Stop pressuring me. I will make my own choices, and act as I see fit. No! Help me. I don’t understand what is happening. What should I do?
At the extremes, the above two diametrically opposite attitudes depict a fundamental, perhaps the fundamental, social conflict that assails us virtually every day. Should we look within or without for guidance? Not surprisingly then, psychology has considered the independence-dependence conflict as being pivotal in our intra-personal and inter-personal psychodynamics.
In previous blogs and books, I have written about the self-determination theory (SDT) of Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan (2002). According to SDT, autonomy and relatedness are two of the three major, relatively controllable factors, critical for our social well-being. Although autonomy and relatedness need not always conflict, no one can have their own way all the time. When involved in interpersonal situations, we should expect to have our autonomy reduced to some extent.
Since emotions frequently guide our thoughts and feelings, let's think about emotional autonomy and dependence as implied by a study conducted by Amit Goldenberg and his colleagues (2019). The study targeted subjects' negative emotions, relative to the emotions expressed by their reference group. More specifically, the investigators sought to determine whether there might be a kind of "collective emotion" that arises due to the emotional interactions of members of a given group. In theory, individual group members would be impacted by their group's collective emotion, and, also, contribute to it. This idea is not particularly new; most of us recognize that persons in a group can be incited into emotion of a quality and/or intensity that they ordinarily do not manifest. The Goldenberg study attempted to present a framework from which psychology can explore the collective emotion concept, but we will avoid that aspect of the study, and, instead, infer its application to everyday people in everyday situations.
The authors suggested common reasons that might cause an individual to alter their emotional condition in the direction of the group norm. One might identify with the group and want to maintain that identity by "feeling" in a group-consistent way. Alternatively, an individual might regard herself as not quite accepted, and adopt the group feeling to gain entry. Third, she might assume the group feeling to try to understand what the group understands. Finally, she might derive pleasure from feeling whatever emotion the group members are expressing. For instance, their expressions of anger might enable her to ventilate her own anger, regardless of its source.
The Goldenberg group also offered common reasons that might cause an individual to alter their emotional condition in the direction opposite of the group norm. Those reasons obviously could be the converse of reasons for altering emotions in the direction of the group. However, the research paper specifically mentions three reasons to resist the group norm: to differentiate herself from the reference group, to maintain her idiosyncratic identity, or to rebel against a group emotional attitude toward which she is opposed.
Essentially, the reasons offered for altering emotion either toward or away from the group norm fall into four broad categories: identity, acceptance, understanding, and pleasure. Sounds like this research mostly substantiates common sense. The application of the research for everyday life concerns the extent to which you understand the particular factors that bias you toward emotional autonomy vs. emotional dependency relative to your reference groups.
Your independence-dependence predilections are critical because they profoundly influence your every thought, feeling, and action. Even when you are alone, reference group norms within your mind can sway you in their direction. Sometimes that is to your advantage, and sometimes to your detriment. Try to be mindful of your reference group norms, then, and use that insight to decide when independence or dependence is in your best interest. To paraphrase the proverbial wisdom, "Show me your company, and I'll tell you who you are," I offer the suggestion, "Show me your reference group, and I'll tell you how you feel."
References
Goldenberg, A., Garcia, D., Halperin, E., Zaki, J., Kong, D., Golarai, G., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Beyond emotional similarity: The role of situation-specific motives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000625
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (Eds.), (2002). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
At the extremes, the above two diametrically opposite attitudes depict a fundamental, perhaps the fundamental, social conflict that assails us virtually every day. Should we look within or without for guidance? Not surprisingly then, psychology has considered the independence-dependence conflict as being pivotal in our intra-personal and inter-personal psychodynamics.
In previous blogs and books, I have written about the self-determination theory (SDT) of Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan (2002). According to SDT, autonomy and relatedness are two of the three major, relatively controllable factors, critical for our social well-being. Although autonomy and relatedness need not always conflict, no one can have their own way all the time. When involved in interpersonal situations, we should expect to have our autonomy reduced to some extent.
Since emotions frequently guide our thoughts and feelings, let's think about emotional autonomy and dependence as implied by a study conducted by Amit Goldenberg and his colleagues (2019). The study targeted subjects' negative emotions, relative to the emotions expressed by their reference group. More specifically, the investigators sought to determine whether there might be a kind of "collective emotion" that arises due to the emotional interactions of members of a given group. In theory, individual group members would be impacted by their group's collective emotion, and, also, contribute to it. This idea is not particularly new; most of us recognize that persons in a group can be incited into emotion of a quality and/or intensity that they ordinarily do not manifest. The Goldenberg study attempted to present a framework from which psychology can explore the collective emotion concept, but we will avoid that aspect of the study, and, instead, infer its application to everyday people in everyday situations.
The authors suggested common reasons that might cause an individual to alter their emotional condition in the direction of the group norm. One might identify with the group and want to maintain that identity by "feeling" in a group-consistent way. Alternatively, an individual might regard herself as not quite accepted, and adopt the group feeling to gain entry. Third, she might assume the group feeling to try to understand what the group understands. Finally, she might derive pleasure from feeling whatever emotion the group members are expressing. For instance, their expressions of anger might enable her to ventilate her own anger, regardless of its source.
The Goldenberg group also offered common reasons that might cause an individual to alter their emotional condition in the direction opposite of the group norm. Those reasons obviously could be the converse of reasons for altering emotions in the direction of the group. However, the research paper specifically mentions three reasons to resist the group norm: to differentiate herself from the reference group, to maintain her idiosyncratic identity, or to rebel against a group emotional attitude toward which she is opposed.
Essentially, the reasons offered for altering emotion either toward or away from the group norm fall into four broad categories: identity, acceptance, understanding, and pleasure. Sounds like this research mostly substantiates common sense. The application of the research for everyday life concerns the extent to which you understand the particular factors that bias you toward emotional autonomy vs. emotional dependency relative to your reference groups.
Your independence-dependence predilections are critical because they profoundly influence your every thought, feeling, and action. Even when you are alone, reference group norms within your mind can sway you in their direction. Sometimes that is to your advantage, and sometimes to your detriment. Try to be mindful of your reference group norms, then, and use that insight to decide when independence or dependence is in your best interest. To paraphrase the proverbial wisdom, "Show me your company, and I'll tell you who you are," I offer the suggestion, "Show me your reference group, and I'll tell you how you feel."
References
Goldenberg, A., Garcia, D., Halperin, E., Zaki, J., Kong, D., Golarai, G., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Beyond emotional similarity: The role of situation-specific motives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000625
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (Eds.), (2002). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
