Sept 3 Flashcards
1
Q
“entire history of you” Black Mirror episode
A
imagine having access to memory implant that allows you to replay every interaction you’ve ever had
implications: trust issues, fear, hesitancy, commitment issues, self-consciousness, social withdrawal, self-doubt, overthinking
2
Q
many social experiences are ________ and subject to _________ _________
A
ambiguous
multiple interpretations
ie. is my bf laughing at his ex’s jokes because it’s a party and he’s being friendly, or is he still hung up on her?
ie. are they taking too long to text back because they’re busy, or because they don’t want to talk to me?
3
Q
percentage of our time that we spend trying to make sense of others
A
70% of our thoughts and conversations are spent trying to make sense of others
UK poll: 1/4 of adults admit to spending “hours” analysing wording/tone of a text
4
Q
couple conflicts = often rooted in…
A
disagreements about the MEANING of an event
rather than disagreement about its OCCURRENCE
ie. one person may think it’s not serious, while the other does. or one person may be doing something for reasons unknown by the other
5
Q
“needy is in the eye of the beholder”
A
the fact that two people are sharing the same experience doesn’t mean they’re interpreting it in the same way
6
Q
attributions
A
explanations we make to understand causes of an event
“my partner bought me flowers because…
…he feels guilty
…he loves me
…he’s a considerate person”
7
Q
attributions can be categorized along…
A
two dimensions
8
Q
2 dimensions attributions are categorized along
A
- LOCUS dimension
- STABILITY dimension
often go hand-in-hand (ie. internal causes are more likely to be stable), but not necessarily
9
Q
locus dimension of attributions
A
is the cause of the behaviour INTERNAL or EXTERNAL to the person?
10
Q
stability dimension of attributions
A
is the cause of the behaviour TEMPORARY or STABLE?
11
Q
“your partner is late for dinner” different attribution types
A
internal & stable attribution:
“he’s late because he’s a thoughtless jerk”
internal & temporary attribution:
“he’s late because he forgot to set his alarm”
external & temporary attribution:
“he’s late because he got stuck in traffic”
external & stable attribution:
“he’s late because the stupid car keeps breaking down”
12
Q
relationship-enhancing attributions
A
- seeing POSITIVE behaviours as INTERNAL and STABLE
- seeing NEGATIVE behaviours as EXTERNAL and TEMPORARY
13
Q
distress-maintaining attributions
A
- seeing POSITIVE behaviours as EXTERNAL and TEMPORARY
- seeing NEGATIVE behaviours as INTERNAL and STABLE
14
Q
types of attributions made by satisfied couples versus distressed couples
A
satisfied couples: relationship-enhancing attributions
distressed couples: distress-maintaining attributions
pattern of attributions partners make also PREDICT which couples are likely to STAY HAPPY and TOGETHER over time
15
Q
explanations we make for an event are called…
A
attributions
16
Q
attributions shape our…
A
interpretation of the event
which in turn affects our behaviour
16
Q
pre-existing knowledge that affects our interpretation of any given interaction
A
pre-existing knowledge of…
- what our partner is like
- what people are like in general
- what relationships are like
16
Q
schema
A
mental frameworks/cognitive structures that help MAKE SENSE of complex world
17
Q
interpretation of the event
A
construal
18
Q
3 things that schemas do
A
- streamline info processing by providing an organizational structure where we can slot new info
- guide perception
- allow us to make predictions (includes experiences)
19
Q
expectancy confirmation
A
schemas can be updated with new info, but also tend to be SELF-PERPETUATING
they don’t update easily
expectancies tend to be confirmed through 2 pathways
20
Q
2 pathways through which expectancies tend to be confirmed
A
- PERCEPTUAL CONFIRMATION: “we see what we expect to see”
- BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION: “we behave in a way that makes our expectations happen”
21
Q
rejection sensitivity
A
disposition (individual tendency) to “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection”
ranges from low to high
expectancies = activated in situations where rejection is possible
once activated, increase READINESS TO PERCEIVE REJECTION
22
Q
high RS
A
people who anxiously expect rejection
23
low RS
people who calmly expect acceptance
24
2 dimensions used to assess RS
1. degree of anxiety & concern about the outcome
2. expectations of acceptance & rejection
24
RS measure
lists variety of interpersonal situations where rejection is possible and assesses responses along 2 dimensions:
1. degree of ANXIETY & CONCERN about the outcome
2. EXPECTATIONS of ACCEPTANCE & REJECTION
score for each situation calculated by weighting expected likelihood by degree of concern
25
for individuals high in RS, rejection-related cues...
are more likely to capture attention
this is called attentional bias
26
attentional bias and RS
for people high in RS, rejection-related cues = more likely to capture attention
27
emotional stroop task setup
Ps asked to process one aspect of a stimulus (ie. naming ink colour a word is printed in) while ignoring an irrelevant aspect of the stimulus (the content of the word)
content of the word:
1. rejection-related (ie. ignored, unwanted)
2. non-rejection negative (ie. accident, disaster)
3. neutral (ie. pavement, radiator)
if Ps take longer to name ink colour for rejection-related word relative to neutral word...
suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words
28
emotional stroop task - what suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words?
if Ps take longer to name ink colour for REJECTION-RELATED WORD relative to neutral word, suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words
shows struggle to disconnect from the rejection-related meaning
more salient meaning to them, which distracts them from identifying the colour of the word
29
emotional stroop task results
RS associated with SLOWER RTs on REJECTION-RELATED WORD TRIALS (controlling for response on neutral trials)
ie. greater interference on rejection-related word trials = greater attentional bias towards rejection-related cues
NO SUCH ASSOCIATION between RS and RT on negative trials
30
emotional stroop task: what does the finding of no association between RS and RT on negative trials suggest?
does not suggest general tendency to pay more attention to negative stimuli
so it's really the rejection aspect that causes people to take longer
31
study setup: RS individuals are more likely to construe ambiguous social behaviour of a stranger as...
rejecting
experiment involves 2 "get to know you" interactions with another "participant"
after first interaction, told 1 of 2 things:
1. "Amy didn't want to continue with second part of experiment"
2. "there isn't enough time for the second interaction"
rejection sensitivity is linked to greater feelings of rejection in ambiguous condition
32
the RS "get to know you" study is evidence of what type of confirmation?
perceptual confirmation
33
people high in RS are more likely to construe insensitive behaviour of new partners as...
intentionally rejection
ie. attribute behaviour to hurtful intent
ie. "if your boyfriend/girlfriend was being cool and distant, you would feel they were being intentionally hurtful to you"
another example of perceptual confirmation
34
behaviour confirmation - RS
people who expect rejection tend to behave in ways that elicit rejection from close others
self-fulfilling prophecy
35
behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study setup
college-age (mostly) heterosexual couples in exclusive relationships
asked to select up to 5 topics of ongoing conflict (ie. commitment, sex, spending time together) from list and indicate MOST SALIENT ISSUE
assigned to discuss mutually agreed upon issue for 20 min
completed MEASURE OF AFFECT pre and post-interaction (RS was assessed on separate day)
BEHAVIOUR during interaction CODED by independent observers
36
behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study results
1. high RS women displayed MORE NEGATIVE BEHAVIOURS (ie. hostile tone, put-town, denial of responsibility) during interaction than low RS women
2. partners of HRS woman were ANGRIER about the relationship following discussion relative to partners of LRS women
3. women's negative behaviour accounted for 54% of the effect of women's RS on their partner's change in anger
37
behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study - what % of women's negative behaviour accounted for effect of partner's change in anger?
54%
38
havioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study - gender effects
no effect 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
39
why do people high in RS behave in ways that elicit rejection?
1. HRS and LRS women are similar in hostility when not primed by rejection cues
- so it's not that they're more hostile generally
2. possible explanation: PARTNER SELECTION
- maybe people high in RS seek out people who confirm this?
- but controlled for number of partner & relationship variables and found that this wasn't true
3. possibly a BEHAVIOURAL MANIFESTATION of feelings of hurt, anger, frustration, hopelessness
40
RS and relational impact of self-doubt
1. individuals with LOW SELF-ESTEEM also have CHRONIC CONCERNS about ACCEPTANCE
2. see themselves negatively & believe that others do too
3. suffer from NAIVE REALISM
4. may defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubts by DEVALUING the relationship
41
naive realism
idea that one's perception of the world is an accurate representation of reality
people with low self-esteem suffer from this: see themselves negatively & believe that others do too
42
does self esteem predict attractiveness?
no
43
people with low self esteem may defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubt by...
devaluing the relationship
44
study setup: relational impact of self doubt
Ps completed purported measure of intelligence
3 conditions:
1. failure feedback
2. success feedback
3. neutral (no feedback)
45
study results: relational impact of self doubt
for LOW self esteem individuals, self-doubts about intellectual abilities triggered...
1. anxieties about partner rejection, lower confidence in partner's regard
2. low valuation of the relationship, derogation of the partner
3. lowered confidence in partner's regard mediated negative impact of failure manipulation on relationship devaluation
doubt themselves, which triggers doubts about partner and relationship, which is painful - to circumvent that pain, they derogate the partner and the relationship instead
OPPOSITE PATTERN FOR HIGH SE INDIVIDUALS
46
expectancy confirmation
helps explain why many of us find ourselves experiencing the same relationship dynamics over and over again
"wherever you go, there you are"
47
fundamental attribution error (FAE)
tendency to underestimate situational influences & overestimate dispositional influences on the behaviour of others
don't realize that, in our relationships, WE often are the situation
48
motivated cognition
the ways in which our motives and desires shape how we select, interpret and organize info, with the aim of achieving some desired outcome
motive: drive to reach a specific goal
bias: tendency to process info in a systematic way to reach a certain POV
49
motive
part of motivated cognition
drive to reach a specific goal
50
bias
part of motivated cognition
tendency to process information in a systematic way to reach a certain POV
51
motive & bias in relationships
our MOTIVE to believe certain things about our partner & the relationship can lead to...
BIASES in how we perceive our partner & the relationship
52
motive & bias in relationships helps explain...
why outsiders sometimes evaluate a relationship very differently from its participants
53
motivated cognition in relationships: cognitive dissonance theory
we strive to maintain CONSISTENCY between our thoughts, beliefs & actions
few relationships are perfect and some degree of doubt & conflict is inevitable
how to resolve the tension between our desire for certainty and consistency and these inevitable doubts?
make COGNITIVE ADJUSTMENTS
54
enhancement motive
in committed relationships, motivated to see our partner & relationship in positive light
leads to an ENHANCEMENT BIAS: processing info in a way that casts our partner/relationship in a positive light
55
enhancement bias leads to...
a number of POSITIVE ILLUSIONS about the partner and relationship
56
positive illusions about partner
satisfied partners tend to IDEALIZE their partners
see partners more positively than partners perceive themselves
can't be explained by partners being modest - happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do
57
why can partners seeing their partners more positively than the partners perceive themselves not be explained by modesty?
because happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do
58
3 kinds of positive illusions
1. elevate relational virtues and minimize faults
2. ascribe special significance to relationship virtues ("I don't think I'll ever have to doubt his love for me because he's always making me feel good about myself")
3. use "yes, but" arguments to minimize faults ("yes, he tends to over-react to things...but I have realized that he does this to protect me")
59
T/F: people believe their own relationship is better than those of other people
true
this is a positive illusion
60
t/f: people rate likelihood of own marriage failing below base rates
true
this is a positive illusion
61
t/f: people are less realistic about relationship prospects than outside observers
true
researchers asked relationship partners, and their friends and family, to predict whether the couple will still be tgt in 1 year
partners were MORE OPTIMISTIC and LESS ACCURATE than friends and family, despite their access to much more insider info
62
are positive illusions bad?
no
63
positive illusions are related prospectively to...
1. greater relationship satisfaction & stability
2. fewer & less destructive conflicts
3. partner's increasingly positive perception of self
recall SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: if our expectations are positive, our relationships may flourish and partners may come to "live up" to our idealized image of them
64
perceptions of partner vary in...
levels of abstraction - it's a hierarchy
ranging from very specific to global
TOP of hierarchy: fewer objective standards, more latitude to place partner in positive light
65
the fact that our perceptions of our partners vary in levels of abstraction, from very specific to global, means that...
it's possible to view partner POSITIVELY at GLOBAL LEVEL
while acknowledging SPECIFIC POS & NEG traits
it's more difficult to distort beliefs about concrete, specific aspects of partner
66
glonal adoration, specific accuracy: newlyweds
high levels of enhancement at global level
fairly high accuracy at trait level, but significant variability
67
heterosexual marriages: wives' more accurate specific perceptions associated with...
1. greater support behaviour
2. greater feelings of control within marriage
3. decreased likelihood of divorce
68
t/f: love may be stronger when grounded in specific accuracy
true
69
positive illusions blend...
"reality" and "illusion" based on projected ideals & hopes
70
justification motive
we want to hold favourable attitudes about ourselves
not all motivated cognition is about relationship enhancement
in a clearly troubled relationship we can still uplift ourselves by blaming partner for faltering relationship
71
self-serving bias
tendency to make internal attributions for positive behaviour, and external ones for negative behaviour
72
self-serving bias in relationships
can occur even in happy relationships
don't want to believe that we could cause our partner pain or distress
deflect responsibility by blaming the situation or blaming the partner
73
dyadic nature of relationship interaction
1. generally, 2 people involved in relationship interactions
both are susceptible to self-serving biases
2. actor-observer difference
74
actor-observer difference
degree to which you are oriented towards the person vs situation depends on whether you're engaged in the action yourself (actor) or if you're just observing someone else (observer)
actors more likely to make situational attributions
observers more likely to make dispositional attributions
again, don't realize that we're part of the situation for our partner
75
memory bias
can leave out or amplify info to support our current view of the partner & relationship
autobiographical memory is not like a video recording
it's a CONSTRUCTIVE process, selective editing
pieces of remembered info + current knowledge = the narrative that makes sense to us now
76
memory bias study: McFarland and Ross, 1987
couples asked to rate partner's personality & relationship
do it again 2 months later, ratings were compared
memories of past feelings are GUIDED BY CURRENT FEELINGS about our relationship
if satisfaction improved: remember feeling more positively than they actually did
if satisfaction declined: remember feeling more negatively than they actually did
