How Experience Shapes Our Expectations

A message goes unanswered, and an old story begins to write itself. Perhaps we assume that we have become a burden. Perhaps we expect anger, or decide that asking for anything was a mistake. The silence is happening now, but the meaning we give it may draw on relationships long past. What appears to be a simple reaction can carry a history of expectations.

Throughout life, we gather experience into mental maps: workable understandings of ourselves and the world. We learn what seems safe, which efforts appear worthwhile, and how other people are likely to respond. These expectations help us find our way. They can also keep directing us along a familiar route after the circumstances around us have changed (Markus, 1977; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

What Are Mental Maps in Psychology

In this article, mental maps are learned patterns of knowledge and expectation that help us interpret experience and anticipate what may happen next. The phrase serves as a metaphor for navigating life, bringing together related ideas about schemas, memory, and learning. It does not name a single psychological theory or a literal diagram stored in the brain.

In cognitive neuroscience, a cognitive map is an internal understanding of how places or other parts of experience relate to one another. Knowing how places connect, for example, can help us find a different route when a familiar one is blocked. Much of this research concerns physical navigation, although researchers also study how we organize other kinds of knowledge (Behrens et al., 2018). The broader metaphor used here concerns the learned expectations that guide everyday life; it also differs from a diagram drawn to organize ideas.

A schema organizes knowledge about a domain of experience (Bartlett, 1932). A self-schema concerns who we believe ourselves to be and helps organize information relevant to that belief (Markus, 1977). In attachment theory, internal working models concern expectations about ourselves and important others, including whether support will be available when we need it (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, pp. 15–16). Each concept identifies a way that previous experience can give structure to a new encounter.

The map metaphor becomes useful when we remember that a map selects. It brings certain features into view and leaves others in the background. Our psychological maps likewise provide orientation without containing everything there is to know about a person or situation. The question is how well that orientation fits the experience before us.

Why Mental Maps Are Useful

We do not approach every conversation as if human behavior were entirely unfamiliar. Prior knowledge lets us recognize a familiar situation, anticipate a likely response, and prepare an action. Self-schemas can make judgments about ourselves more efficient; relationship expectations can help organize how we seek support. These functions are part of ordinary adaptation, even though the same expectations can sometimes mislead us (Markus, 1977; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Past experience helps us anticipate what we are about to see or hear. Andy Clark describes an approach called predictive processing: the brain forms expectations, then responds when incoming information differs from what it expected. This theoretical account helps explain why perception depends partly on prior learning as well as current sensory information (Clark, 2013).

A useful map allows us to move with some confidence while remaining open to correction. We can expect a reliable friend to respond without examining the entire history of the friendship each time we send a message. That expectation becomes less useful if it prevents us from noticing a meaningful change. Accuracy depends partly on whether experience still supports the expectation.

How Experience Shapes Mental Maps

Experience becomes organized knowledge that helps us interpret later events. In Frederic Bartlett’s account of schemas, remembering involves reconstruction: we assemble a recollection through the relationship between particular details and the organized knowledge we already possess. Yesterday enters the present through this ongoing work of interpretation, rather than arriving as a perfect recording (Bartlett, 1932).

This organization also shapes what we expect of ourselves. Hazel Markus’s experiments examined female students who differed in how strongly they understood themselves in terms of independence or dependence. Those with a relevant self-schema processed matching information more readily, retrieved supporting examples of their own behavior, and resisted information that conflicted with that self-understanding. A self-schema helped make some evidence especially available and convincing (Markus, 1977).

Learning can also influence us without conscious recollection. In Synaptic Self, Joseph LeDoux explains that learning builds on what has already been learned and that memory contributes to the continuity of the self. Some memory is explicit, available for conscious recollection. Other learning is expressed implicitly in what we do, without requiring deliberate recall. A person therefore need not consciously revisit an earlier experience for learning to influence a present response (LeDoux, 2003).

Consider someone whose requests for comfort were often met with impatience. Later, an unanswered message might feel like another sign that their needs are unwelcome. Attachment theory offers one way to understand this possible connection between earlier experience and present expectations, while also directing attention to the current relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

When Familiar Expectations No Longer Fit

The difficulty is often a mismatch between a learned expectation and a new situation. A person who has encountered unreliable support may carry caution into a relationship with someone more responsive. Another person may continue expecting care from someone who has become consistently unavailable. Both possibilities matter. Revising a mental map may mean recognizing greater safety, or acknowledging a problem we have been reluctant to see (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Mikulincer and Shaver emphasize that expectations in close relationships reflect both earlier experience and present circumstances. Earlier relationships matter, but so do later losses, new bonds, and a partner’s actual responses. Childhood helps shape these expectations without fixing their course for life (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Attention to present circumstances also matters when discussing thinking errors. A painful conclusion is not automatically a distortion. When another person behaves harmfully, examining our expectations does not make that behavior our responsibility. A more accurate map may direct us toward stronger boundaries or different circumstances rather than greater tolerance of the same treatment.

Why We Hold On to Familiar Interpretations

A familiar belief can influence what counts as evidence. Markus’s work suggests that self-schemas help us retrieve supporting memories and can make inconsistent information harder to accept. If we understand ourselves as someone others merely tolerate, an affectionate gesture may be filed away as politeness while a missed invitation seems to reveal the truth. The example illustrates how an existing interpretation can influence the weight given to new information (Markus, 1977).

Motivation can add another influence. In her review of motivated reasoning, Ziva Kunda distinguishes wanting an accurate answer from wanting a particular conclusion. Desired conclusions can affect which information people retrieve and how they evaluate it, while remaining constrained by what they can plausibly justify. Someone hoping a relationship is unchanged, for example, may find reasons to dismiss evidence that it is deteriorating (Kunda, 1990).

These processes should not be collapsed into a judgment about a stubborn or dishonest personality. Familiarity and preference are different influences. A painful expectation may persist even when we deeply wish it were false. Recognizing that distinction makes it possible to examine a belief without assuming that the person holding it wants the suffering associated with it (Kunda, 1990; Markus, 1977).

How Our Responses Shape the Evidence

Expectations may also enter the relationship through behavior. Geraldine Downey and colleagues studied rejection sensitivity using daily reports from couples and laboratory observations of conflict. In their samples, the specific pathway linking rejection sensitivity, negative conflict behavior, and a partner’s subsequent rejection emerged for women but not men. The findings illustrate a possible interpersonal feedback process, not a rule that people create the rejection they fear (Downey et al., 1998).

Our responses can also determine which information becomes available. In a computer game studied by Russell Fazio and colleagues, participants learned which beans produced favorable or unfavorable outcomes. When outcome feedback depended on choosing a bean, participants learned to identify negative beans better than positive beans. Avoiding a bean limited opportunities to discover whether a negative expectation was mistaken. In the experiment comparing feedback conditions, this difference in learning disappeared when participants received outcome feedback regardless of their choice (Fazio et al., 2004).

The same question about opportunities to learn can be considered in everyday life. Someone who expects dismissal may stop asking for support and learn little about whether another person would respond differently. At work, believing “I cannot learn this” may lead someone to avoid a manageable new task, leaving that judgment untested. These are everyday illustrations of the learning principle, rather than outcomes tested in the experiment. They show how a mental map may influence both our interpretation of experience and our opportunities to encounter new evidence (Fazio et al., 2004).

Avoidance can also protect us from real harm. The useful question is whether a safe opportunity to learn is being overlooked. An expectation deserves reconsideration when relevant information is missing, but testing it need not mean returning to a harmful person or situation.

Revising Mental Maps Through Evidence and Experience

Returning to the unanswered message, we might separate the observable event from the explanation: no reply has arrived; the belief that we are unwanted is an interpretation. It could be mistaken, partly accurate, or supported by a larger pattern. Naming the interpretation gives us something specific to examine. We can ask what supports it and what evidence would give a competing explanation a fair hearing (Lord et al., 1984; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Considering Alternative Explanations

Charles Lord, Mark Lepper, and Elizabeth Preston examined a consider-the-opposite strategy in two experiments involving the evaluation of social evidence and the testing of personality impressions. Making an opposing possibility salient reduced bias more than general instructions to be fair and unbiased. The results support a specific practice within the tasks studied: actively bringing an alternative into view can be more helpful than simply intending to think objectively (Lord et al., 1984).

For the person waiting for a reply, a plausible alternative might be that the other person is occupied, uncertain how to respond, or has not seen the message. A later explanation or a calm question may help distinguish those possibilities from rejection. An alternative earns its place through evidence; it need not be reassuring.

Learning Through New Experiences

New action can create opportunities to learn. Expressing a need clearly, asking about an ambiguous response, or allowing a reliable person to offer support may provide information an old expectation leaves little room for. Mikulincer and Shaver describe working models as sufficiently stable to guide behavior while remaining open to revision through later relationship experiences. Change depends on what those experiences actually reveal (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, pp. 118–120).

There is a biological basis for continued learning as well. LeDoux writes that “our synapses do not stop changing, but remain subtly changeable by experience” (LeDoux, 2003, Kindle loc. 1835). This continuing capacity for change helps explain why earlier learning need not be the end of the story, although it cannot tell us how quickly a particular expectation will change.

Revision may begin with a modest change in how broadly we apply a belief. “Nobody listens” may gradually become “Some people have dismissed me, and I am learning who responds differently.” This is a more discriminating map: it retains information about past hurt while allowing relevant new experiences to matter. The change is meaningful even if the old expectation sometimes returns (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

What we learn can guide the next decision. Sometimes that means another conversation or a further opportunity to practice. Sometimes it means seeking support or changing a situation that continues to cause harm. Revision remains useful when it helps us respond more accurately to the circumstances we face.

Why Old Expectations Can Return

New learning does not always erase what came before. Mark Bouton reviews research in which a familiar signal stops being followed by an expected event. The learned response to that signal can weaken, a process called Pavlovian extinction. Yet the response may return in a different setting. This suggests that earlier learning can remain alongside what was learned later, with the surroundings helping determine which response appears (Bouton, 2004).

These conditioning findings do not explain every return of an old fear. They do show why a response can weaken without earlier learning being erased. Attachment research likewise describes both continuity and revision in relationship expectations (Bouton, 2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Together, these accounts suggest that an old expectation’s return need not mean that later learning has been lost. We can notice its return while still asking what the present situation supports.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

We carry more than memories into the present. We carry expectations about which paths are open to us and what may be waiting around the bend. Some of those expectations were learned under difficult conditions. We can respect what they once helped us navigate while looking carefully at where they lead today.

Perhaps the unanswered message will eventually bring warmth. Perhaps it will confirm a distance that needs our attention. Either way, there is something to learn when we allow the present to speak. A map becomes more useful as we make room for what we encounter, including the people and possibilities our earlier experience could not have shown us.

Associated Concepts

• Self-Schema: Organized knowledge about ourselves that helps guide the processing of personally relevant information.
• Internal Working Models: Expectations about ourselves and important others that help shape how we approach close relationships.
• Motivated Reasoning: The influence of desired conclusions on how we retrieve, interpret, and evaluate evidence.
• Parataxic Distortions: Interpreting a present relationship through expectations carried from earlier relationships.
• Neuroplasticity: The capacity of the nervous system to change, providing a biological foundation for learning across life.
• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to favor information that supports existing beliefs, helping explain why familiar mental maps can persist despite conflicting evidence.

References

Bartlett, Frederic C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
(Return to Main Text)

Behrens, Timothy E. J.; Muller, Timothy H.; Whittington, James C. R.; Mark, Shirley; Baram, Alon B.; Stachenfeld, Kimberly L.; Kurth-Nelson, Zeb (2018). What Is a Cognitive Map? Organizing Knowledge for Flexible Behavior. Neuron, 100(2), 490–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002.
(Return to Main Text)

Bouton, Mark E. (2004). Context and Behavioral Processes in Extinction. Learning & Memory, 11(5), 485–494. DOI: 10.1101/lm.78804.
(Return to Main Text)

Clark, Andy (2013). Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477.
(Return to Main Text)

Downey, Geraldine; Freitas, Antonio L.; Michaelis, Benjamin; Khouri, Hala (1998). The Self-fulfilling Prophecy in Close Relationships: Rejection Sensitivity and Rejection by Romantic Partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545–560. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.75.2.545. PMID: 9731324.
(Return to Main Text)

Fazio, Russell H.; Eiser, John R.; Shook, Natalie J. (2004). Attitude Formation Through Exploration: Valence Asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 293–311. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.293.
(Return to Main Text)

Kunda, Ziva (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. PMID: 2270237.
(Return to Main Text)

LeDoux, Joseph (2003). Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780142001783.
(Return to Main Text)

Lord, Charles G.; Lepper, Mark R.; Preston, Elizabeth (1984). Considering the Opposite: A Corrective Strategy for Social Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1231.
(Return to Main Text)

Markus, Hazel (1977). Self-schemata and Processing Information About the Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.
(Return to Main Text)

Mikulincer, Mario; Shaver, Phillip R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. The Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781593854577.
(Return to Main Text)