Lecture 16: Stresses and Strains Flashcards
1
Q
prevalence of hurt feelings
A
- Hurt feelings are common
- 60% of university students report experiencing hurt feelings more often than once a month; 20% at least once a week
2
Q
what kinds of events make us hurt?
A
- Abandonment
- Betrayal
- Harsh criticism
- Public humiliation
3
Q
common factor to many experiences of hurt
A
relational value
4
Q
relational value
A
the degree to which others value us & our relationship
5
Q
how do hurt feelings arise?
A
- Hurt feelings arise when we perceive 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
6
Q
peceived relational value
A
- Communications of low relational value can involve complete and unambiguous rejection or it can be more subtle
- Reactions to acceptance/rejection may not be related to the intensity of the acceptance/rejection experience in a straightforward linear fashion
7
Q
perceived relational value study method
A
- Ostensible study of “managerial decision-making”
- Participants were assigned to the role of speaker, and a confederate to the role of evaluator
- Participants saw feedback from the evaluator and manipulated the level of acceptance/rejection
- Extreme rejection: I definitely don’t 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
8
Q
perceived relational value study findings
A
Found a curvilinear relationship between rejection acceptance and state self-esteem
9
Q
perceived relational value study takeaways
A
- Suggests that the feelings we experience are linked to other’s evaluations of us in a complex way
- Maximal exclusion does not hurt much more than simple ambivalent feedback
- More sensitive to small changes in acceptance from others that indicate just how much they like us, but perhaps only up to a point
10
Q
perceived relational value and sequence of feedback study
A
- Additionally, the manipulated the sequence of feedback
- Relational devaluation is particularly hurtful
- It hurts more to go from acceptance to rejection than to experience consistently high levels of rejection
11
Q
lingering effects of hurt feelings
A
- Hurt feelings can linger
- > 90% of participants in one study reported experiencing negative emotions about hurtful episodes that had occurred more than 1 year earlier
12
Q
hurt feelings in close vs. distant relationships
A
- More likely to experience hurt feelings in close relationships
- 70% of hurtful episodes involved romantic partners or close friends, 26% family members, acquaintances, and authority figures, and only 2% of strangers
13
Q
role of attributions in perceived relational values
A
- We can’t directly know how much others value us
- Our perceptions of our relational value/relational devaluation may or may not be accurate representations of reality
- The attributions we make matter
14
Q
criticism
A
- Criticism is a common source of hurt feelings
- It’s hurtful because it conveys negative evaluations of the individual and, by extension, can be seen as relational devaluation
- Statements that signal care & affection may buffer against the effect of criticism
- It’s key whether the person attributes the criticism as a threat to relational devaluation
15
Q
teasing
A
- Teasing can either foster a sense of closeness/rapport or evoke hurt
- Will be hurtful if the target interprets teasing as a sign of relational devaluation
16
Q
perceived intentionality
A
the extent to which the victim believes the transgressor deliberately engaged in hurtful behaviour
17
Q
perceived intentionality and attributions
A
- Intentional attributions are associated with increased evaluations of responsibility/blame, negative evaluations of events and partners, unwillingness to forgive
- But acts involving relational devaluation may still feel hurtful even if they weren’t intentional
- Ex. being forgotten can signal low relational value and be very painful
18
Q
impact of individual and relational factors on hurt feelings
A
- Relationship satisfaction is negatively correlated with hurt feelings, after a hurt event and the degree to which the event negatively impacts the relationship
- This may reflect individuals’ tendency in happy relationships to make more benign attributions
- Attributions are also shaped by individual differences
- Rejection sensitivity, attachment insecurity, and low self-esteem may contribute to a greater propensity to experience hurt feelings
19
Q
ostracism
A
the act of excluding or ignoring someone
20
Q
Ostrakismos (Greek)
A
the practice of removing a citizen considered to be a threat to democracy in the state of Athens
21
Q
shunning across cultures
A
- Across different cultures, shunning practices are used as a means of regulating undesirable behaviour
- Young children show spontaneous use of the practice
22
Q
silent treatment in interpersonal relationships
A
In the context of interpersonal relationships, this can include giving someone the cold shoulder, silent treatment, not speaking to them, or avoiding eye contact
23
Q
ambiguity of ostracism
A
- 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 a large amount of self-deprecating attributions
- May question the future stability of the relationship
24
Q
ostracism as counterproductive
A
Refusing to offer reason reduces the likelihood that the target will engage in restorative action (i.e., is counterproductive)
25
reasons for ostracism
- Actors may use the silent treatment for both punitive and non-punitive reasons
- Non-punitive: “cooling off” after a conflict, avoiding confrontation
- Targets may underestimate the prevalence of non-punitive reasons
- May also use ostracism as a way of terminating the relationship (ex. ghosting)
26
is ostracism effective?
While ostracism often leaves targets confused, actors see it as an effective means of achieving their goals
27
adaptive role of hurt feelings
Hurt feelings are thought to serve an adaptive purpose: to alert us to actual or potential threats to the relationship & motivate reconnection
28
hurt feelings and attachment theory
A key premise of attachment theory is that feelings of hurt drive us to seek out attachment figures
29
hurt feelings and growing intimacy
- Sharing of hurt feelings post-conflict grows the intimacy in the relationship
- This is consistent with the process model of intimacy
30
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
31
results of paradigms for studying rejection & ostracism in the lab
- Such manipulations often find increased attempts to establish a social connection
- Increasing effort on a 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
32
boundary conditions of rejection & ostracism experiments
- However, there are important boundary conditions
- Likely to engage in affiliative behaviour only to the extent to which we see the 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
33
when are people less likely to affiliate after rejection?
- when they are particularly fearful of negative social evaluation
- Experiences of hurt may also lead to negative/antisocial responses that are more likely to drive people away rather than provide opportunities for reconnection
34
derogation of those who rejected us
- May derogate those who rejected us
- Participants who were chosen last for a team rated team captain more negatively expressed less interest in being friends with them
- Helps maintain a 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
35
hurt and aggression
- Hurtful events are linked to aggression
- Aggression is particularly likely when the hurtful act is seen as intentional
36
hurt and aggression lab study
- Participants who had received fake feedback where they had been rejected by others or were destined to end up alone in life, exhibited higher levels of aggression
- Showed aggression even towards targets not involved in the rejection episode
37
hurt and aggression irl
- The link between hurt & aggression is evident also in real-world situations
- Ex. In one study of hurtful events, > 50% of participants reported saying something critical or nasty to the person who hurt them
38
relational devaluation and aggression
Perceptions of relational devaluation are a common precipitating factor for interpersonal violence
39
paradox of hurt and aggression link
- Aggression in response to social reflection or exclusion seems like a counterproductive response
- This may reflect a by-product of tapping into a defensive system designed to deal with threats in general
- Studies in non-human animals show that physical pain is a powerful elicitor of aggression
40
resolving the paradox of the hurt and aggression link
- Pain signals the presence of a serious, proximate threat to survival & motivates response
- In some cases, we may be able to flee the threat, but often fighting is your best chance
- Like physical pain, the experience of social pain may contribute to a defensive stance that promotes aggression
- Pain may activate aggressive impulses automatically
41
betrayals
relationship experiences that violate our expectations for relationship partners
42
common relationship expectations
Expectations include trust, caring, faithfulness, and exclusivity (in a monogamous relationship)
43
examples of betrayal
Includes infidelity, unmet obligations, broken promises, disclosure of secrets
44
betrayal and hurt
- This can contribute to intense feelings of hurt because such events signal relational devaluation
- Even fairly trivial events can be experienced as hurtful to the extent that they are interpreted as relational devaluation
45
perpetrator's perspective on betrayal
However, the perpetrator may fail to grasp the significance of the event for the victim
46
actor-observer difference in betrayal
- Further, actor-observer difference contributes to differences in perspective
- As actors, we take into account external pressures, mitigating circumstances
- As observers, we’re more likely to make dispositional attributions
