PSYCHOLOGICAL SELF-OTHER OVERLAP

153 Pages·2014·0.96 MB·English

PSYCHOLOGICAL SELF-OTHER OVERLAP: IMPLICATIONS FOR PROSOCIAL
BEHAVIOR IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

by

Mary Y. Liu

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Psychology)
in the University of Michigan
2014

Doctoral Committee:
Assistant Research Professor Sara H. Konrath, Co-Chair
Associate Professor Ethan F. Kross, Co-Chair
Professor Jane E. Dutton
Professor Phoebe C. Ellsworth
© Mary Y. Liu
2014
DEDICATION
To my family, for their unwavering love, support, and sacrifice

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This body of work would not have been possible without the collective contributions of
many. First and foremost, I would like to thank my wonderfully supportive advisors, Sara
Konrath and Ethan Kross. Sara, thank you for your insightful wisdom, continual encouragement,
and kind friendship. I feel lucky to have had you as a mentor not only for research, but also for
life. Ethan, thank you for encouraging me to be an independent thinker, for your continual
guidance during my graduate training, and for sharing your research acumen and enthusiasm. For
this, I am deeply grateful and indebted. Many thanks to Phoebe Ellsworth and Jane Dutton for
being the most supportive and accommodating committee members a candidate could ever hope
for. Your collective positivity, humor, and commitment cast a warm and uplifting light to what is
normally considered a challenging process. I am also thankful to the many research assistants I
have had the privilege of working with over the years for their hard work and dedication.
It does not escape me for one moment that this dissertation and the opportunity to pursue
graduate training were only possible because of the unwavering love, support and sacrifice from
my family. Thank you for providing me with the resources and opportunities that have allowed
me to choose my own path in life. Lastly, so much joy in my graduate years has been due to
particular individuals who have deeply enriched my experiences beyond graduate school.
Although it is impossible to thank each person individually, I would like to acknowledge a few,
particularly Tobias Wacker, Diana Betz, Jesse Chandler, Danielle Shapiro, Sasha Kimel, Rich
Yau, Jon Yip, and Joseph Tyler. Collectively you have shaped me to be the person I am today,
and for that I am eternally grateful.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication.......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................vi
Abstract........................................................................................................................................vii

Chapter I: Introduction...................................................................................................................1

Chapter II: What determines self-other overlap and how may it affect prosocial tendencies?...13
Study 1: Anger versus happiness and control among close friends...................................18
Study 2: Sadness versus contentment and control among close friends............................30
Study 3: Anger versus gratitude and control among best friends......................................39
Study 4: Anger versus gratitude and control among marital partners................................50

Chapter III: Does self-other overlap moderate the consequences of prosocial behavior?..........67
Study 5a: Giving support predicts mortality risk among parents......................................74
Study 5b: Giving support does not predict mortality risk among non-parents..................83

Chapter IV: Conclusion...............................................................................................................95

Endnotes.....................................................................................................................................108

Tables..........................................................................................................................................110

Figures........................................................................................................................................117

Appendix....................................................................................................................................119

References..................................................................................................................................125

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table

II.1 Summary of appraisals related to the discrete emotions in Chapter II.................................110
II.2 Means, standard errors, and post-hoc comparisons for all dependent variables by condition
in Studies 1 to 4....................................................................................................................111
III.1 Zero-Order Correlations of Support Given and Received Variables in Study 5.................112
III.2 Hierarchical Logistic Regression Model Used to Predict Mortality Risk among Participants
with Children in Study 5a....................................................................................................113
III.3 Hierarchical Logistic Regression Model Used to Predict Mortality Risk among Childless
Participants in Study 5b.......................................................................................................115

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

I.1 Schematic representation of the research questions in Chapter II and III..............................117
II.1Self-other Overlap Mediates the Relationship between Condition and Helping in Study 1..118

vi
ABSTRACT

The present dissertation uncovers the processes by which self-other overlap influences prosocial
behavior and its consequences across different close relationships. Chapter I reviews extant
theory and research on self-other overlap and its role in relationships and prosocial behavior.
Chapter II explores whether discrete emotions shift perceptions of self-other overlap, and how
shifts influence downstream prosocial tendencies across 4 studies. Study 1 found that reflecting
on an angry experience with a close friend led to less self-other overlap and subsequent prosocial
tendencies toward that friend, relative to reflecting on a happy or more neutral experience.
Furthermore, anger undermined helping through the mediating role of self-other overlap, relative
to the other conditions. Study 2 ruled out a general negative valence explanation after finding no
significant self-other overlap differences from reflecting on emotions similar in valence (i.e., sad,
content, or control) involving a close friend. Study 3 tested emotions that directly implicate
others (i.e., gratitude, anger, and control) among best friends. Anger undermined self-other
overlap, relative to the control. However, there were no self-other overlap differences between
gratitude and control, condition effects on helping, or mediation. Study 4 found null effects of
anger on self-other overlap, relative to gratitude and control, suggesting that marital relationships
may be one boundary condition. Chapter III explores whether relationship type, a proxy for self-
other overlap, moderates the long-term health outcomes of providing support to close others.
Giving to emotionally close partners predicted mortality risk, when giving to children. This
likely occurred because children activate the caregiving system, which is hypothesized to benefit
vii
stress-regulation. Study 5a found that providing support to adult children predicted reduced
mortality risk 17 years later among older adult parents, but providing support to other partners
(e.g., parents, siblings, other relatives, friends) did not predict mortality risk among either parents
(Study 5a) or non-parents (Study 5b), controlling for a number of plausible confounds. Chapter
IV concludes by discussing the implications of the research for a variety of research literatures
and future directions. Together, the studies begin to illuminate the intricacies by which self-other
overlap influences prosocial behavior and its consequences in different close relationships.

viii
CHAPTER I
Introduction
One of the most fundamental distinctions in social psychology is the one between self
and other. Theoretical exploration of these two spheres of human existence are supported by an
extensive literature (for review, see Wiggins, 1991). For example, Bakan (1966) differentiated
agency (the individuated self that strives for mastery, power, and self-protection) from
communion (the connected self that strives for intimacy, union, and solidarity). These two
modalities can be mapped onto an interpersonal circumplex that organizes interpersonal behavior
(Wiggins, 1991). Parallel distinctions occur in Fromm’s (1941) separate entity versus oneness
with world, Erikson’s (1950) autonomy versus basic trust, McAdams’s (1985) power vs intimacy
motivation, and more recently, Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) independent versus
interdependent self. Major areas of psychological research have incorporated distinctions
between the self and other into their theorizing, such as research on self and identity (W. B.
Swann & Bosson, 2010), close relationships (Clark & Lemay, 2010), prosocial behavior (Penner,
Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005), and aggression (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). Over the
last two decades theoretical interest has focused on how the self may be merged or overlap with
others and how this self-other overlap influences different intrapersonal and interpersonal
outcomes (Aron & Aron, 1996, 1997; Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, et al., 2004; Aron, Aron, Tudor,
& Nelson, 1991; Batson, 1987, 1991, 1997; Batson et al., 1997; Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, &
Neuberg, 1997; Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996; Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007; Myers &
1