Perceptions Vary According to Roles

A series of studies shows how the same person can have alternative perceptions simply by shifting roles. Baumeister, Stillwell, and Wortman (1990) asked partici­pants to write stories about conflict and anger from both of their roles as a victim and as a perpetrator.

In a study of aversive behaviors (Kowalski, Walker, Wilkenson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003), participants indicated again that the perceptions of victims and perpetrators differ, but the differences were inconsistent across all types of behav­iors. Interpretations of complaining and dependency did not differ between roles, possibly because these behaviors are less directed at the individual and can be both positive and negative. However, victims perceived lying, betrayal, teasing, and arrogance as more negative than did perpetrators. Using their perceptions of the incident, victims then decided how to react to these aversive behaviors, and often they retaliated in kind, turning the perpetrator into a victim and setting up a cycle of reciprocity that has the potential to spiral into ever more aversive and even aggressive behavior (Kowalski et al., 2003).

In an earlier study, Kowalski (2000) focused on one aversive behavior—teas­ing. Teasing can be positive or negative, good-natured or mean. Because teasing comments are open to interpretation, recipients (victims) may have some dif­ficulty accurately identifying a teaser’s (perpetrator’s) motives. How people per­ceive teasing is related to their mood, the reactions of other people present, their past experiences with teasing, and even personality variables. Some people cannot stand to be teased, other people don’t mind it, and still others enjoy slicing and dicing their conversational partners in exchanges of repartee.

In Kowalski (2000), perpetrators tended to see teasing as humorous, less annoying, and less damaging than the victims saw it. Victims, who perceived the teasing as very annoying, also thought that the person teasing them viewed them negatively and they perceived the teasing to indicate that the perpetrator didn’t value their relationship. Perpetrators also did not seem to grasp the possibility of longer-term negative effects on people’s self-esteem. Even though teasers indi­cated that they were aware of the negative effects of their behaviors, and that they felt guilt about their teasing, they thought the victims’ views of teasing were more positive than they actually were. These results indicate that a person’s role in the conversation leads to alternative interpretations of and likely has unintended con­sequences for the conflict parties.

In addition, people rely on their reactions to messages to make sense of them. How many times have you been put down but did not realize it at the moment (“Nice shoes”). Only later do you realize that the compliment was a put down and become angry. Vangelisti (2001) explained that people react to hurtful state­ments if they perceive they have been hurt. Different appraisals of a situation lead to the experience of different emotions. People can become angry or experience another emotion such as pity (“This poor idiot doesn’t know what he is saying”).

Perspective Taking

As mentioned, differences in perspective and the inability to recognize the other person’s perspective contribute to misunderstanding (Kowalski et al., 2000). Per­haps the one activity that is needed most and used the least in conflict is perspec­tive taking. Perspective taking refers to the process of seeing the issue from the other person’s point of view, or as one scholar defined it as “the cognitive process of understanding how another person thinks and feels about the situation and why they are behaving as they are” (Sessa, 1996). Perspective taking is one component of empathy (the other being emotional contagion—catching the other person’s emotion). As you can imagine, perspective taking is a highly sophisticated activity that has been positively associated with various proactive and supportive message behaviors.

Because people’s perceptions differ so widely, people benefit from checking their perceptions and from thinking about how their partners might perceive the interaction. This meta-perception should lead to greater understanding, which Sil- lars (1985) defined as the ability to take the other person’s perspective and to view the situation as s/he does. This effort to create understanding may help reduce differences in perception and attributions and thereby help create more satisfying relationships (Sillars et al., 1990). But people seldom consider the other person; they rarely have a good understanding of another person’s perspective until they make a conscious effort to gain information about how that person views what is occurring (Sillars, 1998). Our own thoughts are, of course, clearer and more elabo­rate to us, so being aware of what others might be thinking causes us to seek more information to achieve some sense of balance between the two thought processes (Cloven & Roloff, 1990).

Recognizing the perspective of another person is a skill, one that develops over the early years of one’s life into adulthood (Selman, 1980). Some people become quite adept at taking the perspective of other people; they come to appreciate how conflicts are a natural part of an interdependent association between two people and that people are not always consistent with their own attitudes (Selman, 1980). However, other people never develop perspective-taking skills; they con­tinue to view themselves as victims of conflict that they never intended and can­not understand when someone does not behave in accordance with their attitudes (Selman, 1980). Appreciating the complexity ofpeople and relationships allows us to seek more information and adjust to it.

BOX 8.2 STUDENT STORY

Kids Kids Everywhere

by

Ben Brossmann

They're in movie theaters, they're in restaurants, they're in colleges, they're everywhere! A new breed of parent has assumed permission to tote their cranky kids with them to nearly every establishment around. Don't get me wrong, I love kids, but when has it become appropriate to bring a teeth­ing child to a restaurant? to a party? to class? Parents are showing up in record numbers accompanied by their brat packs expecting the childless to approve, and most of us don't.

About a month ago, I was stuck in coach on a non-stop flight from Phoe­nix to New York. I was sandwiched between a pair of self-absorbed moms and their lap-sitting two-year-olds. The airline attendant saw me before take­off and gave me a look of pity; I smiled back to acknowledge her kind atten­tion to my oncoming agony. I knew this was going to be the longest six hours of my life.

Once the cabin pressure was adjusted after takeoff, it all began. One kid cries and they all start to cry. Ten minutes into the flight, all of the other pas­sengers were unnerved by screams from cranky kids.

The most disenchanting aspect about these two soccer moms was the fact that not once did they apologize. Instead of at least acknowledging the fact that they indeed were inappropriate in slinging their sickly little brats into a seat fit for one they just smiled at me! Smiled! As if accept this! Mid­flight I needed to use the restroom but to get into the aisle one of the moms would have to let me out. The scowl I got from her made me feel as if I was asking her for an unbelievable favor.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with Ben that small children are "everywhere?"

2. In what way did Ben's framing of the situation affect his mood?

3. Do you think the flight attendant sympathized with Ben, or is it possible that her smile reflected a different attitude?

4. In what ways might perspective-taking have helped Ben change his view of "self-absorbed" moms?

5. What other perceptual and attributional errors can you find in this story?

Perspective taking requires motivation and sophisticated thinking; it takes time and energy to integrate the other’s thoughts into our own. Unfortunately, we assume that the other person’s thoughts, feelings, expectations, and intentions reflect exactly those of the other person (Sessa, 1996). This behavior is so com­mon that we do not realize that we do it (Sillars, 1998). And during conflict, peo­ple tend to become less willing and able to engage in complex thought processes; instead, they have mostly negative thoughts, overlook alternative explanations for behavior, and are minimally aware of the interdependence that leads to recipro­cal actions (Sillars et al., 2000). Furthermore, because people’s own thoughts and feelings are strong, they naturally attend to them with little consideration of the thoughts and feelings of the other person. Moreover, people use their own feelings as a basis for guessing what their partners might feel (Sillars, 1985; Sillars et al., 2001).

Perspective taking during conflict offers multiple benefits. First, considering both people’s views helps to provide a more circumspect understanding ofwhat is occurring. We are not limited by our own ideas and interpretations; we can begin to see that the other person has processed different information and reached some different conclusions about what happened. Because we have more information about the other person and the event, we can engage in a broader array of col­laborative message behavior. Taking the perspective of the other person also helps us think about the other person as well as about ourselves, so we can deal with the conflict with consideration for the other person (Sillars et al., 2001). We also use this information to focus more on differences so that our conflict discussion remains more on task rather than devolving into personal attacks (Sessa, 1996). When interpreting the social world, perception is reality. The above material leads to the next principle:

Principle 9.3: Perspective-taking helps people understand their conflict because it requires consideration of the other person's thoughts and feelings.

Suggestion 9.3: Engage in perspective-taking early in the conflict episode so that you can obtain information about the other person's views on the topic.