Conflict-Related Beliefs

Scholars have long noted that people have beliefs related to the consequences of conflict. Some research has focused on the antecedents of believing that conflict is always destructive.

Conflict beliefs are also related to a per­son’s attachment style. Individuals vary with regard to the degree to which they perceive that establishing an emotional bond with another creates a secure relationship that will be supportive and caring (Shaver & Hazan, 1993). Individuals who have a secure style report being less threatened by conflict and engaging in more effective arguing than do individuals who have a fearful attachment style (Pistole & Arricale, 2003). Similarly, having a secure attachment style is positively related to positive beliefs about conflict and negatively related to expressing negative con­flict beliefs (Ben-Ari & Hirshberg, 2009). In contrast, possessing an anxious style is positively correlated with expressing negative beliefs and negatively related to holding posi­tive beliefs about conflict.

Research focused on beliefs provides valu­able insights into conflict. However, research­ers typically examine these beliefs separately and overlook the interrelationships that may exist between them. We noted that compared with individuals who believe that their part­ners are reliable, individuals who believe that their partners are untrustworthy monitor them to a greater degree and engage in nega­tive behaviors designed to influence them. Such actions constitute regulatory behavior arising from the partner not conforming to beliefs about how a partner should ideally behave. Partners often resist such regulatory attempts, which could cause individuals to believe that their partner won’t change and quit trying.

Scripts

Cognitive scripts constitute sequences of goal- related actions that individuals perceive are expected and appropriate (Abelson, 1981). Researchers have investigated how cognitive scripts may lead to interpersonal conflict. Four patterns have been uncovered. First, some investigators have noted that actors within the same script may have incompatible goals and actions that stimulate interpersonal conflict. For example, research on the tradi­tional cultural heterosexual sex script indi­cates that males are supposed to be initiators of sexual activity, while females are expected to passively acquiesce or resist (e.g., LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980). If so, males and females may find each other’s scripted behavior to be incompatible and problematic. Indeed, males find their female partner’s sex­ual withholding as being more annoying than do females, and females find their male part­ner’s sexually aggressive behavior to be more annoying than do males (ter Laak, Olthoff, & Aleva, 2003).

Second, conflicts may result from two indi­viduals who have scripts that do not include the same set of behaviors. Bartoli and Clark (2006) studied scripts for typical dates among undergraduates. Although script content was similar for both genders, upper-class stu­dents were more likely than first-year students to expect that sexual activity would occur and that women would limit sexual activity.

Third, disagreements may occur when two individuals apply different scripts to the same situation. For example, Littleton and Axsom (2003) studied rape and seduction scripts held by undergraduates. Both scripts involved a man and a woman who had minimal prior contact, the man used manipulative tech­niques to obtain sex, and the woman was not interested in having sex. The primary difference was that the rape script involved violence. If so, victims of nonviolent rape may find that others believe they were seduced rather than raped. Indeed, priming consensual and nonconsensual sexual scripts causes indi­viduals to have different reactions to a descrip­tion of a sexual encounter in which a man was persistent but not violent toward a woman who was consistently resistant to his advances before having sex with him (Littleton, Axsom, & Yoder, 2006).

Fourth, conflict could arise when an indi­vidual’s personal script deviates from a norma­tive script. Holmberg and MacKenzie (2002) studied whether the degree to which an indi­vidual’s personal relational development script matched his or her conception of a normative relational script was related to interpersonal conflict. The correlations were positive but of low magnitude and not significant among females.

Although scripts could stimulate interper­sonal conflict, it is possible that arguing may influence which scripts are active. Although increasing intimacy gives rise to interpersonal conflict, cognitive scripts related to relational escalation do not include clusters of behaviors focused on conflict (Honeycutt, Cantrill, & Greene, 1989). However, Honeycutt, Cantrill, and Allen (1992) found that aversive commu­nication (e.g., fighting and antagonizing each other) was often included in descriptions of breakup scripts.

Other research has examined the scripts people have about their interpersonal con­flict. Individuals develop interaction scripts that reflect the typical statements and pat­terns that characterize a given type of inter­action (Honeycutt & Bryan, 2011). Most researchers have viewed interaction scripts as hindrances to resolving conflict in part because they direct attention away from what is currently being said to what indi­viduals expect will be said. For example, some conflicts are not resolved in a single encounter, and as a result, partners may repeatedly argue over the same issue, which is referred to as serial arguing (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). A by-product of serial argu­ing is that some individuals report that they can identify the conditions that set off an episode of serial arguing, that they can predict what each other will say during these episodes, and that the arguments have become scripted (Johnson & Roloff, 1988). Indeed, having argued frequently over the same topic is positively related to believing that what will occur in an episode is predict­able and scripted (Johnson & Roloff, 2000). Importantly, individuals who report that their serial arguments are predictable are less optimistic that the agreement will ever be resolved (Johnson & Roloff, 1988).

Research on cognitive scripts indicates that the construct is a useful way to study conflict. Much of the research indicates that cognitive scripts are problematic for con­flict. However, cognitive scripts might have positive effects. For example, if relational partners encounter routine situations that require joint behavior, they may negotiate agreements for how to manage them, which eventually become a script. To the extent that such scripts provide an effective way of dealing with the situation, then not having to constantly negotiate what will be done would seem a personal benefit. Alternatively, although conflicts that have been scripted seem to cause hopelessness, it is possible that some individuals see them as a danger signal and take action to change them.

Partner Memory

Researchers have studied whether the man­ner in which individuals store partner-related information influences conflict. People vary in how they structure positive and negative infor­mation about their partner’s traits. Some indi­viduals have a compartmentalized structure in which positive and negative partner traits are clustered into separate domains (e.g., the part­ner is an irresponsible and poor student but is a kind and caring lover), whereas others have integrated structures in which both positive and negative traits are clustered together in the same domain (e.g., the partner is a kind and caring lover but can also be irresponsible with regard to performing relational duties). These memory structures can become activated dur­ing interactions and thereby influence an indi­vidual’s subsequent perceptions and actions. Some research suggests that having an inte­grative structure relative to a compartmen­talized one may enhance conflict resolution and relational quality. When focused on a partner’s provocative behavior, activated inte­grative structures bring to mind both positive and negative partner traits, whereas compart­mentalized structures highlight only negative actions. The recalled positive actions help offset the impact of the current provoca­tion. Murray and Holmes (1999) found that undergraduate daters with integrative partner structures were less likely to break up than were those with compartmentalized struc­tures partly because they could see virtue in their partner’s shortcomings. Holding com­partmentalized structures is common among individuals who have difficulty with interper­sonal conflict management such as those with low self-esteem (Graham & Clark, 2006) and those who are mistrustful of their partners (Campbell et al., 2010). However, Showers and Kevlyn (1999) found among undergradu­ate daters, who reported that their partners had generally negative traits, that individuals with an integrative structure reported loving/ liking their partner to a greater extent than did those with a compartmentalized approach.

Showers and Zeigler-Hill (2004) exam­ined how compartmentalization and conflict change over a 1-year period and interact to influence relational termination. Movement toward greater integrativeness was observed among individuals who had primarily nega­tive views of their partner’s traits but reported little conflict and among those who viewed their partners positively but reported a great deal of conflict. However, a shift to compart­mentalization was observed among individu­als who viewed their partners negatively and were in frequent conflict and among those who viewed their partners positively and reported little conflict. In effect, when individuals perceived their partners in a way that was inconsistent with conflict, memory structures became more integrative, but if the percep­tions were congruent with conflict, memory structures became more compartmental­ized. When individuals reported little rela­tional conflict, movement toward integration decreased the likelihood of termination, but when individuals reported a great deal of conflict, shifting to integration increased the likelihood of termination. Thus, adopting integrative structures may help preserve a relationship when there is little conflict, but could facilitate ending a relationship when there is considerable disagreement.