47
self-serving biases in betrayal
- 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 participants to recall a scenario in a way that puts the perpetrator in a better light
48
attributions for infidelity
- When participants imagine committing sexual infidelity, they externalize blame for infidelity (to their partners, external circumstances) & minimize the magnitude of emotional harm to their partners
- Participants with prior experience as both infidelity perpetrators & victims are more likely to make external blame attributions when in the position of the perpetrator rather than the victim
- This is particularly true of individuals high in avoidant attachment & narcissism
- Participants also rate infidelity as having had a stronger emotional impact on them than their infidelity had on their partners
49
expectations of fidelity in relationships
- The majority of individuals expect exclusivity in their relationships and place a high value on fidelity
- However, couples often do not discuss the issue directly and make assumptions
This is particularly true for heterosexual couples
50
sexual infidelity
- involves sexual acts or behaviours clearly signalling a desire for sexual involvement (ex. Intercourse, making out, intimate caressing)
- Generally more likely to be interpreted as infidelity
51
emotional infidelity
- involves the development of a close bond with another, often to the point that the primary partner is ignored or excluded
- More ambiguous and open to interpretation
52
the prevalence of infidelity
- Prevalence is hard to assess given varying conceptions of infidelity, thus estimates may vary
- One large meta-analysis of mostly US participants estimated that 21% of women and 32% of men had been sexually unfaithful
- Rates of infidelity may be even higher in dating couples
- Social desirability concerns may lead to underestimates
- If infidelity is frowned upon, why is it so prevalent?
53
evolutionary view of infidelity
- Extrapair mating may provide a reproductive advantage
- Male perspective: mating with more females would increase fitness
- Female perspective: less obvious benefits and more risks, but may be able to improve the genetic quality of offspring
54
risk factors for infidelity
- risky individuals
- risky situations
- risky contexts
- Multiple vulnerabilities combined with a precipitating event may culminate in infidelity
55
risky individuals for infidelity
- Individuals with unrestricted sociosexual orientation more likely to engage in extradyadic sex
- Avoidantly attached individuals tend to be higher in SOI, so they hold more permissive attitudes toward and engage in infidelity
- Anxiously attachment has also been linked to infidelity risk in some research, perhaps due to attempts to meet unfulfilled intimacy needs
56
risky relationships for infidelity
- Infidelity is 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 a relationship may increase the risk of infidelity
- Turn to other potential partners instead of working through problems in the relationship
57
self-expansion theory and infidelity
- We seek to expand our sense of self through relationships; rapid self-expansion produces a sense of exhilaration
- Difficult to sustain long-term; may look outside of the relationship to recreate the feeling
58
risky contexts for infidelity
- Availability of attractive alternatives
- Being away from the relationship partner
- Factors reducing inhibition (ex. Alcohol, drug consumption, stress)
59
consequences of infidelity on the victim
- Profoundly negative impact on the victim
- This can resemble symptoms of PTSD: protracted sadness and depression, anxiety, rumination, intrusive flashbacks, and emotional numbness
- This can lead the victim to re-evaluate not just the current relationship but undermine one’s view of relationships in general
60
impact of learning about infidelity in different ways
- Learning about an affair from a third party or catching the partner is particularly damaging
- Finding out from the partner, especially if unsolicited: has less negative effect on the relationship, a greater chance of forgiveness, and less likely to break up
61
when is forgiveness for infidelity more likely?
