In the first study, 31 disputants and 9 mediators were asked to describe a conflict with which they were currently associated. Multidimensional scaling techniques were employed to inductively derive the dimensions required to represent people's cognitive interpretations of conflict. The resulting configuration consisted of three dimensions: 1) relationship versus task; 2) emotional versus intellectual; and 3) compromise versus win. In comparison to disputants, mediator interpretations were more likely to be viewed by disputants in relationship, compromise terms. The second study replicated the multidimensional scaling findings of the first study using a different subject population. Data from both studies lend support to the notion that people have clearly distinguishable belief systems or simple interpretations of conflict. Further research is suggested to examine factors that contribute to the development of one interpretation over another, the relation between disputant and negotiator behavior, and whether disputant interpretations of mediator descriptions reflect actual mediator conflict frames or simply mediator frames from a disputant perspective. 9 tables, 27 references. (Author abstract modified)