Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC 474 > Lecture 16: Stresses and Strains > Flashcards

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what kinds of events make us hurt?

A
  • Abandonment
  • Betrayal
  • Harsh criticism
  • Public humiliation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

common factor to many experiences of hurt

A

relational value

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

relational value

A

the degree to which others value us & our relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

perceived relational value study findings

A

Found a curvilinear relationship between rejection acceptance and state self-esteem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

perceived intentionality

A

the extent to which the victim believes the transgressor deliberately engaged in hurtful behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

ostracism

A

the act of excluding or ignoring someone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Ostrakismos (Greek)

A

the practice of removing a citizen considered to be a threat to democracy in the state of Athens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

reasons for ostracism

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

is ostracism effective?

A

While ostracism often leaves targets confused, actors see it as an effective means of achieving their goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

adaptive role of hurt feelings

A

Hurt feelings are thought to serve an adaptive purpose: to alert us to actual or potential threats to the relationship & motivate reconnection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

hurt feelings and attachment theory

A

A key premise of attachment theory is that feelings of hurt drive us to seek out attachment figures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

hurt feelings and growing intimacy

A
  • Sharing of hurt feelings post-conflict grows the intimacy in the relationship
  • This is consistent with the process model of intimacy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Paradigms for studying rejection & ostracism in the lab

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

results of paradigms for studying rejection & ostracism in the lab

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

boundary conditions of rejection & ostracism experiments

A
  • 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
Q

when are people less likely to affiliate after rejection?

A
  • 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
Q

derogation of those who rejected us

A
  • 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
Q

hurt and aggression

A
  • Hurtful events are linked to aggression
  • Aggression is particularly likely when the hurtful act is seen as intentional
36
Q

hurt and aggression lab study

A
  • 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
Q

hurt and aggression irl

A
  • 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
Q

relational devaluation and aggression

A

Perceptions of relational devaluation are a common precipitating factor for interpersonal violence

39
Q

paradox of hurt and aggression link

A
  • 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
Q

resolving the paradox of the hurt and aggression link

A
  • 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
Q

betrayals

A

relationship experiences that violate our expectations for relationship partners

42
Q

common relationship expectations

A

Expectations include trust, caring, faithfulness, and exclusivity (in a monogamous relationship)

43
Q

examples of betrayal

A

Includes infidelity, unmet obligations, broken promises, disclosure of secrets

44
Q

betrayal and hurt

A
  • 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
Q

perpetrator’s perspective on betrayal

A

However, the perpetrator may fail to grasp the significance of the event for the victim

46
Q

actor-observer difference in betrayal

A
  • 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
Q

self-serving biases in betrayal

A
  • 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
Q

attributions for infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

expectations of fidelity in relationships

A
  • 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
Q

sexual infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

emotional infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

the prevalence of infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

evolutionary view of infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

risk factors for infidelity

A
  • risky individuals
  • risky situations
  • risky contexts
  • Multiple vulnerabilities combined with a precipitating event may culminate in infidelity
55
Q

risky individuals for infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

risky relationships for infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

self-expansion theory and infidelity

A
  • We seek to expand our sense of self through relationships; rapid self-expansion produces a sense of exhilaration
    0 Difficult to sustain long-term; may look outside of the relationship to recreate the feeling
58
Q

risky contexts for infidelity

A
  • Availability of attractive alternatives
  • Being away from the relationship partner
  • Factors reducing inhibition (ex. Alcohol, drug consumption, stress)
59
Q

consequences of infidelity on the victim

A
  • 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
Q

impact of learning about infidelity in different ways

A
  • 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
Q

when is forgiveness for infidelity more likely?

A

Forgiveness is more likely for isolated betrayals rather than long-standing affairs

62
Q

infidelity and divorce

A
  • Leading cause of divorce
  • Doubles the likelihood of divorce over and above any effects of unhappiness prior to the cheating
63
Q

long-term effects of infidelity

A

Even if the couple stays together, infidelity often leaves lasting damage

64
Q

impacts of suspected infidelity

A

Mere suspicion of infidelity may have a strong impact on the relationship as well

65
Q

jealousy

A
  • 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
Q

debates surronding jealousy

A
  • 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
Q

functional view of jealousy

A
  • 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
Q

evidence for the functional view of jealousy

A
  • 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
Q

jealousy and appraisals

A
  • 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
Q

infidelity survey

A
  • 60% of men report that sexual infidelity is more threatening
  • 83% of women report that emotional infidelity is more threatening
71
Q

Evolutionary perspective on infidelity

A
  • 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
Q

are there true sex differences in types of infidelity or is it just te way the question is phrased?

A
  • 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
Q

issue with infidelity survey

A

issues in affective forecasting: are we good at predicting the way we would feel in these scenarios?

74
Q

infidelity survey using continuous scales

A
  • 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
Q

who makes us jealous?

A
  • 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
Q

jealousy induction

A
  • 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
Q

relational consequence

A
  • 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
Q

negative responses to jealousy

A
  • Threatening, verbal attacks
  • Derogation of partner
  • Ostracism, withdrawing from a relationship
79
Q

positive responses to jealousy

A
  • Self-disclosure of feelings in a positive, constructive way
  • Attempts to improve the relationship

PSYC 474 (39 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions