Method

1. Coding of Behavior • •Two judges who were unaware of the experimental conditions coded the behaviors using a “gist” criterion (Sedikides & Green, 2000). That is, judges classified a memory as belonging to one of the four cells if the meaning was largely consistent with the original behavior. The two judges exhibited substantial agreement (Cohen’s Kappa = .85), and discussed and resolved their disagreements. • •Consistent with prior work (Sedikides & Green, 2000), we calculated intrusions as writing the same behavior twice or recalling a behavior that was not presented. Intrusions comprised 2.7% of the recalled behaviors, and they did not significantly vary across experimental conditions, p > .82. We removed intrusions from data analysis. • Introduction • Prior research suggests that people want and expect to feel cared for by relationship partners about whom they care (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lemay & Clark, 2007) • The current research tested the prediction that memory of interpersonal events often serves the function of maintaining a sense of security that valued partners reciprocate one’s interpersonal sentiments. • Prior work suggests that people are more likely to remember negative events relative to positive events (Baumeister et al. 2001) but that this is not the case when the event is threatening to self-esteem. People are especially unlikely to remember these threatening events (Sedikies et al, 2000). • In the current research, we test the related hypothesis that people are especially unlikely to remember events that threaten the sense that valued relationship partners care for the self. Such a pattern would suggest that our memory functions to protect interpersonal security. Self-Protective Memory of Interpersonal EventsMargaret Wile, Angela Neal, Christine Coyne, and Edward LemayDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire • Results • •Significant three-way interaction – between condition (relationship type), relevance (high-low), and valence (positive-negative) predicting proportion of behavior recalled (of all behaviors presented in that category), p < .05. • •Negative events were remembered more than positive events in low care or stranger relationship types, regardless of relevance of the event. • •Negative events also were significantly remembered more than positive events in high care relationships if the event was irrelevant to how the partner feels about the self. • The one exception was that negative events were not remembered more than positive events for high relevant behaviors performed by a partner that one cares for. • Method • 175 males 257 female college students completed the study for course credit. Average age was 19.9 years old. • Procedure • •Random assignment to one of three conditions: • •High care: Think of someone about whom you care strongly • •Low care: Think of someone who you do not particularly care for • •Stranger: Think of this person named “Chris” who you have never met before • •Each person was then: • •Shown a series of behaviors and asked to imagine that this partner performed each behavior. • •Given a filler task for 5 minutes (list names of states) • •Asked to recall as many of the behaviors that were shown to them previously . • Discussion / Implications • This experiment provides evidence that people have self-protective memory of interpersonal events. Although negative behaviors were remembered more than positive behaviors in all of the other cells, this was not the case with regard to behaviors that are relevant to how a valued partner feels about the self. • These results may be due to the fact that people very much want to have partners care for them when they care for those partners. These results may reflect the influence of “wishful thinking” on memory. Apparently, such “wishful thinking” can overcome the typical tendency for people to remember negative information more than positive information. • Types of Behaviors Presented • Behaviors varied in terms of whether they were relevant to how much the person values the relationship with the self (high/low relevance) and valence (positive/negative) • High Relevance- Negative • ”Ridiculed you when you exposed a weakness or flaw” • Low Relevance- Negative • “Forgot to do the dishes” • High Relevance- Positive • “Showed sympathy when you were feeling down” • Low Relevance-Positive • “Was in a cheerful mood” • References • Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323-370. • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. • Lemay, E. P., Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834-853. • Sedikides, C., & Green, J. (2000). On self-protective nature of inconsistency-negativity management: Using the person memory paradigm to examine self-referent memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 906-922.