Forgiveness is more likely for isolated betrayals rather than long-standing affairs
62
infidelity and divorce
- Leading cause of divorce
- Doubles the likelihood of divorce over and above any effects of unhappiness prior to the cheating
63
long-term effects of infidelity
Even if the couple stays together, infidelity often leaves lasting damage
64
impacts of suspected infidelity
Mere suspicion of infidelity may have a strong impact on the relationship as well
65
jealousy
- An emotional state evoked by the perception that a valued relationship is being threatened by a rival
- The threat may be real or imagined
- Different from envy (desire for another’s possessions or traits)
66
debates surronding jealousy
- There are some debates as to whether jealousy is a distinct emotion from a constellation of emotions
- Others have argued that jealousy is a cultural construct rather than a universal emotional experience grounded in biology
67
functional view of jealousy
- Like other emotions, jealousy is an evolved adaptation that helped us solve recurring, important adaptive problem problems 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
- Ex. ingratiating ourselves to partners, scaring or fighting off rivals, getting in between partner & rival
68
evidence for the functional view of jealousy
- Consistent with a functional perspective, research with infants & non-human animals 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
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 is not triggered by mere withdrawal of attention, but rather the diversion of attention to a potential rival
69
jealousy and appraisals
- With increasing cognitive sophistication, appraisals (interpretations of the situation) become more complex & play a larger role
- 4-year-old children display more jealousy when their mother’s attention is diverted to a similarly aged peer rather than an infant, whereas for younger children jealousy is not influenced by a rival’s age
- Jealousy-provoking situations are no longer constrained to the physical presence of rivals; can also involve anticipation, imagination, memory
- Appraisals of threat may involve both threats to the relationship AND threats 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
70
infidelity survey
- 60% of men report that sexual infidelity is more threatening
- 83% of women report that emotional infidelity is more threatening
71
Evolutionary perspective on 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 the mate becomes emotionally invested in someone else
72
are there true sex differences in types of infidelity or is it just te way the question is phrased?
- May exaggerate a minor difference
- In a forced choice paradigm, will choose the type of infidelity that co-occurs with the other:
- Women: if a partner is emotionally invested, assume that sex has already taken place
- Men: if a partner has had sex, assume that she is emotionally invested
73
issue with infidelity survey
issues in affective forecasting: are we good at predicting the way we would feel in these scenarios?
74
infidelity survey using continuous scales
- Some mixed findings, but meta-analytic evidence suggests that sex differences persist
- More pronounced in younger & student samples
- More pronounced for feelings of jealousy, and less pronounced for other emotions like hurt
- True of reactions to both hypothetical & actual infidelities
- Consistent with research showing that men are more likely to be attentive to evidence of sexual infidelity and women are more likely to be attentive to emotional infidelity
75
who makes us jealous?
- Rivals with high mate value
- Feel threatened when a highly attractive rival is similar to us, especially on an attribute central to our self-concept
- We want our partners to see us as unique (in a positive way)
- This kind of rival poses a threat to our positive distinctiveness
- Rivalry from a friend is particularly painful, as is a partner returning to a previous lover
76
jealousy induction
- In one study, 75% of participants reported trying to make their partner jealous
- The majority do it to “get partner’s attention”, but punitive reasons are also reported
- Sometimes used as a retaliatory strategy
- Anxious attachment is linked to jealousy induction, in part as an indirect method for communicating relationship needs
- Women are more likely to use jealousy induction than men
77
relational consequences of jealousy
- Associated with arguments, decreases in commitment, breakups, controlling, and aggressive behaviour
- The most common motive in spousal murders
- Can hurt the feelings of the relationship partner
- Signals that a partner does not view you as trustworthy
- Jealous expressions can also be interpreted as signs of affection and can enhance romantic feelings and satisfaction
- May motivate partners to take action to repair or maintain the relationship
- The way jealousy is communicated has stronger implications for relational outcomes than jealous feelings or jealous thoughts
78
negative responses to jealousy
- Threatening, verbal attacks
- Derogation of partner
- Ostracism, withdrawing from a relationship
79
positive responses to jealousy
- Self-disclosure of feelings in a positive, constructive way
- Attempts to improve the relationship