Campbell, Butzer, and Wong (2008) stud­ied the influence of memory structures among married couples. Among wives who had been married for a short time, the type of memory structure was not significantly related to their self-reported ability to resolve conflict or to their actions observed during a conflict with their husbands. Instead, their conflict resolu­tion abilities and positive conflict behaviors were only associated with how negatively they viewed their husband’s traits. However, among wives in older marriages who viewed their husband’s negatively, conflict resolution and positive conflict behaviors were greater among those having an integrative structure. On the other hand, among wives in longer marriages who viewed their husbands as hav­ing few negative traits, a compartmentalized structure was positively related to conflict resolution and positive conflict behaviors. Among husbands who had been married for a short time, their self-reported conflict resolu­tion and observed conflict behavior were not significantly related to either their evaluations of their wives or memory structures. However, among husbands in lengthy marriages, having an integrative structure was positively related to enacting positive communication behaviors.

Campbell et al. (2008) also examined whether the degree to which spouses shared the same memory structure influenced con­flict. Among wives, sharing an integrative structure with their husband was negatively related to enacting negative conflict behavior, but wives engaged in more negative behavior when their husband had a compartmentalized structure regardless of whether they had one as well. For husbands who viewed their wives negatively, sharing a compartmentalized or integrated structure with their wives increased the likelihood of conflict resolution.

Research on partner memory structures has provided interesting insights into conflict. It demonstrates that conflict plays a role in the kind of structure that will develop over time as well as how structures can influence conflict resolution and behaviors. Although some research suggests that integrative struc­tures should facilitate conflict resolution and relational well-being, other research indicates that this relationship is moderated by gender, similarity between partners’ memory struc­tures, and relational longevity. However, the research is not without limitations. In some cases, memory structures are not significantly related to multiple measures of the same con­struct (e.g., conflict resolution and positive and negative conflict behavior) nor is there clear evidence for why there are gender differ­ences or differences across relational longevity.

Rules

Rules constitute shared expectations for appro­priate behaviors occurring within a given con­text. When rules are violated, victims may feel betrayed and transgressors may be subject to social sanctions. Current research on rules has focused on reactions to rule violations.

Feeney (2005) examined accounts of hurtful events and found that the major­ity involved a rule transgression, although not all rule violations were equally hurtful. Fitness (2005) asked individuals to describe the worst rule violations that could occur between parents and children and between siblings. For parents, abandoning a child or a father committing incest with his daughter was most frequently cited as the worst vio­lations. For children, rejecting the parent, a daughter having sex with her father, and a son engaging in criminal behavior were the worst offenses. Among siblings, betrayal, deception, and sexual abuse were considered the worst violations. Respondents felt that some rule violations could result in exclusion from a family.

Although not a great deal of current research has been conducted on rules, rule violations can have serious consequences. However, the research has not explored how individuals deal with the rule violations. Do victims always confront transgressors? For example, research conducted with victims of incest finds that they often delay disclosing their victimization and when they disclose as children, others are not always support­ive (e.g., Roesler & Wind, 1994). Moreover, although some rule violations may be unfor­givable, how can less serious offenses be for­given? Research on forgiveness would seem to have important implications for research on rule violations (Waldron & Kelley, 2005).

Frames

Frames and framing have been used to study a variety of conflict processes, including inter­group conflict (Brummans et al., 2008) and international conflict (Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, & Bui-Wrzosinska, 2010). Within these literatures, some researchers have adopted a cognitive approach to framing that is focused on “the way that people experi­ence, interpret, process or represent issues, relationships and interactions in conflict set­tings” (Dewulf et al., 2009, p. 160). For example, Rogan (2006) identified six frames individuals may use when framing interper­sonal conflicts—(1) instrumental, (2) other assessment, (3) affect, (4) face, (5) affiliation, and (6) distributive frames. Some individuals held multiple frames. Although some gender differences were found with regard to frames, they were small.

