When conflicts erupt—whether in our marriages, workplaces, or families—our first instinct is often to establish the facts. “This is what happened,” we declare with conviction. “You said this, you did that, and here’s exactly how it went down.” We build our cases like prosecutors, meticulously reconstructing events to prove who was right and who was wrong.
But what if I told you that both parties in a conflict are probably wrong about what actually happened? What if the very foundation of our blame-based approach to conflict resolution is built on quicksand?
The Neuroscience Reality Check
Here’s a sobering truth that decades of neuroscience research have revealed: our memories are not reliable recordings of past events. Far from being faithful video replays, our recollections are more like Wikipedia pages—constantly being edited, updated, and influenced by new information, emotions, and the simple passage of time.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a pioneering psychologist at UC Irvine, has spent over 40 years demonstrating just how malleable our memories truly are. In her groundbreaking studies, Loftus showed that simply changing one word in a question could dramatically alter what people remembered about an event. When participants watched footage of car accidents and were asked about the speed when cars “smashed” versus “hit” each other, those who heard “smashed” estimated speeds 9 mph higher and were twice as likely to report seeing broken glass that wasn’t actually there (Loftus & Palmer, 1974).
Even more striking, Loftus and her colleagues have successfully implanted entirely false memories in people’s minds. Using the “lost in the mall” technique, they convinced approximately 20% of participants that they had experienced being lost in a shopping mall as a child—an event that family members confirmed never happened (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995).
Why Our Brains Betray Us in Conflict
The implications for conflict resolution are profound. Research in cognitive neuroscience reveals that memory is fundamentally a reconstructive process (Schacter et al., 2011). Every time we recall an event, we’re not simply retrieving a stored file—we’re actively rebuilding the memory using fragments of information, current emotions, subsequent experiences, and unconscious assumptions.
Studies using neuroimaging show that false memories activate many of the same brain regions as true memories, making them feel equally real and convincing (Cabeza et al., 2001). The brain regions involved in monitoring and distinguishing true from false memories—particularly areas in the prefrontal cortex—are easily overwhelmed, especially when we’re emotional or stressed (Schacter & Slotnick, 2004).
This means that when you and your partner argue about “exactly what was said” during last week’s disagreement, you’re both likely remembering distorted versions of events. The more emotionally charged the original situation, the more unreliable these memories become. Stress hormones released during conflict actually interfere with memory formation and retrieval, making accurate recollection even less likely (Schwabe & Wolf, 2010).
The Trap of Certainty
Perhaps most problematically, confidence in our memories has little correlation with their accuracy (Wells & Murray, 1984). In conflict situations, we often become more convinced of our version of events precisely when those memories are most suspect. This false confidence creates what psychologists call the “misinformation effect”—our memories become contaminated by information we encounter after the original event, including our own emotional interpretations and the stories we tell ourselves about what happened.
Research shows that over time, false memories actually become more detailed and vivid, not less (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). So that crystal-clear recollection of your colleague’s dismissive tone from last month’s meeting? It may be more fiction than fact, enhanced and embellished by subsequent interactions and your evolving feelings about the relationship.
Embracing Conflict Curious™
Given these sobering realities about memory, how should we approach conflict differently? I propose we adopt what I call being “Conflict Curious™”—a mindset that prioritizes curiosity about the future over certainty about the past.
Being Conflict Curious™ means:
Starting with humility. Acknowledge that your memory of events is likely incomplete and possibly inaccurate. Consider saying: “Here’s how I remember it, but I could be wrong” rather than “This is exactly what happened.”
Getting curious about perspectives. Instead of arguing about facts, explore the underlying needs, fears, and hopes that drove each person’s behavior. Ask: “What were you feeling when that happened?” or “What did you need in that moment?”
Focusing forward. Rather than relitigating the past, invest energy in designing a better future. Ask: “How do we want to handle this differently next time?” or “What kind of relationship do we want to build going forward?”
Practical Skills for Memory-Wise Conflict Resolution
Take strategic breaks. When conflicts heat up, our stress response further compromises memory formation and retrieval. Taking a 20-30 minute break allows stress hormones to subside and can prevent the formation of particularly distorted memories. Research shows that memories formed under high stress are especially unreliable (Het et al., 2005).
Come back with kindness. When you return to difficult conversations, approach with curiosity rather than ammunition. Neuroplasticity research suggests that positive emotions during memory retrieval can actually help update and soften traumatic or negative memories (Lane et al., 2015).
Practice the “I could be wrong” principle. Regularly challenge your own certainty about past events. This isn’t about becoming wishy-washy—it’s about being scientifically accurate about how memory actually works.
Use “memory disclaimers.” When recounting events in conflict, try phrases like: “My recollection is…” or “The story I’m telling myself is…” This acknowledges the subjective nature of memory while still allowing you to share your perspective.
Focus on impact over intent. Since we can’t reliably determine what someone “really meant” or “actually said,” focus on the effect their actions had on you and how to prevent unwanted impacts in the future.
The Wisdom of Letting Go
Perhaps the most radical implication of memory research is this: the truth about what happened in most conflicts is ultimately unknowable and often irrelevant. What matters isn’t establishing a definitive record of past events—it’s building understanding, repairing relationships, and creating better patterns for the future.
This doesn’t mean abandoning accountability or ignoring harmful behavior. It means shifting from a forensic model of conflict resolution (focused on determining guilt and innocence) to a therapeutic model (focused on healing and growth). Instead of asking “Who’s right?” we can ask “How do we move forward together?”
Beyond the Blame Game
The next time you find yourself in conflict, remember that you’re dealing with two imperfect, reconstructed, and potentially false memories trying to establish which version of reality is “true.” It’s a game you literally cannot win, because the prize—absolute certainty about past events—doesn’t exist.
Instead, try being Conflict Curious™. Approach disagreements as opportunities to understand each other better, to repair and strengthen relationships, and to design more effective ways of interacting in the future. This isn’t about being naive or avoiding difficult conversations—it’s about being scientifically informed about how human memory actually works.
The goal isn’t to determine who was right about what happened yesterday. It’s to create a tomorrow that works better for everyone involved. And that future is entirely within our power to shape—if we can let go of our need to relitigate a past that may never have existed the way any of us remember it.
When we stop fighting about our imperfect memories of yesterday, we can start building the relationships we actually want for tomorrow.
References
Cabeza, R., Rao, S. M., Wagner, A. D., Mayer, A. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Can medial temporal lobe regions distinguish true from false? An event-related functional MRI study of veridical and illusory recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(8), 4805-4810.
Het, S., Ramlow, G., & Wolf, O. T. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the effects of acute cortisol administration on human memory. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(8), 771-784.
Lane, R. D., Ryan, L., Nadel, L., & Greenberg, L. (2015). Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e1.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720-725.
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(4), 803-814.
Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., & St. Jacques, P. L. (2011). Memory distortion: an adaptive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 467-474.
Schacter, D. L., & Slotnick, S. D. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of memory distortion. Neuron, 44(1), 149-160.
Schwabe, L., & Wolf, O. T. (2010). Learning under stress impairs memory formation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 93(2), 183-188.Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 155-170). Cambridge University Press.