Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity

When individuals behave in a provocative, conflict-inducing manner, they often attribute such actions to external causes (e.g., “I'm only following orders”). It was hypothesized that when such statements are perceived as accurate (sincere), they will mitigate negative reactions and reduce subsequent conflict. However, when they are viewed as inaccurate (insincere), opposite effects will result. It was also hyothesized that the impact of such attributional sincerity is greater in the context of high than low pressure to reach an agreement. In Study 1, male and female subjects negotiated with an accomplice who behaved in a conflict-inducing manner and who attributed such actions, either accurately or falsely, to external causes. These negotiations occurred under either high or low pressure to reach an agreement. Results offered support for both hypotheses. Under high but not low pressure to reach agreement, subjects rated the accomplice as less honest and reported stronger preferences for handing future conflicts with him in nonconciliatory ways (e.g., through avoidance or competition) when this person's attributional statements appeared to be false than when they appeared to be accurate. Surprisingly, however, subjects actually made more and larger concessions to an attributionally insincere than attributionally sincere opponent under both pressure conditions. In Study 2, officers of an urban fire department reported on how they would react to conflict with another member of their department under conditions where this person's provocative behavior stemmed from various causes. Results agreed closely with those of the laboratory study. Subjects reported the most negative reactions under conditions where their opponent falsely attributed his conflict-inducing actions to external causes.