nal cognitio at incerpersonal ee Tationships. The main tas! "oer Taals tlt greir need to Belong £0 SOC are divided into those targeted at seeking, Her” Relationships” section describes research of by the desire to form relationships wit! research on how individuals perceive an processes. The "Maintaining Relation {he effects of st being interdependent wit individuals pursue to protect impor Interpersonal Versus Social Cognition The tite ofthis chaprer may puzzle readers perus- ing the cable of contents of this volume. Why is there a chapeer on “incerprsonal cognition’ within a book about “socal cognition"? Arent “inexper Sonal” and “social” synonymous? Although readers Would be reasonable to asuume that the term social ognition refers, at last in part, co cognition about social relationships, it rarcy docs As explained by the subsitle—Seeking, Waderstanding, and Mainsaining Relationships —dhis chapter wll not deal with cognitions about or shaped by strangers or members of social groups. Instead i will focus on cognitions about ot shaped by frends Family members, coworkers, and romantic partnen, On the one hand, ours isa giant task Every day, indi. iia pursue goals to get along with others, le ms about the intentions of coworkers, ut eloped schema for understanding fg iderstan’ action an‘ h others. The 1d judge others an section descrit ships” sectios Pe aeeepers on the self) and strategic maintenance the gy Key Words: relationships, interpersonal, goals, int sn—cognitive, affective, and moth rors adopt 2 goal-based perspective gt wn serves, at the broadest level, tg Selene ‘monet ne na fandemenel prove Fa rs accor ial tarot Dee cn eri tant relationships) erdependence, self, motivation, attraction members, and engage in automated ways of il and acting with cheir romantic pam ing, feel Indeed, most of what individuals think, ee nl on a daily basis is governed not by cognitions broad social categories or abstract others, buttai by cognitions about specific interpersonal whit ships. This fact—the pervasiveness of interes cognition—is perhaps reflected by the cenlif® interpersonal questions to foundational teil social psychology (e.g., Baumeister & Leas IM Heider, 1958; Higgins, 1987; Mead, 1934)- On theotherhand, ours isa tiny task Inte Processes are the focus of perhaps 0.66% ofS nition research, which has been guided by ami in social problems, broadly, and inergrouD Stereoyping, and prejudice, specifically. PME resultof the field's focus on these (undoubel fant) social problems, the social cognition relationships i lationships is considerably less advan unders nitive origin schol mode perso integ i the theengin oF stranges. Makin pore snalles the vast major 8 Our ch hapeers of reearch on Ss sociale hough the more attach ment the ate fundan re, most of mentally search conducted PI pace with the innovations in social cognition, The imporcance of conncctin ‘andaan optimistic sentiment thar ih ninent, has been expressed iim sed repea r 1 CW Field, for decades (cx, Baldwin, 2005; Bera Fiske, 1992: Reis & Downey, 1999) phiceReis and Downey noted that jn both relationships science and BE essloycicocal see eae ie MMe disinctonicctorn, tionships is much larger th. m intunderstanding the nacure of interpersonal cogn! tion, We should note up front that many of the st ies we will discuss focus on romantic relationships: by fax, the bulk of research on interpersonal cognitic has studied romantic partners. Ve 2 relationships with siblings or friends, specifically. We b field oF interpersonal cognition should include su Felationships and will discuss studies that ox Hohromantic relationships whenever relevant ‘interpersonal cognit sonal cognition ser n, assuming that interper es at the broadest level to help individuals fulfill their ‘ : ‘need to belong to social rela hips (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Wi the main tasks of Seeking Relationships large be rk has : arden, & Kn " ion to belong—to fi estab vi . age of opportunities to make al (Manet, DeWall, Baumeeen croaonary pest, i co matter Becase itis 3 i sig Tadeed fertility cus activate eget Son eading higher acssiy gr res (Miller & Manet, 2011); ovulation (ete toa diverse range of outcomes la epeninanicic and reproductive er = men and yt ; mre yang Fangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apy ie cogs cn itty Congo sg: fe aaa ee a Haselton & Gildersleeve, 2011), Inde Ahir mochation 0 sek a romantic rainship Unfornunately ic isnt simpy the case chat peor uch aetive, sexual goals generate a wide range gf nitive and perceptual consequences. For ~~ Once a : romantic partners than ae "ones Bese een eee ete parc who moze chir neds, sued ookeae less reliably: Pople differ in their ideal standards for re [ee = ie ople valuing some of physi ’ romantic partners, with some peop people for how indiv ipso ) more than do (e4» Manes, DeWall, & Galliot, 2008) Oa traits (eg, friendliness, extraversion) more than do § Dave alls DiieieeWakprdicliingofotherinabsrac psy mor See physical th and hypothetical setings (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; than ro physically atcractive men, and eneadeag Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009), bur do not abvays remember them better as well (Manet, Delfi a shape liking in real imeretions(Fascwck & Finkel, Gail, 2008; Maner etal, 2003), while ga si 2008), Instead, it scems that in face-to-face inter- appear to attend more closcly to socially dotiny al Betions, people are affected bya gestalt impression men than to socially dominant women (Mane Cul Gf the whole person, which makes it harder for 2008). For example, in an eye-tracking study is to und them to evaluate others in terms of their standards. male and female observers fixated longer on jhe Doing so (Basewick, Finkel, & Eagly, 2011). It should also be tographs of physically attractive women (0s. stable rel Gert thoteh, that people in long-term relation- and socially dominant. men (es women; Matt both ind Regma eset match the paren eral, 2008) Thus, overall people may anil 2001; T BP oor stitecton co socially desirable sens oe an ana ing to