Self-Regulation

Individuals often engage in behaviors that are automated, habitual, and/or innate. Such actions can be efficient ways of accomplishing goals. However, sometimes individuals find that their typical responses may be incom­patible with other goals, and they need to engage in considerable self-regulation to con­trol their behavior.

Self-regulation may influence four aspects of conflict. First, self-regulation can influence the likelihood that individuals will engage in behaviors that create conflict. Romantic part­ners often derogate the attractiveness of alter­native partners as a means of protecting their relationships (e.g., Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008). Ritter, Karremans, and van Shie (2010) studied whether the derogation effect arises from self-regulation as individuals control their impulse to approach attractive individu­als in order to preserve the long-term commit­ment to their romantic relationship. However, the ability to self-regulate in this manner will be difficult when resources are low. Consistent with this expectation, romantically involved individuals expressed less interest in pictures of attractive alternative partners than did those who were romantically uninvolved, but this difference was only statistically significant when individuals had not engaged in a cog­nitively demanding task prior to seeing the picture and when they did not have to make a quick judgment about the alternative partner. Pronk, Karremans, and Wigboldus (2011) studied similar processes among individuals who varied in their ability to engage in execu­tive control.

Second, self-regulation may be related to the actions that occur during a conflict. Mischel, DeSmet, and Kross (2006) speculated that conflict can be controlled by two systems. Cold systems are cognitive, deliberative, ratio­nal, and strategic, whereas hot systems are automatic, emotional, and appetitive. Cold systems promote self-regulation, whereas hot systems undermine it. During a conflict, both systems are activated, and individuals often engage in self-control so as to reduce the like­lihood of negative consequences associated with angry displays. However, when individu­als are tired, distracted, or emotionally drained or have been ruminating about a provocative action, their ability to self-regulate is greatly diminished, and conflict often escalates.

Considerable evidence supports this analysis. Dispositional self-control increases accommodation independent of how com­mitted individuals are to their relationship but resource depletion prior to an encounter decreases the likelihood of accommodation (Finkel & Campbell, 2001). In addition, indi­viduals are more likely to respond aggressively to an insult when self-regulatory resources have been diminished prior to the affront, and this tendency is greater among individu­als who are low relative to high in trait self­control (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Galliot, 2007). Apparently, individuals who generally control their reactions can withstand resource depletion. Wilkowski and Robinson (2007) also examined individual differences in self-regulation and found that individuals who are easily angered are less likely to expend cog­nitive resources to control aggressive thoughts than are those who are low in trait anger.

Ruminating about an event can be cog­nitively demanding, which could lead to aggressive responding. After having been provoked, ruminating about the event decreases self-control, which increases the likelihood of aggressive responses, but bol­stering energy levels by consuming a glucose beverage prior to ruminating increases self­control (Denson, Pedersen, Friese, Hahm, & Roberts, 2011). Thus, if individuals have reserves of energy prior to ruminating, then individuals may have sufficient resources to self-regulate even when focused on a nega­tive event.

Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, and Foshee (2009) found that self-control was related to intimate partner violence. Relational partners reported more violent impulses when arguing with their partners than they actually enacted. Individuals who were high in trait self-control were less likely to engage in intimate partner violence than those who were low in trait self­control, and individuals provoked by their partners were more likely to respond with intimate partner violence after having self­regulation resource diminished than when not. Importantly, individuals who underwent self-control training had less violent inclina­tions than those who did not. Thus, through self-regulation, individuals can control their actions during a disagreement.

Third, research also suggests that self­regulation may influence recall of the conversa­tion. When individuals try to regulate their emo­tions during an interaction, they are expending energy and focusing their attention away from what is being said to their emotional responses to it. Consequently, emotional regulation may decrease subsequent recall of the content of the conversation. However, Richards, Butler, and Gross (2003) argued that not all emotional regulation techniques reduce recall. They rea­soned that emotional suppression during a dis­agreement distracts individuals from what the partner is saying, whereas cognitive appraisal (entering the conflict with a positive mind­set) would increase recall.

Finally, research indicatesthatself-regulation after a conflict is related to how people adjust to it. For example, postepisodic self-regulation of stress can influence relational quality. There is evidence that conflict can increase a person’s stress hormones, especially when an indi­vidual or his or her partner has an insecure attachment style (Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, and Collins (2011) reasoned that the ability of an individual to recover from conflict-related stress might be beneficial to the partner and the relationship. Continued stress indicates that the person does not believe that the conflict is over, which could increase the likelihood of continued fighting. Moreover, the researchers believed that the ability to recover reflects self-regulation. They found that individuals who were securely attached were better able to recover from the stress of a conflict, which also facilitated their partner’s ability to recover and improved their relational satisfaction. However, a part­ner’s ability to recover from the conflict also increased the likelihood that the relation­ships of insecurely attached individuals would remain intact rather than terminate. Thus, the ability to recover from stress seems to benefit partners and the relationship.

Hooker, Gyurak, Verosky, Miyakawa, and Ayduck (2010) examined how brain activity influenced self-regulatory activity after an interpersonal conflict. They cited evidence that activity within the ventral portion of the pre­frontal cortex (VLPFC) enhances emotional control largely through its impact on cognitive skills. Hence, such activity should increase the ability to self-regulate after an interpersonal conflict. Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanning, they assessed the degree of VLPFC activity resulting from individuals viewing a picture of their romantic partner’s positive, neutral, or negative facial expression.

Self-regulation may also protect relation­ships through forgiveness. Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, and Wigboldus (2010) reasoned that individuals who had a high degree of executive control functioning would be better able to forgive their partner for a transgression largely because of their abil­ity to control ruminating about the offense. The results of a series of studies confirmed their reasoning, although executive function­ing only facilitated forgiveness when the trans­gression was severe.

Cognitive Processes as

Direct Influences on Conflict

The previous sections highlighted how some factors influence aspects of interpersonal con­flict through cognitive processing. However, other research assumes that cognitive pro­cessing itself can influence features of inter­personal conflict. One area actively being researched is thinking.