Cited by 18Conflict Management and NegotiationEducation for Peace and Conflict ResolutionDispute Resolution and Class Actions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict

Open access
Trippe, Blair, Baumoel, Douglas·2015·Negotiation Journal

Abstract

This article discusses an extension to the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977) designed specifically for conflict situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at play. The Thomas–Kilmann (TK) model is widely used to help participants (disputants and mediators) identify how two basic conflict characteristics interact to influence how stakeholders shape their actions with regard to their interests. Essentially the TK Model is built on the premise that the two salient conflict variables are the relative importance of the relationships at hand and the substantive issues being discussed. These variables are illustrated with a simple matrix that shows how each party will interact with the other based on the relative importance it places on these variables. Graphically illustrating where the behaviors fall on the matrix can explicate parties' behaviors to add a new perspective that may change the dynamic of the conflict. But the TK Model does not address scenarios in which individuals have very negative or destructive relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms. Hence, we developed the Baumoel–Trippe (BT) Extension to the TK Model to address the highly negative and often identity-based conflicts that are often found in the world of family business. Accordingly, the BT Extension to the TK Model explores conflicts in which the relationships are not merely unimportant or uncooperative, but where they become…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nejo.12084

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Atran, 2008, Reframing sacred values, Negotiation Journal, 24, 221, 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00182.x · DOI
  2. Brown, 2012, Empowering students to create and claim value through the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, Negotiation Journal, 28, 79, 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00327.x · DOI
  3. Fisher, 1983, Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in
  4. Savage, 1989, Consider both relationships and substance when negotiating strategically, Academy of Management Executive, 3, 37
  5. Schneider, 2013, Negotiation barometry: A dynamic measure of conflict management style, Ohio State University Journal On Dispute Resolution, 11, 1
  6. Thomas, 1977, Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “mode” instrument, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309, 10.1177/001316447703700204 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Trippe, B., & Baumoel, D.
Venue
Negotiation Journal
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2015-04
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
89-103
ISSN
  • 0748-4526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1571-9979
OpenAlex
W1823506621
Cited by
18
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Negotiation Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education for Peace and Conflict Resolution
  • Social Sciences › Law › Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
Keywords
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, sabotage, blocking, exclusion, identity-based conflict, family business conflicts, family relationships, mediation (conflict resolution), stakeholder behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nejo.12084
The paper
Trippe, B., & Baumoel, D. (2015). Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict. Negotiation Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12084