Conclusions
We realize that, in some respects, the ideas we have discussed can appear idealistic and apart from the context of the real world. Admittedly, we present a rather simple model that can be taken as rather demanding.
However, mindfulness requires no more effort than mindlessness once people have switched from an automatic and mindless approach to a situation to a more mindful one (Langer, 1989b). Also, some people might balk at the notion that social actors can ever truly “control” such events at the onset of conflict or the patterns of interaction that come to define so many relationships. Certainly, people can never control events completely; however, mindfulness provides more control than people would have if they simply reacted mindlessly with familiar behavior. At the same time, we argue that the various elements of the model provide a useful method of taking personal stock and of becoming more mindful of where and how people can become more mindful of what happens when they feel obstructed by another human. Control grows from understanding interpersonal conflict interactions, recognizing more options, and being sensitive to the partner. Developing this control may not be easy, but the benefits clearly are worth what must be done to become more mindful. Learning to become more mindful involves understanding when mindless behavior is appropriate and when it can lead to negative consequences (Langer, 1989b) that can negatively affect how people manage conflict.Increased mindfulness can be achieved through viewing the world from a more conditional perspective. Rather than assuming that they have the answers or know how something should be done, people approach a situation conditionally and look for new possibilities. In fact, mindfulness shares some of the characteristics of creativity (Langer & Piper, 1987). Mindful people are more flexible because they recognize the existence of multiple options; likewise, they are more accepting of change (Langer, 1989a).
During conflict, mindfulness helps provide a way for people to deal with and even overcome old habits for handling conflict interactions; they can mindfully recognize that the old habits have not been productive and search for alternatives that will help them manage their conflicts. And mindful people tend to be more satisfied with their conflicts and their relationships (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007; Burpee & Langer, 2005).Also, we acknowledge that our model is silent with regard to psychological remedies that could very well be needed to complement the suggestions we provide. For example, once married partners fix on negative attributions for each other’s behavior, specialized clinical treatment is necessary to help these people relearn how to think about each other. Also, some people are so depressed and anxious that they might need therapy or medical intervention.
At the same time, from a communicative point of view, it is clear that the research over the past 50 years has provided a basis for making claims about what people might consider useful. To build on this basis, and using mindfulness as a focus, future research might consider what people can do to become more mindful in conflict. If people have the motivation, knowledge, and skill to handle conflict appropriately and effectively (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), can they learn to become more mindful when they realize a conflict is beginning?
We do not conclude with a list of “10 behaviors that we have personally discovered will improve your relationships.” After all, providing a set of rules would be incompatible with the active information processing, flexibility, and focus on context that are characteristic of mindfulness (Langer, 1989a). Elsewhere, we do offer research-based suggestions (Canary & Lakey, 2013). For this chapter, however, we conclude with the hope that future research will inform the various elements of the model so that people might become more mindful and derive more appropriate and effective strategies to manage their interpersonal conflicts.
Notes
1. In spite of its positive connotations, mindfulness is not consistently preferable to mindless behavior. Langer and Weinman (1981) explained that both states of consciousness can have negative consequences when enacted inappropriately. Langer and Weinman’s research reveals that mindlessness can have negative effects when people fail to process new information with clear attention. For example, people become less fluent when they must address a new issue with little time to think about it. Conversely, these authors also found that mindfulness can create difficulties when someone attempts to perform an overlearned behavior with conscious attention. In separate studies, Langer and Weinman (1981) and Berger, Karol, and Jordan (1989) found that people become less fluent in their communication when they take time to think before discussing an overlearned idea.
2. Interestingly, the reciprocation of cooperative behaviors does not appear to discriminate satisfied couples from dissatisfied couples. For example, Schaap (1984) reported that partners in dissatisfied couples (vs. satisfied couples) are more likely to reciprocate competitive behaviors. However, Schaap found that dissatisfied partners were more likely than satisfied couples to engage in reciprocations of positive and cooperative behaviors. Gottman’s review (1979, 1994) reflects the same possibility that the reciprocation of cooperation may not necessarily reflect relational quality. Instead, the relative amount of negative to positive behaviors is what matters more, a point reviewed above.