Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYC 474 > Lecture 2: Constructing Social Experience > Flashcards

Lecture 2: Constructing Social Experience Flashcards

1
Q

making meaning of our relationship interactions

A
  • Many social experiences are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations
  • Some studies estimate that as much as 70% of our thoughts and conversations are spent trying to make sense of others
  • ¼ UK adults admit to spending “hours” analyzing the wording/tone of a text
  • Couple conflict is often rooted in disagreements about the meaning of an event rather than disagreement about its occurrence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

attribution

A

explanations we make to understand the causes of events

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

two categories for attributions

A

locus & stability

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

locus distribution

A

is the cause of the behaviour internal or external to the person?

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

stability dimension

A

is the cause of the behaviour temporary?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

are attributions independent?

A

Often go hand-in-hand (ex. Internal causes are more likely to be stable), but not necessarily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

relationship-enhancing attributions

A
  • Seeing positive behaviours as internal and stable
  • Seeing negative behaviours as external and temporary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

distress-maintaining attributions

A
  • Seeing positive behaviours as external and temporary
  • Seeing negative behaviours as internal and stable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

attributions and relationship satisfaction

A
  • Satisfied couples tend to make relationship-enhancing attributions
  • Distressed couples tend to make distress-maintaining attributions
  • The pattern of attributions partners make also predicts which couples are likely to stay happy and together over time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what influences the attributions we make?

A
  • Attributions shape our interpretation of events (construal), which in turn affects our behaviour
  • In any given interaction, we bring our pre-existing knowledge of what our partner is like, what people are like in general, and what relationships are like
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

schemas

A
  • Mental frameworks or cognitive structures that help us make sense of our complex world
  • Information processing by providing an organizational structure where we can slot new information
  • Guide perception
  • Allow us to make predictions (i.e. includes expectancies)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

expectancy confirmation

A

Schemes can be updated with new information, but also tend to be self-perpetuating

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

2 pathways for expectancy confirmation

A
  • Perceptual confirmation: we see what we expect to see
  • Behavioural confirmation: we behave in a way that makes our expectancies come true
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

rejection sensitivity

A

disposition (individual tendency) to be anxious expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

high vs. low RS

A
  • High RS: people who anxiously expect rejection
  • Low RS: people who calmly expect acceptance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

how do we form rejection expectancies?

A
  • Repeated experiences of rejection lead to the formation of rejection expectancies
  • These expectancies are activated in situations where rejection is possible
  • Once activated, they increase our readiness to perceive rejection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

rs measure

A
  • Lists a variety of interpersonal situations where rejection is possible and assesses responses along two dimensions
  • The score for each situation is calculated by weighing the expected likelihood by the degree of concern
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

two dimensions of RS

A
  • Degree of anxiety & concern about the outcome
  • Expectations of acceptance & rejection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

perceptual confirmation

A

For individuals high in RS, rejection-related cues are more likely to capture attention (attention bias)

20
Q

emotional stroop task

A
  • Participants are asked to process one aspect of a stimulus (i.e. naming the ink colour a word is printed in) while ignoring an irrelevant aspect of the stimulus (i.e. the content of the word)
  • Content of the word in the RS Stroop task: rejection-related, non-rejection negative, and neutral
  • If participants take longer to name the ink colour that a rejection-related word relative to a neutral word, this suggests an attentional bias towards rejection-relate words
21
Q

results of the RS stroop task

A
  • RS is associated with slower response time on rejection-related word trials (controlling for response on neutral trials)
    I.e. greater interference on rejection-related word trials = greater attentional bias towards rejection-related cues
  • There is no such association between RS and response time in negative trials
  • Consequently, this does not suggest a general tendency to pay more attention to negative stimuli
22
Q

more evidence of perceptual confirmation in RS

A
  • RS individuals are more likely to construe ambiguous social behaviour of a stranger as rejecting
  • Ex. an experiment involved two “get to know you interactions” with another participant. After the first interaction, they were told 1 of 2 things: “Amy didn’t want to continue with the second part of the experiment” (ambiguous) and “There is not enough time for the second interaction” (neutral). RS was linked to greater feelings of rejection in the ambiguous condition
  • RS individuals are also more likely to construe insensitive behaviour of new partners as intentionally rejecting (i.e. attribute behaviour to hurtful intent)
23
Q

behavioural confirmation

A

People who expect rejection tend to behave in ways that elicit rejection from close others (self-fulfilling prophecy)

24
Q

behavioural confirmation study

A
  • college-age (mostly) heterosexual couples in exclusive relationships
  • Asked to select up to 5 topics of ongoing conflict from a list and indicate the most salient issue
  • Assigned to discuss mutually agreed upon issue for 20 mins
  • Completed measure of affect pre- and post-interaction (RS was assessed on a separate day)
  • Behaviour during the interaction was coded by observers
  • High RS women displayed more negative behaviours during the interaction than low RS women
  • Partners of HRS women were angrier about the relationship following the discussion relative to the partners of LRS women
  • Women’s negative behaviour accounted for 54% of the effect of women’s RS on their partner’s change in anger
25
Q

gender effects on RS

A
  • No effect was observed for male partners in this study
  • But, in other research:
    Lower levels of relationship satisfaction in female partners of men high in RS explained by these men’s jealous and controlling behaviour
26
Q

why do HRS people display hostility when primed by rejection cues?

A
  • HRS & LRS women are similar in hostility when not primed by rejection cues
  • Possible explanation: partner selection
  • But, researchers controlled for many partner & relationship variables
  • This is possibly a behavioural manifestation of feelings of hurt, anger, frustration, and hopelessness
27
Q

relational impact of low self-esteem

A
  • Individuals with low self-esteem also have chronic concerns about acceptance
  • They see themselves negatively and believe that others do too
  • This may defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubt by devaluing the relationship
28
Q

naive realism

A

the idea that one’s perception of the world is an accurate representation of reality

29
Q

relational impact of self-doubt study

A
  • participants completed a purported measure of intelligence and were given feedback in 3 conditions: failure feedback, success feedback, and no feedback. They found that for low SE individuals, self-doubts about intellectual abilities triggered:
  • Anxieties about partner rejection, lower confidence in partner’s regard
  • Lower valuation of the relationship, derogation of the partner
  • Lowered confidence in the partner’s regard mediated the negative impact of failure manipulation on relationship devaluation
  • The opposite pattern was found for high SE individuals
30
Q

fundamental attribution error

A

the tendency to underestimate situational influences & overestimate dispositional influences on the behaviour of others

31
Q

motivated cognition

A

the ways in which our motives and desires shape how we select, interpret, and organize information, to achieve some desired outcome

32
Q

motive

A

drive to reach a specific goal

33
Q

bias

A

tendency to process information in a systematic way to reach a certain point of view

34
Q

motivation cognition and biases

A
  • Our motive to believe certain things about our partner and the relationship can lead to biases in how we perceive our partner and the relationship
  • This helps explain why outsiders sometimes evaluate a relationship very differently from its participants
  • Recall that we strive to maintain consistency between our thoughts, beliefs, and actions (ex. Cognitive dissonance theory)
  • Few relationships are perfect and some degree of doubt and conflict is inevitable
35
Q

enhancement motive

A
  • In committed relationships, we are motivated to see our partner and the relationship in a positive light
  • Processing information in a way that casts our partner/relationship in a positive light
  • Manifests in positive illusions about the partner and relationship
36
Q

positive illusions about partners

A
  • Satisfied partners tend to idealize their partners
  • They see partners more positively than the partners see themselves
  • This can’t be explained by partners being modest
  • Happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do
  • People in happy relationships elevate relational virtues and minimize faults
  • They minimize their partner’s faults (ex. “Yes, but…”)
  • People in happy relationships believe their own relationship is better than the relationships of other people
  • People in happy relationships rate the likelihood of their own marriage failing below base rates
  • They are less realistic about relationship prospects than outside observers
  • Researchers asked relationship partners as well as their loved ones to predict whether the couple will still be together in 1 year
  • Partners were more optimistic and less accurate than friends and family despite having access to much more insider information
37
Q

positive illusions are related to:

A
  • Greater relationship satisfaction and stability
  • Fewer and less destructive relationship conflicts
  • Partner’s increasingly positive perception of the self
38
Q

the hierarchy of perceptions of partners

A
  • Perceptions of partners vary in levels of abstraction, ranging from very specific to global
  • The top of the hierarchy has fewer objective standards and more latitude to place partners in a positive light
  • It is possible to view one’s partner positively at the global level, while still acknowledging specific positive & negative traits
  • In newlyweds, there are high levels of enhancement at the global level
  • There is fairly high accuracy at the trait level, but significant variability
  • In heterosexual marriages, wives’ more accurate specific perceptions are associated with greater support behaviour, feelings of control within marriage, and decreased likelihood of divorce
  • Love may be stronger when grounded in specific accuracy
  • Positive illusions blend reality and illusions based on projected ideals and hopes
39
Q

justification motive

A
  • We want to see ourselves positively
  • In clearly troubled relationships, we can still uplift ourselves by blaming the partner for the faltering relationship
40
Q

self-serving bias

A

the tendency to make internal attributions for our positive behaviour, and external attributions for our negative behaviour

41
Q

self-serving bias in relationships

A
  • This can even occur in happy relationships
  • We don’t want to believe responsibility by blaming our partner or the situation that we could cause our partner pain or distress
  • We deflect responsibility by blaming the situation or our partner
42
Q

the dyadic nature of relationship interaction

A

Generally, two people are involved in relationship interactions & both are susceptible to self-serving biases

43
Q

actor-observer difference

A
  • The degree to which you are oriented towards the person vs. the situation depends on whether you’re engaged in the action yourself or just observing
  • Actors are more likely to make situational attributions, while observers are more likely to make dispositional attributions
  • Again, we don’t realize we’re part of the situation for our partner
44
Q

memory bias

A
  • Memory is a constructive process
  • Pieces of remembered information + current knowledge = narrative that makes sense to us now
  • We can leave out or amplify information to support our current view of the partner and relationship
45
Q

memory bias in couples study

A
  • Couples were asked to rate their partner’s personality and relationship
  • They did it again two months later and compared the ratings
  • Memories of past feelings guide current feelings about their relationship
  • If satisfaction improved, they remembered feeling more positively than they actually did
  • If satisfaction declined, they remembered feeling more negatively than they actually did

PSYC 474 (40 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions