Mental contrasting and conciliatory behavior in romantic relationships
- 2 Downloads
When people in a relationship offend each other, it is important for them to behave in a conciliatory manner if they wish to reconcile. We tested in two studies if mental contrasting (versus other modes of thoughts) is an effective strategy for people to self-regulate their conciliatory behavior. In Study 1, we assessed student participants’ spontaneous mode of thought when thinking about an unresolved interpersonal transgression and measured their commitment to reconcile. Eight days later, we assessed their conciliatory behavior. Participants who spontaneously mentally contrasted reported more commitment to reconcile and showed sensible conciliatory behavior (i.e., based on their expectations of solving their interpersonal concern). In Study 2, romantic couples were invited into the lab and asked to identify unresolved incidents in which one partner (the perpetrator) had offended the other (the victim). After perpetrators were induced to mentally contrast or indulge about a successful reconciliation, we videotaped the couples discussing the incident. Only perpetrators who mentally contrasted showed sensible conciliatory behavior and reached effective reconciliation (measured right after the experiment and 2 weeks later). The findings imply that mental contrasting supports perpetrators to show conciliatory behavior when it promises to be successful, but discourages it when it seems futile or adverse, thereby protecting the relationship from further harm.
KeywordsReconciliation Conciliatory behavior Self-regulation Mental contrasting
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Austin, K. P., Williams, M. W. M., & Kilgour, G. (2011). The effectiveness of motivational interviewing with offenders: An outcome evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 55–67.Google Scholar
- Brickenkamp, R. (2002). Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Manual (9th ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 982–1027). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- deWaal, F. B. (2000). The first kiss: Foundations of conflict resolution research in animals. In F. Aureli & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Natural conflict resolution (pp. 15–34). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Ginsburg, J. I. D., Mann, R. E., Rotgers, F., & Weekes, J. R. (2002). Motivational interviewing with criminal justice populations. In W. R. Miller & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing. Preparing people for change (2nd ed., pp. 333–346). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (Eds.). (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. New York: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
- Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Bono, G., & Berry, J. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80, 503–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Worthington, E. L. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar