Verified by 
Catastrophizing
Exaggeration Fuels Conflict
Keep it real to make a deal.
Posted December 13, 2018 Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
When I taught a course on conflict resolution, students had to write descriptions of conflicts they were engaged in. I required their papers to be crafted in such a way that, if the person they were in conflict with happened to read the paper, that person would agree with the description. This alone forces you to take the other person’s perspective in the resolution process.
Some conflicts cannot be resolved because some people’s perspectives cannot be represented in a way that both parties will agree on. When this happens, you have to pursue compromise or some other strategy besides resolution (where resolution means an outcome that optimizes the goals of both parties). But often, we are too quick to assume that other parties are too unreasonable to be empathized with and characterized in ways they will agree with.
One reason we exaggerate (“you never think of me”; “you always leave the lights on”) is because an accurate statement fails to elicit the response we think is appropriate to the occasion. I learned this from a woman who was arrested for making a false police report. She said her boyfriend was trying to kill her, which was true, but the cops did not seem alarmed, so she added that he had a weapon. Technically, this is an example of what Skinner called a mand: verbal behavior designed to elicit a response rather than designed to convey information (a tact). Many lies are of this sort: The person simply isn’t interested in what’s technically true, only in the effect on the audience. They aren’t really lying; more like painting impressionistically with words.
Another reason we exaggerate is that we don’t believe in the righteousness of our own cause. We think we may be overreacting emotionally when we get so upset that our partner hasn’t done the dishes after we have been at work all day. So, we describe our condition at work as “overwhelmed” or “stressed out” instead of “busy,” in order to justify being peeved about the dishes. If you lack an internal voice that assures you that you have a right to be heard, you have to turn the situation into a catastrophe to justify complaining about it.
There are several problems with exaggerating to justify one’s emotions or to produce the desired emotions in others. One is that the conversation typically switches from the conflict to the exaggeration. The pair argues about whether one has ever purchased a gift that hit the spot, emptied the dishwasher without being asked, and so on. The exaggeration constitutes an accusation that the accused insists on defending him- or herself against before pursuing the conversation.
Another problem is that the exaggeration puts the other person in the position of an antagonist rather than a partner in resolving conflict. When we are positioned as antagonists, we are motivated to win the conflict rather than to resolve it. Indeed, much of clinical training is or ought to be directed at reducing this impulse by catching students when they try to win a conflict, especially with a professor or a client, and reframe it as a partnership. This prepares trainees to be therapists because one of the main differences between therapists and friends is that when you mess up your relationships with friends by antagonizing them, they are likely to respond by fighting or avoiding you. A good therapist is like a good couple’s therapist (where the individual therapist is both the therapist and a member of the conflictual dyad), creating a space to explore conflict rather than an arena to win a battle or develop an exit strategy.
The third problem with exaggeration is that it activates confirmation bias, the most insidious version of which is the bias toward not just what we believe but toward what we have said, especially toward what we have said recently. When we discard contradictory evidence to promote our prior beliefs, we are seeking a predictable and sensible world to live in. But once we have spoken on a subject, it activates a bias designed to make us feel smart and even perfect. Exaggeration in the course of conflict resolution leads to a fortress mentality.
Cognitive behavior therapists note the inutility of using exaggeration in internal conflicts, what they call catastrophizing. They’re typically adept at identifying this tendency and suggesting rebuttals, but in my view, they are not always keen on exploring the intrapsychic purposes of catastrophizing. As is so often the case, the function of an internal event like thinking or imagining can be clarified by considering the person not as an individual but as a multiplicity of selves. In this case, it’s the difference between considering the person as a hysteric—an irrational alarmist—and looking at what effect the catastrophizing has on other aspects of the self (on other selves).
When someone feels anxiety and thinks he’s having a stroke, or when a lover is late for lunch and the partner thinks it’s over, that’s catastrophizing. CBT reduces the emotional level by questioning the accuracy of the catastrophic thought. If you realize it’s only anxiety, you are calmer than when you thought you were having a stroke, and when you consider traffic as an explanation for tardiness, you are less likely to become morose.
But these interventions are examples of what I call muffling the burglar alarm rather than dealing with the burglar. The catastrophic thought is an exaggeration designed to evoke an internal emotional reaction appropriate to the circumstances or to justify an exaggerated emotion to oneself. In addition to clarifying the exaggeration, a good therapist will also inspect the situation for what needs to change about it, rather than assuming the situation is fine and the person’s irrationality must be silenced.
Often, for example, the thought that one is having a stroke means that one ought to get out of the situation and not just calm oneself down. Often, the thought that one has been dumped is a signal that one ought to discuss the status of the relationship with one’s lover, not to mention taking steps to cement it, steps like sharing more of oneself or inducing the lover to do the same. Many catastrophic thoughts are not merely errors in thinking; they are often efforts to wake oneself up to the fact that one needs more friends, more satisfying work, or more meaningful pastimes. When you find yourself exaggerating, it’s often a good idea, instead, to focus on the actual conflict and address it.
