A couple has been dating for about six months. They are generally very happy together, well-suited to one another, and in most respects, quite compatible. They are each quietly considering the possibility of a long-term commitment sometime in the future. There is, however, a problem. They are arguing, often. It is not so much about what starts the arguments as it is about the path they take. Every time, the conversation devolves the same way – she is left feeling he does not hear her, he is left feeling that everything he says is wrong. What they cannot see, and likely have not considered, are the factors at work that have little to do with their strength as a couple. It may be that the problem lies not in what is being put forth between them but in how it is being received – through an individual lens the other can neither adjust nor fully understand. This lens, this means through which we recognize and interpret information, is our perception. Perception is guided not only by incoming information, but by an individual’s unique perspective as he/she receives it (Goldstein, 2011). As such, two people can come away from the same event having had different experiences, or hear the same phrase and arrive at different meanings. This phenomenon at work between two people in a relationship can result in conflict, and has to do with a particular mechanism in our cognitive functioning – a mechanism referred to as top-down processing.
The theory of top-down processing establishes that sensory information processing in human cognition, which includes perception, recognition, memory, and comprehension, is shaped by our previous experiences, our expectations, and meaningful context (Solso, 1998). More simply put, as we process sensory information, we do so in terms of its personal relevance – our view of the world is shaped by how we have thus far experienced it. This ability to draw connection to some prior knowledge as we navigate through our environment, instead of having to process each event or stimulus as a new experience, is inarguably safer and more efficient. That said, it can also be unreliable, as it does not always allow for an accurate representation of what is being encountered. In the context of a relationship, this subjective interpretation can bring about a detrimental break in communication.
Renowned psychologist R. D. Laing, in his work on relational perception, focused on how communication affects a relationship and explored the way in which relationships develop (Littlejohn, 1996). Laing maintained that relationships are always connected to communication, and that a person’s communicative behavior is directly affected by his or her perception of the relationship. As such, relationships are continuously being defined in terms of perception. This process is ongoing, and over time, through a series of negotiations, a stronger relationship can emerge (Littlejohn, 1996). This is where patience and a certain degree of self-awareness on the part of both parties may have much to say about the relationship’s potential for long-term success, which brings us back to our discussion of top-down processing.
Consider this mechanism of perception and its implications on relationships in terms of previous experience. How we come to interpret relationships is largely the product of our relationships past. If one has had a history of disappointment, for example, one’s cognitive map, or mental model, of relationships in general becomes one of disappointment (Baldwin, 1992). That individual may find it difficult to trust, or become particularly sensitive to any sign that their new partner will leave them. While this is but one example, it illustrates how our underlying representation of relationships, rendered by the connections of our past, can influence how we perceive and thereby interact with our partner in the present, regardless of what is actually happening in the relationship.
How we interpret that which we receive from our partner can also be influenced by our own expectations. Laing defined the relationship itself as a set of expectations two people have for their behavior based on the pattern of interaction between them (Littlejohn, 1996). As we come to expect a particular pattern of behavior in our relationship, any deviation is subject to interpretation. Because we cannot fully understand another’s experience, we are left to draw assumptions based on our understanding of that individual. We may try to infer meaning, we may even feel strongly we have interpreted the break in the pattern correctly. This interpretation, however, much like all that we perceive, is guided by our own experiences and subject to our own distortions. Thus we may find ourselves unduly reacting to information that, thus far, is present only in our minds.
So what of our couple? As Laing suggested, perception is an ongoing process. With an awareness of how our past can influence our future, and how our perception is but our own interpretation, our couple might find better ways to communicate. Over time, each might rewrite their cognitive map, and begin to see the other and the relationship through a new lens, one that is based on their experiences, and not those relationship failures that had thus far been holding them back. That is the beauty of the human mind. We have the ability to create our own reality, and to change the way we experience the world simply by changing the way we move through it.
(By the way, it is three years later, and that couple will be married in August.)
References
Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relationship schemas and the processing of social information. Psychology Bulletin, Volume 112(3). Retrieved from http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/danfords2002/documents/baldwn2.pdf
Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Littlejohn, S.W. (1996). Theories of human communication (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Solso, R.L. (1998). Cognitive psychology (5th edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon