This monograph presents findings from an analysis of data on international conflict over a three-year period. Part of a large scale research project to test various theories with regard to their ability to analyze international relations, this monograph reports on the testing of relative status field theory on WEIS conflict data for 1966-1969 for international 'topdogs' in respect to economic development but 'underdogs' in respect to power (TU behavior). WEIS conflict data (World Event Interaction Survey) is an index which was created using the "New York Times" as a data source. Field theory maintains that international relations consists of all the attributes and interactions of nations, can be analytically divided into attributes and behavior, and exhibits dyad formations (interactions between two nations) in matters of behavior. Relative status field theory presents a break with the status-field theory approach in that it argues that status relationships ought to be treated in relative terms. Scores on variables including domestic violence, population density, economic development, political stability, and power base are compared for approximately 130 nations to determine relative status. The method involved assigning a negative or positive parameter weight on each predictive factor (such as economic development) which indicates the kind of behavior engaged in by that nation relative to other states. A model for each state is generated based on variations of 'topdog'/'underdog' behavior. Approximately 30 states were given a model based on the TU behavior application. Policy implications of each finding are discussed and additional research is suggested to determine whether relationships will hold up in new time periods on new data sets. (DB)