"Do I know you?": The role of significant others in general social perception.

Andersen, Susan M.; Cole, Steve W.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.384

Cited by 232 publications

(334 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

303

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Andersen and Cole (1990) documented the cognitive side of transference experimentally by asking participants to describe significant others and then embedding descriptions from their responses in descriptions of fictional characters. When subsequently asked to describe the characters, participants mistakenly attributed traits to the characters that were part of their schemas of the significant other but were not originally included in the character's description.…”

Section: The Role Of Mental Representations Of the Self Others And mentioning

confidence: 99%

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Westen

1998

Psychological Bulletin

342

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although commentators periodically declare that Freud is dead, his repeated burials lie on shaky grounds. Critics typically attack an archaic version of psychodynamic theory that most clinicians similarly consider obsolete. Central to contemporary psychodynamic theory is a series of propositions about (a) unconscious cognitive, affective, and motivational processes; (b) ambivalence and the tendency for affective and motivational dynamics to operate in parallel and produce compromise solutions; (c) the origins of many personality and social dispositions in childhood; (d) mental representations of the self, others, and relationships; and (e) developmental dynamics. An enormous body of research in cognitive, social, developmental, and personality psychology now supports many of these propositions. Freud's scientific legacy has implications for a wide range of domains in psychology, such as integration of affective and motivational constraints into connectionist models in cognitive science.Freud, like Elvis, has been dead for a number of years but continues to be cited with some regularity. Although the majority of clinicians report that they rely to some degree upon psychodynamic 1 principles in their work ( Pope, Tabachnick, & Keith-Spiegel, 1987 ), most researchers consider psychodynamic ideas to be at worst absurd and obsolete and at best irrelevant or of little scientific interest. In the lead article of a recent edition of Psychological Science, Crews (1996) arrived at a conclusion shared by many: " [T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas" (p. 63).Despite the explosion of empirical studies of unconscious cognitive processes (see, e.g., Greenwald, 1992 ;Kihlstrom, 1987 ;Schacter, 1992 ), few reference Freud; none cite any contemporary psychodynamic work; and in general, psychodynamic concepts are decreasingly represented in the major psychology journals ( Robins & Craik, 1994 ). The situation is similar in the popular media and in broader intellectual discourse. Publications ranging from Time to the New York Review of Books periodically publish Freud's intellectual obituary, with critics charging that Freud's ideas-such as his dual-instinct theory or his hypotheses about female personality development-are seriously out of date and without scientific merit (e.g., Crews, 1993 ).Many aspects of Freudian theory are indeed out of date, and they should be: Freud died in 1939, and he has been slow to undertake further revisions. His critics, however, are equally behind the times, attacking countenance was last sighted in earnest. Contemporary psychoanalysts and psychodynamic therapists no longer write much about ids and egos, nor do they conceive of treatment for psychological disorders as an archaeological expedition in search of lost memories ( Aron, 1996 ;Gabbard, 1994 ;Horowitz, 1988 ;Kolb, Cooper, & Fishman, 1995 ;Mitchell, 1988 ;Wachtel, 1993 ). People do sometimes describe feelings or behav...

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Mental Representations Of the Self Others And mentioning

confidence: 99%

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Westen

1998

Psychological Bulletin

342

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research by Andersen and her colleagues (e.g., Andersen & Cole, 1990) and by Lewicki (1985) has shown that exemplar-based knowledge can affect inferences about newly encountered persons who resemble the known exemplars in some way.…”

Section: General Simulation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perception and stereotyping: Simulation with a recurrent connectionist network.

Smith¹,

DeCoster²

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

122

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Connectionist models contrast in many ways with the symbolic models that have traditionally been applied within social psychology. In this article the authors apply an autoassociative connectionist model originally developed by J. L. to reproduce several well-replicated and theoretically important phenomena related to person perception and stereotyping. These phenomena are exemplar-based inference, group-based stereotyping, the simultaneous application of several stereotypes to generate emergent characteristics, and the effects of recency and frequency of prior exposures on accessibility (the probability of a representation's use). Though many of these phenomena are explained by current theories in social psychology, the simulation contributes to parsimony and theoretical integration by showing that a single, very simple mechanism can generate them all. The model also predicts a new phenomenon--rapid recovery of accessibility after it has declined to zero.

show abstract

“…In addition, closer relationships ordinarily involve more intimate interactions and exposure to privileged information about the other's thoughts and feelings, and thus to a better sense of the other's complexities and depth of personality (e.g., Andersen, Glassman, & Gold, 1998;Andersen & Ross, 1984). People's mental representations of close others therefore include more concrete, detailed features than do their representations of more distant others, and their judgments about close others become associated with retrieval of lower level information (e.g., Andersen & Cole, 1990;Andersen et al, 1998;Idson & Miscel, 2001;Prentice, 1990). In contrast, the limited knowledge of low-level features regarding socially distant others typically requires one to represent information about these individuals more abstractly and to rely on broad and central features in judgments related to their actions (e.g., Jones & Nisbett, 1972;Park & Rothbart, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

535

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on the assumption that interpersonal similarity is a form of social distance, the current research examines the manner in which similarity influences the representation and judgment of others' actions. On the basis of a construal level approach, we hypothesized that greater levels of similarity would increase the relative weight of subordinate and secondary features of information in judgments of others' actions. The results of four experiments showed that compared to corresponding judgments of a dissimilar target, participants exposed to a similar target person identified that person's actions in relatively more subordinate means-related rather than superordinate ends-related terms (Experiment 1), perceived his or her actions to be determined more by feasibility and less by desirability concerns (Experiment 3), and gave more weight to secondary aspects in judgments of the target's decisions (Experiment 2) and performance (Experiment 4). Implications for the study of interpersonal similarity, as well as social distance in general, are discussed. Keywords interpersonal similarity; social distance; construal level theory; social judgment; mental representations Imagine a close friend giving a job talk. Now imagine a stranger giving the same job talk. What type of representation would you construct for this action? Would you represent it in terms of an abstract superordinate goal (for instance, communicating one's research ideas) or rather bring to mind the subordinate, concrete means by which to achieve the goal (such as presenting power point slides)? And would your representation include primary and central aspects related to this action (for instance, the research question) or more secondary information (such as the slides' background design)?

show abstract

"Do I know you?": The role of significant others in general social perception.

Cited by 232 publications

References 42 publications

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perception and stereotyping: Simulation with a recurrent connectionist network.

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About