- Email: [email protected]
Shared reality in interpersonal relationships
Accepted Manuscript Title: Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships Author: Susan M. Andersen Elizabeth Przybylinski PII: DOI: Reference:
S2352-250X(17)30258-0 https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.007 COPSYC 590
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
5-10-2017 12-11-2017 16-11-2017
Please cite this article as: S.M. Andersen, Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.007
E. Przybylinski, COPSYC (2017),
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Running head: SHARED REALITY IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
1
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
University of Pennsylvania
cr
2
us
New York University
M
an
1
ip t
Susan M. Andersen1, Elizabeth Przybylinski2
Ac ce p
te
d
Address correspondence to Susan Andersen ([email protected]), Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10003, United States, Phone: (212) 998-7799, Fax: (212) 995-4018; or to Elizabeth Przybylinski ([email protected]), Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut Street #C3A, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States, Phone: (215) 746-1297.
Abstract
Close relationships afford us opportunities to create and maintain meaning systems as shared perceptions of ourselves and the world. Establishing a sense of mutual understanding allows for creating and maintaining lasting social bonds, and as such, is important in human relations. In a related vein, it has long been known that knowledge of significant others in one’s life is stored in memory and evoked with new persons – in the social-cognitive process of “transference” – imbuing new encounters with significance and leading to predictable cognitive, evaluative, motivational, and behavioral consequences, as well as shifts in the self and self-
Page 1 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
2
regulation, depending on the particular significant other evoked. In these pages, we briefly review the literature on meaning as interpersonally defined and then selectively review research on transference in interpersonal perception. Based on this, we then highlight a recent series of
ip t
studies focused on shared meaning systems in transference. The highlighted studies show that values and beliefs that develop in close relationships (as shared reality) are linked in memory to
cr
significant-other knowledge, and thus, are indirectly activated (made accessible) when cues in a
us
new person implicitly activate that significant-other knowledge (in transference), with these shared beliefs then actively pursued with the new person and even protected against threat. This
an
also confers a sense of mutual understanding, and all told, serves both relational and epistemic functions. In concluding, we consider as well the relevance of co-construction of shared reality n
d
M
such processes.
te
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships Close relationships have special emotional and motivational significance. Our sense of
Ac ce p
well-being often depends on them (Andersen & Chen, 2002) and they provide a basis for our beliefs and values, affording us shared understanding with others (Higgins & Hardin, 1996). Being known and understood (having shared perceptions) forms the backbone of lasting satisfying relationships (Fitzsimons & Anderson, 2013; Gordon, Tuskeviciute & Chen, 2013; Koudenburg, Gordijn, & Postmes, 2014; Sprecher, Treger, Hilaire, Fisher & Hatfield, 2013), buffering relationships from conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2016). Accordingly, people strive to verify their own self-understanding, prompting partners to share their own views (Kraus & Chen, 2009; Reis, Lemay, & Finkenauer, 2017). Individuals also shift their attitudes toward those held by partners (Davis & Rusbult, 2001), even self-
Page 2 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
3
stereotyping if their partner is perceived as endorsing the stereotype (Sinclair, Hardin, & Lowery, 2006). Indeed, cognitive interdependence theory contends that committed individuals are especially likely to align their views with broader long-term relationship goals and the
ip t
relationship’s well-being (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), stabilizing relationship patterns and promoting longevity.
cr
Hence, close relationships entail creating and maintaining shared values and beliefs as
us
“shared reality” (e.g., Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Close relationships potentiate shared reality (e.g., Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015) not simply by inducing one to verify one’s self-
an
conceptions, or to align with the other’s views, but also by co-creating shared meaning with the other, much as in the co-construction processes proposed elsewhere (Mendoza-Denton & Ayduk,
M
2015). Our view, although speculative, is that co-creation produces emergent properties
te
even if shared.
d
(emergent meanings) as well that are not reducible to beliefs held initially by either individual,
It is well known that significant other knowledge and relationship knowledge are stored
Ac ce p
in memory and can thus be implicitly activated when cues in a new persons happen to subtly resemble this significant other – in the social-cognitive process of “transference” (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002) – with has cognitive, evaluative, motivational, and behavioral consequences, while also leading to shifts in the self and self-regulation (Andersen, Reznik, & Glassman, 2005). We propose that this process can also indirectly evoke shared meanings from the close relationship, thus imbuing everyday encounters not only with special significance, but also with a sense of mutual understanding, serving both relational and epistemic functions. In the pages that follow, we briefly review research on the interpersonal nature of meaning, then recap the role of significant others in social perception before we proceed to
Page 3 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
4
highlighting our recent research on how shared reality develops in significant relationships and emerges anew in interpersonal perception (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015). We then conclude with a discussion of the relevance of co-construction processes in emergent shared reality.
ip t
Meaning as Inherently Interpersonal
People clearly aim to achieve shared perceptions of reality with others to establish and
cr
maintain bonds and satisfy epistemic needs—and relationships are in fact established and
us
maintained to the degree that shared reality is (Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Given this, there is a basis for intently maintaining shared meaning in the face of threat (e.g., Heine et al., 2006; Jost
an
& Hunyady, 2005; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012), minimally to perceive the environment and self as valid and stable (Swann, 1990). To reach a sense of mutual understanding, people readily
M
“socially tune” (Hardin & Higgins, 1996) their attitudes and self-concepts to align with the
d
expressed views of individuals they like (Sinclair, Lowery, Hardin, & Colangelo, 2005), and
te
indeed, adjust the how much they tune if later their relationship to the audience changes (Echterhoff, Kopietz, & Higgins, 2013).
Ac ce p
People especially socially tune toward close others (Gordon & Chen, 2016; Kraus & Chen, 2009; Reis, et al., 2017; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), where shared understanding matters greatly (e.g., Fitzsimons & Anderson, 2013; Gordon et al., 2013; Koudenburg, et al., 2014; Sprecher, et al., 2013). Moreover, close relationships help enable one to deflect threats to existing worldviews, including mortality threats (Cox & Arndt, 2012; Cox, Arndt, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Abdollahi, & Solomon, 2008; Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum, & Malishkevich, 2002). Individuals also incorporate significant-other attributes in their self-definitions, and vice versa ( Aron, et al. 2013; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Smith, & Mackie, 2016). People
Page 4 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
5
are faster to judge traits as self-descriptive when shared with their significant other (relative to traits held separately, Aron, et al., 1991), and they readily confuse their significant other's traits with their own.
ip t
Such inclusion of the other in the self may be characteristic of love (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995; Sprecher, et al. 2013) and developing “we-ness.” It also occurs spontaneously when
cr
thinking about shared experiences or traits (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). Partners who are more
us
satisfied see more similarities, much as liking leads to perceived similarity (Morry, 2011). The 'inclusion' perspective and its cognitive measures informed our approach to shared reality.
an
Beyond personal traits that may be treated as shared, we conceptualize shared reality in terms of the particular values and beliefs that are shared with the close other, which are likely to be well
M
rehearsed and maintained. Hence, when significant-other knowledge is cued around a new
d
person, the emotional and motivational significance evoked should also involve seeking to
te
establish this prior sense of shared meaning with the new person. The Relational Self and Transference
Ac ce p
The relational self model proposes that significant others – defined as any person who is (or has been) influential and in whom one is (or once was) emotionally invested, including family members, past or current romantic partners, friends, or coworkers – are designated distinctively in memory. Each significant other is linked to a unique relationship with that other and to a unique relational self experienced in relation to him or her. Accordingly, “transference” occurs when the mental representation of a significant other is triggered by interpersonal cues—a new person who bears implicit resemblance to this other. This leads individuals to make biased assumptions about the new person based on the prior relationship (e.g., Andersen & Cole, 1990), coloring memory (as recognition memory) as well.
Page 5 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
6
Procedurally, participants typically learn about a new person who is made to subtly resemble one of their significant others, using descriptions that they themselves self-generate weeks earlier, and they then take a memory test about what they learned. Individuals incorrectly
ip t
remember learning things about the new person that they did not, if relevant to the significant other. This effect occurs regardless of whether the significant other is loved or is disliked (e.g.,
cr
Andersen & Baum, 1994; Berk & Andersen, 2000), and regardless of roles (e.g., sibling, friend,
us
parent). Evaluation, expectancies, goal pursuit, the self-concept, and affect may also be assessed. In control conditions, a different new person is made to subtly resemble another participant’s
an
significant other or a known, but non-significant other or a stereotype.
Cues activating significant other knowledge and transference are typically presented in
M
words that are relevant but embedded in distractor descriptions, that is, are presented relatively
d
implicitly (Andersen, Reznik, & Glassman, 2005). They can be presented fully subliminally
te
(e.g., Glassman & Andersen, 1999) or as facial features (Günaydin, Zayas, Selcuk, & Hazan, 2012; Kraus & Chen, 2010). Hence, the process that arises emerges largely automatically, which
Ac ce p
is to say, without intention, effort, or awareness (Andersen et al., 2005). Although more likely when cognitive effort is minimal (Kruglanski & Pierro, 2008; Pierro & Kruglanski, 2008), effortful attention and motivation to prevent transference also turns out not to be sufficient to prevent the process (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2013). Further, when a new person resembles a loved significant other, the new person is liked more (e.g., Andersen & Baum, 1994; Berenson & Andersen, 2006; Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008; Kraus & Chen, 2010). Such snap judgments lead the individual to accord special significance to this new person, without the perceiver knowing why or even knowing much at all about the person, suggesting a nascent emergence of meaning in transference.
Page 6 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
7
Perceptions of acceptance (or rejection) by a significant other are likewise activated in transference, arising indirectly through linkages that bind significant-other knowledge to the self (Andersen & Chen, 2002), resulting in parallel expectancies with new persons. Such
ip t
expectancies can also evoke self-fulfilling conversational behavior among naive new persons (Berk & Andersen, 2000). Goal pursuit and self-regulation also show parallel shifts when a close
cr
relationship is cued (Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008; Shah, 2003), as
us
does the self and how it is experienced and expressed (Andersen & Chen, 2002; e.g., Hinkley & Andersen, 1996; Horberg & Chen, 2010; Kraus & Chen, 2009, 2010; Miranda, Andersen, &
an
Edwards, 2011). Shared Reality Evoked in Transference
M
We argue that transference may serve meaning-making functions, not only by bringing
d
the past into the present, but also, by imbuing new encounters with broader shared meanings. We
te
contend that meaning is created and maintained in significant-other relationships and then indirectly activated and re-experienced in a new encounter in transference, where it should be
Ac ce p
defended if threatened (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2012, 2015). We define shared meanings in terms of both shared values (Rokeach, 1973) that are unique to the relationship, and commonly understood beliefs that are nomothetically defined, such as religious beliefs or political ideologies (e.g., Hardin, Cheung, Magee, Noel & Yoshimura, 2012; see Przybylinski & Andersen, 2012, 2015)
We show that when a significant other is activated in transference, the ‘shared reality’ with this other arises as an umbrella of meaning in the new encounter (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-5). Indeed, when a loved significant other is activated in transference, the values, beliefs, and ideologies that are shared with this other become particularly cognitively accessible
Page 7 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
8
(as response latency in a lexical-decision task; Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-3), an effect that holds over and above values or beliefs held only personally or only by the significant
the significant-other-resembling new person versus with controls.
ip t
other. Likewise, people report anticipating being able to attain more mutual understanding with
Participants also come to ‘‘socially tune’’ toward the shared reality in that close
cr
relationship even while with the new person (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-3). That is,
us
they select conversation topics for an upcoming interaction with him/her that reflect the values or beliefs they share with the significant other, rather than those held only personally or only by the
an
significant other. Shared reality is thus actively pursued in conversational behavior, presumably to further validate that shared reality.
M
Indeed, when the activated shared meaning is threatened, goals to restore meaning become
d
especially accessible (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Studies 4-5). Specifically, when
te
participants in transference are blocked from acting on such shared values in a task with the new person, the goal to restore understanding and comprehension becomes more cognitively
Ac ce p
accessible. By contrast, no such goal is activated when individuals are blocked from acting on values held only personally or only by the significant other, or held as shared values between other control persons. Hence, threats to shared meaning in transference prompt its defense, at least to the degree that automatic activation of this goal implies readiness to restore prior shared meanings. If so, transference clearly serves epistemological functions and deflects uncertainty. We define shared reality in terms of values and beliefs shared by partners, but assume this is not reducible to what each individual initially brought into the relationship, but rather, includes emergent meanings “co-constructed” with the other (e.g., Kashima, 2014; MendozaDenton & Ayduk, 2015). Meanings may also take on different form as a function of context—
Page 8 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
9
with, say, silences conveying more meaning than words (Koudenburg, Gordijn, & Postmes, 2014). Implications of co-creation of shared reality in relationships, emergent meanings in interpersonal perception, contextual shifts in meaning, and for how interactions play out in
ip t
transference as emergent shared meanings reign, remains to be examined. We do know,
(e.g., Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008) as shared meaning is evoked.
us
Concluding Thoughts
cr
however, that transference involving a loved significant other fosters a quick sense of connection
Shared meanings exist in close relationships and, through cueing significant-other
an
knowledge (in transference), these meanings are called to the fore and acted upon with new persons in everyday interpersonal perception. This not only serves as a basis for bonding with the
M
new person, but also validates the shared beliefs, suggesting that affiliative and epistemic
d
motives emerge in these interactions. Individuals perceive the world, in part, in terms of the
te
values and beliefs they share with their significant others, which they then assume in new encounters if these implicitly evoke significant-other knowledge. This is important because
Ac ce p
significant-other knowledge designates a distinct, known individual, yet prompts broader societal meanings. Such shared meanings (as shared reality) can persist despite challenges, as individuals may even incur personal costs (e.g., sacrificing accuracy) to maintain shared meaning (Heine, et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). Shared reality is thus prompted in interpersonal perception (in transference) and is actively maintained and protected there.
References 1. Andersen, S. M., & Baum, A. (1994). Transference in interpersonal relations: Inferences and
Page 9 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
10
affect based on significant-other representations. Journal of Personality, 62(4), 459-497. 2. *Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619-645.
ip t
A comprehensive review of the social-cognitive theory of transference and the relational self, including a review of relevant theory, as well as the basic experimental paradigm and the range of empirical evidence demonstrating its various interpersonal effects.
cr
3. Andersen, S. M & Cole, S. W. (1990). "Do I know you?": The role of significant-others in general social perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 384-399.
an
us
4. Andersen, S. M., Reznik, I., & Glassman, N. S. (2005). The unconscious relational self. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Oxford series in social cognition and social neuroscience. The new unconscious (pp. 421-481). New York: Oxford University Press.
M
5. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90-115). New York: Oxford University Press.
d
6. Aron, A., Aron, E.,Tudor, M. & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationship as including the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
te
7. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.
9.
Ac ce p
8. Berenson, K. R., & Andersen, S. M. (2006). Childhood physical and emotional abuse by a parent: Transference effects in adult interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1509-1522. Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2000). The impact of past relationships on interpersonal behavior: Behavioral confirmation in the social–cognitive process of transference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 546-562.
10. Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2008). The sting of lack of affection: Chronic goal dissatisfaction in transference. Self and Identity, 7(4), 393-412. 11. **Cox, C.R., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Abdollahi, A., Solomon, S. (2008). Terror management and adults’ attachment to their parents: The safe haven remains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 696-717. Presents a set of 6 studies showing that activated significant others (SO) knowledge (including in transference) can offer a resource – a safe haven – as one navigates terror management threats, such as mortality salience, much as worldviews (or shared meaning systems) should do.
Page 10 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
11
12. Cox, C. R., & Arndt, J. (2012). How sweet it is to be loved by you: The role of perceived regard in the terror management of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 616-632.
ip t
13. *Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 65-84.
us
cr
Reports 3 studies testing the basic tenets of cognitive interdependence theory, in which outlines the tendency of interacting partners to modify their attitudes to achieve attitudinal congruence. Discrepancies that were made salient and were central to a partner were more likely to be adjusted, with the most congruence achieved among dating partners that were well adjusted (vs. strangers or low adjustment dating partners).
an
14. Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R. and Higgins, E. T. (2013). Adjusting shared reality: Communicators’ memory changes as their connection with their audience changes. Social Cognition, 31, 162–186.
M
15. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Anderson, J. E. (2013). Interpersonal cognition: Seeking, understanding, and maintaining relationships. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 590-615). New York: Oxford University Press.
te
d
16. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319−337.
Ac ce p
17. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2009). Confusing one instrumental other for another: Goal effects on social categorization. Psychological Science, 20, 1468−1472. 18. Glassman, N. S., & Andersen, S. M. (1999). Activating transference without consciousness: Using significant-other representations to go beyond what is subliminally given. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1146-1162. 19. **Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from?: Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 239-260. Presents 7 studies that find support for the hypothesis that conflict in close relationships diminishes relationship satisfaction only when people perceive their point of view as not understood by their partner, while feeling understood buffers such effects in part by signaling partner investment. 20. Gordon, A. M., Tuskeviciute, R., & Chen, S. (2013). A multi-method investigation of depressive symptoms, perceived understanding, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 20, 635–654.
Page 11 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
12
21. Günaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don't know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 350–353.
ip t
22. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88110.
us
cr
23. **Hardin, C. D., Cheung, R. M., Magee, M. W., Noel, S., & Yoshimura, K. (2012). Interpersonal foundations of ideological thinking. In J. Hanson (Ed.), Series in political psychology. Ideology, psychology, and law (pp. 132-159). Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737512.003.0004
an
Reviews research focused on intergroup prejudice and beliefs about religion and argues that justification of the status quo may be motivated by the need to connect with others through feelings of mutual understanding, with beliefs and ideologies functioning as “prepackaged units of interpretation” that preserve and regulate relationships, while also facilitating new ones.
M
24. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3). New York: Guilford.
te
d
25. Hinkley, K., & Andersen, S. M. (1996). The working self-concept in transference: Significant-other activation and self-change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1279-1295.
Ac ce p
26. Horberg, E. J., & Chen, S. (2010). Significant others and contingencies of self-worth: Activation and consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 77-91. 27. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260-265. 28. Kashima, Y. (2014). Meaning, grounding, and the construction of social reality. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 81-95. 29. *Koudenburg, N., Gordijn, E. H., & Postmes, T. (2014). "More than words": Social validation in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1517-1528. Reports 2 studies showing that flow disruptions during conversations with close relationship partners lead partners to take recourse in pre-existing relationship beliefs to infer mutual agreement by, paradoxically, making shared cognitions more accessible and fostering perceived social validation.
Page 12 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
13
30. *Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2009). Striving to be known by significant others: Automatic activation of self-verification goals in relationship contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 58-73.
ip t
Presents 3 studies supporting the hypothesis that people seek to obtain self-verifying feedback from interaction partners, such that self-verification goals are automatically elicited when a significant-other representation is activated by means of incidental significant-other priming (Sts. 1 and 3) or in transference (St. 2).
us
cr
31. Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2010). Facial-feature resemblance elicits the transference effect. Psychological Science, 21(4), 518-522.
an
32. Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2014). Relational self-verification through self-presentation: Implications for perceptions of one’s honesty and authenticity. Self and Identity, 13(1), 45-57.
M
33. Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2008). Night and day, you are the one: On circadian mismatches and the transference effect in social perception. Psychological Science, 19(3), 296-301.
te
d
34. **Mendoza-Denton, R., & Ayduk, Ö. (2015). Co-engagement, co-construction, coevocation: Three principles to bridge relationships and social cognition. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 363-384).
Ac ce p
A review of the principles of co-engagement, co-construction, and co-evocation in theories of social cognition in interpersonal relations, including shared reality, inclusion of the other in the self, the Michaelangelo phenomenon, and transference, with an overarching emphasis on social cognitive principles in the cognitive-affective personality system. 35. Miranda, R., Andersen, S. M., & Edwards, T. (2013). The relational self and pre-existing depression: Implicit activation of significant-other representations exacerbates dysphoria and evokes rejection in the working self-concept. Self and Identity, 12, 39-57. 36. Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Birnbaum, G., & Malishkevich, S. (2002). The death-anxiety buffering function of close relationships: Exploring the effects of separation reminders on death-thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 287-299. 37. Morry, M. M. (2011). The attraction-similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18, 125-143. 38. Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). "Seizing and freezing" on a significant-person schema: Need for closure and the transference effect in social judgment. Personality and
Page 13 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
14
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1492-1503. 39. Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 317–335.
ip t
40. Przybylinski, E., Andersen, S. M. (2012). Making interpersonal meaning: Significant others in mind within transference. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 6, 746-759.
cr
41. Przybylinski, E., & Andersen, S. M. (2013). Short-circuiting transference using implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 566-572.
us
42. **Przybylinski, E., & Andersen, S. M. (2015). Systems of meaning and transference: Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 636-661.
an
Presents a set of 5 studies demonstrating that implicit activation of a significant other (SO) in transference indirectly activates the values and beliefs shared with the SO, prompts perceptions of mutual understanding, and the active pursuit and validation of these shared beliefs (Sts. 1-3), and their active protection/defense if challenged.
d
M
43. **Reis, H. T., Lemay Jr., E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308.
te
Reviews research on, and offers an integrative theoretical model of, how one feels understood and misunderstood by others, highlighting situational, dispositional, and relational factors in this, and underscoring the importance of this for relationship and personal well-being.
Ac ce p
44. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. 45. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. 46. Shah, J. (2003). Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661-681. 47. Sinclair, S., Hardin, C. & Lowery, B. S. (2006). Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 529-542. 48. Sinclair, S., Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Colangelo, A. (2005). The social tuning of automatic ethnic attitudes: The role of affiliative motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 583-592. 49. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of
Page 14 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
15
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137-1151. 50. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2015). Representation and incorporation of close others’ responses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20 (4), 1088-8683.
ip t
51. **Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Hilaire, N., Fisher, A., & Hatfield, E. (2013). You validate me, you like me, you're fun, you expand me: "I'm yours!" Current Research in Social Psychology, 21, 22-30.
us
cr
Presents a study that examines the similarity-liking link, showing that consensual validation, certainty of being liked, enjoyment of the interaction, and self-expansion all contributed uniquely to both perceptions of similarity and liking.
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
52. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford.
Page 15 of 15
S2352-250X(17)30258-0 https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.007 COPSYC 590
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
5-10-2017 12-11-2017 16-11-2017
Please cite this article as: S.M. Andersen, Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.007
E. Przybylinski, COPSYC (2017),
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Running head: SHARED REALITY IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
1
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
University of Pennsylvania
cr
2
us
New York University
M
an
1
ip t
Susan M. Andersen1, Elizabeth Przybylinski2
Ac ce p
te
d
Address correspondence to Susan Andersen ([email protected]), Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10003, United States, Phone: (212) 998-7799, Fax: (212) 995-4018; or to Elizabeth Przybylinski ([email protected]), Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut Street #C3A, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States, Phone: (215) 746-1297.
Abstract
Close relationships afford us opportunities to create and maintain meaning systems as shared perceptions of ourselves and the world. Establishing a sense of mutual understanding allows for creating and maintaining lasting social bonds, and as such, is important in human relations. In a related vein, it has long been known that knowledge of significant others in one’s life is stored in memory and evoked with new persons – in the social-cognitive process of “transference” – imbuing new encounters with significance and leading to predictable cognitive, evaluative, motivational, and behavioral consequences, as well as shifts in the self and self-
Page 1 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
2
regulation, depending on the particular significant other evoked. In these pages, we briefly review the literature on meaning as interpersonally defined and then selectively review research on transference in interpersonal perception. Based on this, we then highlight a recent series of
ip t
studies focused on shared meaning systems in transference. The highlighted studies show that values and beliefs that develop in close relationships (as shared reality) are linked in memory to
cr
significant-other knowledge, and thus, are indirectly activated (made accessible) when cues in a
us
new person implicitly activate that significant-other knowledge (in transference), with these shared beliefs then actively pursued with the new person and even protected against threat. This
an
also confers a sense of mutual understanding, and all told, serves both relational and epistemic functions. In concluding, we consider as well the relevance of co-construction of shared reality n
d
M
such processes.
te
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships Close relationships have special emotional and motivational significance. Our sense of
Ac ce p
well-being often depends on them (Andersen & Chen, 2002) and they provide a basis for our beliefs and values, affording us shared understanding with others (Higgins & Hardin, 1996). Being known and understood (having shared perceptions) forms the backbone of lasting satisfying relationships (Fitzsimons & Anderson, 2013; Gordon, Tuskeviciute & Chen, 2013; Koudenburg, Gordijn, & Postmes, 2014; Sprecher, Treger, Hilaire, Fisher & Hatfield, 2013), buffering relationships from conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2016). Accordingly, people strive to verify their own self-understanding, prompting partners to share their own views (Kraus & Chen, 2009; Reis, Lemay, & Finkenauer, 2017). Individuals also shift their attitudes toward those held by partners (Davis & Rusbult, 2001), even self-
Page 2 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
3
stereotyping if their partner is perceived as endorsing the stereotype (Sinclair, Hardin, & Lowery, 2006). Indeed, cognitive interdependence theory contends that committed individuals are especially likely to align their views with broader long-term relationship goals and the
ip t
relationship’s well-being (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), stabilizing relationship patterns and promoting longevity.
cr
Hence, close relationships entail creating and maintaining shared values and beliefs as
us
“shared reality” (e.g., Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Close relationships potentiate shared reality (e.g., Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015) not simply by inducing one to verify one’s self-
an
conceptions, or to align with the other’s views, but also by co-creating shared meaning with the other, much as in the co-construction processes proposed elsewhere (Mendoza-Denton & Ayduk,
M
2015). Our view, although speculative, is that co-creation produces emergent properties
te
even if shared.
d
(emergent meanings) as well that are not reducible to beliefs held initially by either individual,
It is well known that significant other knowledge and relationship knowledge are stored
Ac ce p
in memory and can thus be implicitly activated when cues in a new persons happen to subtly resemble this significant other – in the social-cognitive process of “transference” (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002) – with has cognitive, evaluative, motivational, and behavioral consequences, while also leading to shifts in the self and self-regulation (Andersen, Reznik, & Glassman, 2005). We propose that this process can also indirectly evoke shared meanings from the close relationship, thus imbuing everyday encounters not only with special significance, but also with a sense of mutual understanding, serving both relational and epistemic functions. In the pages that follow, we briefly review research on the interpersonal nature of meaning, then recap the role of significant others in social perception before we proceed to
Page 3 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
4
highlighting our recent research on how shared reality develops in significant relationships and emerges anew in interpersonal perception (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015). We then conclude with a discussion of the relevance of co-construction processes in emergent shared reality.
ip t
Meaning as Inherently Interpersonal
People clearly aim to achieve shared perceptions of reality with others to establish and
cr
maintain bonds and satisfy epistemic needs—and relationships are in fact established and
us
maintained to the degree that shared reality is (Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Given this, there is a basis for intently maintaining shared meaning in the face of threat (e.g., Heine et al., 2006; Jost
an
& Hunyady, 2005; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012), minimally to perceive the environment and self as valid and stable (Swann, 1990). To reach a sense of mutual understanding, people readily
M
“socially tune” (Hardin & Higgins, 1996) their attitudes and self-concepts to align with the
d
expressed views of individuals they like (Sinclair, Lowery, Hardin, & Colangelo, 2005), and
te
indeed, adjust the how much they tune if later their relationship to the audience changes (Echterhoff, Kopietz, & Higgins, 2013).
Ac ce p
People especially socially tune toward close others (Gordon & Chen, 2016; Kraus & Chen, 2009; Reis, et al., 2017; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), where shared understanding matters greatly (e.g., Fitzsimons & Anderson, 2013; Gordon et al., 2013; Koudenburg, et al., 2014; Sprecher, et al., 2013). Moreover, close relationships help enable one to deflect threats to existing worldviews, including mortality threats (Cox & Arndt, 2012; Cox, Arndt, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Abdollahi, & Solomon, 2008; Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum, & Malishkevich, 2002). Individuals also incorporate significant-other attributes in their self-definitions, and vice versa ( Aron, et al. 2013; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Smith, & Mackie, 2016). People
Page 4 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
5
are faster to judge traits as self-descriptive when shared with their significant other (relative to traits held separately, Aron, et al., 1991), and they readily confuse their significant other's traits with their own.
ip t
Such inclusion of the other in the self may be characteristic of love (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995; Sprecher, et al. 2013) and developing “we-ness.” It also occurs spontaneously when
cr
thinking about shared experiences or traits (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). Partners who are more
us
satisfied see more similarities, much as liking leads to perceived similarity (Morry, 2011). The 'inclusion' perspective and its cognitive measures informed our approach to shared reality.
an
Beyond personal traits that may be treated as shared, we conceptualize shared reality in terms of the particular values and beliefs that are shared with the close other, which are likely to be well
M
rehearsed and maintained. Hence, when significant-other knowledge is cued around a new
d
person, the emotional and motivational significance evoked should also involve seeking to
te
establish this prior sense of shared meaning with the new person. The Relational Self and Transference
Ac ce p
The relational self model proposes that significant others – defined as any person who is (or has been) influential and in whom one is (or once was) emotionally invested, including family members, past or current romantic partners, friends, or coworkers – are designated distinctively in memory. Each significant other is linked to a unique relationship with that other and to a unique relational self experienced in relation to him or her. Accordingly, “transference” occurs when the mental representation of a significant other is triggered by interpersonal cues—a new person who bears implicit resemblance to this other. This leads individuals to make biased assumptions about the new person based on the prior relationship (e.g., Andersen & Cole, 1990), coloring memory (as recognition memory) as well.
Page 5 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
6
Procedurally, participants typically learn about a new person who is made to subtly resemble one of their significant others, using descriptions that they themselves self-generate weeks earlier, and they then take a memory test about what they learned. Individuals incorrectly
ip t
remember learning things about the new person that they did not, if relevant to the significant other. This effect occurs regardless of whether the significant other is loved or is disliked (e.g.,
cr
Andersen & Baum, 1994; Berk & Andersen, 2000), and regardless of roles (e.g., sibling, friend,
us
parent). Evaluation, expectancies, goal pursuit, the self-concept, and affect may also be assessed. In control conditions, a different new person is made to subtly resemble another participant’s
an
significant other or a known, but non-significant other or a stereotype.
Cues activating significant other knowledge and transference are typically presented in
M
words that are relevant but embedded in distractor descriptions, that is, are presented relatively
d
implicitly (Andersen, Reznik, & Glassman, 2005). They can be presented fully subliminally
te
(e.g., Glassman & Andersen, 1999) or as facial features (Günaydin, Zayas, Selcuk, & Hazan, 2012; Kraus & Chen, 2010). Hence, the process that arises emerges largely automatically, which
Ac ce p
is to say, without intention, effort, or awareness (Andersen et al., 2005). Although more likely when cognitive effort is minimal (Kruglanski & Pierro, 2008; Pierro & Kruglanski, 2008), effortful attention and motivation to prevent transference also turns out not to be sufficient to prevent the process (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2013). Further, when a new person resembles a loved significant other, the new person is liked more (e.g., Andersen & Baum, 1994; Berenson & Andersen, 2006; Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008; Kraus & Chen, 2010). Such snap judgments lead the individual to accord special significance to this new person, without the perceiver knowing why or even knowing much at all about the person, suggesting a nascent emergence of meaning in transference.
Page 6 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
7
Perceptions of acceptance (or rejection) by a significant other are likewise activated in transference, arising indirectly through linkages that bind significant-other knowledge to the self (Andersen & Chen, 2002), resulting in parallel expectancies with new persons. Such
ip t
expectancies can also evoke self-fulfilling conversational behavior among naive new persons (Berk & Andersen, 2000). Goal pursuit and self-regulation also show parallel shifts when a close
cr
relationship is cued (Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008; Shah, 2003), as
us
does the self and how it is experienced and expressed (Andersen & Chen, 2002; e.g., Hinkley & Andersen, 1996; Horberg & Chen, 2010; Kraus & Chen, 2009, 2010; Miranda, Andersen, &
an
Edwards, 2011). Shared Reality Evoked in Transference
M
We argue that transference may serve meaning-making functions, not only by bringing
d
the past into the present, but also, by imbuing new encounters with broader shared meanings. We
te
contend that meaning is created and maintained in significant-other relationships and then indirectly activated and re-experienced in a new encounter in transference, where it should be
Ac ce p
defended if threatened (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2012, 2015). We define shared meanings in terms of both shared values (Rokeach, 1973) that are unique to the relationship, and commonly understood beliefs that are nomothetically defined, such as religious beliefs or political ideologies (e.g., Hardin, Cheung, Magee, Noel & Yoshimura, 2012; see Przybylinski & Andersen, 2012, 2015)
We show that when a significant other is activated in transference, the ‘shared reality’ with this other arises as an umbrella of meaning in the new encounter (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-5). Indeed, when a loved significant other is activated in transference, the values, beliefs, and ideologies that are shared with this other become particularly cognitively accessible
Page 7 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
8
(as response latency in a lexical-decision task; Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-3), an effect that holds over and above values or beliefs held only personally or only by the significant
the significant-other-resembling new person versus with controls.
ip t
other. Likewise, people report anticipating being able to attain more mutual understanding with
Participants also come to ‘‘socially tune’’ toward the shared reality in that close
cr
relationship even while with the new person (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Sts. 1-3). That is,
us
they select conversation topics for an upcoming interaction with him/her that reflect the values or beliefs they share with the significant other, rather than those held only personally or only by the
an
significant other. Shared reality is thus actively pursued in conversational behavior, presumably to further validate that shared reality.
M
Indeed, when the activated shared meaning is threatened, goals to restore meaning become
d
especially accessible (Przybylinski & Andersen, 2015, Studies 4-5). Specifically, when
te
participants in transference are blocked from acting on such shared values in a task with the new person, the goal to restore understanding and comprehension becomes more cognitively
Ac ce p
accessible. By contrast, no such goal is activated when individuals are blocked from acting on values held only personally or only by the significant other, or held as shared values between other control persons. Hence, threats to shared meaning in transference prompt its defense, at least to the degree that automatic activation of this goal implies readiness to restore prior shared meanings. If so, transference clearly serves epistemological functions and deflects uncertainty. We define shared reality in terms of values and beliefs shared by partners, but assume this is not reducible to what each individual initially brought into the relationship, but rather, includes emergent meanings “co-constructed” with the other (e.g., Kashima, 2014; MendozaDenton & Ayduk, 2015). Meanings may also take on different form as a function of context—
Page 8 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
9
with, say, silences conveying more meaning than words (Koudenburg, Gordijn, & Postmes, 2014). Implications of co-creation of shared reality in relationships, emergent meanings in interpersonal perception, contextual shifts in meaning, and for how interactions play out in
ip t
transference as emergent shared meanings reign, remains to be examined. We do know,
(e.g., Berk & Andersen, 2000, 2008) as shared meaning is evoked.
us
Concluding Thoughts
cr
however, that transference involving a loved significant other fosters a quick sense of connection
Shared meanings exist in close relationships and, through cueing significant-other
an
knowledge (in transference), these meanings are called to the fore and acted upon with new persons in everyday interpersonal perception. This not only serves as a basis for bonding with the
M
new person, but also validates the shared beliefs, suggesting that affiliative and epistemic
d
motives emerge in these interactions. Individuals perceive the world, in part, in terms of the
te
values and beliefs they share with their significant others, which they then assume in new encounters if these implicitly evoke significant-other knowledge. This is important because
Ac ce p
significant-other knowledge designates a distinct, known individual, yet prompts broader societal meanings. Such shared meanings (as shared reality) can persist despite challenges, as individuals may even incur personal costs (e.g., sacrificing accuracy) to maintain shared meaning (Heine, et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). Shared reality is thus prompted in interpersonal perception (in transference) and is actively maintained and protected there.
References 1. Andersen, S. M., & Baum, A. (1994). Transference in interpersonal relations: Inferences and
Page 9 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
10
affect based on significant-other representations. Journal of Personality, 62(4), 459-497. 2. *Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619-645.
ip t
A comprehensive review of the social-cognitive theory of transference and the relational self, including a review of relevant theory, as well as the basic experimental paradigm and the range of empirical evidence demonstrating its various interpersonal effects.
cr
3. Andersen, S. M & Cole, S. W. (1990). "Do I know you?": The role of significant-others in general social perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 384-399.
an
us
4. Andersen, S. M., Reznik, I., & Glassman, N. S. (2005). The unconscious relational self. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Oxford series in social cognition and social neuroscience. The new unconscious (pp. 421-481). New York: Oxford University Press.
M
5. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90-115). New York: Oxford University Press.
d
6. Aron, A., Aron, E.,Tudor, M. & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationship as including the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
te
7. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.
9.
Ac ce p
8. Berenson, K. R., & Andersen, S. M. (2006). Childhood physical and emotional abuse by a parent: Transference effects in adult interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1509-1522. Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2000). The impact of past relationships on interpersonal behavior: Behavioral confirmation in the social–cognitive process of transference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 546-562.
10. Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2008). The sting of lack of affection: Chronic goal dissatisfaction in transference. Self and Identity, 7(4), 393-412. 11. **Cox, C.R., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Abdollahi, A., Solomon, S. (2008). Terror management and adults’ attachment to their parents: The safe haven remains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 696-717. Presents a set of 6 studies showing that activated significant others (SO) knowledge (including in transference) can offer a resource – a safe haven – as one navigates terror management threats, such as mortality salience, much as worldviews (or shared meaning systems) should do.
Page 10 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
11
12. Cox, C. R., & Arndt, J. (2012). How sweet it is to be loved by you: The role of perceived regard in the terror management of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 616-632.
ip t
13. *Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 65-84.
us
cr
Reports 3 studies testing the basic tenets of cognitive interdependence theory, in which outlines the tendency of interacting partners to modify their attitudes to achieve attitudinal congruence. Discrepancies that were made salient and were central to a partner were more likely to be adjusted, with the most congruence achieved among dating partners that were well adjusted (vs. strangers or low adjustment dating partners).
an
14. Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R. and Higgins, E. T. (2013). Adjusting shared reality: Communicators’ memory changes as their connection with their audience changes. Social Cognition, 31, 162–186.
M
15. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Anderson, J. E. (2013). Interpersonal cognition: Seeking, understanding, and maintaining relationships. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 590-615). New York: Oxford University Press.
te
d
16. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319−337.
