Chapter 10 : Stresses and Strains (Unit 14) Flashcards
WHAT MAKES US FEEL HURT?
- Hurt feelings are common
– 60% of university students report experiencing hurt feelings more often
than once a month; 20% at least once a week - What kinds of events?
Abandonment Being ignored or left out
Betrayal Forgotten birthdays
Harsh criticism Insensitive remarks
Public humiliation Being unappreciated - Hurt feelings can linger
– >90% of Ps in one study reported experiencing
negative emotions about hurtful episodes that
had occurred more than 1 year earlier - More likely to experience hurt feelings in close
relationships
– 70% of hurtful episodes involved romantic
partners or close friends, 26% family members,
acquaintances, & authority figures, only 2%
strangers
RELATIONAL VALUE
- One factor common to many of these experiences is that they threaten our
sense of relational value - Relational value = degree to which other people value us & our relationship
- Hurt feelings arise when we perceive that that another person does not
regard our relationship as valuable & important as we wish they did
– Specific kind of social pain
– Experience of hurt during a rejection episode is not reducible to other kinds
of negative emotions (e.g., feeling “upset” or “distressed”)
PERCEIVED RELATIONAL VALUE
* Communications of low relational value can involve complete and unambiguous
rejection—e.g. ‘‘I just don’t like you anymore’’
* Or can be more subtle—e.g., when we feel
that others simply don’t care that much if we are around or not
* Reactions to acceptance/rejection may not
be related to intensity of
acceptance/rejection experience in
straightforward linear fashion
LAB EXPERIMENT
* Ostensible study of “managerial decision making”
* Ps assigned to role of “speaker”, confederate to role of “evaluator”
* Ps see feedback of evaluator-–how much they wish “to get to work with the
speaker”
* Manipulated level of acceptance/rejection
– Extreme rejection (I definitely do not want to work with this person)
– Moderate rejection (I somewhat do not want to work with this person)
– Moderate acceptance (I somewhat want to work with this person)
– Extreme acceptance (I definitely want to work with this person)
Results (see graph):
Suggests that the feelings we experience are linked to others’ evaluations of us in a
complex way:
* Maximal exclusion does not hurt much more than simple ambivalence does
* More sensitive to small changes in acceptance from others that indicate just how much they like us—but perhaps also only up to a point
* Additionally, manipulated sequence of feedback – Relational devaluation (decreases in perceived relational value) particularly
hurtful
– Hurts more to go from acceptance to rejection than to experience consistently
high levels of rejection
ROLE OF ATTRIBUTIONS
- Cannot directly know how much others value us
- Our perceptions of our relational value/relational devaluation may or may not be accurate representation of reality
- The attributions we make matter—e.g.:
She didn’t call me because she doesn’t like me
Vs.
She didn’t call me because she was swamped with work
CRITICISM & TEASING
- Criticism is common source of hurt feelings
– Hurtful because conveys negative evaluation of the individual and, by
extension, can be seen as relational devaluation
– Statements that signal care & affection may buffer against effect of criticism
– Key attribution is whether the criticism is taken as evidence of relational
devaluation - Similarly, teasing can either foster sense of closeness/rapport or evoke hurt
– Will be hurtful if target interprets teasing as sign of relational devaluation
PERCEPTIONS OF INTENT
- Perceived intentionality = extent to which victim believes transgressor
deliberately engaged in hurtful behaviour - Intentional attributions associated with increased evaluations of
responsibility/blame, negative evaluations of event and partner, unwillingness
to forgive - But acts involving relational devaluation may still feel hurtful even if they
weren’t intentional
– E.g., being forgotten can signal low relational value and be very painful
INDIVIDUAL & RELATIONAL FACTORS
- Relationship satisfaction negatively correlated with hurt feelings after hurtful
event, & degree to which event negatively impacted the relationship
– May reflect tendency of individuals in happy relationships to make more
benign attributions - Attributions are also shaped by individual differences (e.g., rejection
sensitivity, attachment insecurity, low self-esteem) … may contribute to
greater propensity to experience hurt feelings
OSTRACISM &
LACK OF CAUSAL CLARITY
- Certain types of hurtful interpersonal experiences may be especially ambiguous
- Ostracism = act of excluding or ignoring someone
- Ostrakismos (Greek) = practice of removing a citizen considered to be a threat to democracy from the city-state of Athens
- Across different cultures, shunning practices used as means of regulating
undesirable behaviour
– Young children show spontaneous use of the practice - In context of interpersonal relationships: giving someone the ”cold shoulder” or
“silent treatment”, not speaking to them, avoiding eye contact - Silent treatment, by its nature, is often highly ambiguous—victims lack causal
clarity (cannot identify the precipitating event) - This lack of causal clarity further compounds psychological distress
– Targets who are unable to attribute the ostracism to a specific cause suffer
greater threats to their sense of belonging & self-esteem
– Understanding aversive events is an important part of coping
– May ruminate on possible causes, generating large amount of self-deprecating attributions
– May question future stability of the relationship - Refusing to offer reason reduces the likelihood that the target will engage in
restorative action (i.e., is counterproductive) - Actors may use silent treatment for both punitive and non-punitive reasons
– Non-punitive: ”cooling off” after a conflict, avoiding confrontation
– Targets may underestimate prevalence of non-punitive reasons - May also use ostracism as way of terminating the relationship
– E.g., “ghosting” - While ostracism often leaves targets confused, actors see it as effective means
of achieving their goals
BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSES
TO REJECTION
- Hurt feelings thought to serve adaptive
purpose—alert us to actual or potential
threats to the relationship & motivate
reconnection - Key premise of attachment theory is that
feelings of hurt drive us to seek out
attachment figure - Sharing of hurt feelings post-conflict grows
intimacy in the relationship (consistent with
process model of intimacy) - Paradigms for studying rejection &
ostracism in the lab
– Cyberball
– Not being picked to work with a
group/being picked last
– Being ignored by conversation
partners
– Recalling previous experiences
– Being told you are likely to end up
alone in the future
*Such manipulations often find increased attempts to establish social
connection—e.g.:
– Increasing effort on subsequent group task
– More likely to sign up for a “friend matchmaking service”
– Increased desire to work with others on a task
– Provide more positive evaluations & allocate more monetary rewards to a
novel partner - However, there are important boundary conditions
- Likely to engage in affiliative behaviour only to the extent to which we see target
as a viable source of social connection
– ”Vulnerable but needy” post-rejection—desire connection, but want to protect
ourselves against further rejection or exploitation - After rejection, direct affiliative efforts
– Towards novel partners but not those responsible for the rejection
– Particularly if expect future contact/interaction with the novel partners - Those who are particularly fearful of negative social evaluation less likely to
affiliate after rejection - Experiences of hurt may also lead to negative/antisocial responses that are
more likely to drive people away rather than provide opportunities for
reconnection - May derogate those who rejected us
– Ps chosen last for a team rated team captain more negatively, expressed
less interest in being friends with them
– Helps maintain positive affect - But recall that a too-ready tendency to anticipate rejection (as in
individuals with low self-esteem) may lead to pre-emptive derogation of
relationship partners & undermining of relationship
AGGRESSION
* Hurtful events linked to aggression
– Aggression particularly likely when hurtful act seen as intentional
* Ps who had received fake feedback that i) they had been rejected by others, or
ii) they were destined to end up alone in life, exhibited higher
levels of aggression (e.g., blasting noise)
* Showed aggression even towards targets not involved in rejection episode
* Link between hurt & aggression evident also evident in real-world situations
* E.g., in one study of hurtful events, >50% of Ps reported saying something
critical or nasty to the person who hurt them
* Perceptions of relational devaluation common precipitating factor for
interpersonal violence
* Aggression in response to social rejection or exclusion seems like a
counterproductive response—how to explain it?
* May reflect a by-product of tapping into a defensive system originally
designed to deal with threat in general (physical-social pain overlap theory)
* Studies in non-human animals (e.g., rats, monkeys, cats, even turtles!) and
humans show that physical pain is a powerful elicitor of aggression
* Why?
– Pain signals the presence of a serious, proximate threat to survival &
motivates response
– In some cases, may be able to flee the threat—but often fighting is your best
chance (especially if defensive distance is low)
* Like physical pain, experience of social pain may contribute to a defensive stance that promotes aggression
– Pain may activate aggressive impulses
automatically—similar to urge to cry
BETRAYAL
- Certain relationship experiences are aversive because they violate our
expectations for relationship partners (betrayals)
– Expectations of trust, caring, faithfulness & exclusivity (in monogamous
relationship) - Includes infidelity (cheating), unmet obligations, broken promises, disclosure
of secrets - Can contribute to intense feelings of hurt because such events signal
relational devaluation - Even fairly trivial events (e.g., “but you promised that we would go the Renaissance Fair this
weekend”) can be experienced as hurtful to the extent that they are interpreted as
relational devaluation - But perpetrator may fail to grasp significance of event for victim
- Further, actor-observer difference contributes to differences in perspective
– As actors, take into account external pressures, mitigating circumstances
– As observers, more likely to make dispositional attributions - Tend to be self-serving
– Excuse & minimize our negative actions, attribute them to external forces - Simply being asked to identify with the perpetrator of a relational transgression leads
Ps to recall scenario in a way that puts perpetrator in better light
INFIDELITY
- When Ps imagine committing sexual infidelity, they externalize blame for
infidelity (to their partners, external circumstances) & minimize magnitude of
emotional harm to partners - Ps with prior experience as both infidelity perpetrators & victims more likely to
make external blame attributions when in position of perpetrator rather than
victim - Particularly true of individuals high in avoidant attachment & narcissism
– Ps also rate infidelity as having had a stronger emotional impact on them
than their infidelity had on their partners - Majority of individuals expect exclusivity in their relationships & place high value on fidelity
- However, often do not discuss issue directly, make assumptions (particularly heterosexual couples)
– May foster sense of uncertainty - Some extradyadic behaviours are more ambiguous than others
– Sexual infidelity = involves sexual acts or behaviours clearly signalling desire for sexual involvement (e.g., sexual intercourse, making out, intimate caressing) - Generally more likely to be interpreted as infidelity
– Emotional infidelity = involves development of close bond with another, often to the point that primary partner is ignored or excluded (e.g., intimate disclosures, secrecy,
physical affection, spending time together doing intimate activities) - More ambiguous & open to interpretation
PREVALENCE
* Prevalence is hard to assess given varying conceptions of infidelity; thus
estimates vary widely
* One large meta-analysis (N=58,000) of married, (mostly) US participants
estimated that 21% of women and 32% of men had been sexually unfaithful
– Rates of infidelity may been even higher in dating couples
– Social desirability concerns may lead to underestimates
* If infidelity is widely frowned upon, why is it so prevalent?
EVOLUTIONARY VIEW
* Extrapair mating may provide reproductive advantage
* Male perspective: mating with more females would increase fitness
* Female perspective: less obvious benefit (given greater investment in
pregnancy) & more risks (e.g., violence)
– But may be able to improve genetic quality of offspring
RISK FACTORS FOR INFIDELITY
* Risky individuals
– Individuals high in sociosexual orientation more likely to engage in
extradyadic sex
– Avoidantly attached individuals tend to be higher on SOI, hold more
permissive attitudes towards and engage in infidelity
* Anxious attachment has also been linked to infidelity risk in some
research—perhaps due to attempts to meet unfulfilled intimacy needs
* Risky relationships
– Infidelity more likely to occur when partners are less committed to one another
– Also in relationships with lower levels of relationship & sexual satisfaction
– Poor communication within relationship may increase infidelity risk
- Turn to other potential partners instead of working through problems in
relationship
* Self-expansion theory: Seek to expand sense of self through relationships; rapid
self-expansion produces sense of exhilaration
– Difficult to sustain long term; may look outside of relationship to recreate
feeling
* Risky contexts
– Availability of attractive alternatives
– Being away from relationship partner
– Factors reducing inhibition (e.g., alcohol, drug consumption)
* Multiple vulnerabilities combined with a precipitating event may culminate in
infidelity
CONSEQUENCES OF INFIDELITY
* Profoundly negative impact on victim
– Can resemble symptoms of post-traumatic stress: protracted sadness and
depression, anxiety, rumination & intrusive flashbacks, emotional numbness
– Can lead victim to re-evaluate not just current relationship but undermine one’s
view of relationships in general, threatens attachment security
* Learning about an affair from third-party or catching partner “red-handed”
particularly damaging (combination of unfaithfulness & dishonesty)
* Finding out from partner (especially if unsolicited): less negative effect on
relationship, greater chance of forgiveness, less likely to break up
* Forgiveness more likely for isolated betrayals rather than long-standing affairs
* Leading cause of divorce
– Doubles likelihood of divorce over and
above any effects of unhappiness prior to
the cheating
* Even if couple stays together, infidelity often leaves lasting damage
* Mere suspicion of infidelity may have strong impact on relationships as well
JEALOUSY
- Jealousy = emotional state evoked by the perception that a valued
relationship is being threatened by a rival
– Threat may be real or imagined - Different from envy (desire for another’s possessions)
- Some debate as to whether jealousy represents a distinct emotion unique to
this kind of situation or a constellation of emotions (hurt, anger, fear/anxiety) - Others have argued that jealousy is a cultural construct or script rather than a
universal emotional experience grounded in biology (social constructionist
view) - Functional view: like other emotions, jealousy is an evolved adaptation that
helped us solve recurring, important adaptive problem in the course of
evolution
– Rely on relationships for resources (e.g., nourishment, shelter, care,
protection), but resources are finite
– Rivals threaten to usurp our relationships & rewards we gain through them
– Jealousy motivates us to engage in mate retention strategies, which can
take different forms - E.g., ingratiating ourselves to partner, scaring or fighting off rival, getting
in between partner & rival - Consistent with a functional perspective, research with infants & non-human
animals (e.g., dogs) suggests that, in its most basic form, jealousy is innate
(rather than something that is learned or dictated by culture)
– Infants display behaviours seemingly indicative of jealousy—e.g.: - 6-month-old infants display greater negative affect when their mothers
ignore them while interacting with a realistic baby doll (vs. reading a
book)
– Similar findings for dogs
– Jealousy not triggered by mere withdrawal of attention, but rather diversion
of attention to a potential rival - With increasing cognitive sophistication, appraisals (interpretations of the
situation) become more complex & play a larger role - E.g., 4 yo children display more jealousy when mother’s attention is diverted to a
similarly aged peer rather than an infant, whereas for younger children jealousy is
not influenced by rival’s age - Jealousy-provoking situations no longer constrained to physical presence of rival;
can also involve anticipation, imagination, memory - Further, appraisals of threat may involve both threats to the relationship AND
threat to the self - May help explain why we sometimes feel jealous of lovers’ past partners even
if they do not pose a threat to our current relationship
WHAT MAKES US
JEALOUS?
TYPE OF INFIDELITY
Which scenario is more threatening?
60% of men: sexual infidelity
83% of women: emotional infidelity
TYPE OF INFIDELITY
* Evolutionary perspective: sex differences in potential negative outcomes
resulting from having an unfaithful partner lead to different reactions to
sexual vs. emotional infidelity
– Men: because of paternity uncertainty, fear expending resources on
another male’s offspring
– Women: because of greater minimal parental investment, fear losing
resources for their offspring if mate becomes emotionally invested in
someone else
* True sex difference or artifact of the way the question is phrased?
– May exaggerate minor difference
– In forced choice paradigm, will choose the type of infidelity that co-occurs
with the other
* Women: if partner is emotionally invested, assume that sex has already
taken place
* Men: if partner has had sex, assume she is emotionally invested
* Can ask Ps to rate impact of both types of infidelity on continuous scale
instead
* When using continuous scales:
– Some mixed findings, but meta-analytic evidence suggests that sex
difference persists
* More pronounced in younger & student samples
* More pronounced for feelings of jealousy, less pronounced for other
emotions like hurt
* True of reactions to both hypothetical & actual infidelities
* Consistent with research showing that men more likely to be attentive to
evidence of sexual infidelity; women—emotional
WHO MAKES US JEALOUS?
* Rivals with high mate value
* Feel threatened when a highly attractive rival is similar to ourselves, especially on an attribute central to our self-concept
– Want our partners to see us as unique (in a positive way)
– This kind of rival thus poses a threat to our positive distinctiveness
* Rivalry from a friend is particularly painful, as is a partner returning to a previous lover
RELATIONAL
CONSEQUENCES OF
JEALOUSY
JEALOUSY INDUCTION
* In one study, 75% of Ps reported trying to make partner jealous
* Majority do it to “get partner’s attention”, but punitive reasons also reported
– Sometimes used as retaliatory strategy
* Anxious attachment linked to jealousy induction, in part as indirect method
for communicating relationship needs
* Women more likely to use jealousy induction than men
* Associated with arguments, decreases in commitment, breakups, controlling
& aggressive behaviour
– Most common motive in spousal murders
* Can hurt the feelings of relationship partner
– Why not a signal of greater relational valuation?
* Signals that partner does not view you as trustworthy
* Jealous expressions can also be interpreted as signs of affection, can enhance
romantic feelings & satisfaction
* May motivate partners to take action to repair or maintain the relationship
* The way that jealousy is communicated has stronger implications for
relational outcomes than jealous feelings or jealous thoughts
* Negative responses:
– Threatening, verbal attacks
– Derogation of partner
– Ostracism, withdrawing from relationship
* Positive responses:
– Self-disclosure of feelings in positive, constructive way
– Attempts to improve the relationship
ATTACHMENT DIFFERENCES
* Securely attached individuals more likely to voice concerns in constructive
way, try to repair relationship
* Avoidantly attached individuals more likely to withdraw or ignore the
problem
* Anxiously attached individuals experience more jealousy and negative affect,
more likely to engage in controlling & surveillance behaviour
GENDER DIFFERENCES
* Women tend to improve mate value
– Increase attractiveness, try to please partner
* Men tend to protect against rivals
– Confront rival, mate guard
– But also pursue other women
SUSPICIOUS VS. REACTIVE JEALOUSY
* Reactive jealousy = response to actual threat to relationship
* Suspicious jealousy = experienced in the absence of major jealousy-provoking
events
* Relationship closeness is positively associated with reactive jealousy, inversely
associated with suspicious jealousy
* Suspicious jealousy more associated with “bad” personal & relationship factors
(e.g., attachment insecurity, relationship dissatisfaction)
* Social media can foster suspicious jealousy
– Vicious cycle: ambiguous cues foster jealousy, jealousy increases further
“creeping” and “cyberstalking”
