Lecture 16: Stresses and Strains

Question 1

prevalence of hurt feelings

Answer 1

• Hurt feelings are common
• 60% of university students report experiencing hurt feelings more often than once a month; 20% at least once a week

Question 2

what kinds of events make us hurt?

Answer 2

• Abandonment
• Betrayal
• Harsh criticism
• Public humiliation

Question 3

common factor to many experiences of hurt

Answer 3

relational value

Question 4

relational value

Answer 4

the degree to which others value us & our relationship

Question 5

how do hurt feelings arise?

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

peceived relational value

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

perceived relational value study method

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

perceived relational value study findings

Answer 8

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

Question 9

perceived relational value study takeaways

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

perceived relational value and sequence of feedback study

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

lingering effects of hurt feelings

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

hurt feelings in close vs. distant relationships

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

role of attributions in perceived relational values

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

criticism

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

teasing

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

perceived intentionality

Answer 16

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

Question 17

perceived intentionality and attributions

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

impact of individual and relational factors on hurt feelings

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

ostracism

Answer 19

the act of excluding or ignoring someone

Question 20

Ostrakismos (Greek)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

shunning across cultures

Answer 21

• Across different cultures, shunning practices are used as a means of regulating undesirable behaviour
• Young children show spontaneous use of the practice

Question 22

silent treatment in interpersonal relationships

Answer 22

In the context of interpersonal relationships, this can include giving someone the cold shoulder, silent treatment, not speaking to them, or avoiding eye contact

Question 23

ambiguity of ostracism

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

ostracism as counterproductive

Answer 24

Refusing to offer reason reduces the likelihood that the target will engage in restorative action (i.e., is counterproductive)

Question 25

reasons for ostracism

Answer 25

• 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)

Question 26

is ostracism effective?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

adaptive role of hurt feelings

Answer 27

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

Question 28

hurt feelings and attachment theory

Answer 28

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

Question 29

hurt feelings and growing intimacy

Answer 29

• Sharing of hurt feelings post-conflict grows the intimacy in the relationship
• This is consistent with the process model of intimacy

Question 30

Paradigms for studying rejection & ostracism in the lab

Answer 30

• 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

Question 31

results of paradigms for studying rejection & ostracism in the lab

Answer 31

• 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

Question 32

boundary conditions of rejection & ostracism experiments

Answer 32

• 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

Question 33

when are people less likely to affiliate after rejection?

Answer 33

• 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

Question 34

derogation of those who rejected us

Answer 34

• 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

Question 35

hurt and aggression

Answer 35

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

Question 36

hurt and aggression lab study

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

hurt and aggression irl

Answer 37

• 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

Question 38

relational devaluation and aggression

Answer 38

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

Question 39

paradox of hurt and aggression link

Answer 39

• 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

Question 40

resolving the paradox of the hurt and aggression link

Answer 40

• 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

Question 41

betrayals

Answer 41

relationship experiences that violate our expectations for relationship partners

Question 42

common relationship expectations

Answer 42

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

Question 43

examples of betrayal

Answer 43

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

Question 44

betrayal and hurt

Answer 44

• 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

Question 45

perpetrator’s perspective on betrayal

Answer 45

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

Question 46

actor-observer difference in betrayal

Answer 46

• 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

Question 47

self-serving biases in betrayal

Answer 47

• 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

Question 48

attributions for infidelity

Answer 48

• 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

Question 49

expectations of fidelity in relationships

Answer 49

• 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

Question 50

sexual infidelity

Answer 50

• 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

Question 51

emotional infidelity

Answer 51

• 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

Question 52

the prevalence of infidelity

Answer 52

• 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?

Question 53

evolutionary view of infidelity

Answer 53

• 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

Question 54

risk factors for infidelity

Answer 54

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

Question 55

risky individuals for infidelity

Answer 55

• 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

Question 56

risky relationships for infidelity

Answer 56

• 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

Question 57

self-expansion theory and infidelity

Answer 57

• 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

Question 58

risky contexts for infidelity

Answer 58

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

Question 59

consequences of infidelity on the victim

Answer 59

• 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

Question 60

impact of learning about infidelity in different ways

Answer 60

• 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

Question 61

when is forgiveness for infidelity more likely?

Answer 61

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

Question 62

infidelity and divorce

Answer 62

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

Question 63

long-term effects of infidelity

Answer 63

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

Question 64

impacts of suspected infidelity

Answer 64

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

Question 65

jealousy

Answer 65

• 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)

Question 66

debates surronding jealousy

Answer 66

• 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

Question 67

functional view of jealousy

Answer 67

• 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

Question 68

evidence for the functional view of jealousy

Answer 68

• 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