Interpretation of the Conflict

The theoretical perspective that we have used in this research derives from attribution theory (e.g., Canary & Spitzberg, 1990). In short, attribution theory is concerned with the explanations that people derive from events.

The heart of attribution theory concerns who might be responsible for conflict and whether the person responsible causes the conflict in an intentional manner. Research indicates that when people accept respon­sibility for the conflict, they tend to enact more cooperative behaviors (e.g., offering and seeking disclosure). For example, Sillars (1980) observed that college students who attributed the cause of the conflict to themselves were likely to use cooperative actions and were likely to respond to their roommates’ behavior in a cooperative manner. But students who blamed the root cause of the conflict on their roommates were likely to engage in competi­tive conflict behaviors and to reciprocate com­petitive behaviors.

Naturally, people often hold self-serving biases. Self-serving biases function to pro­tect self against indictment, so that one’s own behavior in conflict is seen as more worthy than other people’s behavior (de Dreu, Nauta, & van de Vliert, 1995). In a self-serving manner, people tend to attribute competitive tactics to the internal proper­ties of the other person, and they tend to attribute cooperative behaviors to oneself (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Moreover, people tend to recount their own cooperative behavior while selectively recalling the other person’s competitive or avoidant (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990) behavior. Moreover, people tend to interpret their internal reactions to the conflict largely on the basis of their field of vision, which is external to them (i.e., peo­ple’s sensory input comes from the immediate environment; Storms, 1973).

Attribution researchers have identified sev­eral dimensions that characterize the explana­tions that social actors construct. According to Fincham, Bradbury, and Scott (1992) and Gottman (1994), the most important dimen­sions regarding conflict in close relationships appear to be the following: global/specific (i.e., the cause explains many or few behaviors), stable/unstable (i.e., the cause continues over time), and internal/external (i.e., the cause of conflict resides as part of the person or are separate from the person). Other relevant dimensions include intentional/unintentional, selfish/unselfish, and b lameworthy/praisewor- thy (e.g., Fincham et al., 1992; Sillars, 1980). Generally, when referring to negative conflict events, people who explain the conflict causes and behaviors using global, stable, and inter­nal causes tend to handicap themselves and their partners in terms of productive conflict management. That is, their explanations place the causes and/or behaviors regarding the conflict in a rather locked position that the partner can do little to change. Personality factors are especially difficult to change and present insults when indicted. On the other hand, explaining conflicts with attributions that are specific to the conflict at hand, unsta­ble over time, and external to the partner tend to produce more productive outcomes.

Indeed, Gottman (1994) argued that adopt­ing negative attributions reflect “an abrupt flip in the perception of [one’s own] well being.... This is the initial catastrophic change” (p. 335) in the interpretation of behavior that leads to separation and divorce. After all, once you decide that you live with the devil, manag­ing conflict in a cooperative fashion probably appears to be a soul-threatening exercise. Sanford (2006) argued that

one type of appraisal that may guide behavior during marital conflict is the attributions a person makes regarding the extent to which one’s spouse caused, is responsible for, or should be blamed for a negative relationship event.

In some instances then, clearly, one’s attri­butions about the causes of conflict would lead to self-defensive and protective tactics. On the other hand, when partners try to explain conflicts using causes that are specific, unstable, and external to the partner, then more flexibility for interpretation occurs.

Given this discussion, we argue that people should engage in attributional control. That is, to maximize the possibility for productive outcomes, people should more often use attri­butions that are not self-serving and that do not blame the partner. In this light, Zillmann (1993) advised his readers to

preattribute annoying events and information about such events—to the extent possible—to motives and circumstances that make the induction of annoyance appear unintentional and nondeliberate, and... to reattribute annoying events and information about such events in the same manner. (p. 382)

In addition to withholding blame, people should postpone using global, stable, and internal causes so they might find informa­tional value in the partner’s explanations for the conflict (Gottman, 1994).

Mindfulness helps people consider more reasons to explain the partner’s actions. They are not locked into attributing the conflict to a simple and seemingly obvious cause; rather, they can process information actively, create new categories of information, and use mul­tiple perspectives (Langer, 1989a) to help them become more sensitive to and understanding of the partner’s approach to the conflict. This increased attention to the goals of the partner will also help people behave ethically and with personal integrity. The needs and rights of both people involved in the conflict are valued and considered in the decisions made about how to conduct the conflict and what strategies and tactics to employ. People do not become self-focused and self-serving.