Send us Fan Mail What if the fight you’re having with your teen, spouse, or co-parent is not about lying at all - but about how memory actually works? Brandon Joffe makes the case that many of our most explosive arguments start when two people become absolutely certain they are right, and everyone else must be dishonest. Brandon opens with a real therapy moment where a mother and child quickly spiral from disagreement into “you’re lying” territory. From there, he unpacks why that shift is so dangerous - and why it happens in families, marriages, and even friendships when hurt turns into defensiveness, accusation, and a total breakdown in trust.You’ll discover: Why your brain is not a video camera, and memory is reconstruction, not playbackHow Elizabeth Loftus’s research shows later information can reshape what people think happenedWhy confidence feels like proof, even when it has nothing to do with accuracyHow mood-congruent memory can make you remember only the evidence that matches your current emotion?Why people confuse observed behavior with inferred intention, and how that fuels conflictThe difference between “who’s right” and the better question: “What is each person experiencing that the other cannot see?”Brandon also introduces a practical relational lens for hard conversations: what he calls being “obliviously curious.” Instead of rushing to prove your version of the past, he shows how curiosity can lower defensiveness, create safety, and make room for understanding without requiring full agreement. If you’re navigating a tense relationship, parenting a teen, or stuck in the same argument on repeat, this episode is a wake-up call. It’s a reminder that hurt can be real without every conclusion being accurate - and that one better question can change the entire direction of a relationship. Essential listening if you want less chaos, fewer power struggles, and more clarity in the relationships that matter most. Research Supporting “When Being Right Costs You the Relationship”Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive Realism in Everyday Life: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. S. Reed, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Why it matters: This is one of the foundational sources for the concept of naïve realism—the tendency to believe that we see situations objectively and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased. That directly supports the podcast's discussion of two people both being convinced that their version is simply “what happened.”Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 319–359.Why it matters: This work examines how people construct subjective interpretations of social situations and then make inferences from those interpretations. It is highly relevant to the distinction in the podcast between an event itself and the meaning we assign to it.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. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3Why it matters: This classic experiment showed that the wording of questions after an event could influence participants' later reports of what they had seen. It is strong evidence that memory is not simply a literal playback of an event and that information received afterward can affect recollection.Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory Conformity: Can Eyewitnesses Influence Each Other's Memories for an Event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543.Why it matters: Participants viewed differing versions of the same event and then discussed it. Information supplied by another witness could subsequently appear in a person's own account. This supports the podcast's discussion of how conversations within families can become part of the way an event is later remembered.Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, Not Consistency, Characterizes Flashbulb Memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461. PMID: 12930476Why it matters: Participants recorded memories immediately after the September 11 attacks and were tested again later. Consistency declined with time, but people retained particularly strong feelings of vividness and belief in their flashbulb memories. This is excellent support for one of your central points: feeling extremely certain about a memory does not mean every detail has remained unchanged.Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and Memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129–148. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129Why it matters: Bower's research examined the relationship between emotional state and memory. Among the reported findings, people recalled a greater proportion of experiences that were emotionally congruent with their current mood. This supports the podcast's point that what comes readily to mind during an angry or distressed interaction may be influenced by the emotional state we are currently in.Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in Marriage: Review and Critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3–33. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3Why it matters: This major review examined the explanations spouses make for one another's behavior. The authors reported that dissatisfied spouses, compared with satisfied spouses, tended to make attributions that cast their partners' behavior in a more negative light. This directly supports the distinction between what someone did and why we believe they did it.Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S., & Shapiro, J. R. (2014). Perceived Perspective Taking: When Others Walk in Our Shoes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 941–960. DOI: 10.1037/a0036395Why it matters: Across six experiments, the researchers examined what happens when people believe another person is genuinely attempting to understand their perspective. Perceived perspective-taking produced important interpersonal benefits. This supports the podcast's distinction between understanding somebody's experience and agreeing with their conclusions.Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1995). Psychological Barriers to Dispute Resolution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 255–304.Why it matters: This work addresses psychological processes that interfere with resolving disputes, including people's tendency to interpret information from their own vantage point and underestimate the subjectivity of that interpretation. It fits particularly well with the section of the podcast about relational impasses and why simply arguing harder often fails.Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1989). The Impact of Attributions in Marriage: An Individual Difference Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 69–85.Why it matters: This is part of the broader empirical literature examining the role that explanations and interpretations of a spouse's behavior play in marital functioning. It gives you another legitimate relationship-specific source beyond the 1990 Bradbury and Fincham review.For resources, parent groups, and support, visit www.inspiredresolutionscounseling.com Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional mental health services.