Although individuals frame their interper­sonal conflicts, researchers have not inves­tigated how cognitive frames are related to communication. Certainly, there is ample research focused on how interaction frames emerge in intergroup conflicts, but Dewulf et al. (2009) note that this scholarship does not adopt a cognitive framework and works from assumptions that are incompatible with it (e.g., frames reside in discourse rather than within individuals). Sillars (2010) argued that the division between cognitive and interaction framing approaches ignores the possible inter­relationship between the two (i.e., cognitive frames may appear in discourse and may be influenced by the frames enacted during an interaction).

The potential utility of an integrated approach is illustrated by an older article. Krokoff (1990) studied hidden agendas or feelings of insecurity about respect and love that are related to an issue about which spouses disagree but do not directly discuss. It is possible that hidden agendas constitute frames that spouses bring into a conflict even if the issue at hand is not explicitly about them. If so, hidden agendas may be difficult to change. Vallacher et al. (2010) argued that ongoing disagreements may generate cognitive processes that provide a coherent explanation for the conflict as well as suggest courses of action. After a time, any cue related to the opposing party may automatically stimulate a conflict frame. In some cases, attempts by one party to reframe an intractable conflict (e.g., apologizing) may be momentarily successful, but over time, the action may be reinterpreted by the other party in a manner consistent with the original frame.

One way to overcome frames support­ing intractable conflict may be to activate latent frames. Vallacher et al. (2010) noted that some adversaries have enjoyed times of harmony in the past, but while creating rela­tively simple explanations for conflict, such memories become latent. If parties refocus their attention on the good times, frames sup­porting intractability may become less active, and the conflict may be resolved.

Problem Appraisal

Conflict arises because of a problematic action and how people make sense of it. One such problem is hurtful communication. Vangelisti and Young (2000) argued that a person’s ini­tial appraisal that a partner’s hurtful action has been hurtful can cause individuals to distance themselves from partners. However, this tendency can be overcome when the hurt­ful action is perceived as unintentional. Their results indicated that individuals who believed that the hurtful communication was inten­tional reported more relational distancing, less relational satisfaction, and lower feelings of closeness to their partners than did those who felt the communication was unintentional. Also, the degree of hurt arising from a part­ner’s statement was greatest when the victim felt that hurtful statement was intentional and infrequent but lowest when the hurtful statement was perceived to be intentional and frequent.

McLaren and Solomon (2008) argued that appraisals of hurtful messages could reflect primary and secondary appraisals. Using Lazarus’s (1991) appraisal framework as a base, they asserted that the primary appraisal of a hurtful message is focused on the degree to which it communicates lack of worthiness in the eyes of the partner, which increases how intensely a person feels hurt. This pri­mary appraisal can lead to relational distanc­ing. However, a secondary appraisal may take place during which individuals consider other relevant information before they act. This process entails considering intentional­ity, relational quality, and the frequency of the hurtful message. If so, the aforementioned three variables should moderate the relation­ship between the intensity of hurt arising from a message and relational distancing. Their results confirmed their basic notions but were more complex than anticipated. Only inten­tionality and frequency were moderators but only under certain conditions. For males in friendships and females in dating relationships, intensity of hurt was more strongly predictive of relational distancing when the message was perceived to be intentional than when not or when the message was part of a frequent pat­tern. However, for males in romantic relation­ships, intensity of hurt was not significantly related to distancing regardless of intentional­ity or frequency. For females reporting about friendships, intensity was positively related to distancing only when it was perceived as unin­tentional and infrequent.

Young (2004) examined three types of appraisals that individuals make when analyz­ing a hurtful message. She argued that hurtful messages could reflect the speaker’s concern for the receiver, the emotional comfort expe­rienced by the receiver, and the helpfulness of the comment for the receiver. The results indi­cated that only message intensity was related to the three appraisals, and in each case, the relationship was negative. Thus, the form of the communication seems to affect the type of appraisal more so than does the emotional reaction to it.

