Group Processes & G Intergroup Relations P 1999 Vol 2(2): 99–118 I R The Two Psychologies of Conflict Resolution: Differing Antecedents of Pre-Experience Choices and Post-Experience Evaluations Tom R. Tyler New York University Yuen J. Huo University of California, Los Angeles E. Allan Lind Duke University The literature on the ‘myth of self-interest’ model of perceived human motivation suggests that people believe that both they and others are more motivated by self-interest than is actually the case. Four studies are reported which test one implication of the myth of self-interest: the psychology of pre-experience preferences and post-experience evaluations will differ. We hypothesize that people arrive at pre-experience preferences for decision-making procedures based upon the belief that they want to maximize their self-interest. Further, they will define their self-interest in material terms. Consequently, they choose procedures that they believe promise them the best material outcomes. However, post-experience evaluations are based upon a different factor – the quality of the treatment received during the course of the procedure. The results of all four studies support the suggestion that the psychology of preference and of evaluation differ as predicted. The findings suggest that preference and choice should be viewed as reflecting different psychological processes. keywords choice, satisfaction, self-interest, the relational model Miller and Ratner (1996, 1998) have recently Author’s note suggested that there is a discrepancy between Address correspondence to Tom Tyler, the actual and the assumed power of self-inter- Department of Psychology, New York est in human motivation. The essence of their University, 6 Washington Place, Room 550, argument is that people overestimate the influ- New York, NY 10003, USA. ence of self-interest on attitudes and behaviors, [email: [email protected]] Copyright g 1999 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) [1368-4302(199904)2:2; 99–118; 007953] Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2(2) a discrepancy between the real and the per- The development of research on the ‘myth of ceived causes of behavior that Miller and Rat- self-interest’ provides a basis for predicting ner label ‘the myth of self-interest’. Our goal when each set of concerns is more or less here is to use the idea of the myth of self- important. Specifically, the myth of self-interest interest to help resolve a problem which has suggests that people’s preferences among pro- existed for years within the social psychology of cedures might be more heavily influenced by conflict resolution: how to reconcile the instru- instrumental concerns than are their post hoc mental and relational models of reactions to evaluations of those same procedures. Prior to conflict resolution procedures. experiencing a conflict resolution procedure, Two models have been put forward to explain people, believing themselves to be concerned people’s evaluations of conflict resolution pro- about the favorability of their outcomes, might cedures: the instrumental and the relational. choose among conflict resolution procedures The instrumental model suggests that when based upon estimates of the likelihood of dealing with others people are concerned about obtaining favorable outcomes through each the favorability of their outcomes, and define procedure. However, after they actually ex- outcomes in terms of material gains and losses perience a procedure people may evaluate it (see e.g. Brett, 1986; Kurtz & Houlden, 1981). relationally, because the experience of disre- The relational model argues that people are spectful treatment is so distasteful and carries concerned about the identity implications of such negative identity-relevant imagery that how they are treated in the course of the conflict even a positive material outcome cannot over- resolution experience, and draw identity infor- come these negative aspects of the experience. mation from the treatment they receive from In other words, there may be two psycholo- others (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). gies of disputing. The first is a self-interested Each model assumes a single explanation for psychology of disputing, which people think pre-experience choices among and post-experi- reflects their desires. This psychology shapes ence evaluations of disputing procedures and pre-experience preferences and choices among experiences, and each model can claim some procedures. The second is a relational psychol- support in the research literature. ogy of disputing. This model manifests itself in There are studies that clearly show strong post-experience evaluations and in behavioral links between positive reactions to procedures reactions to conflict resolution decisions. and a cluster of instrumental variables, such as the perceived favorability of their outcomes and The ‘myth of self interest’ estimates of control over those outcomes (e.g. Brett & Goldberg, 1983; Houlden, LaTour, A core feature of cultural ideology is its depic- Walker, & Thibaut, 1978; Kurtz & Houlden, tion of the nature of human motivation (Miller 1981). Other studies show just as clearly that & Ratner, 1996, 1998). Miller and Ratner use there are strong links between the quality evidence from a variety of sources to suggest of the treatment received from others, i.e. dig- that within American society there is a wide- nified or respectful treatment, the considera- spread belief that all people are motivated to tion of one’s views, etc., and positive reactions act based upon their self-interest. In a series of to procedures (e.g. Lind, Erickson, Friedland, laboratory studies, they demonstrate that peo- & Dickenberger, 1978; Lind et al., 1990; Tyler, ple overestimate the influence of personal self- Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985). In a previous analy- oriented interests upon their own and others’ sis of this body of evidence, Lind and Tyler attitudes and behaviors (Miller & Ratner, (1988) suggested that both self-interest and 1998). In other words, people believe that both relational concerns play a role in reactions to they themselves and others shape their behav- procedures, but even if this analysis is correct, it iors to maximize their individual self-interest. remains unclear when one concern or the Further, people define their self-interest in other predominates. terms of material gains and losses. The concept 100 Tyler et al. the two psychologies of conflict resolution of self-interest itself does not indicate what in turn can lead to post-experience evaluations people value when they deal with others. How- that are driven by an altogether different set of ever, theories of self-interest have typically concerns. focused upon material goods. And the self- The studies just mentioned, along with many interest that is the focus of the Miller and other studies of evaluations of disputing pro- Ratner work is the exchange of material goods. cedures and experiences (see Lind & Tyler, Hence, while it might be argued on theoretical 1988, and Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, grounds that being treated with dignity and 1997, for reviews) show that selfish, material, respect (i.e. ‘relational concerns’; Lind & Tyler, outcome concerns generally are less important 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992) is a valuable and to people than are the concerns about the desired outcome, people themselves think of social relationships that exist or arise within the outcomes in more material terms. This is con- disputing context. In particular, this body of sistent with the myth of self-interest, which research has shown that people place great suggests to people that they value material gains weight on such things as whether they are and losses. treated politely and with respect, whether the Because choosing a conflict resolution proce- conflict resolution process allows them some dure, or indicating one’s preference a priori for fundamental dignity, and whether their views using one procedure or another, is an exercise and needs are considered. Tyler and Lind in predicting both one’s own and one’s oppo- (1992) argue, in the course of proposing a nent’s behavior and reactions, work on the ‘relational model’ of authority and conflict myth of self-interest would predict a strong resolution, that these quality of treatment vari- effect for the perceived favorability of the pro- ables are important because they are seen as cedure’s outcome. That is, we expect people to indicative of whether a sound social relation- choose, or to express a preference for, pro- ship exists with other disputants or third parties cedures that they think will give them what they within the disputing context (see also Lind, in want. A closely related idea, especially given the press). The relational model argues that people conflicting desires that people can anticipate in are concerned about their standing in groups an interpersonal conflict, is that people will and other social relations, since their member- pick procedures that give them the most con- ship in such social entities is an important trol over the outcome, i.e. that allow the person aspect of their social self (Smith & Tyler, 1997). to dictate that his or her chosen outcome People use their treatment by others as one prevail over the chosen outcome of the other, index of social status and, as a consequence, supposedly equally selfish, party to the dispute. focus upon treatment by others when reacting to their personal experiences. Three aspects of The relational model treatment are particularly relevant – evidence of