Minutes for Self and Other in Relationships

Minutes for Discussion 4 (Self and Other in Relationships)
February 2, 1999

by Tony Marchant

Article 1: Davis, et. al. Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other.

Presenting Group:

Concerned about whether the subjects represent the general public. Ë College students: Are they affected by their education and economic status?
In Study 2, how would lower education of the subjects affect the results?

Ë If it was a math-related distraction, fear of math would affect performance.

Ë It is a memory problem rather than a math problem. (Referring to the cognitive distracter task.)

How would cultural differences affect the study?

Would perspective taking vary if you used different groups?

Ë Methods used in this study might not work in some cultures. Ex.] Indian caste system Ë People are not similar. Ë Need to be similar for these methods to work.

Ë Highly hierarchical societies can’t even take the perspective of someone lower.

Ë Must feel in some sense similar Ë "Condition" for activation.

Some people can memorize more easily Ë for them, the distractor task would not work as well. However, in a random sample, the extremes should balance out. (Referring to memory ability.)

Are college students a random sample? Ë This is a good distractor task for college students. If you want to test other samples, fine-tune the procedure to best distract that sample.

Does this cognitive distractor task do what it is supposed to do?

Ë Is it really blocking conscious processing?

Ë Researchers rely too much on existing methods; they rarely question a commonly used methodology. [Ex. At some point, intelligence was thought to be measured by brain cavity size.]

Ë Science is a social/political process govered by norms, fashions, etc.

It would be interesting to see how willing people who are total strangers and have nothing in common would be to engage in perspective taking.

When figuring out someone from another culture, two thoughts occur: 1.) I want to understand. 2.) Too difficult; I want to give up. Ë (Stops perspective taking attempts.)

Ë Does motivation to learn increasing perspective taking?

Ë Observation of physical aspects of communication helps understanding/perspective taking.

Ë Body language is not always interpreted correctly, it is very ambiguous when it is not accompanied by language.

Ë Gestures accompany and emphasize verbal communication.

Ë If one can’t even imaging what another is thinking, the gap for perspective taking increases.

How would people who are psychologically impaired and can’t engage in empathy/perspective taking react in this experiment?

Ë Simplistic self-concept might increase the overlap of self-other traits.

Or the exact opposite could happen. The two people could be exact opposites and no overlap would occur.

Ë Or just one similarity could lead to a flood of merging between self and other traits.

Article 2: Aron, et. al. Close relationships as including other in the self.

Study 3: How would a cross-cultural marriage affect the results? Would we see an increase or decrease in the phenomenon? (Referring to Aron & Aron’s self-other merging of characteristics.)

For example, in the Middle East, women have a lower status. How would this affect the self-other merging of traits between a woman from that culture and a man from a Western culture?

Ë Hard to study pairing of different cultures because those are the very cultures that are hierarchical and do not allow marriages outside of that culture.

Why do cross-cultural marriages happen? Ë People are already committed to understanding each other. Ë Does this increase perspective taking? Motivational factors can only have so much of an effect. Still, the differences might be so great that self and other totally separate.

Domestic violence situations: Self-other merging may vary as a function of different phases of the relationship.

Honeymoon: big self-other overlap.
Abuse: large gap between self and other.

Ë This dynamic keeps the relationship going (i.e. If I (abused) do this we will be happy.) Abuser: self (worried) Ë knows what the other is feeling but has no sympathy (psychologists call this the machiavellian form of empathy).

Ë High cognitive empathy but no compassion/sympathy. Ë Is this an example for a split between cognitive and emotional empathy??

Cross-cultural domestic violence: would there be high or low self-other merging?

Ë If it was accepted culturally, there would be low self-other merging.

DID (dissociative identity disorder): How would this affect self-other merging?

Ë Rare cases, but even normal people show variation of self-concept across different roles/situations.

Article 3: Simpson, et. al. When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships.

It would have been more threatening to use pictures of ex-partners. Ë Ethically challenging.

Did threat manipulation affect trust level during the part of the experiment where the subjects were told that the experimenter would not tell the partner their responses? Does this affect the results? Are the results strong enough to overcome this?

Debriefing lowered the manipulation effect, but they still got the results.

Minutes for Discussion 4 (Self and Other in Relationships)February 2, 1999

Minutes for Discussion 4 (Self and Other in Relationships)
February 2, 1999