesting that useful techniques
for the effective management of conflict can be derived from existing knowledge
about the control of human aggression

Conflict is a common part of life in modern

organizations. Indeed, practicing managers report that dealing with conflict and its effects
occupies fully 20% of their time (Thomas &
Schmidt, 1976). In the past, it was widely assumed that the effects of such conflict are uniformly negative in scope and that it is best
avoided under all circumstances. More recently, however, the fact that conflict can
sometimes yield positive as well as negative
effects has gained increasing recognition
(Robbins, 1974). For example, it may lead to
the careful consideration of new ideasones
that would be overlooked in its absence Similarly, conflict can facilitate more searching

The author wishes to thank Diane Dysert, Debra Gamer,

Dave Johnson, Gary Johnston, George Lau, and Amy
Phillips for their able assistance in the collection of the
data and Daniel Ilgen and Howard Weiss for their insightful
comments on an earlier draft of this article
Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert A Baron,
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University,
W Lafayette, Indiana 47907.

analysis of problems facing an organization,

and so pave the way to better solutions (Boulding, 1964). Clearly, then, it can yield important
positive outcomes under some conditions.
Despite its potential for producing such
benefits, however, there is one central problem
associated with conflict that should not be ignored: Often, it gets badly out of hand. All
too often what starts as a rational exchange
of opposing views deteriorates into an emotion-laden interchangeone in which strong
negative feelings (e.g., anger) are aroused. Furthermore, as the process continues, the basic
goals of the parties involved may shift from
that of gaining acceptance of their views to
merely winning, or even to defeating and humiliating their opponent. In short, conflict can
quickly move from a constructive mode, capable of generating positive outcomes, to a
destructive one, much more likely to yield
negative results (Robbins, 1979). Furthermore,
because the unpleasant feelings and negative
attitudes generated in such cases tend to persist,
they may continue to exert negative effects on

272

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

organizational effectiveness long after the issue

that initiated the conflict has been resolved
(Dworkin, Ference, & Giddon, 1978).
These potential dangers, coupled with current faith in the potential benefits of conflict,
lead to an important question: What steps can
be taken to prevent these unfortunate shifts?
In short, what tactics are effective in reducing
the likelihood that rational and potentially
beneficial conflicts will be converted into destructive ones? This issue has received considerable attention, with the result that a number of techniques for accomplishing this goal
have been devised (e.g., Osgood, 1979; Pruitt,
1981). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests
that several of these are quite effective in resolving even bitter disputes (Pruitt, 1981).
Careful examination of each of these tactics,
as well as the existing literature on conflict,
however, reveals a somewhat puzzling fact: In
their efforts to develop strategies for reducing
destructive conflict, researchers have often ignored a valuable source of information that
might, potentially, prove useful to them in this
regardthe vast extant literature on human
aggression. This fact is surprising for two major
reasons.
First, aggression and certain forms of conflict are closely related. Both involve similar
emotions (e.g., anger, resentment), similar
motives, and even similar forms of overt behavior. Thus, it seems possible that tactics useful in dealing with one might also be effective
m dealing with the other. Second, in recent
years investigators concerned with human
aggression have focused increasing attention
on the prevention or control of such behavior
(e.g., Baron, 1983; Goldstein, Carr, Davidson,
& Wehr, 1981). It seems possible that the
knowledge uncovered in such research might
prove applicable to the task of managing destructive conflict.
The present investigation was designed to
gather preliminary data on this possibility.
Specifically, it sought to aid in the development
of conceptual links between these two areas
of investigation by determining whether one
technique known to be effective in reducmg
anger and aggression might also prove effective
in deterring destructive conflict. The specific
technique selected for investigation in this respect is known as the incompatible response
strategy and rests upon a well-established

273

principle of behavior. All organisms (including

human beings) are incapable of engaging in
two incompatible responses at once. Applied
to the control of anger and aggression, this
principle suggests that if individuals who have
been frustrated or annoyed are exposed to
stimuli serving to induce reactions incompatible with anger and aggression, these latter responses will both be reduced. A large body of
evidence offers support for this basic prediction. Thus, it has been found that feelings of
anger and subsequent aggression are both reduced through the induction of reactions such
as empathy toward the victim (Baron, 1979),
feelings of amusement (Mueller & Donnerstem, 1977), and even mild sexual arousal
(Ramirez, Bryant, & Zillmann, 1982). To determine whether techniques based on the incompatible response strategy might also be
useful in reducing destructive conflict, the following procedures were employed. Male and
female subjects played the role of executives
in a large company and discussed important
organizational issues with another person (e.g.,
should their company manufacture a new
product?). This second individual was actually
an accomplice who disagreed with the subjects'
views in all cases, and who made it clear that
he would purposely thwart any efforts on their
part to get their views accepted. (Such purposeful frustration of goals is a central aspect
of several widely accepted definitions of conflict; cf., Robbins, 1974; Thomas, 1976). Following these conflict-generating procedures,
participants were exposed to one of four treatments: a control condition, or one of three
different experimental conditions designed to
induce reactions incompatible with anger or
annoyance. Finally, they completed a questionnaire designed to assess their current emotional states, their reactions to the accomplice,
and their preferences for handling future conflicts in several different ways (through collaboration, compromise, competition, etc.; see
Thomas, 1976). It was predicted that compared with the control condition, exposure to
any of the three incompatible-response-generating treatments would reduce negative feelings among subjects, enhance their impressions
of the accomplice, and lead them to express
greater preference for constructive as opposed
to destructive modes of dealing with future
conflicts.

274

ROBERT A. BARON

Method

subjects' position in a calm and reasonable manner For

example, one of his remarks was "Well, I can see why you
feel that way, but I guess I disagree " Another was "That's
Subjects and Design
a pretty good point, but.
" In the condescension conOne hundred and fifty six undergraduates (85 males, dition, in contrast, he disagreed in an arrogant and con71 females) participated in the study Subjects took part descending fashion. For example, one of his remarks in
in the investigation to satisfy a course requirement
this condition was "Oh come on, you've got to be kidding!"
A 2 X 2 X 4 factorial design based on two contrasting A second was "Hmphthat makes no sense to me at all1"
patterns of accomplice's behavior (disagreement, condes- The accomplice was carefully rehearsed so that he could
cension), sex of subjects, and four levels of treatment con- behave in these distinctly different ways while interacting
dition (control, gift, sympathy, humor, see below) was em- with subjects ' Such rehearsal involved coaching in tone
ployed Subjects were randomly assigned to each cell of of voice, gestures, and other nonverbal cues, as well as in
this design as they appeared for their appointments
the content of prepared remarks such as those listed above
As will be reported below, subjects' reactions to the accomplice suggest that this attempted manipulation of beProcedure
havioral style was quite successful
Incompatible-response-generating procedures and deThe conflict situation Subjects reported to a waiting
pendent measures After completion of the second probroom where, a moment later, they were joined by a male
lem, the experimenter indicated that she had one additional
accomplice Approximately 1 minute after he entered, the
questionnaire for participants to complete She then
experimenter arrived and conducted both persons to the
searched for this questionnaire in her folder. After failing
laboratory Once there, she explained that the study was
to find it, she remarked "Hm
I think I forgot to
concerned with the manner in which individuals facing
bring the forms
I'll have to go back to my office to
complex problems discuss these with others and reach
get them
It'll only take a minute " She then left the
decisions She further noted that to make the situation
accomplice and the subject alone in the laboratory for 4
more realistic, both individuals should imagine that they
minutes. During this period, the accomplice either sat
were executives m a large company and that the problems
quietly (control condition) or engaged in one of three disdiscussed were ones currently confronting their organitinct activities designed to induce positive emotional rezation After providing these instructions, the experimenter
actions among subjects (All of these actions were perdistributed a written description of the first problem This
formed approximately 1 minute after the experimenter's
problem centered around the question of whether the
departure ) In the gift condition, the accomplice reached
company should move its operations to the "Sunbelt"
into his pocket and pulled out a package of cherry flavored
After reading this description, the subject and accomplice
Life Savers, he then offered one to the subject. In the
indicated their initial views about this issue on a brief
sympathy condition, he remarked that if he had seemed
questionnaire. Then, discussion of the problem was begun
"up tight" during the first part of the study, it was because
The experimenter prompted this discussion by first asking
he had had so many tests that week Finally, in the humor
the subject to voice his or her views When this person
condition, the accomplice took three cartoons from a
was done speaking, she asked the accomplice to indicate
notebook and explained that he had to choose one for use
his views The discussion then continued for approximately
in a communications course He then asked the subject
3 minutes, after which the subject and accomplice indicated
to examine them, and to indicate which one he or she
then- current views on the problem Following this, the
found most amusing These cartoons were selected from
second problem was distributed It dealt with the question
a large initial sample on the basis of ratings by underof whether the company should manufacture a new prodgraduate judges Thus, they were known to be quite huucta phone that could be used by traveling business
morous in nature
persons while on airplanes Procedures for this problem
After approximately 4 minutes, the experimenter rewere identical to the first Both problems were selected
because they were judged, by a group of undergraduate turned She then distributed the questionnaire containing
raters, to be timely and interesting, as well as ones on the major dependent measure The first three items on
which individuals within a given company might well this quesionnaire required subjects to rate their current
mood along three dimensions (unpleasant-pleasant; tensestrongly disagree
calm; unhappy-happy) Several additional items allowed
The accomplice's behavior In order to generate conflict, participants to indicate their impressions of the accomplice
the accomplice disagreed with the subject's initial position along personal dimensions Specifically, they rated their
on both problems Moreover, as the discussion continued, liking for this person (do not hke-like), the extent to which
he made it clear that he would purposely block acceptance he was reasonable during the discussions (not reasonableof the subject's views The accomplice's performance of reasonable), and the extent to which they found him to
this role was facilitated by special training, in which he be irritating or pleasant (irritating-pleasant) The next
memorized a number of points that could be used to three items on the questionnaire assessed subjects' reactions
defend either side of each issue Thus, whateverthe subject's
view, the accomplice was well prepared to disagree with
it in a cogent manner
' In terms of the theoretical framework suggested by
Because previous research suggested that reactions to Thomas (1976), it might be suggested that the accomplice
the conflict situations might vary greatly as a function of behaved in a highly uncooperative and moderately assertive
the manner in which the accomplice expressed his views manner in the disagreement condition but in a highly
(Levinson, 1978), he was trained to behave in two distinct uncooperative and highly assertive manner in the condesways. In the disagreement condition, he contradicted the cension condition

275

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

to the accomplice in terms of job-related characteristics
These items required that they rate the accomplice in
terms of future success (not successful-successful), motivation (not very motivated-highly motivated), and
whether they would hire him for an executive-level job
(definitely no-definitely yes). Five additional items were
designed to determine how subjects felt they would handle
future conflicts with the accomplice These questions asked
them to assume that they worked with him m the same
company Thus, on separate items, they rated how likely
they would be to avoid this person, to accommodate him,
to compete with him, to compromise with him, or collaborate with him These five patterns are the ones identified by Thomas (1976) as representing basic modes of
behavior in many conflict situations

Table 1
Mean Ratings of Liking for the Accomplice and
Accomplice's Pleasantness as a Function of
Treatment Condition
Treatment condition
Dependent
measure

Control

Gift

Sympathy

Humor

Liking
Pleasantness

3 50a
3.43.

