Self-expansion model

Last updated

The self-expansion model proposes that individuals seek to expand their sense of self by acquiring resources, broadening their perspectives, and increase competency to ultimately optimize their ability to thrive in their environment. [1] [2] [3] It was developed in 1986 by Arthur Aron and Elaine Aron to provide a framework for the underlying experience and behavior in close relationships. The model has two distinct but related core principles: the motivational principle and the inclusion-of-other-in-self principle. The motivational principle refers to an individual's inherent desire to improve their self-efficacy and adapt, survive, and reproduce in their environment. The inclusion-of-other-in-self principle posits that close relationships serve as the primary way to expand our sense of self as we incorporate the identities, perspectives, resources, and experiences of others as our own through these relationships.

Contents

Motivational principle

One of the underlying themes of self-expansion is that individuals have a very basic motive to self-expand. Unlike Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, it is omnipresent: only low-level needs are met before high-level needs will appear. [4] The need of self expansion occurs even if there is a basic need that is unsatisfied. [5]   Some researchers believe that self-expansion, like hunger and thirst, originates from the basic physiological needs in the nervous system, [6] and is associated to the reward system in the brain. [7] Some researchers also believe that the motivation for self-expansion is partly rooted in social approval and acceptance. [8] Self-expansion may be conscious or unconscious. People may sometimes realize a sense of "self-expansion" or strive to achieve a goal that can promote self-expansion, but most of the time, self-expansion is an unconscious motivation [5]

Self-expansion is the desire to enhance an individual's potential efficacy. [9] [10] Motivational models often refer to self-efficacy as one's belief that they are competent and can achieve specific goals. [11] Within the self-expansion model, potential efficacy is used instead, as it only refers to obtaining resources that will make goal attainment possible. Achievement of this goal is a secondary concern. [12]

However, the motivation to self-expand still does influence attraction to others for a potential close relationship. Aron and Aron suggest that our attraction is broken down into two components based on Rotter's value-expectancy approach. [9]

Measuring self-expansion motivation

The self-expansion model was originally established to explore the question, "Why do people develop and maintain relationships?" It attempts to describe people's feelings and actions in intimate relationships, [9] therefore related research is mostly based on intimate relationships and the motivation behind the relationship. In 2002, Lewandowski and Aron designed the Self-expansion Questionnaire (SEQ) to explore expanding self and relationship. [13] The self-expansion questionnaire (SEQ) is composed of several key components from the self-expansion model. [13]  It contains a total of 14 items to measure the degree of increase in the knowledge, skills, and abilities that an individual has experienced from his or her partners. There are three representative questions: “How much does your partner help to expand your sense of the kind of person you are?”; “How much has knowing your partner made you a better person?”; and “How much do you see your partner as a way to expand your own capabilities?”. [14]

Inclusion-of-other-in-self principle

The second principle of the self-expansion model is that people use close relationships to self expand by including the other in the self. The self is often described as the content or the knowledge of who we are. [15] Others could be interpreted as individuals. Some studies have also found that individuals will also include groups [16] [17] or communities. [18]

According to Aron and Aron, when entering a close relationship a person should perceive that the self and other should begin to overlap by including aspects of the other in the self. [9] More specifically, after people include others into themselves, they feel that they have the same resources, ideas, and identity as others, and they will think that the resources, ideas, and identity that others have gained or lost are also what they have gained or lost. [5] These new resources lead to greater inclusion of the other in the self by also incorporating the other's perspectives and identities in the self. [19]

Aron, Aron, Tudor and Nelson conducted several classic studies that scientifically demonstrated that we include the other in the self. [20]

It was suggested that the increased confusion between the self and the close other was directly related to integrating the other in the self. The degree of closeness in the relationship affects the self and other reaction studies. [21] As two individuals become closer, there is greater confusion and therefore a longer reaction time. As a result, as closeness of a relationship increases, there will be a greater inclusion of the other in the self.

Measuring inclusion of the other in the self

Adapted inclusion of other in the self scale. Inclusion of other in the self scale.png
Adapted inclusion of other in the self scale.

The Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (IOS Scale) [22] is one of the most frequently used tools to assess this phenomenon. The scale consists of seven Venn diagram-like pairs of circles that vary on the level of overlap between the self and the other. Respondents are asked to select the pair of circles that best represents their current close relationship. Several studies have showed that this measurement tool is effective in getting accurate depictions of the amount of closeness and the inclusion of the other in the self. [23] [24]

IOS has also been assessed with the Continuous IOS, a Java-based applet suitable for online surveys that measures IOS on a continuous scale from 0-100 [25] Participants are instructed to use their mouse to move one of the circles (typically labeled "self") towards the other (typically labeled "other") until the degree of overlap best describes the relationship in question. The IOS Scale has also been adapted to measure inclusion in other contexts, for example community connectedness via the Inclusion of Community in the Self Scale. [18] The adaptability of IOS is broad as demonstrated by recent versions substituting target with "X." [24]

Inclusion of the ingroup in the self

The idea of including the other in the self has been extended to include an entire ingroup in the self. [26] An ingroup is an interdependent set of individuals with which a person identifies. The individual believes he or she is a member of this group. [15] In fact, several academic groups have found similar findings in the me/not me reaction time paradigm at a group level. [27] Participants showed a slower reaction time for traits that were incongruent between the self and ingroup. This was in comparison to quicker reaction times for traits that were congruent between the self and ingroup. The slow reaction times were consistent with the inclusion of the ingroup in the self claim as it suggested that the individual had included group characteristics in the self. As a result, there was difficulty recalling if a trait belong to the self or ingroup.

Several researchers have examined the role of ingroup identification (i.e. a person's prolonged psychological connection to an ingroup) and self-expansion. In fact, Trop and Wright refined the meaning of ingroup identification and believed it was analogous to the inclusion of the ingroup in the self. [28] The authors found that the degree of connectedness to the ingroup will affect confusion of self-descriptors. People who highly identified with an ingroup showed slower reaction times for self-descriptors that did not relate to the ingroup (this is consistent with previous findings). However, low ingroup identification lead to no differences in reaction times between whether or not the self-descriptors were also descriptive of the ingroup. This demonstrated that the level of identification with an ingroup can be conceptualized as the degree to which we will include the ingroup in the self.

The central motivation for including the ingroup in the self parallels the self-expansion model at the interpersonal level. The self-expansion model suggests that we are strongly motivated to expand ourselves by including the other in the self. This occurs when an individual incorporates the other's perspectives, identities and resources. Likewise, it has been proposed that including an ingroup in the self, or ingroup identification, is partly influenced by the self-expansion motive. Inclusion of the ingroup's perspectives and resources can increase one's confidence in completing a variety of goals. Thus, a group's attractiveness is often based on the potential for self-expansion. A group with higher social status and a greater amount of potential resources is more likely to be included in the self. [29]

Measurement of inclusion of the ingroup in the self

Tropp and Wright created an instrument to measure the extent that an individual includes the ingroup in the self. [28] The Inclusion of the Ingroup in the Self Scale (IIS Scale) was based on the Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale. Similar to the original scale, seven pairs of circles vary on the degree of overlap between the self and the particular ingroup. The scale has been well validated and the degree of inclusion of the ingroup in the self is said to capture the sense of ingroup identification.

Inter-group relations

An abundance of research focuses on the negative interactions between different groups (e.g. negative attitudes, intolerance, discrimination). However, there is sparse evidence to explain the positive aspects of intergroup relations such as reduction of prejudice. The contact hypothesis (by Gordon Allport) is one area of psychology that focuses on positive aspects of intergroup relations. [30] [31] The hypothesis suggests that when there is cooperation, equal status, common goals and authority support then contact between members of different groups can result in reduced negative attitudes. In addition, positive emotions between intergroup members was said to be of utmost importance as it would lead to positive attitudes which, in turn, would generalize to the entire out group. [32] An out group is set of individuals with which the individuals does not identify. [15] It was unclear how this attitude generalization actually happened. Recently, the process of including the out group in the self was used as an explanatory mechanism for this generalization. [26]