s and commitment (Eastwick etal, 2011; Fletcher for women, dominance/status for men) shoal Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Fletcher, Simpso When it comes to attraction to peopl ‘© empal Piss BGs 1999). Thus aough ideal tan. jn, actions, the role of physical aac oe a tet lable predictors finial atracion, tlie The oa thy do plc ong wlan = complised. The physical aac a Father 8 Simpson, 200, or ern Potential partners matters more to men ia is thous eitscmcratcprfenne in hypothetical self-report measures (C8 . comma Predictor of attracti 1989), but matters to men and wom neque more th i woreda soqgn afer real interactions (Eastwick 8 interact Bees 29). More casos oe oni cont thin ster, 2010, fora review), Ac ; there are well-cstablished Btingar repor ot . Ports about attractiveness comes from #0 would | Paring explicit and implicit measuts ces of thei aly Finkel, & Johnson, 2011) In set a ONAL COGNITION,Spapbed ranges. These Findings gupy Photo Jpusetheir attraction judgrrents off — People fap spontaneous, affective rexponaee nernst* More tase iateition jdgmency ofa fypothetieal targets more on know{eg et and (Pesowice eral, 2011; sce Gawnen BE 9 bei Banse, 2003). ki, Gesch In sum, research on the social jg relationship partners has demmnnn Ah ing romantic partner. In the next section, we ay sess whac happens afc: people ind ee and a fledgling relationship takes figh, Understanding Relationships understanding. In this section, we review researc oir PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY One of the major tas Bpandemtand cx pages and feeling Doing so successfully more predictable and stable relationship, and o1 sat im af both individuals’ needs (Simpson, Ick & Oriiia, 2001; Thomas & Fleicher, 2003). OF course thared kenowledge structure is demonstral I toempathie accuracy, the ability ro “read” a partner’ thoughts and feclings (Stinson & Ickes, 1992). Fo Unstance, friends greater ability (relative vo stan ts and feelings &i8) 10 ineuie one anothers thoughts # : is thought co result from their shared hisron” eructure that contains mUC common knowledge ei more than just the informacion present 10 2° interaction (Stinson. & Ickes, 199?) another, they think that as people get to know one i heir perceptions Would become more accurate in their Perth Of their partners; the evidence actually sUPF Sota etceee Tiage (Bissonne and then declines, (Thomas, Fletcher, Empathie accuracy is heightened. when indie widespread perce viduals ar maladaptive fora numberof reasons inching hey ean invoke a tit-for-tat norm in which thers negative behaviors and use procate one anocuracy as a defense ¢0 mt of their relationship and reduce‘ “own distress (Simpson etal, 2001). For instance, in ‘one study, dating couples discussed che desir : rs (Simpson, alternative poten dang partners (Simmer fa Mackrone, 1995); coupes = ‘the oat empuie accuracy abou that discussion Hate the mos likly co il be dating four monde later. This finding provides support for a ‘ inaccuracy as a relationsaip-mainiaining trac Sa Silay sarc on ratios of pare strengths and weaknesses has repeatedly shown that there are many benefits co willfully ignoring real- fy and seeing partners as nrealistcally. positive (Murray & Holmes, 1993; 1997; Murray, Holmes fncreasesin satisfaction over the course of ay. alto came to sce themselves more positively, 4ng to a reciprocal impact of positive illusions on Partners’ self-views (Murray ctal., 199Gb) THEORIES, BELIEFS, AND EXPECTATIONS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS Our understanding of a relationship partner's Be stated by our broader expeaation, Ps in general. le curns out there is Consensus about wh & Griffin, 19962, 19961). For cxample, in a lon- Bitudinal study; couples who more strongly ideal- ited each other experienced les conflice and greater rearand point ran co beliefs about what Pras individuals have arionships cend 0. PTOgTeSs op 9 one o both of which may ich taeor i vidual. Destiny belief describe g ay Biatewe that two people are, from qh MS Swher compatible or not. Growth bel ; siey to belive that difficulties inayat tan be overcome, These belts acc rpm onfict, such chat people with strong grow fal the more postive coping, stategies (Knon Knee, Nanayakdara, Vietor, Neighbor, Bap 2001; se alo Knee, Pttck, 8 Lonsbry. a Ian interesting extension ofthese ides Ra and Heppen (2003) showed that wome implicitly endorse traditional roma tic Fantascg measured by Implicit Association Test (AT) age ciations berween “relationship partner” and mig like “Prince Charming,” have lower desire for and lower educational goals. People’s belies gg their own relationship history are also vulneabley theories: Although daca su 1gBest otherwise, pag tend to believe they love their partners more gum than they used (0, and that although they werd satisfied in the past, chings are belief associated with incre the future of the relationship (Karney 8 Goon 2000; Karey & Frye, 2002; Sprecher, 1999). Tht Tetrospective theories app ‘maintain With the fe nproving now ased_ optimism aba ar to serve a relations 'g function, in that they provide pape ling that their relationships are ava improving, Thus, broad Gonships can © conflict theories about the nacure of i affect satisfaction and rene Research on behavional confi sheds light on the mechanisms undef ing the effect of these theories and other kin sie study (6: Pet tions on rclationships ie wei, Syd, Tanke, 8 Berscheid, 1977s FeciPanes were led to believe that the cn a with whom they would speak on ae tractive of “unattractive, When they. showit tions k likely matic the se 1993; INDIV coGN SELF Goat Re tions, thoug From most relate tooth able she's togo me he Oo pec tende in am tion Vigila and collea Sensi Bs‘was physically at Ppgehuiioroun, st than did the women whos Deihiethey were unser Pa wer demonstrates the importance fh 4y in relationship behavior: Wha Joan cir romantic partners iy ofy Tadd social COpnitive studies hy ersonal expecta nice of exper, People expect n what thy ey get. a nt bias ine rpretatons anc memory ide Fincham, Garnier, Gano-Phillips, & Osborn 1995; Pierce & Lydon, 1998; Snycc id form : me Ghing eritical, then my partner will be defen (Baldwin, 1992; Fehr have been measured implicitly 2004). ‘These contingenci « well as explici showing that individuals have automatic associ tions berween certain interpersonal triggers (if) and fikely partner responses (then), and thar these aut matic associations shape important outcor the self and the relationship (c.g., Baldwin et 1993; Fehr, 2004; Mikulincer, 1998). INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RELATIONS! COGNITION: REJECTION SENSITIVITY, SPLE-ESTEEM, ATTACHMENT, AND GOAL ORIENTATIONS Rélationship cognitions—thoughts, expecta tions, and belicfs about rclacionships—are, like an thought process, subject ro individual nec From the perspective of a relationship researcher, th Most important differences ai -ople folate to others and in the ways they expect to relat others. To navigate the social world, one must bs able to predict others’ reactions: If {laugh at wha thesaid, will she ger angry, or laugh too? If Lask hin BR the movie with me, will he reject me, or rll Me he’s been too shy to make the fist move One important individual ‘expectations is rejection sensinvit tendency to expect rejection, ro perce and (o oversea 1996). ‘This in ambiguous situations. 10 rejee tion (Downey & Feldman. Milanee for signs of rejection is often desv VT Aid self-sustaining. For example, Downe Toy Colleagues demonstrated that t Setisitivity predicted women's ¢ sgative behavior in & Khouri, 1998 for review). For h n tuen, predicted angeron the part ners (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, see Romero-Canyas et l., 2010, ' highly rejection-sensitive women he concept of rejection fev 1 appears to aucomatically ate feelings of hostility: In laboratory studies, highly thly rejection-sensitive women’s reaction times (0 bey rerds (cp bid were shortened when pre 'd by a rejection word (cig. abandon Ayduk Testa, Yen, & This to perceive rejection and react negatively eo ie has Downey, deleterious ef Lationsh fects on relationships, including cakyp (Downey etal. 1998 ‘idual differen ih & Holmes, 2005). People with lo self-esteem themselves as infeior to their partners (Marea a, 2005), andprijectthesewlédoubatonan th heir partners care about them (Murray, Holm & Griffin, 2000; Murray, Holmes, MacDona Ellsworth, 1998), Whereas high self-esteem ties. Like rejection-sensitive people, individu vith low sel ane for signs of low self-esteem individuals (but mn individuals) interp p sling (Mur Bllavia, Holt : 002). Higher selEesteem is associa i love felt by those with To Collins, 2010) According to sociomerer theory, sel not a stable personality variable, but rather is fluctuating gag usion (L Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Indeed, researc Tambor EItZSIMONS, ANDERSON | 595 |paren nore likely aban m by ote tk ’ 5 998). Wh ; Serauser, 8 Chokel cteuesely PO iden ; " i : p betel f 7 t d h x f acterized by secutity a 1 a thoug a6 safe haven in times of t i fitch u Promotes autonomy and exploric, hat work), wh : eee Mlins B Reeney, 2099, °°! vida an pr q Collins, 2004; f M; Feeney & of attachn h 4; Feeney, 2004). Peon of feelin, Hive model of others tend to ya With & nega secure have be ‘ 596 | INTERPERSONA, 2004; 0 ee _ i. aiiPear, Foes of mother and cg tn fect cancingatachmeqe 2 He hae a fetings of communion wich orher ye creased 2008), reduced accessibility op 2% & Lydon, ordersymptoms, increa auIMatie: segs dis Msieecotker peop NE security, tach, idual den- ork, have pro- uch vel loss his derogation (Mikulincer & Shave, Shaves, Gillath, 8 Nitchery Shaver, & Horesh, 2006; sec M4 2007b, for a review). Comper, demonstrating that activating various positive behaviors is te, nting thi = g that activating rch ing 8 telationshi iP insecuri negatively direct ties ean pal pursue (C & Holmes, 2009, 2010), studies, participants whose 1 trust in thei prtner’scommitiment had been shaken by imental manipulation made more cautions ret investments and exhibited heightened secre htened accesbil ofsafety-oriented motivation: Inthe third component oft (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 the viability of seckin ment fig lose f0 2 parener, whe-eas poople with neqneg other models tend ate the atachmen their needs for closeness. For example, in several studies, when participants were primed with threat words (failure or sep ‘ nih accessibilicy of representations of their attachment Figures, suggesting that for most people, the attach Ment system operates auromacically in. respon: © threat (Mikulincer, Gillach, & Shaver, 2002} However, avoidane individuals (those with a nega tive model of otheis) primed with che word spe fion did nov activate tp figures (Mil Participants who were high in attachment avoid ance showed positive implicit associations between cepts related co distane attachment figures and c foals (Dewiete & De Houwer Another individual difference in int ©gnition relates to goal orientations. Goals can be conceived of in terms of approaching # positive Sutcome or avoiding a negativ 2001; Gray &€ White, 1994; Ellior & Covington 1990). or example, people can pursue tablish a close relationship with appr (8. to disclose cloncnen) tO Sore; co sede opporsunie: for mr avoidance goals (e416 avoid embar ‘minimize conflict: Gable, 2006) hes © goal orienta tions have in tions for ince me for Povicve a : ible Poon Pepa, 2005 rant implica ping attention and negative relationship IK Roos 208 Imps Cable 8 x Impett etal, 2010). Goals can also ‘conceived fin ten ie ms of regulatory focus the pee promotive orientation. individuals A prevention and memory events ( ive versus p take toward fundamental an interpersonal theory of ogni Tn addi ifferences in regulatory focus predict + nutcomes, F ample, individual tively more promotion focus revention focused) pay i on tol Johnson, & Eastwick, 20 In revi rch on how pe hk seh ch their partners (eg., whether ion yt hips, th le fron N ngether, but this idea h importance i researcher Ie heir theories on the cognit slependence ofselfand other (Afidetsen 82 Baldwin, 