shared reality

define shared reality

recognition of an inner state being shared with others

list 4 conditions for shared reality

1. shared internal states 

2. shared target 

3. driven by epistemic or relations motives 

4. subjective experiences of connection

define shared internal states

sharing internal attitudes, feelings, needs or intention

NOT copying overt behaviour (simply copying another’s answer)

define shared target

same person, object, situation, political issue

even with the same internal state, you may be looking at different targets, meaning there is no shared reality

relational motives  

• Feeling connected with others

• Better understand another person

epistemic motives 

• Valid and reliable understanding of the world

• Seeking meaning

subjective experiences of connection 

recognizing 2 people feel the same way of the same target.

this moment of realization is needed to develop a shared reality

2 reasons why we seek social connection

1. we want to belong

2. knowledge: so we know what is real. if others believe in the same thing we do we can be certain we know what is true

6-12 months old 

first developed as shared feelings

• proto-declarative gestures: pointing as a comment to another person about something in the world or to draw another’s attention

• learning to recognize others feelings/experssions. this is how they learn information about their world

18-24 months 

shared practices

• using words as a way of symbolically representing the world. there is a shared understanding for the meaning of words (EX: water is the clear liquid) and both can share the meaning of the word

• procedural knowledge: coordinating & pretend play

3-5 years old

shared self guides

• self guides, knowing what behaviours lead to what reactions

• understanding the shared standards of good behaviour

• development of theory of mind: knowing that others think differently so we must conform to how they think

9-13 years old

shared coordinated roles

• you may see group activities (like sports) where people take different roles that need to work together

• they understand the norms and standards that everyone is following

audience tunning

taking account audience’s attitude

effects of shared reality

if you are the only person to think something, it is an opinion

once one other person agrees, it is now true

we bring something subjective into something we believe is objective

what is the effect of shared reality on social causes 

what may be opinion for some can become amplified when there is a rally to common sense

people come to believe something as common sense or a “fact”

shared reality influences on politics 

it influences how we perceive people. when others believe our beliefs and opinions, we come to believe that what we know of these politicians “really” are

essentialism

the belief that there is an underlying hidden reality or immutable essence beneath a category. the belief there is 1 correct answer

common EX: the belief that intelligence is fixed, or that men are a certain way and so are women

explain the Kashima et al study

participants were told to write notes during an activity that would later be shared with 3 others, or participants were told they had to memorize the information

if they had to communicate, they had to write things connected to a certain group - either kindness or hostility on a uni. campus. (so you had to express what these students are like - generalizations)

results of the Kashima study

there was more essentialisms when asked to communicate, regardless of direction. they would say that there was a fundamental truth (that will not change) about a certain group

those who simply had to memorize events showed less essentializing

explain the pinel and long study 

participants would asked to play an “imagine if” game. it is completely random. they use your answer to create either the shared reality or the control condition

shared reality: you are told your answer was ALSO thought by the other person! (the confederate)

Control: the confederate did not have the same answer

results of the pinel and long study 

after experiences a shared reality, participants were less likely to conform on the Ach’s line test. they felt less pressure to conform

does ingroup/outgroup matter in creating a shared reality? pnel and long (2012) study 

female participants were recruited to interact with 1 male part. and 1 female part. they then did the same study as Pinel just above ^

DV: if you had a shared reality, would you like them more or less?

results: if you experience a shared reality you like that person better (regardless of ingroup / outgroup membership)