Nov 7 Flashcards
epistemology
branch of philosophy
deals with questions of HOW WE OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE
epistemology epidemiology
from Greek
EPISTEME: “knowledge, understanding or acquaintance”
LOGOS: “account, argument, or reason”
epistemology: THE STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE
epistemology is the study of…
knowledge
what are the epistemic features of close relationships?
the features that impact our KNOWLEDGE/BELIEFS
(including beliefs about ourselves)
self-expansion as an epistemic feature of close relationships
the self-expansion model suggests that love causes our self-concepts to EXPAND and CHANGE
as our partners bring us NEW EXPERIENCES and NEW ROLES
and we GRADUALLY LEARN THINS about ourselves that we didn’t know before
shared-reality
the experience of SHARING A SET OF INNER STATES (thoughts, feelings, beliefs)
with a PARTICULAR INTERACTION PARTNER about the world in general
in order to make sense of the world around them…
people turn to others to create a SHARED REALITY
what happens to shared reality as relationships progress?
we develop DEEPER FORMS of shared reality
moving from shared experiences…to shared habits, memories, beliefs and identities
switch from using “me” and “him/her/them” to “US”
who do we form shared reality with?
ingroup members
epistemic authorities
we have epistemic trust in…
- similar others
^we rely on them more to CONFIRM OUR VIEW of the world
- epistemic authorities
^have more epistemic trust in those who have authority on a particular topic
^ie. more trust in a psychology prof when speaking about psychology, even if they aren’t an ingroup member
shared reality: what do we tend to do to our communications?
tend to TUNE our communications
to reflect what WE THINK our communication PARTNERS BELIEVE
ie. may adjust our preferences or say things that don’t truly reflect how we feel in order to match our perceptions of our communication partner’s view
when can audience tuned messages lead us to internalization?
only when we’re MOTIVATED to create a shared reality with that person
saying-is-believing paradigm PARTICIPANTS
3 people:
PARTICIPANT (person whose data we’re collecting)
AUDIENCE (person P communicates to)
TARGET (who the P must communicate with the audience about)
saying-is-believing paradigm SETUP
- participants are told that the audience has either a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE VIEW of the target
- participants are given AMBIVALENT BEHAVIOURAL INFO about a TARGET PERSON
^ can be interpreted as helpful or condescending
- participants are asked to DESCRIBE the TARGET person to an audience who who has ALREADY formed an IMPRESSION about the target
^ participants know how the audience feels
saying-is-believing paradigm RESULTS
those who communicate with and audience who LIKES (versus dislikes) the target person typically describe the target MORE POSITIVELY
they TUNE their descriptions to fit the audience’s ideas
saying-is-believing paradigm: recall of the ambivalent behavioural info…
is ALIGNED with audience tuned messages
memory bias - they recall the experience more in tune with the audience’s beliefs
BUT this effect depends on the formation/MOTIVATION for shared reality
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: increasing the epistemic authority of an out-group audience SETUP
GERMAN participants communicated with either a German (ingroup) OR a Turkish (outgroup) AUDIENCE
communicated about a German target person (ingroup)
Ps believed the audience had either a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE attitude towards the target
(context: large ethnic minority of Turkish people in Germany)
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 1a SETUP
4 conditions
a) positive attitude from German audience
b) negative attitude from German audience
c) positive attitude from Turkish audience
d) negative attitude from Turkish audience
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 1a RESULTS
- participants TUNED their messages to BOTH INGROUP and OUTGROUP audiences (regardless of whether the audience likes or dislikes the target)
- RECALL was ONLY biased in audience’s direction when the audience was GERMAN
^ likely because German Ps were only motivated to create a shared reality with the German audience
- SAME PATTERN when Turkish participant target was used (memory bias only occurred when Turkish Ps communicated with Turkish audience)
intergroup memory bias from experiment 1 is viewed as stemming from…
a LACK of EPISTEMIC TRUST in the outgroup
so, study authors tested whether increasing the EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY of the outgroup reduces the intergroup memory bias
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 2 SETUP
had GERMAN PARTICIPANTS communicate with a TURKISH AUDIENCE about a TURKISH TARGET or a GERMAN TARGET
(manipulating epistemic authority of audience about communication topic)
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 2 RESULTS
- participants had HIGHER EPISTEMIC TRUST in the audience when the target belonged to the SAME GROUP as the audience
- participants’ RECALL MATCHED their communications MORE when the TARGET’s GROUP MATCHED the AUDIENCE
^ consistent with hypothesis that shared reality across intergroup divide can be increased by enhancing the outgroup’s epistemic authority regarding the topic
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 3 SETUP
this time the researchers increased the audience’s EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY via GROUP CONSENSUS
the German participants communicated about either a German or a Turkish target with an audience of 3 TURKISH PEOPLE (who all shared either a negative or positive view of target)
shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 3 CONDITIONS
- german target - turkish audience - POSITIVE view
- german target - turkish audience - NEGATIVE view
- turkish target - turkish audience - POSITIVE view
- turkish target - turkish audience - NEGATIVE view
