Systems of meaning and transference: Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality

Elizabeth Przybylinski, Susan Andersen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Evidence shows that representations of significant others (SOs) are used in interpersonal relations-for example, in the social- cognitive process of transference (see Andersen & Chen, 2002), a process that is assumed to serve meaning-making functions (Glassman & Andersen, 1999b). Five studies tested the more specific notion that implicit activation of an SO representation in transference should indirectly activate the worldview shared with the SO, leading to its active pursuit, validation, and protection. Shared worldviews were assessed beforehand, both idiographically, as values (Studies 1 and 4), and nomothetically, as political ideology or religious beliefs (Studies 2, 3, and 5). In each experiment, participants learned about new persons, one subtly resembling their own SO. Transference was assessed (memory bias; positive evaluation; see Andersen, Reznik, & Manzella, 1996) and, crucially, as predicted, when considering the new person resembling their SO (vs. the control persons), participants showed faster response latencies in a lexical decision task to words reflecting the worldview shared with the SO (vs. held only personally, Studies 1-3, or only by the SO, Study 3). With this person, they also anticipated a more meaningful interaction and actively socially tuned to the SO-shared worldview, selecting conversation topics reflecting the SO-shared worldview (vs. personally held or SO-held topics, Studies 1-3). Finally, threatening the SO-shared worldview with this person (vs. threatening personally held, SO-held, or irrelevant worldviews) prompted goal activation to restore the disrupted meaning (Studies 4 and 5), assessed by response latency in a lexical decision task. Transference thus evokes shared meaning systems and serves epistemic functions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)636-661
Number of pages26
JournalJournal of Personality and Social Psychology
Volume109
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

transference
worldview
activation
human being
Reaction Time
Religion
Interpersonal Relations
interpersonal relation
political ideology
Transference (Psychology)
conversation
experiment
trend
interaction
evaluation
evidence
Values

Keywords

  • Close relationships
  • Epistemic needs
  • Meaning
  • Social cognition
  • Worldviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Systems of meaning and transference : Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality. / Przybylinski, Elizabeth; Andersen, Susan.

In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 109, No. 4, 01.10.2015, p. 636-661.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{adb9c2f33aa0470c85c343c191471453,
title = "Systems of meaning and transference: Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality",
abstract = "Evidence shows that representations of significant others (SOs) are used in interpersonal relations-for example, in the social- cognitive process of transference (see Andersen & Chen, 2002), a process that is assumed to serve meaning-making functions (Glassman & Andersen, 1999b). Five studies tested the more specific notion that implicit activation of an SO representation in transference should indirectly activate the worldview shared with the SO, leading to its active pursuit, validation, and protection. Shared worldviews were assessed beforehand, both idiographically, as values (Studies 1 and 4), and nomothetically, as political ideology or religious beliefs (Studies 2, 3, and 5). In each experiment, participants learned about new persons, one subtly resembling their own SO. Transference was assessed (memory bias; positive evaluation; see Andersen, Reznik, & Manzella, 1996) and, crucially, as predicted, when considering the new person resembling their SO (vs. the control persons), participants showed faster response latencies in a lexical decision task to words reflecting the worldview shared with the SO (vs. held only personally, Studies 1-3, or only by the SO, Study 3). With this person, they also anticipated a more meaningful interaction and actively socially tuned to the SO-shared worldview, selecting conversation topics reflecting the SO-shared worldview (vs. personally held or SO-held topics, Studies 1-3). Finally, threatening the SO-shared worldview with this person (vs. threatening personally held, SO-held, or irrelevant worldviews) prompted goal activation to restore the disrupted meaning (Studies 4 and 5), assessed by response latency in a lexical decision task. Transference thus evokes shared meaning systems and serves epistemic functions.",
keywords = "Close relationships, Epistemic needs, Meaning, Social cognition, Worldviews",
author = "Elizabeth Przybylinski and Susan Andersen",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/pspi0000029",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "636--661",
journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-3514",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systems of meaning and transference

T2 - Implicit significant-other activation evokes shared reality

AU - Przybylinski, Elizabeth

AU - Andersen, Susan

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Evidence shows that representations of significant others (SOs) are used in interpersonal relations-for example, in the social- cognitive process of transference (see Andersen & Chen, 2002), a process that is assumed to serve meaning-making functions (Glassman & Andersen, 1999b). Five studies tested the more specific notion that implicit activation of an SO representation in transference should indirectly activate the worldview shared with the SO, leading to its active pursuit, validation, and protection. Shared worldviews were assessed beforehand, both idiographically, as values (Studies 1 and 4), and nomothetically, as political ideology or religious beliefs (Studies 2, 3, and 5). In each experiment, participants learned about new persons, one subtly resembling their own SO. Transference was assessed (memory bias; positive evaluation; see Andersen, Reznik, & Manzella, 1996) and, crucially, as predicted, when considering the new person resembling their SO (vs. the control persons), participants showed faster response latencies in a lexical decision task to words reflecting the worldview shared with the SO (vs. held only personally, Studies 1-3, or only by the SO, Study 3). With this person, they also anticipated a more meaningful interaction and actively socially tuned to the SO-shared worldview, selecting conversation topics reflecting the SO-shared worldview (vs. personally held or SO-held topics, Studies 1-3). Finally, threatening the SO-shared worldview with this person (vs. threatening personally held, SO-held, or irrelevant worldviews) prompted goal activation to restore the disrupted meaning (Studies 4 and 5), assessed by response latency in a lexical decision task. Transference thus evokes shared meaning systems and serves epistemic functions.

AB - Evidence shows that representations of significant others (SOs) are used in interpersonal relations-for example, in the social- cognitive process of transference (see Andersen & Chen, 2002), a process that is assumed to serve meaning-making functions (Glassman & Andersen, 1999b). Five studies tested the more specific notion that implicit activation of an SO representation in transference should indirectly activate the worldview shared with the SO, leading to its active pursuit, validation, and protection. Shared worldviews were assessed beforehand, both idiographically, as values (Studies 1 and 4), and nomothetically, as political ideology or religious beliefs (Studies 2, 3, and 5). In each experiment, participants learned about new persons, one subtly resembling their own SO. Transference was assessed (memory bias; positive evaluation; see Andersen, Reznik, & Manzella, 1996) and, crucially, as predicted, when considering the new person resembling their SO (vs. the control persons), participants showed faster response latencies in a lexical decision task to words reflecting the worldview shared with the SO (vs. held only personally, Studies 1-3, or only by the SO, Study 3). With this person, they also anticipated a more meaningful interaction and actively socially tuned to the SO-shared worldview, selecting conversation topics reflecting the SO-shared worldview (vs. personally held or SO-held topics, Studies 1-3). Finally, threatening the SO-shared worldview with this person (vs. threatening personally held, SO-held, or irrelevant worldviews) prompted goal activation to restore the disrupted meaning (Studies 4 and 5), assessed by response latency in a lexical decision task. Transference thus evokes shared meaning systems and serves epistemic functions.

KW - Close relationships

KW - Epistemic needs

KW - Meaning

KW - Social cognition

KW - Worldviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942523095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942523095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/pspi0000029

DO - 10.1037/pspi0000029

M3 - Article

C2 - 26414844

AN - SCOPUS:84942523095

VL - 109

SP - 636

EP - 661

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 4

ER -