Giving People the Benefit of the Doubt
One of the options we have about how to react to someone who
provokes us is to give the person “the benefit of the doubt.” This
expression is reportedly derived from the legal phrase “reasonable
doubt” first documented in 17th-century English law.8 The phrase
was said to refer to the degree of doubt required to acquit a criminal
defendant, and was defined in terms of moral certainty. This expression
continues to be commonly used when assessing criminal culpability.
It is used in other contexts, too, such as when we are experiencing
interpersonal conflict and attributing blame.
How does giving another person the benefit of the doubt apply
in conflict situations? The expression may be relevant, for instance,
when it comes to whether or not we blame the other person for something
that offends us. If we give her or him the benefit of the doubt,
we are being open to the possibility that maybe we are not absolutely
correct in our fault-finding, and that there may be understandable
and forgivable reasons for what is provoking us. Or, as discussed in
Jumping to Conclusions, Making Assumptions, and More Explorations
of Conflict Perceptions, it may be we attribute negative interpretations,
make assumptions, or jump to conclusions based on our
perceptions of others’ actions, words, and motives, although we do
not know for sure that they apply.
If we give the benefit of the doubt, we are able to reframe what
we are attributing or, at least, to drop our attachment to our initial
assumptions. In essence, we can consider other possible reasons for
people’s conduct.
The following questions will help to flush out a tendency to blame
where there is a lack of absolute certainty about the reasons for the
other person’s actions or words. These questions will also help to
generate thinking about alternative rationales that may be feasible—
giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. Doing so may ultimately
prevent escalation of unnecessary conflict. Understanding Why
We Blame in Chapter 4 also explores aspects of fault-finding that are
relevant here.
QUESTIONS
• When you consider a situation in which you are blaming
another person for something, with what specifically are
you finding fault?
• Why do you suppose she or he is doing or saying that?
• If the other person overheard your response, with what do
you know for sure she or he would disagree? With what
are you certain she or he would agree?
• What alternative or additional reasons might the other
person give you for saying or doing what was said or done?
• What sounds reasonable about the other person’s possible
answer(s) to the previous question? What does not resonate?
• What other plausible reasons might you suggest to someone
else in this situation?
• If you were to give the other person the benefit of the doubt
for anything, what might that be?
• Why that or those things?
• What positive feelings do you experience, if any, when you
consider giving her or him the benefit of the doubt? What
about giving the benefit of the doubt does not work for
you? Why is that so?
• Under what circumstances do you usually give people the
benefit of the doubt? What difference does it make whether
or not you give the other person the benefit of the doubt?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?