1992; Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, )06; Markus 8 Cross, 1990). These theories stat implicitly or explicitly, that to understand an indi vidual, you must understand the partner, and vice versa, because the two are intricately linked withi hhe mind of the individual. Cognitive processes are Jescribed as inherently interpersonal, consistin complex links berween the selftheory, Pe ‘of theie relation” Inne uch model, relational inence Se mena eproertinsf ships with senior hy whi Hl ae BE esol wi ter we Saati 190) A nena he pen a ps ol pr Be cpr pen of ein Pccomexco rls Maer penon Balin (1992) 0 Pecan hin pened recone Wh fer advo, pase for her work. The sd ent er actions a 0 Tora Gerona sn) ht her aison Pv (ther shema) andar ses 3 compe Bec taliehons Tm ths model, the oherschm is ft comple, and multe, inching co and a schema for ip. the exam ns with Jescribed as tive, affective, and motivational components. For ‘example, people appear to store information about basic relationship types into their mental represen tations of others (Fiske, Haslam, & Fiske, 1991), and about how those others connect to individu. als’ active goals; they arc likelier to make memory errors among close others wio are all instrumen tal for achievement, for example, than they are to confuse a close other who asssts achievement with ‘one who docs not (Fitzsimons & Shah, 2009), Representations of others also contain emotional Baldwin, Carrell, and Lopes (1990) subliminally primed Catholics information. In one eatly stud with a disapproving face: cither thae of the Pope o} an unfamiliar person. The Pope prime lowered prac Hicing Catholics’ self-atings, whereas the unfamil jar person's disapproval had no cffect, a finding th ding the authors interpreted as indicating that the image of the Pope had activated a relational tetova ation chara for Approving authority Figure. In a subsequent stay subliminal exposure to the name of a critical ve Sus aecepring significanc other affected participare: self-views and mood, such that ce Mote negative after subliminal exposure toa ertcal Bh and more positive after subliminal ex... © an accepting other (Baldwin, 1994) Bees have also adanc') relational schemas to underst ‘ences in attachment to romantic ps resented with tsky relationship conra, 1 depend on my partner then nb Secure indivicals were quicker to presenting positive interperson Texel decison wash, wher exposure Baldwin their th leory of tand individual differ. dapted I Partner will...) spond to words # whereas avoidant attached 598 INTERPERSON, ONAL Coe Nern on viduals were quiet [0 rey individ ors (Baldwin, Fehn, Reet Frpssmon 998) . ‘Thomson. Seinga different approach to tes, (Cognitive fin hater eprescatations of okey ai alto been shown that Momponents number of pga guide of ther a joped and employed unoberusig ng as af ing thers (Andes ap implicit association tasks, affey fiom paradigms, and afTective priming ty 3, 1999; Banse 8 Kowalick, 2997 ai nificant others, Can produce bek Banse, 2011; Lebel & Campbell, 29 hag ose telarionish Fiat 8 Pinks 2010)- Aloo Sl Marana relationship Outcomes Are associated yay strong links ex ferent measures, i€ appears safe to ey th tions of the self ney measured affect is a good tl hen etal, 20 implicitly m 2 0d pea ‘ 2 tclaonship well-being, under both tg decal in the Stressful conditions, and appcars to jertalay _—_this chaptes) me Other theo predictive ability compared with exp . PF relationship affect, Pict cag links between s Andersen and her colleagues have exam close others a the self-concep links becween mental representations of nes sef-e0 other by investigating the phenomenon ship and is ¢ (Aron, Pats, is, 8 Kun 1010). Accord ference. Transference is a cerm original imposed onto psychoanalysts (Freud, 1937/1959). ‘The construct was adg tives, and ide Andersen and Cole (1990) to refer to an as one’s oven of goals ive information processing phenomenon ti mental representations of significan stored as categories and then appli plied inn relationship contexts z p contexts (e.g., this is ap usually manipulated by presenting a pat Fusion with a new individual who shares sever Mashek, A Preferences with a previously described other. Participants who are experiencing t Maine ence tend 0 assu won sh a respond —affectively, motivationally, and Feu ‘orally—to the new person in a similar Ws knowhal would to the significant other (Anderse 1994; Andersen, predictably Reznik, & Manzella, 1 als are in th of similarity to a significant other, as demo there isa su ina study in w hich subliminally presented his section * significant other were transferred (04% thesia pirson (Glassman & Andersen, 1999; Gull al., 2012), . We divi mate he frst, we The self-concept also tends 0 chat h the self that one fl becomes wit Tet other (Hinkley & Andersen, 19908 the selother links in memory.ve Hinks between shown to affect bey, of the relationship, Acrigrn Tal representations of signiicans Hpeaple 10 behave as though the, ehers (Andersen et al., 1996, tae, 2003: Shab, 2003). Reminding pc sifianc others, through sulylc pri fan produce behavior in line wet those relationships. These Ichavie: self and Avior, bot -ople of ings support “relational self” mod. strong links exist in memory bers tions of the self and of ae denal in the “Everyday Interdependence this chapter) Other theorists have suggeste nory, p ted di Finks between self and other in m ethers can lea CTE With those simons & B, other have inside and atgh, f their ming procedures, Boals pursued is al priming fy theselFconcepr. Rescarch has shown that thee afone’ self-concept is increased by a new relation thip and is confused or diminished by break (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995; Lewandowski, Aron Bassis, 8¢ Kunak, 2006; Slotter, Gardner, & Fin 2010). According to the self ; ; tives, and identities of another person are trea suit of goals (Aron, Ketay, Ricla, & Aron, 200 Supporting the modcl, pcople rela ships arc slower t me” dist when the rated trait d becw ns and their spouses, versus traits that ilar for both partners, suggesting che existence of