4 46 b
4 31 b

4 59 b
4 62 b

4.57 b
4 33 b

Note For each dependent measure, means that do not

share a subscript differ significantly (p < .05) by Duncan
multiple-range test

Results
Subjects' Reported Mood
The three items designed to assess subjects'
current mood were highly intercorrelated. In
view of this fact, scores on these items were
combined into a single index. An analysis of
variance (ANOVA) on these data yielded two
significant effects. First, the main effect of accomplice's behavior was highly significant, F( 1,
108) = 13.79, p < .001. This finding reflected
the fact that subjects in the condescension
condition reported a more negative mood
( M = 12.95) than those in the disagreement
condition (M = 15.30). Second the main effect
of treatment condition was significant, F(3,
108) = 3.24, p < .025. This finding stemmed
from the fact that subjects in both the sympathy ( M = 15.11) and humor (M - 14.64)
groups reported a significantly more positive
mood than those in the control group (M =
12.57, p < .05 in both cases). In addition, the
mood reported by subjects in the gift condition
(M = 14.08) was almost significantly more
positive than that reported by subjects m the
control condition (p < .10). Together, these
findings suggest that the experimental treatments were effective in reducing the negative
feelings generated among participants by the
conflict. None of the interactions between the
independent variables approached significance
Ratings of the Accomplice on
Personal Dimensions
A multivariate ANOVA was performed on

sonableness). This analysis yielded two significant effects: a main effect for accomplice's
behavior F(3, 106) = 40.76, p < .001, and a
mam effect for treatment condition, F\9,
263) = 3.55, p < .004. Again, none of the
interactions between the independent variables
approached significance. All multivariate tests
reported employed the Wilks's-lambda criterion. Follow-up univariate analyses undertaken
to examine these findings more closely indicated that the effect of accomplice's behavior
was significant for all three dependent variables, F(l, 108) = 32.20, 82.32, 102.58, p <
.001, for liking, pleasantness, and reasonableness, respectively. Inspection of the appropriate
means indicated that, as anticipated, subjects
reported more negative reactions to the accomplice in the condescension than in the disagreement condition. Corresponding followup univariate analyses indicated that the effect
of treatment condition was significant for two
of the dependent variables, liking, F{3, 108) =
8.01, p < .001, and pleasantness, F(3, 108) =
6.22, p < .001 The means for these items are
presented in Table 1. As can be seen from this
table, subjects in the gift, sympathy, and humor
conditions reported greater liking for the accomplice and rated him as more pleasant than
subjects in the control group. Thus, these
treatments, which were designed to induce
positive incompatible responses among subjects, appeared to exert the predicted effects.
Ratings of the Accomplice on
Job-Related Dimensions

the data for the three items designed to assess

reactions to the accomplice along personal diA multivariate analysis of variance (MANmensions (i.e., liking, pleasantness, and rea- OVA) was performed on the data for the three

276

ROBERT A. BARON

items designed to assess reactions to the accomplice along job-related dimensions. This
analysis yielded two highly significant effects:
a main effect for sex of subject, F(3, 106) =
6.57, p < .001, and a main effect for accomplice's behavior, F(3, 106) = 12.21, p < .001.
No other effects in the analysis approached
significance. Follow-up univanate analyses revealed that the effect of accomplice's behavior
was significant for two of the dependent measures, success and overall hiring recommendation, F(l, 108) = 30.39, 22.12, p < .001.
These effects reflected the fact that subjects in
the condescension condition rated the accomplice lower in likelihood of future success
and offered a weaker recommendation that he
be hired than subjects in the disagreement
group (M - 3.60 vs. 4.84 for success; M =
3.77 vs. 4.89 for hiring). Univariate analyses
also revealed that the effect of sex of subject
was significant for two of the dependent measures, success and hiring recommendation,
F{1, 108) = 18.71, 5.17, p < .001, p < .025,
respectively. Inspection of the appropriate
means indicated that these effects stemmed
from the fact that females assigned higher ratings to the accomplice than males along both
dimensions (M = A.61 vs. 3.78 for success;
M'= 4.55 vs. 4.10 for hiring).
Subjects' Reported Strategies for Dealing
With Future Conflict
Five items on the questionnaire asked subjects to indicate the likelihood that they would
handle future conflicts with the accomplice in
various ways: through compromise, collaboration, avoidance, competition, or accommodation (see Thomas, 1976). Responses to
these items indicated that subjects reported
being much more likely to engage in compromise (M = 5.71) and collaboration (M = 5.31
than in avoidance (M = 2.20) or accommodation (M 2.24). They reported an intermediate likelihood of responding to future
conflict with competition (M = 4.40). A MANOVA was performed on the data for all five
items. This analysis yielded a significant main
effect for sex of subject, ^ 5 , 104) = 4.08, p <
.002, and a significant main effect for accomplice's behavior, F(5, 104) = 2.75, p <
.025. In addition, the main effect for treatment
condition closely approached significance,

