Online Processing

Assessing cognition occurring during a conflict provides important information about how cognition influences the course of a dis­agreement. We have already discussed two studies focused on online processing (Keck & Samp, 2007; Waldinger & Schulz, 2006).

The study of online processing is labor­intensive, and few researchers have studied it. However, the research has provided useful insights into a variety of cognitive processes. Unfortunately, the research in the area lacks a theoretical perspective that would guide research. In a sense, the study of online pro­cessing borrows theories from other areas and constitutes a method rather than a theory- driven area of inquiry.

Summary

Research on cognitive responses continues to provide important insights into interper­sonal conflict.

Just as research on knowledge structures focused on individual variables and processes, so does most inquiry on cognitive processes. There has been some improvement in this regard. For example, attribution making is often included in research focused on other cognitive processes, and the study of online cognitions has been used to study goals and sentiment override. These are important moves that hopefully will provide a more inte­grated view of how cognitive process relate to interpersonal conflict.

Summary Critique

Our goal was to update an earlier review of social cognition and conflict communication (Roloff & Miller, 2006). Significant advances have occurred in the past 5 to 6 years. The fol­lowing is a synthesis of what we found.

First, individuals are motivated to under­stand their social environment. As a result of their observations, experiences, and inferences, individuals form social knowledge structures about themselves, others, and the various rela­tionships and interactions that connect people. The structures can take the form of beliefs, scripts, and rules and are stored in memory. When activated, they influence how people interpret and respond to their environment.

Second, beliefs can influence the degree to which individuals monitor their partner’s behavior, interpret its meaning, and respond to it. Consequently, beliefs can influence how individuals appraise a problem and whether they should confront it. When individuals believe that people and, more specifically, their partners can change and they are confident that their partners will not leave them, they are willing to express their complaints and often form a goal to get the partner to change.

Third, individuals vary in how they enact confrontation based on their appraisal of the problem. When the partner’s action has been intentionally hurtful and unexpected, indi­viduals may enact negative behavior, whereas in other cases, they may enact problem-solving behavior. Moreover, appraisals may be influ­enced by the general level of stability or tur­bulence in the relationship.

Fourth, during an argument, individuals monitor their own and their partner’s actions and to some extent adapt to them. Their actions can depend on the degree to which their partner’s behavior is expected, perceived

to be intentional, and goal related. Processing a partner’s actions may be influenced by an individual’s emotional reactions during the argument, which are related to his or her relational satisfaction. Also, individuals will often try to control their negative responses and respond in a more constructive manner. Self-regulation is effortful, and individuals may be unable to control potentially negative responses when they are exhausted or have limited ability to engage in self-control.

Fifth, individuals can become aware through confrontation that they have failed to meet their partners’ standards. Because confrontation can be hurtful and can cre­ate resistance, conflict may be unresolved and repeated. Consequently, arguments may become scripted, and individuals may develop frames that help them understand the ongo­ing dispute. In some cases, frames may make conflict intractable.

Sixth, the effect of conflict is evident after an episode has ended. Because conflict can be arousing, individuals often try to recover after an episode has ended, and their ability to do so influences their own and their partner’s feel­ings about the conflict. Moreover, individuals often ruminate about their conflict and engage in imagined interactions about what happened and what may happen in the future.

We also noted that research in the area has improved from the time that Roloff and Miller (2006) published their review. They noted a number of challenges facing researchers in their area, and there is evidence of successful adaptation. Although the bulk of the research continues to use U.S. samples of undergradu­ate daters, studies have been conducted in other cultures and on other forms of relation­ships. Many more longitudinal studies are being conducted and studies that analyze both members of the dyad. Although much of the research remains “siloed,” there is some inte­gration of constructs, most notably attribution making. And researchers seem more mindful of the implications of their research for prac­tice, particularly in the area of individual and couples’ therapy.

We also identified some new areas of research. Physiological measures, including those associated with stress and with brain activity, are becoming more common. In addi­tion, there is a growing area related to the role of self-regulation and conflict.

Recent research also provides insights into the difficulties that individuals experience when trying to manage conflict. Conflict inher­ently involves the interpretation of actions, and individuals use their past experiences to understand those actions. Consequently, indi­viduals may not only engage in behaviors that interfere with one another but may also dis­agree as to their causes and solutions. When in conflict, individuals propose solutions that seem reasonable given their experiences and understandings, but their partners may find them to be unreasonable because their back­ground and perceptions differ. In such cases, both individuals feel that their own position is legitimate and superior relative to the oth­ers. Unless the interpretative differences are resolved, it is likely that conflict will continue and could become intractable.