This paper explores whether readers' memories for conflicts and their situational conflict interpretation would be influenced by reading targets and lexical cue phrases that signify rhetorical relationships. Findings disclose that both argument and summary tasks as well as signaling eased conflict attestation. In their essays, however, summary goal readers mentioned conflicts more often in a unilateral manner. In contrast, argument goal readers and those who read texts with signals mentioned conflicts in a harmonic way that comprised source information.