Ac ce p
17. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2009). Confusing one instrumental other for another: Goal effects on social categorization. Psychological Science, 20, 1468−1472. 18. Glassman, N. S., & Andersen, S. M. (1999). Activating transference without consciousness: Using significant-other representations to go beyond what is subliminally given. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1146-1162. 19. **Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from?: Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 239-260. Presents 7 studies that find support for the hypothesis that conflict in close relationships diminishes relationship satisfaction only when people perceive their point of view as not understood by their partner, while feeling understood buffers such effects in part by signaling partner investment. 20. Gordon, A. M., Tuskeviciute, R., & Chen, S. (2013). A multi-method investigation of depressive symptoms, perceived understanding, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 20, 635–654.
Page 11 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
12
21. Günaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don't know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 350–353.
ip t
22. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88110.
us
cr
23. **Hardin, C. D., Cheung, R. M., Magee, M. W., Noel, S., & Yoshimura, K. (2012). Interpersonal foundations of ideological thinking. In J. Hanson (Ed.), Series in political psychology. Ideology, psychology, and law (pp. 132-159). Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737512.003.0004
an
Reviews research focused on intergroup prejudice and beliefs about religion and argues that justification of the status quo may be motivated by the need to connect with others through feelings of mutual understanding, with beliefs and ideologies functioning as “prepackaged units of interpretation” that preserve and regulate relationships, while also facilitating new ones.
M
24. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3). New York: Guilford.
te
d
25. Hinkley, K., & Andersen, S. M. (1996). The working self-concept in transference: Significant-other activation and self-change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1279-1295.
Ac ce p
26. Horberg, E. J., & Chen, S. (2010). Significant others and contingencies of self-worth: Activation and consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 77-91. 27. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260-265. 28. Kashima, Y. (2014). Meaning, grounding, and the construction of social reality. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 81-95. 29. *Koudenburg, N., Gordijn, E. H., & Postmes, T. (2014). "More than words": Social validation in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1517-1528. Reports 2 studies showing that flow disruptions during conversations with close relationship partners lead partners to take recourse in pre-existing relationship beliefs to infer mutual agreement by, paradoxically, making shared cognitions more accessible and fostering perceived social validation.
Page 12 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
13
30. *Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2009). Striving to be known by significant others: Automatic activation of self-verification goals in relationship contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 58-73.
ip t
Presents 3 studies supporting the hypothesis that people seek to obtain self-verifying feedback from interaction partners, such that self-verification goals are automatically elicited when a significant-other representation is activated by means of incidental significant-other priming (Sts. 1 and 3) or in transference (St. 2).
us
cr
31. Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2010). Facial-feature resemblance elicits the transference effect. Psychological Science, 21(4), 518-522.
an
32. Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2014). Relational self-verification through self-presentation: Implications for perceptions of one’s honesty and authenticity. Self and Identity, 13(1), 45-57.
M
33. Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2008). Night and day, you are the one: On circadian mismatches and the transference effect in social perception. Psychological Science, 19(3), 296-301.
te
d
34. **Mendoza-Denton, R., & Ayduk, Ö. (2015). Co-engagement, co-construction, coevocation: Three principles to bridge relationships and social cognition. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 363-384).
Ac ce p
A review of the principles of co-engagement, co-construction, and co-evocation in theories of social cognition in interpersonal relations, including shared reality, inclusion of the other in the self, the Michaelangelo phenomenon, and transference, with an overarching emphasis on social cognitive principles in the cognitive-affective personality system. 35. Miranda, R., Andersen, S. M., & Edwards, T. (2013). The relational self and pre-existing depression: Implicit activation of significant-other representations exacerbates dysphoria and evokes rejection in the working self-concept. Self and Identity, 12, 39-57. 36. Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Birnbaum, G., & Malishkevich, S. (2002). The death-anxiety buffering function of close relationships: Exploring the effects of separation reminders on death-thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 287-299. 37. Morry, M. M. (2011). The attraction-similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18, 125-143. 38. Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). "Seizing and freezing" on a significant-person schema: Need for closure and the transference effect in social judgment. Personality and
Page 13 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
14
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1492-1503. 39. Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 317–335.
ip t
40. Przybylinski, E., Andersen, S. M. (2012). Making interpersonal meaning: Significant others in mind within transference. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 6, 746-759.
cr
41. Przybylinski, E., & Andersen, S. M. (2013). Short-circuiting transference using implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 566-572.
us
42. **Przybylinski, E., & Andersen, S. M. (2015). Systems of meaning and transference: Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 636-661.
an
Presents a set of 5 studies demonstrating that implicit activation of a significant other (SO) in transference indirectly activates the values and beliefs shared with the SO, prompts perceptions of mutual understanding, and the active pursuit and validation of these shared beliefs (Sts. 1-3), and their active protection/defense if challenged.
d
M
43. **Reis, H. T., Lemay Jr., E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308.
te
Reviews research on, and offers an integrative theoretical model of, how one feels understood and misunderstood by others, highlighting situational, dispositional, and relational factors in this, and underscoring the importance of this for relationship and personal well-being.
Ac ce p
44. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. 45. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. 46. Shah, J. (2003). Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661-681. 47. Sinclair, S., Hardin, C. & Lowery, B. S. (2006). Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 529-542. 48. Sinclair, S., Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Colangelo, A. (2005). The social tuning of automatic ethnic attitudes: The role of affiliative motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 583-592. 49. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of
Page 14 of 15
Shared Reality in Interpersonal Relationships
15
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137-1151. 50. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2015). Representation and incorporation of close others’ responses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20 (4), 1088-8683.
ip t
51. **Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Hilaire, N., Fisher, A., & Hatfield, E. (2013). You validate me, you like me, you're fun, you expand me: "I'm yours!" Current Research in Social Psychology, 21, 22-30.
us
cr
Presents a study that examines the similarity-liking link, showing that consensual validation, certainty of being liked, enjoyment of the interaction, and self-expansion all contributed uniquely to both perceptions of similarity and liking.
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
52. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford.
Page 15 of 15