Including the out group in the self is based on the similar self-expansion notion of including the other or ingroup in the self. As a person becomes a friend with an out group member, the aspects of the out group is included in the self when that group is made salient. Essentially, representation of the out group and its identity is shared with our representation of the self. Including the out group in the self can vary; a person may actually become a member of an out group. [26] However, in certain circumstances this is virtually impossible and we simply psychologically identify with the group even though we are aware that we are not part of it. Upon inclusion of the out group in the self, we now give that group several benefits. These benefits include taking pride in the group, sharing resources, and positive biases in causal explanations of the group. These benefits all increase the likelihood for reduced out group prejudice, hence its use as a mechanism for the contact hypothesis.

It is important to note that the focus of the inclusion of the out group in the self is initially at the interpersonal level (i.e. between individuals). [33] The interaction needs to have interpersonal closeness for inclusion of the self in the other to occur. Consequently, a decategorized approach to contact should be used where the focus is on personal identities instead of group identities. By focusing on personalization, there is a greater chance for the development of closeness. Eventually, group membership needs to become available so that an individual can now include the out group in the self as well. However, it is believed that group membership will become more central in a natural manner as the close relationship develops.

Empirical evidence seems to support the inclusion of the out group in the self hypothesis. In one study white women were paired off with either another white woman (ingroup member) or a Latina woman (out group member). [33] The pairs of women met over an extended period of time completing different activities together, which led to a measurable close friendship. Women with an intergroup friendship were more likely to have positive intergroup attitudes, less likely to endorse anti-minority policies and less likely to demonstrate intergroup anxiety. The study suggests that the intergroup close relationship led to improved attitudes towards the entire out group as suggested by the inclusion of the out group in the self mechanism. Another study also found that the level of inclusion of the out group in the self would affect the amount of decreased prejudicial attitudes. [34] Further, simply including a friend in the self who has a close relationship with an out group member can decrease out group prejudiced attitudes. Knowing that a friend includes an out group member in the self allows for the individual to include that entire out group in the self. In turn, this also leads to positive attitudes about the out group.

Self-expansion motive

It may be the case that individuals want to make friends with out group members (instead of oppress and mistreat the out group) because of the self-expansion motive. [26] Based on Aron and Aron's original work, people want to expand the self and an optimal way of doing so is to make close friendships that give the opportunity for increased perspectives, identities and resources. People who are most similar to ourselves provide a diminished capacity for self-expansion. As a result, an individual may turn to out group members for friendship because they are different from one's self-concept. These differences allow for a greater likelihood to increase resources, identities and perspectives, which is consistent with the self-expansion motive. A recent study has shown that, consistent with this idea, priming high self-expansion motivation enhances out group self-expansion and the quality and outcomes of out group interactions (e.g. greater self-efficacy, reported closeness, and self-growth). [35]

Barriers to self-expansion at the intergroup level

Self-expansion motives can explain why people may appreciate intergroup contact, however, it can also provide explanations for why we avoid this intergroup contact. People may be cautious of self-expansion due to a sense of self-loss. As we self-expand in one area we may put ourselves at risk of losing aspects of the self in another area. Consequently, people may be fearful of creating a close relationship with an out group member as this may trigger animosity from original ingroup members. Often individuals must attempt to balance the potential benefits of including the out group in the self with the potential loss of ingroup friends and the associated resources. If the self-loss outweighs the self-expansion, it is possible for a decrease in perceived self-efficacy. [29]

The second barrier to self-expansion is the risk that an overabundance of self-expansion might occur in too short a period. [36] The accumulation of new resources and perspectives in our self-concept leads to a need for self-integration (i.e. combining different resources, identities and perspectives into single overarching self-concept). An excessive amount of self-expansion without proper self-integration can be quite stressful (e.g. moving to a new city, or starting a new job). It has been suggested that when a person is socially stable, self-expansion via an out group member is most likely to be successful. Consequently, the likelihood for cross-group contact and the inclusion of the out group in the self is dependent on the degree of self-expansion in other domains. Expansion = motivation and believing.

Self-expansion beyond relationships

More recently,[ when? ] self-expansion research has begun to shift away from investigating self-expansion in a social context (e.g. romantic relationships) [37] and instead has focused on self-expansion processes and outcomes of self-expansion at the individual level. [38] [39] [40] Research has also focused on self-expansion in domains such as the workplace. [41] Results of these research studies has shown that self-expansion can (and does) occur at the individual level (e.g. through hobbies and spiritual experiences) and in workplace settings. Similar to findings from social self-expansion literature, individual self-expansion also has positive effects and includes the same processes (e.g. motivation, self-efficacy). Self-expansion has also been presented theoretically within a framework of self-concept change. [42] That is, self-concept change can be thought of as occurring along two independent dimensions: valence (positive vs. negative content) and direction of change (increase vs. decrease in content) and self-expansion represents one of the four possible processes of self-concept change (increasing positive content).

Interpersonal relationships

Initial Attraction and Relationship Maintenance

Self-expansion usually begins with attraction toward another. Falling in love provides an opportunity for rapid self-expansion as there is a desire to unite with the person you love. [3] Studies have shown that perceived similarity and likeness can promote interpersonal attraction. [3] People tend to prefer others that are similar to them, which goes against the motivation to increase expansion opportunities. [43] [3] While the perceived similarity in interests, background, and values is found to be an important factor affecting attraction, dissimilarity in partners is an avenue for expansion due to the provision of novel resources, opinions, and identification. [44] [45] A study found that providing information about a high likelihood of developing a relationship with the target person diminished and somewhat reversed the similarity-attraction effect for men in particular. [46] [44] In this case, men were more likely to select dissimilar partners as they providing more opportunity for expansion of the self. People may generally be reluctant to pursue dissimilar others despite the opportunity for self-expansion. They are likely to assume that the dissimilar other would not reciprocate their feelings and would expect no expansion to occur. [47] For established couples, research shows they can experience different levels of motivation for self-expansion throughout their relationship, and these findings have been replicated in cross-cultural samples. [44] As relationships continue to change and evolve, the degree to which they foster expansion and growth may vary in the future. A type of confirmation bias emerges such that those that expect future self-expansion through their relationships are more likely to engage in self-expanding activities. [48] Potential for future expansion is a strong predictor of relationship satisfaction and commitment. [44]

Reducing Boredom and Increasing Sexual Desire

Research shows that when couples participate in some self-expansion activities, these activities can increase relationship satisfaction and improve relationship quality. However, expansion can also reduce negative outcomes such as relationship boredom. In one study, dating college students and married couples attributed boredom in their relationships to low novelty and stimulation. [44] This was also associated with low pleasure and arousal in the relationship. When participants were primed with boredom in another study, they were more inclined to seek out new activities. [44] This follows the first principle of the model which posits that individuals possess an inherent motivation to expand themselves. Sexual desire can be affected by relationship boredom. Those that report high sexual desire for their partners are more likely to have sexual and overall satisfaction in their relationships. [44] Consensually non-monogamous individuals that have more than one sexual or romantic partner at the same time have more opportunities for self-expansion, suggesting positive implications for this relationship arrangement. [44] Transitioning to an open relationship can be a novel and exciting experience for a couple that can increase levels of passion as posited by the research. There are several non-sexual opportunities as well when multiple partners are involved, such as exploring different interests and learning new perspectives. [44]

Infidelity and Attention to Alternatives

Romantic relationships that do not provide sufficient opportunity for individual self-expansion may increase the inclination to perceive and focus on alternative partners. [44] If this occurs to a great extent, it could lead to negative relational outcomes for an exclusive, monogamous relationship such as low relationship satisfaction/stability and a higher susceptibility to infidelity. [44] In one study, participants that reported lower self-expansion in their relationships were more likely to enjoy interacting with a computer program simulation that was shown to be more self-expanding. [44] In such circumstances, individuals are less likely to employ motivational and perceptual biases that protect against the influence of attractive alternatives. A mediational analysis demonstrated that attention to alternatives explains the observed relationship between self-expansion and infidelity. [44] In another study, fMRI data revealed less brain activation in response to a series of attractive faces when participants were primed to remember moments of self-expansion in their current relationships, suggesting that self-expansion can discourage them from attending to attractive alternatives. [44] Infidelity is a severe relational transgression that could lead to the dissolution of the relationship. [49] [50] Ending a relationship is dependent on many key factors such as "improvement of the self" and "hindering self-improvement". [44] The self-expansion opportunities provided in a relationship can also affect the individual after breaking up. Loss of a relationship that does not promote expansion is found to have positive effects on the individual as it could provide new, previously restricted opportunities for growth. [44] However, the individual may experience "self-contraction" (loss of self) if the relationship did provide sufficient expansion. [51] [44]

Implications of Non-Relational Self-Expansion

Relationships serve as the primary means of self-expansion. However, personal or non-relational self-expansion can still occur through novel and challenging individual experiences (e.g. learning a new language) resulting in several intrapersonal benefits. [3] [52] Notable behavioral changes caused by individual self-expansion include smoking cessation, weight loss, and better physical health. [44] Using an experience sampling design, researchers showed that increases in personal self-expansion in the same individual were correlated with higher passion in the relationship, while low levels of passion were observed for high levels of self-expansion across participants. [53] This suggests that growth experienced through non-shared activities can fulfill individual needs but could reduce passion for one's partner. Another contributing factor is the level of support received by the partner. A study of retired married couples showed that prior support from partners for individual growth predicted happiness and satisfaction during retirement years. [44] Relationship satisfaction for ongoing couples is increased when partners are encouraging non-relational self-expanding activities. This occurs as individuals believe their partners are facilitating their expansion and associate them with that expansion. [3]

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social group</span> Two or more humans who interact with one another

In the social sciences, a social group is defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group. The system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group or between social groups is known as group dynamics.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Belongingness</span> Human emotional need

Belongingness is the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. Whether it is family, friends, co-workers, a religion, or something else, some people tend to have an 'inherent' desire to belong and be an important part of something greater than themselves. This implies a relationship that is greater than simple acquaintance or familiarity.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimate attribution error</span>

The ultimate attribution error is an attribution error made when making in-group and out-group attributions. The error occurs when attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative and attributions of ingroup behavior are more positive. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality. The Ultimate attribution error is an example of a cognitive bias that shows cross cultural differences, showing up more strongly for individuals in Western cultures than Eastern Cultures.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social identity approach</span> Research and theory pertaining to two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.[

"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to mitigate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, sexual orientation, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Identity fusion, a psychological construct rooted in social psychology and cognitive anthropology, is a form of alignment with groups in which members experience a visceral sense of oneness with the group. The construct relies on a distinction between the personal self and the social self. As the name suggests, identity fusion involves the union of the personal and social selves. When fusion occurs, both the personal and social selves remain salient and influential but the boundaries between them become highly permeable. In addition, the theory proposes that fused persons come to regard other group members as "family" and develop strong relational ties to them as well as ties to the collective. Therefore, fused persons are not just bound to the collective; they are tied to the individual members of the collective.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

References

  1. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Aron, Elaine (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere.
  2. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Aron, Elaine N. (1996). Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach. Garth J. O. Fletcher, Julie Fitness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 325–344. ISBN   0-8058-1431-0. OCLC   32859244.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aron, Arthur; Lewandowski, Gary W.; Mashek, Debra; Aron, Elaine N. (2013-04-12). The Self-Expansion Model of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships. Oxford University Press. pp. 90–115. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005.
  4. ↑ Maslow, A.H. (October 1967). "A Theory of Metamotivation : the Biological Rooting of the Value-Life". Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 7 (2): 93–127. doi:10.1177/002216786700700201. ISSN   0022-1678. S2CID   145703009.
  5. 1 2 3 Harris, Susan G (2011). "Self-expansion in Adults Aged 50 and Older: The Role of Volunteering". ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  6. ↑ White, Robert W. (1959). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5): 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934. ISSN   0033-295X. PMID   13844397. S2CID   37385966.
  7. ↑ Bartels, Andreas; Zeki, Semir (November 2000). "The neural basis of romantic love". NeuroReport. 11 (17): 3829–3834. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046 . ISSN   0959-4965. PMID   11117499. S2CID   1448875.
  8. ↑ Leary, Mark R. (2007-01-01). "Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the Self". Annual Review of Psychology. 58 (1): 317–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085658. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   16953794.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Aron, A.; Aron (1996). "Self and self expansion in relationships". In Fletcher, Garth; Fitness, Julie (eds.). Knowledge Structure in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. pp. 325–344. ISBN   978-0-8058-1432-3. OCLC   477410911.
  10. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Aron, Elaine N.; Norman, Christina (2003). "Self-expansion Model of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships and Beyond". In Fletcher, Garth; Clark, M. (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. pp. 478–501. doi:10.1002/9780470998557.ch19. ISBN   978-0-470-99855-7.
  11. ↑ Bandura, Albert (1977). "Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change". Psychological Review. 84 (2): 191–215. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.315.4567 . doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. ISSN   1939-1471. PMID   847061.
  12. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Norman, Christina; Aron, Elaine (1 January 1998). "The self-expansion model and motivation". Representative Research in Social Psychology. 22: 1–13.
  13. 1 2 Lewandowski, Gary (2002). "The Self-expansion scale: Construction and validation". Society of Personality and Social Psychology. 1.
  14. ↑ Lewandowski, Gary W.; Ackerman, Robert A. (August 2006). "Something's Missing: Need Fulfillment and Self-Expansion as Predictors of Susceptibility to Infidelity". The Journal of Social Psychology. 146 (4): 389–403. doi:10.3200/socp.146.4.389-403. ISSN   0022-4545. PMID   16894700. S2CID   34225052.
  15. 1 2 3 Aronson, Elliot; Wilson, T. D; Akert, R. M.; Fehr, B. (2007). Social Psychology (3rd Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN   978-0-13-228410-3. OCLC   911743379.[ pages needed ]
  16. ↑ Smith, Eliot R.; Henry, Susan (June 1996). "An In-Group Becomes Part of the Self: Response Time Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 22 (6): 635–642. doi:10.1177/0146167296226008. ISSN   0146-1672. S2CID   143437501.
  17. ↑ Tropp, Linda R.; Wright, Stephen C. (May 2001). "Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (5): 585–600. doi:10.1177/0146167201275007. ISSN   0146-1672. S2CID   145195671.
  18. 1 2 Mashek, Debra; Cannaday, Lisa W.; Tangney, June P. (1 March 2007). "Inclusion of community in self scale: A single-item pictorial measure of community connectedness". Journal of Community Psychology. 35 (2): 257–275. doi:10.1002/jcop.20146. ISSN   1520-6629.
  19. ↑ Aron, Arthur; McLaughlin-Volpe, Tracy; Mashek, Debra; Lewandowski, Gary; Wright, Stephen C.; Aron, Elaine N. (1 January 2004). "Including others in the self". European Review of Social Psychology. 15 (1): 101–132. doi:10.1080/10463280440000008. ISSN   1046-3283. S2CID   144072216.
  20. ↑ Aron, A.; Aron, E. N.; Tudor, M.; Nelson, G. (1991). "Close relationships as including other in the self". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (2): 241–253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241.
  21. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Fraley, Barbara (1 June 1999). "Relationship Closeness as Including Other in the Self: Cognitive Underpinnings and Measures". Social Cognition. 17 (2): 140–160. doi:10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.140. ISSN   0278-016X.
  22. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Aron, Elaine N.; Smollan, Danny (1992). "Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63 (4): 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596. ISSN   0022-3514.
  23. ↑ Agnew, Christopher R; Van Lange, Paul AM; Rusbult, Caryl E; Langston, Christopher A (1998). "Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (4): 939–954. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939. ISSN   1939-1315. S2CID   21134927.
  24. 1 2 Gächter, Simon; Starmer, Chris; Tufano, Fabio (2015-06-12). "Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' Scale". PLOS ONE. 10 (6): e0129478. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1029478G. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129478 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4466912 . PMID   26068873.
  25. ↑ Agnew, Christopher R.; Loving, T. J.; Le, B.; Goodfried, W. (2004). "Thinking close: Measuring relational closeness as perceived self-other inclusion". In Mashek, Debra; Aron, Arthur (eds.). Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.  103–115. ISBN   978-0-8058-4285-2. OCLC   860544282.
  26. 1 2 3 4 Wright, S. C.; Aron, A.; Tropp, L. R. (2002). "Including others (and groups) in the self: Self expansion and intergroup relations". In Forgas, Joseph; Williams, Kipling (eds.). The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 342–363. ISBN   978-1-317-76276-8.
  27. ↑ Smith, Eliot R.; Henry, Susan (1 June 1996). "An In-Group Becomes Part of the Self: Response Time Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 22 (6): 635–642. doi:10.1177/0146167296226008. ISSN   0146-1672. S2CID   143437501.
  28. 1 2 Tropp, Linda R.; Wright, Stephen C. (1 May 2001). "Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (5): 585–600. doi:10.1177/0146167201275007. ISSN   0146-1672. S2CID   145195671.
  29. 1 2 McLaughlin-Volpe, T.; Aron, A.; Wright, S. C.; Lewandowski, G. W. (2005). "Exclusion of the self by close others and by groups: Implications of the self-expansion model". In Abrams, Dominic; Hogg, Michael; Marques, José (eds.). The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion . New York: Psychology Press. pp.  113–134. ISBN   9781841690735. OCLC   55067600.
  30. ↑ Allport, Gordon Willard (1954). The Nature of Prejudice . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN   9780201001754. OCLC   601412540.[ pages needed ]
  31. ↑ Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 49 (1): 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. PMID   15012467.
  32. ↑ Pettrigrew, T (1997). "Generalized intergroup effects on prejudice". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 23: 173–185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006. hdl: 11655/5040 . S2CID   146540310.
  33. 1 2 Pettigrew, Thomas F; Wright, S. C.; Brody, S. M.; Aron, A. (2005). "Intergroup contact: Still our best hope for improving intergroup relations". In Crandall, Christian; Schaller, Mark (eds.). Social Psychology of Prejudice: Historical and Contemporary Issues. Lawrence, Kansas: Lewinian Press. pp. 119–146. OCLC   135635378.
  34. ↑ Turner, Rhiannon N.; Hewstone, Miles; Voci, Alberto; Vonofakou, Christiana (2008). "A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (4): 843–860. doi:10.1037/a0011434. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   18808263.[ dead link ]
  35. ↑ Dys-Steenbergen, Odilia; Wright, Stephen C.; Aron, Arthur (1 January 2016). "Self-expansion motivation improves cross-group interactions and enhances self-growth". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 19 (1): 60–71. doi: 10.1177/1368430215583517 . ISSN   1368-4302.
  36. ↑ Wright, S. C.; Aron, A.; Brody, S. M. (2008). "Extended contact and including the others in the self: Building on the Allport/Pettigrew legacy". In Wagner, Ulrich; Tropp, L.; Finchilescu, G.; Tredoux, C. (eds.). Improving Intergroup Relations Building on the Legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew . Oxford: Blackwell Pub. pp.  143–159. ISBN   978-1-4443-0311-7. OCLC   839361889.
  37. ↑ Fisher, Helen E.; Xu, Xiaomeng; Aron, Arthur; Brown, Lucy L. (2016). "Intense, Passionate, Romantic Love: A Natural Addiction? How the Fields That Investigate Romance and Substance Abuse Can Inform Each Other". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 687. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00687 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   4861725 . PMID   27242601.
  38. ↑ Mattingly, Brent A.; Gary W. Lewandowski, Jr. (1 January 2013). "The power of one: benefits of individual self-expansion". The Journal of Positive Psychology. 8 (1): 12–22. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.746999. ISSN   1743-9760. S2CID   145765860.
  39. ↑ Mattingly, Brent A.; Gary W. Lewandowski, Jr. (1 May 2014). "Expanding the Self Brick by Brick: Nonrelational Self-Expansion and Self-Concept Size". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 5 (4): 484–490. doi:10.1177/1948550613503886. ISSN   1948-5506. S2CID   144515258.
  40. ↑ Mattingly, Brent A.; Lewandowski, Gary W. (1 January 2014). "Broadening Horizons: Self-Expansion in Relational and Non-Relational Contexts". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (1): 30–40. doi:10.1111/spc3.12080. ISSN   1751-9004.
  41. ↑ McIntyre, Kevin P.; Mattingly, Brent A.; Lewandowski, Gary W. Jr.; Simpson, Annie (1 January 2014). "Workplace Self-Expansion: Implications for Job Satisfaction, Commitment, Self-Concept Clarity, and Self-Esteem Among the Employed and Unemployed". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 36 (1): 59–69. doi:10.1080/01973533.2013.856788. ISSN   0197-3533. S2CID   143524976.
  42. ↑ Mattingly, Brent A.; Lewandowski, Gary W.; McIntyre, Kevin P. (1 March 2014). ""You make me a better/worse person": A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change". Personal Relationships. 21 (1): 176–190. doi:10.1111/pere.12025. ISSN   1475-6811.
  43. ↑ Carswell, Kathleen L.; Impett, Emily A. (2021). "What fuels passion? An integrative review of competing theories of romantic passion". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 15 (8). doi:10.1111/spc3.12629. ISSN   1751-9004. S2CID   237776827.
  44. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Aron, Arthur; Lewandowski, Gary; Branand, Brittany; Mashek, Debra; Aron, Elaine (2022-12-01). "Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of others in self: An updated review". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 39 (12): 3821–3852. doi:10.1177/02654075221110630. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   250939089.
  45. ↑ Newcomb, Theodore M. (1961), "The acquaintance process as a prototype of human interaction.", The acquaintance process., New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 259–261, doi:10.1037/13156-015 , retrieved 2023-04-24
  46. ↑ Aron, Arthur; Steele, Jodie L; Kashdan, Todd B; Perez, Max (2006). "When similars do not attract: Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model". Personal Relationships. 13 (4): 387–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00125.x . ISSN   1350-4126.
  47. ↑ Carswell, Kathleen L.; Muise, Amy; Harasymchuk, Cheryl; Horne, Rebecca M.; Visserman, Mariko L.; Impett, Emily A. (2021). "Growing desire or growing apart? Consequences of personal self-expansion for romantic passion". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 121 (2): 354–377. doi:10.1037/pspi0000357. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   33492154. S2CID   231703789.
  48. ↑ Lewandowski, Gary W.; Ackerman, Robert A. (2006). "Something's Missing: Need Fulfillment and Self-Expansion as Predictors of Susceptibility to Infidelity". The Journal of Social Psychology. 146 (4): 389–403. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.4.389-403. ISSN   0022-4545. PMID   16894700. S2CID   34225052.
  49. ↑ Tsapelas, Irene; Beckes, Lane; Aron, Arthur (2020). "Manipulation of Self-Expansion Alters Responses to Attractive Alternative Partners". Frontiers in Psychology. 11: 938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00938 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   7264388 . PMID   32528365.
  50. ↑ McNulty, Richard D.; Brineman, Jocelyn M. (2007-03-01). "Infidelity in Dating Relationships". Annual Review of Sex Research. 18 (1): 94–114. doi:10.1080/10532528.2007.10559848.
  51. ↑ Branand, Brittany; Mashek, Debra; Aron, Arthur (2019). "Pair-Bonding as Inclusion of Other in the Self: A Literature Review". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 2399. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02399 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   6821680 . PMID   31708838.
  52. ↑ Mattingly, Brent A.; Lewandowski, Gary W. (2014). "Broadening Horizons: Self-Expansion in Relational and Non-Relational Contexts: Relational and Non-Relational Self-Expansion". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (1): 30–40. doi:10.1111/spc3.12080.
  53. ↑ Carswell, Kathleen L.; Muise, Amy; Harasymchuk, Cheryl; Horne, Rebecca M.; Visserman, Mariko L.; Impett, Emily A. (2021). "Growing desire or growing apart? Consequences of personal self-expansion for romantic passion". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 121 (2): 354–377. doi:10.1037/pspi0000357. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   33492154. S2CID   231703789.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.