Priem, McLaren, and Solomon (2010) focused on the degree to which relational mes­sages are related to perceptions of hurt and physiological stress. The results indicated that the degree to which the partner’s communica­tion was perceived to be affiliative (e.g., warm and caring) and informal decreased feelings of being hurt. Because being hurt was positively related to an increase in cortisol, the two perceptions should have resulted in smaller increases in stress. They also discovered that the degree to which a partner’s message was per­ceived to be affiliative decreased the likelihood that cortisol remained stable, but the degree to which the message was perceived to be recep­tive (e.g., the partner was interested in talking) increased stability. Because hurt was not sig­nificantly related to the stability of cortisol, it is unlikely that the latter two relationships were mediated by feeling hurt.

Rather than focusing on how the message is perceived, Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter- Theune, and Alexander (2005) investigated the explanations that individuals use to explain why a message was hurtful. The degree to which individuals were hurt by the message was positively related to relational denigration and humiliation and negatively related to ill-conceived humor. The receiver’s self-esteem was negatively related to rela­tional denigration, humiliation, and intrinsic flaw but positively related to being shocked. Individuals were most likely to relationally distance themselves when the hurt was due to relational denigration and an intrinsic flaw and least likely when the hurt arose from mis­taken intent.

A second line of research has focused on how individuals understand problems aris­ing from relational turbulence. Relationships are not static but go through transitions. Such transitions can be smooth but can often create feelings of turbulence that can be related to conflict. The relational turbu­lence model (RTM) provides useful insights into these processes (Solomon, Weber, & Steuber, 2010). Relational turbulence is the tendency to be cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally reactive to events dur­ing relational transitions (Knobloch, 2007). Relational transitions create turbulence by increasing relational uncertainty about how people view their own and their partner’s involvement in the relationship as well as their understanding of the state of the rela­tionship. A transition may also change an individual’s perception of the impact a part­ner’s behavior can have on his or her goals.

Instead of facilitating the accomplishment of one’s goals, the partner’s behavior may be perceived to be interfering with goal attain­ment. The degree to which individuals report relational turbulence is related to their own and their partner’s relational uncertainty and to their own perceptions of their partner’s interference (Knobloch & Theiss, 2010).

Research using the RTM has provided insights into two areas of problem apprais­als. First, some researchers have used it to understand how individuals respond to their partner’s irritating behaviors. Solomon and Knobloch (2004) found that negative apprais­als of a partner’s irritating behavior (i.e., seeing it as severe and relationally threaten­ing) were positively related to relationship uncertainty and perceptions of partner inter­ference. In a follow-up study, Theiss and Solomon (2006) found that relationship and partner uncertainty were negatively related to directly confronting the partner about his or her irritating behavior, but perceiving partner interference was positively related to direct communication because it increased negative appraisals of the irritation.

The RTM has also provided insight into appraisals of hurtful communication. McLaren, Solomon, and Priem (2011) found that relational turbulence was positively related to those individuals who reported feeling hurt, experienced negative emotions, and perceived the message to be intentional. However, some of the relationships between partner behaviors and uncertainty were differ­ent for males and females. For both genders, interference was positively related to turbu­lence. However, for males, the relationship between reporting that the partner facilitates goal attainment and turbulence was negative and significant, but the same relationship was not significant for females. For males, relationship uncertainty was not significantly related to turbulence, but it was positive and significant for females.

Theiss, Knobloch, Checton, and Magsamen- Conrad (2009) discovered that relational uncertainty and partner interference were positively related to the intensity of hurt and intentionality, and these appraisals were posi­tively related to communication directness. However, relational uncertainty and partner interference were not significantly related to communication directness.

Research on problem appraisals is guided by theory and provides useful insights into how problem appraisals can influence the cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to a conflict. The research has used both experimental and longitudinal survey designs. The statistical analyses are sophisticated. If there is a weakness, it is that multiple mea­sures are often used to assess key constructs, and in some cases, only a few yield significant results consistent with expectations. Hence, the reader sees a strong pattern of hypoth­esized significant relationships that obscure those that are not. This may indicate that the theories need to become more parsimonious.