F(15, 294) = 2.03, p .06. No other effects

in the analysis were significant. Follow-up univanate analyses revealed that the effect of sex
of subject was significant for three of the dependent measures: compromise, F(l, 108) =
8.93, p < .003, collaboration, F{1,108) = 7.10,
p < .01, and avoidance, F(l, 108) = 2.39, p <
.05. In addition, it approached significance for
accommodation, F\l, 108) = 2.01, p < .10.
Examination of the appropriate means indicated that in each case, males reported a less
conciliatory approach to conflict than females.
Specifically, they indicated that they would be
less likely than females to adopt compromise
(M = 5.44 vs. 6.04), collaboration (M = 5.03
vs. 5.62), and accommodation (M = 2.42 vs.
2.98), and they would be less likely to seek to
circumvent future conflict through avoidance
(M = 2.20 vs. 2.41).
Additional univanate analyses revealed that
the effect of accomplice's behavior was significant both for compromise, F(l, 108) =
9.68, p < .002, and for collaboration, F(l,
108) = 6.14, p<.025. In addition, it approached significance for competition, F(l,
108) = 2.68, p < .07. Examination of the appropriate means indicated that, in each case,
subjects indicated a less conciliatory reaction
to conflict in the condescension than in the
disagreement condition. Specifically, those in
the condescension condition reported being
less likely to engage m compromise (M = 5.40
vs 6.05) or in collaboration {M - 5.04 vs.
5.62) and more likely to engage in competition
(M = 4.32 vs. 3.74) than those in the disagreement condition. Thus, it appeared that
condescending behavior on the part of the accomplice strongly reduced the likelihood of
constructive reactions to conflict.
Finally, univariate analyses indicated that
the main effect of experimental treatment was
significant for avoidance, .F(108) = 2.93, p <
.04, and closely approached significance for
collaboration, F(l, 108) = 2.20; p < .07. Examination of the appropnate means indicated
that subjects' reported likelihood of reacting
to future conflict with avoidance was significantly reduced (relative to the control condition) by both the sympathy and humor conditions (refer to Table 2). Similarly, subjects'
reported likelihood of employing collaboration
was significantly enhanced by both the gift
and humor conditions. Thus, it appeared that

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Table 2

Reported Likelihood of Dealing With Conflict

Through Collaboration or Avoidance as a
Function of Treatment Condition
Mode of
responding
to conflict

Treatment condition
Control

Gift

Sympathy

Humor

Avoidance
Collaboration

2 60,
5.01.

2 36.C
5.49*

197*
5 24,,

186*
5 48*

Note For each dependent measure, means that do not

share a subscript differ significantly (p < .05) by Duncan
multiple-range test

the experimental treatments were effective in

enhancing constructive reactions to conflict.
Discussion
The results of the present study support the
view that inducing reactions incompatible with
anger or irritation among the parties to a conflict may enhance the adoption of constructive
patterns of behavior by these persons Three
different procedures designed to induce such
responses among subjects yielded positive effects. Fust, these procedures significantly improved participants' current moods. Second,
they significantly enhanced subjects' ratings of
the accomplice (the other party to the conflict)
along several personal dimensions. And third,
they increased participants' reported preference for constructive modes of dealing with
conflict (e.g., collaboration) while reducing
their preference for a less constructive tactic
(avoidance).2 Given the minimal effort involved in the actions performed by the accomplice to induce such incompatible states
among subjects, these findings, taken as a
whole, are quite encouraging. Furthermore, in
the context of previous research on the incompatible response strategy, it seems possible
that other procedures, capable of inducing
stronger positive reactions among subjects,
would have induced even stronger results (cf.,
Baron, 1983) It should also be noted that the
present findings are consistent with those of
other studies indicating that even relatively
minor shifts in current moods or feelings can
induce substantial changes in social behavior
(e.g., Clark & Isen, 1982). The current research
extends these earner results by indicating that
reactions to conflict, too, can be strongly affected by such changes.