Mashek, Aron, & Boncimine, 20 Maintaining Relationships Two of the major tasks of interpersonal cogn dividual tion, therefore, are to pr Begin a new relationship and then to understand the ongoing relationship—ro develop a useful se of Knowledge about the partner that helps ro Peon Predictable, satisfying interactions. Once als. are in these relationships, of course, know not produce stabili about the partner alone doc sa re thereisa substantial bic of work silo De Cor this section, we discuss the interpersonal COB that relate to the maintenance of 06°16 relationships. sections. In We divide this diseusion inco «v0 Sor the first, we discuss what we call ve7 dence; these are the processes that OrB” fre Sim ig embeded « tied Rott uitnleparc do anon uc that Fy the ena, cme ships. For example, india idles of and ‘ ; in intimate contexts with occur whether one wants "eeiprocal, and ‘everyday ‘relatio tend to fall into ‘elationships, de thinking and Pe sometimes despite individual Positive relationships calle sbstilicasedea nce) among relationship partners. PP nd wo have a hace tt i oe tiki ta sche eset partners preferences, and the : vibes re ae our relationship fone anothers experiences” (Rusbul According to interdependence the 3003, p . i Kelley etal, 2003 Kelley 8 Thibaut, 1978 Lange, 2003), close relationsh sbule 8 van Lang ry in theit degree of inter along s rT dimensions: (1) the extent’ to which the ner. These dimensions controlled by only one pa he extent and dircetion dressing que fF che influen seplain sai between partners,sais they to 8 Corr behav jets the situations it nd engage i es a deeply phasing ped by the ior Ie pred th o their motivation 3 teas 1 meiton, by et se os are ha i he individual ented bhai impor fan pone about Ml hogs, fel thier I tied Ip iteaependence theory Uepeidence efecs on ce peleconcept carey (Lich, F Thi, 2010), perp taking Mush, 1998)-and expectations (Holme the each ofthe theory also extends yo tests of the tenets of the model; many rea nin which Research directly # has examined i variables. lik MeNulty, & Aeriagn 8 scholars have used the essential dependence to develop new ideas about in the sections below Everyday Interepend c Baie over ime, the pry hail Pbaiate ating to rlionship paren i : Be Siolan 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor. & Nek 1991) 6c “Te Rol Sai The Ire werlapping ae : oth situational and di ies Ar, goat Resbul people with tional Tippin, 2007). As another examph nau pants were forced ha hen patti Petey Bike “we and Isp greater closenes and no" Participant (Fzsimons te nag simons 8 BE itcoatin ere dence, they chose to sit cla (Holland etal loser to an, 2004), 600 AL coon Cognitive interdependence ivonie individual iferences vee ourselves i this fave demonstrated that met rend te defi their groups: 90¢ (Markus 8 Kitayarna ine themselves more 1991) an ‘eset (Nisbett, Peng, C ular has i tive prt FOOL), Within Western val dependent selF-const rel fas oppose rout he self and che organiz tals with a relational-ine 1 1s) relationships a formation i < Being part of an int ng themse wall ; preferenc l felt duladbese ‘ SSG eta Dor Rein parc of lters basic att pe cing less likely an nn Dward thet relariondi. 18' behay tionship pe light. Cros-culghy *: Bacon, is aly in the treba pehaviors (Ni 19731 Prete fikelier 10 mal judging frien and oF even ba hoi c Na of time tions if they for shorter pe Finally, be ip determi members oF fle Hf the social ation of form a share & Mon tive realty | For exanp points (Ha lependent sip 96). ec P dent position: end to vierant sed when self- dles dies med pat: bet inet so als pas P pene ction of a ten bjectve we adi 6 Hig they pep ofthe wold ne points (Hardin & Conley, 2001; His 1996). According 10 shared real are motivated to bring their view alignment with the views of specifi tive reality from two converge 2007; Gonley. Calhoun, Evert, & Devin Bahethoff, Higgins, & Grol, 2005; Eclnechoy Higgins, 8 Levine, 200%; Hardin & Higgins. 19% For example, when interacting with an Alrien, American confederate, European American partic pants showed less implicic prejudice toward Africa Americans, suggesting they may have unconscious) ified their arrinudes t0 promote a harmoniow. social interaction (Lowery, Hardin, & Sinclair 2001). Indeed, when interacting with a likeable experimenter, participants showed increased “social adislikeable experimenter (Sinclair, Lowery, & Colangelo, 2005), providi of afiliative motivation in producing similar a tudes (aso see Davis & Rusbult, 2001 Thus, simply being ia a relationship leads to a myriad of cognitive effects on the members of the thationship. Mere interdependence with others also influences how individuals are seen by other Supporting their suggestion that relationships ar 4 “natural category” in social perception (also see Fiske ct al., 1991; Fiske, 1992), Sedikedes, Olsen and Reis (1993) demonstrated chat people encode felationship information into their basic represent tion of individuals in memory, making Witt A ple” confusions for married couples and cl married couple c his tendency is Jational memories around Gross et al. (2003) have ser sh tie tend 10 se rend int en stronger among individua interdependent self-construal, wh 2 themselves and the social world in terms 0 Pendent links among, close relationship P2 both Ber, hers. At work, 10 pick-up individuals may have a wate Het lack when he hasan off day or put one erodes they'e excited about to focus ott free bass deems urgent. Ac home, they may Pecike poat ttmbealthy takeout instead: of the Rarity home-cooked meal they were expecting eis owe 40 prepare, and spend the evening handwriting Valentine's Day cards for their child's Preschool class instead of reading a novel they hoped to finish. All day long, every day individue als adjust their actions and preferences to coordi relationship with the other is not a priority. itis difficult to diseneangle oneself from the complex web of interdependen itil rween self and other in a typical relationship. In this s . ection, we present recent research on behavioral int pendence broadly construed. We high and self-regulation research examining how the presence of others in th gulation and goal-din & Finkel, 2010). As noted in the “Understanding Relationships section of this chapter, research on the self (eg, Andersen & Cole, 1990, Baldw 992) and attachment th g Mikulincer '& Shaver, 2007a) has emphasi adivid Is fall into automated rou ithi tionships. Individuals tend to repeatedly engagy in the same kinds of thoughts, feclings, and develop strong associations between these spe s and these thoughts, feelings, and cific partner behaviors. Research demonstrating that behavio could be automatically guided by the operation & Bargh, 1996; Bargh et al, 2001) inspired rel rs to examine the potential tionships researc behavioral consequences of these relational sche mas (Baldwin, 1992) IF goals are represented in these associations between self and other (Read & Mille, 1989; Moretti & Higgins, 1999), through which partners cou Co havior (Fitzsimons & Iuen this may indicate dan. a possible route matically affect each other's be 003). That is, exposure o specific partners Bargh, FITZSIMONS, ANDERSON | 60Kfro also yt of tes & Hol approach ty-rel ictivation liminally her from ship had g) goals snificant th etal models hment n, ca rected of the ctv rerde- co the citi oo ,ffeet hele own acto, fecemewt be sos have demonstrated gies pen i cae ma egg Flee ars, Goll oes Ble, 2007. For coe BE deep inwtacs ie wax puri ingratiared themselves. to anoth the goal, the contagi Aarts, 2007). When the other person have successfully completed the ‘caught and satiated the goal vicarioush others actions (McCulloch 2011 Although studies of goa Fivssim Albareacin, al In the proce Of goal com: mals under they see hape the observer’ infer 0 assin, 200 male Participants haracters act B 4 goal to have casual rr female more so than did control participanee, Wy character appeared 0 5¢ trying very hard Trapt Somrdination goes smookhy—thae i, when [Partners can easly and efficiently align thet Tats with cach her—indvidae te lee sel Rulon. When, in contrast, individuals find that inating themselves with someone ele requires Hort, this igh maintenance style of interaction ‘rains people and leaves them less able to dedi 04; Dik ‘ate selF regulatory = RY esources to subsequent tasks (Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel, 2010; Finkel cea 006). Thus, behavioral interdependence tet ‘equite self-regulatory resources. (Indeed, just acting with women ean dep tory resources; K: Reitsma, 2009.) Ine hen the dh discuss them here becaasc tel ra os per tee ese pro- the sl dcr cesslkelvoccurand probly ta geaerexint, cme wher nel farmers, whether friends, fa p ae ay thers goals. This tendency may be likeliest among harmful to an o ath ec pertiers (Laurin eral, 2012), 1c for that obstruct fo please their partners by taking on their inter Finkel, Fitsimon abit Be tecad pares. OF cour ce Cae : of interdependence in lose relationships enhances r transactive self-regulatic the possibility nov only for mutual influence bu &E 1 aso for goal conflict. Indeed, a recent paper dem though we suggest chat most h onstrated that individuals act J auomati- ioral interdependence eect ‘ ally shield their pursuit of several “fundamental nes ee that individ goals (for positive self-regard, autonomy, and di n a ; " 7 inctiveness) from the implicit influence of othe aber bit ae : failing to catch goals from others when those goal colle 00D alae would interfere with their own fundamental need dictate ( hah, 1 ' (Leander, Chartrand, & Shah, 20 themselves from goal contagion fect : they were aware on some level of their par Behavioral Interdependence and Self-Cor sg impacton their goals, and thatthis knowledge op As suggested by Leander ct al. work, meshi A ee our behav others is not alvays:confict ated ro in parmers)instrum free. Anyone who has ever had an in law d erdependence ¢ extended visit knows that int search effort to coordinate. According, (9 "ese Maintenance interactions (Finke nn take ity for personal goals (Fitzsimon “a 2009; & Fishbach, 2010) provide rdditional evidence that people are 006), when oN | 603 ————————— ~=—inerdependence with others affects their goals. In sich as those f this work, primed personal poal academic achievement andl fitness, alfected people's meports of closeness ro (andl tendency to a sally approach) friends, family, and romantic p nets such that people felt closer to others, and approached them more readily, when they perce them as instrumental for primed gpals. This elle tends to disippear when goals deop in m tional priority, such as when pe fo feel they are making good progiess on th (Fitzsimons & Fishhach, 2010). Instead of pre fing the partners who helped them with the pro gressed goal, individuals rend to switch alleyianc preferring partners who are instrumental for lc advaneed goal pursuits. Importantly. the tenden, to prefer instrumental others leads to better goal outcomes (Fivsimons & Shah, 2008). For Ple, in one study, students who showed automat 6n to score better on their midcerm examinations than students who did not show these preferen Having an instrumental social n may ch goal outcomes and higher qual tners who help each other succce! with id the long run Rusbult, Wieselquis Whitton, jew, see Rusbule, Fin! Kumashiro, 2009). All ofthese programs of rs relationships (for review, see Finkel & Fitesimor 2010; Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2010, 2010b; Luch Conclusions on Everyday Inte Simply being parc of a relationship can alter th Sey people think, feck, and ace even in conten that appear to have little 10 do with rdationshi These effects often happen withouc pxople scious plans or intentions; they atise merely from the existence of interdependent tiesto others. ‘Th 0 understand individual cognition, ic is essential c include the broader interpersonal, social, and cul fural context. Indeed, in the socal baseline mod. Goan (2008) argues tha ld experienced as part of a relationship, alone. In empirical work on this model, individu als show less neural regulation in response to threat when they ate with another person than when th are alone (Coan et al., 2006); because this effect i 604 | INTERPERSONAL COGNITION g and oan (2008) anges th x ying dona Given the ding to this model a truly soca ot the det on pe ne relationship the on pepe her interdependence process that ae m conseqnees fe dental and more intentional Individuals of bei th ance of ion th ence of p pain ( : : R a i . w I t : ampbell imely l : bver I ‘ 1 Lucas, 2005). Inc pay even inet &P 2011). The psychologic rocesses that underlie reactions to relationship proce breakup and divorce more b are understood, Social. cogr search i ry useful to the understar :pastedteca Another route to ensure the a te ay, Ale 0096). Han al, 200%; Miura pends on Leder etal Bach ofthese strategies or subpoate ns gh knowing that the relationship catasipacia of mainaaining the relationship has y fees in other words, feeling irreplaceab ndivic One of these main tasks oF relacionehy a crease trust in the part ge is to balance the les-th ee mtinued necd thefier that partners make mistakey acy petor for individuals with low sel wit Batis acc our partners positively in the self or faws in th . : mplish feelings of icula, sespin them more positive. P i me "9 1 ps milieg iba abot their parnes img sitively than do other 1 mote pol aa m he ain the partners sce themselves (Mu = “te 1997: Murray ct al A ces hi Jolmes, 2011). These ideal bn Ps. , i faction on the part of bout : as peri i : their partners, an apparen: ial . noth : : ho might threaten ¢ jonsh r . je studies, the expe Sous same targe resumab al al oo the individuals’ romantic 01 , — etal., 2007). non pl ‘ _ " chronic jealous i y bes heighten concerns about in k nu ann ly bet of implicic biases in social percep’ ners regard and cs appeared to promote atrentio a since maticall > bers of their own sex. Th papa! n uations (Mi same-s nding apy ; 1 sex others—atcenc — reveal conscious stages of visual Sai " wues (2011) found that meoding and remembering i ner evaluation: ared th : Erlitione—may help inde ee cng prods, Pr tdationship from others who could f the partner under trying circumstanthemselves maintain long-ter romantic Ships, OF course, people dant necessarily Telionship protection in every situation, snain- ‘equite increasing their als ced to feel rela: in their parcnets cxard “To do so, individuals cn guard ispewsable, ina the parcner’s alternatves €0 4 “These kinds of partner-comseaining means 10 the goal of main is the strategy to limit ones own IPhermauives: And yer, a large body of research has i demonstrated that people in long feem relationships often do just that—exert fort fo procect themselves from being cempred ay {Gor major threat to rcavionship maintenance is of ourse the presence or availability of attracive alter Jette: to the relationship. How do individuals stay Gommitted co a current partner when faced with he lure ofan alternative? This question has inspived fy great deal of creative research over the past 60 Gecadles. According to this research, individuals tend psychological stratc to engage in a wide variety of gies to guard against the thrcat avoiding attractive alternatives (Lydon etal Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990), an devaluing their positive qualities, actually perceiving believe them 2010 suchas ignoring and them as less attractive than outsiders fo be (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Lydon yon, Fitzsimons, & Naidoo, 2003). Inceed indi ‘iduals in long-term relationships have been shown i ealy-state attention away from physi ve opposite-sex targets (Manet, Gilli ‘& Miller, 2009; Miller, 1997; Simpson ctal., 1990) and to suppress thoughts of alternatives (Gonzagt ev al,, 2008). When women are par in the days around ovulation), single men find them to be more attractive, whereas men in rela tionships find them co be less attractive, suggesting that they are devaluing these threatening women (Miller & Mancr, 2011). These responses all suggest that people feel threatened by the presence of these ‘alternatives (Lydon et al., 1999). Indeed, long-term “lationship partners even searactve rember of Site’ sex as more dangerous—in one study, i in sclationships were likelicr to mistake ‘members of the opposite sex (vs. control as holding a gun (and thus, “shooting” Kuntsman, & Maner, 2010 derogating, and paying litte atten- ive partners, people help ONAL COGNITION those alternatives can become forbidden fryig a seties of studies, by serained from people Fel thar they ae being controled oy free ignoring atractive alternatives, for cont ‘people who were subaly eg ending t ee alternati - in infidelity, increased ony for attractive alter lowe ean 2 etaion (DeWall etal, 2011), Thus, when ie Social situation limits people access to attracting hers they may react by seeking, those alterna tnare strongly, a tendency that would undermine relationship maintenance. In the Next section, other important moderator of showed more intere will discuss several ‘he tendency to engage in relationship maintenanee aluing alternatives and maki strategies like devaluing making Lationship M Variables thas Modena Power, Commitment, and Sef Contra The concept of power has recently received a geat deal of attention from social cognition researchers (see Chapter 28). According to interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and the principle ‘of least interest (Waller, 1938), whichever individ tual has relatively grearer interest in maintaining iven rclationship has relatively lower psychologic power. Research on power in the psy from a different definition of powe the capa ity to influence others’ states; Keltner, Gruenfelh & Anderson, 2003), has demonstrated that she ive power within a dyad produces a wide range t cognitive, affective, self-regulatory, and behaviow outcomes (e.g Brifol et al., 2007s Galinsky et 2006; Smith & ‘Trope, 2006). For example, int Viduals with low power (vs. those with high Powel tend to have more complex and accurate perceptoh of others (Fiske, 1993; Galinsky et al., 2006; Wolls 1994) and to behave in a more inhibited and 398 ance-uided fashion (Keltner et al, 2003s Smuthl Bargh, 2008). There are many reasons for this PY tem, including the lower attentional demands low-power individuals. OF most relevance © q eurrent:chapten low-power individuals a0 Mg more motivated to maintain positive relations their high-power partnets. Because of this inet igh-power partners. B fis jionshi motivation, the experience of low power k a cascade of effects oriented toward reli intenance (but see Karremans & Smitty x chological long-term ship? (Finkel Soo; Rusbult, 1996)—stems from a the partner, nd ase OF celationship mime and actions (Rushul 2001). Strongly comn titted partnes) sem egress against th to be forgiving and Kumashiro, & Han Whitney, Slavik, fe sw interests 10 be «aly 19997), and Johnson 8 Rasa ler & Manes, 20 Parcnees who ar ation model, he relationship ¢ 1 threat in the rmicment will fen come by mow mitment Wil ill cheat, but Althou snd concept implicit effects om ion (Etchevert times vo word mitment, dev accommodate Burton, & Be associations bi construct of sive responses 2012), aener, and as stc hie g Benerates a wig lationship maintenance-motivareg Gid actions (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, gfe BDO. Strongly commitced partners Ge [enn ited partners) are more likely to inbibir sy aggress against their partners (Finkel « «| fo be forgiving and constructive (Finke Kamashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Rusbul, Whirney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1 "gnitions fbn interests to benefit their pariner (van Line Beal, 1997), and vo devalue attractive ahem Golinson 8 Rusbule, 1989; Lydon eal. 199 Miller & Mancr, 2010) Partners who are low in co: fikely to engage in these kinds of in other words, a lationship-pro tective strategies, 0 iia, @ give in to the temptation ro behave selfis According calibration the relationship or th their commitment and the Taiment will fend off a mild threat, but be ove ome by more desirable alternatives. Those hig fommitment will not bother to defend a fnild threar, but will marshal all needed resources to roteer against an extremely desirable, shreatenin altemative to the relationship ( 2003, 2005). Although commitment is typic d nd conceptualized as an explicit construct, studi Using implicit methods suggest that co fects on relationship maintenance behaviors 1 Sometimes occur in a relatively unconscious HpaifEtcheverry & Le, 2005). For example, PO" Times t0 words relared vo commitment © 0 iiiimient, devotion) predicted the wine Jon, Menzies of implicit d the Accommodate to a partner (Ly¢ Burton, & Bell, 2008), and the spe BSociations between the romantic P cred ess GBsiruce of commitment predicted a) Bive responses ro partner provost 2012). Self-Control mit detonsteated by the work on power and com- uutment, relagonship maintenance is noc the defauk qhonse. Ifindividuals have low dependence on the relationship, they are unlikely to in relationship. ee ; Provective responses. In other words, these moderation findings suggest chat relationship = " ans, & van hic 10). Indeed, relationship maintenance behaviors Fequire more than just both individual and s i and situational variations in self-reg maintenance cognition and behavior, Individual high in dis h in dispositional or situational self regulator to partners’ negative actions (Fink 001), ta te attractive alternatives (Rite 1, 2010), to forgive partners transer rn et al., 2010), to follow through on prom & Kan 012), t relationship maintenan ti mm Peetz, 2011), and to h val infidelity (Gailliot & Baumeister, 20 r Karremans, & Wigboldus, 2011 Conclusion: The Tasks of Interpersonal Cognition Tn thi \ rae nd their relationship pa : 1c goals underlie most of peopl hat result simply from the mere fact ngoir aship. Nonetheless, w ive on relationship that this self-regulatory petspectiv * vost tangibly, this structure emphasizes chat i le P caval cognition, an individual other domain of social cognit ; ch nally, we hope that the th hat have b this chapter demonstrate are made in creating a truly sc ii RSON | 60 pITZSIMONS, ANDE |to be learned from the study ‘and important relationships fr much eater percentage of their Ton relationships with family, friends, hey do.on social group gers. We ‘ips and interactions with stran: Har the ld of voce copition renal ts tha everyday realy and tha ee cetcwanding of interpersonal cognition will cognition References i (hare HL, Gollrines, = M., &¢ Hassn, RR. ( tapi: Perceiving Social Pcholgy. 87. ‘Agnew: CR van Lange | CA.(1998).( of social i Prromality and Hinewordh, M.D. S, Blchar, M. C., Wat Ao ds), The self and social relaionshy York: Psycho ‘Aron, A. P Prospective studies of ‘self Penonalty and Socal Pycholgy, 69, 102-111 Arriaga, XB, & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Bein 2 Alfecive, cognitive, atl comative « ship commitaent. Perunaliy and So 27, 1190-1203, ‘arias XB 8 Rasbule C.F. (198), Seanding in ny paener shoes Partner perspective taking and reactions to wean stv dileminas. Peronalty and Social Psychology Iu 9927-948, S08 | INTERPERSONAL COGNITION api. Gi Talo SE 093) fe fora deco, ea ecm nag sod expected acco, Journal of Pore tation, and exp ionma Pophology. 4, 708-772 . Ayub, 0. Downey. G ¥. 8 Shady gp Does tee et serie Baldwin, Mc W. (19 1 he py ‘ Carell §. E, 81 Fay. at My advisor and the Pp 4 . i ‘ i E tholomew, K js damental human u 1 incharn, E.D a l hit Pi ‘i etsonal behavior: Behavior tion in the social cog 9 ransere Berscheid B, (1994). 1 rps ion V1 a “eas ae So ncn cory Ne och,VoL, Rus, Cg Berets eccuracy ard marc ks ( (BA), Pare accuracy (py Gullo Pres: et J. 1982). Arachnene and ; oury TN, & Finch Bitsy eeeeree te e Be ertge Review and criti ee cal aber TN. & Focham, FD. ay ’ York: Academ Bail, P, Pet lk i Back Winkel, RE M.A Aided pri b pd spproach xt q allo, J.V, Mur i s in al rsk, In J. A Simpson & L. Cami Univ Chareran, & Ba = i 465-478 n ' Chartrand, 1. 1. Dale ise a " When sin Nonconscious relationship rexcanc: inference and oh gol prime opposing n yehology, 43, 719-726 Jatonal In M4. (2006). Th Ghen,§;, Boucher, H.C, 8 Tapias, MP eae Si Se revealed: Integrative concepmuaiz ee s