Interpretive Divergence
/ɪnˈtɜːprɪtɪv daɪˈvɜːdʒəns/
Definitions
- (n.) A state in which two or more parties construe the same facts or events through incompatible contexts, each broadening their own reasoning while narrowing or dismissing the other's frame. The result is a loss of shared understanding rather than deliberate deception.
The negotiation broke down not from bad faith but from interpretive divergence, as each side reinforced its own narrative under pressure.
- (n.) A cognitive and relational drift that arises when fatigue, urgency, or emotion compresses perception, leading people or groups to question the other's motives suspiciously and to overstate the strength of their own position.
Under the stress of litigation, the board succumbed to interpretive divergence, mistaking emotional certainty for factual clarity.
Forms
- interpretive divergence
- contextual divergence
Related terms
See also
Commentary
Interpretive divergence describes how well-intentioned parties can lose mutual understanding without deceit or ill will. It is distinct from bad faith, which implies intent to mislead. Common in disputes and negotiations, it often begins asynchronously through internal rumination or group reinforcement, and can be reversed through calm fact-finding and context restoration.
This glossary is for general informational and educational purposes only. Definitions are jurisdiction-agnostic but reflect terminology and concepts primarily drawn from English and American legal traditions. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Users should consult qualified counsel for advice on specific matters or jurisdictions.