277

Another aspect of the present findings deserving of attention concerns the powerful impact on subjects' behavior produced by the
accomplice's personal style. Individuals in the
condescension condition reported more negative moods, assigned lower ratings to the accomplice on both personal and job-related dimensions, and reacted to conflict in less
constructive ways than subjects in the disagreement condition. In interpreting these findings, it is important to recall that, m both
conditions, the accomplice disagreed strongly
with subjects' views. Moreover, he based such
disagreement on identical arguments. The
major difference in the accomplice's actions
in these two conditions, then, involved the
manner in which such disagreement was expressed In the disagreement condition, it was
stated in a calm and reasonable fashion. In
the condescension condition, in contrast, it
was stated in an arrogant and demeaning fashion. The fact that these differences in behavioral style produced sharply contrasting reactions among subjects points to the conclusion that such factors can exert powerful effects
on the course and final outcome of conflict.
Specifically, it appears that disagreeing with
another personeven disagreeingquite strongly
does not necessarily generate feelings of anger and a shift toward destructive modes of
conflict. However, disagreeing in an abrasive
and irritating manner may well yield such results In short, in conflict, as in other forms
of social interaction, it is not simply what one
says that counts; how these thoughts or sentiments are expressed matters too. In this regard, the present findings are consistent with
those of research on the "abrasive personality"
(Levinson, 1978). Briefly, persons demonstrating this behavioral pattern are often bright
and talented but alienate other members of
their organizations by treating them in a condescending manner. The strong negative feelings produced by such actions, in turn, often
2
It should be noted, of course, that the description of
any mode of conflict as either constructive or destructive
is relative in nature and depends, to an important degree,
on the specific situation (cf, Thomas, 1977) For example,
although collaboration might often be construed as a relatively constructive mode of handling conflict, it would
certainly not be adaptive in situations where one is confronted with an opponent who behaves in a uniformly
competitive manner

278

ROBERT A. BARON

sabotage their own careers and interfere with views and indicated that he would purposefully
effective organizational functioning. Together, thwart their acceptance). Third, both subjects'
research on the "abrasive personality" and the self-reports and observations of their behavior
present findings point to the conclusion that indicated that most became quite involved in
certain aspects of expressive or interpersonal their roles and in the discussions that ensued.
style may often be of crucial importance in Indeed, in many cases, these conversations
conflict situations.
grew quite heated and would have continued
The present findings also provide evidence far beyond the time available had the experfor contrasting reactions to conflict on the part imenter failed to intervene. Previous research
of males and females. Briefly, females reported findings indicate that to the extent such ina greater likelihood of reacting to such situ- volvement develops, both the generahzability
ations with attempts at compromise, collab- and external validity of experimental results
oration, accommodation, and avoidance than may be enhanced (Geller, 1978). Finally, it
did males. The fact that females reported a should be noted that the experimental treatstronger preference for compromise and col- ments employed were modeled, conceptually,
laboration agrees with previous findings sug- on ones previously found to be effective in
gesting that they often adopt more cooperative inducing incompatible responses among a wide
modes of behavior in situations involving so- range of populations and also of altering the
cial exchange (Reis & Jackson, 1981) How- overt behavior of such persons (cf., Baron,
ever, the fact that females also reported stron- 1976). The fact that they produced the exger tendencies to handle conflict through pected effects in this investigation thus lends
avoidance or accommodation (total surrender support to the generalizability of the obtained
to their opponent) suggests that they do not results. In sum, taking all of these factors into
always react in a more constructive manner account, it appears reasonable to suggest that
than males. On the contrary, they may some- the present results may indeed possess a contimes prefer passive as opposed to assertive siderable degree of generality. However, this is
strategies for coping with conflict, and such an empirical issue and can be fully resolved
tactics can frequently yield negative outcomes only through additional research involving
(Thomas, 1976). Taken as a whole, the present other subject groups and conflict settings.
findings suggest that differences between the
The primary purpose of the present investwo sexes in response to conflict are complex. tigation was to build conceptual links between
Thus, further research is necessary to clarify the literature on human aggression and the
their overall nature and to suggest how they literature on conflict management. It sought
should be taken into account in the devel- to achieve progress in this respect by examopment of practical strategies for enhancing ining the possibility that one technique prepositive behavior in conflict situations.
viously found to be effective in reducing anger
At this point, potential limitations of the and aggression would also succeed in reducing
present results should be addressed. These destructive conflict. In general, results offered
center around the facts that this investigation support for this possibility. These findings are
was conducted with student participants and encouraging, for they suggest that knowledge
involved simulated rather than actual conflicts. about human aggressionand especially
For these reasons, the extent to which the ob- about the control of such behaviormay intained findings can be generalized to other deed be useful in the management of conflict.
populations or conflict situations is uncertain. Further research is planned to both identify
However, several considerations point to the additional techniques that may prove useful
conclusion that they do possess a considerable in this regard and to develop specific procedegree of generality. First, the problems em- dures for their application to actual conflict
ployed were designed to be as realistic as pos- settings.
sible and dealt with situations commonly faced
by organizations. Second, efforts were made
References
to render the present situation as conceptually
Baron, R A (1976) The reduction of human aggression
similiar to actual conflict as possible (e.g., the
A field study of the influence of incompatible responses
accomplice disagreed strongly with subjects'
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 260-274.

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Baron, R A (1977). Human aggression New "Vbrk. Plenum
Press
Baron, R A. (1979) Aggression, empathy, and race. Effects
of victim's pain cues, victim's race, and level of instigation on physical aggression. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 9, 103-114
Baron, R A. (1983) The control of human aggression
An optimistic overview. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 1, 97-119
Boulding, E (1964) Further reflections on conflict management In R. L Kahn & E Boulding (Eds), Power
and conflict in organizations (pp 146-150) New "York
Basic Books
Clark, M S.&Isen, A M (1982) Toward understanding
the relationship between feeling states and social behavior In A. Hastorf & A Isen (Eds), Cognitive social
psychology (pp 73-108) New York Elsevier NorthHolland
Dworkin, S F , Ference, T P , & Giddon, D B (1978)
The nature of conflict In Behavioral science and dental
practice (pp 154-155) St Louis C V Mosby
Geller, D M (1978) Involvement m role-playing simulations A demonstration with studies on obedience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 219325
Goldstein, A P , Carr, E G., Davidson, W S, & Wehr,
P (Eds) (1981) In response to aggression New York
Pergamon Press
Levmson, H (1978) The abrasive personality Harvard
Business Review, 56, 86-94
Mueller, C , & Donnerstein, E (1977) The effects of humor-induced arousal upon aggressive behavior Journal
of Research in Personality, 11, 73-82

279

Osgood, C E (1979) GRIT for MBFR. A proposal for

unfreezing force-level postures in Europe Peace Research Reviews, 8, 77-92
Pruitt, D G (1981) Negotiation behavior New York: Academic Press
Ramirez, J , Bryant, J., & ZiUmann, D (1982) Effects of
erotica on retaliatory behavior as a function of level of
prior provocation Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 971-978
Reis, H T, & Jackson, L A (1981) Sex differences in
reward allocation' Subjects, partners, and tasks Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 465-478
Robbins, S P (1974) Managing organizational conflict
Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall
Robbins, S P (1979) "Conflict management" and "Conflict resolution" are not synonymous terms In J. F
Veiga & J N Yanouzas (Eds), The dynamics of organizational theory (pp 301-312). St Paul,MN West
Thomas, K W (1976) Conflict and conflict management
In M Dunnette (Ed), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Chicago Rand McNally
Thomas, K W (1977) Toward multi-dimensional values
in teaching The example of conflict behaviors. Academy
of Management Review, 2, 484-490
Thomas, K W, & Schmidt, W H (1976) A survey of
managerial interests with respect to conflict Academy
of Management Journal, 19, 315-318

Received September 19, 1983

Revision received December 19, 1983