How Our Beliefs About Others Can Influence the Relationships We Experience
Have you ever entered a conversation already expecting it to go badly?
Maybe you were anticipating criticism from your supervisor. Perhaps you believed your partner was upset with you, or you were preparing yourself for another uncomfortable interaction with a family member.
Before the conversation even began, you were already on guard.
You might have rehearsed what you wanted to say. You may have anticipated possible arguments, prepared explanations, or decided to keep your responses brief.
Then the conversation happened.
And somehow, it unfolded almost exactly as you expected.
The other person seemed defensive. You felt misunderstood. The interaction became uncomfortable, and afterward, you found yourself thinking, "I knew that was going to happen."
But what if your expectations influenced the interaction itself?
What if the way you entered the conversation changed how the other person responded?
And what if their response then reinforced the belief you already held?
This is one of the more interesting aspects of interpersonal meaning-making.
Our beliefs about relationships do not simply help us understand what has happened.
Sometimes they influence what happens next.
We Do Not Enter Relationships Without Expectations
Every relationship involves expectations.
We develop beliefs about how people are likely to behave based on previous experiences, observed patterns, emotional responses, and information we have learned from others.
If someone has consistently treated us with kindness, we may expect future interactions to be supportive.
If someone has repeatedly criticized us, we may anticipate criticism before the next conversation begins.
If a relationship has been unpredictable, we may approach interactions with heightened caution.
These expectations are not inherently problematic.
In fact, they are essential to navigating relationships.
Without expectations, we would have to approach every interaction without using anything we had previously learned.
We would struggle to recognize patterns, anticipate consequences, or make informed decisions about whom to trust.
Our expectations help us prepare.
But they can also influence how we behave.
And that is where things become more complicated.
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Relationships
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when an expectation influences behavior in ways that contribute to the expected outcome.
In interpersonal relationships, this can happen through a process researchers have examined under concepts such as interpersonal expectancy effects and behavioral confirmation.
Imagine that you believe a coworker dislikes you.
You are not entirely sure why, but you have noticed that they sometimes seem distant.
The next time you see them, you decide to keep your distance.
You avoid initiating conversation.
You respond politely but briefly.
You do not make your usual attempts at friendly interaction.
Your coworker notices that you seem unusually reserved.
They may wonder whether they have done something wrong.
Perhaps they become uncomfortable and begin limiting their interactions with you.
Now you have additional information.
Your coworker seems distant.
And that distance appears to confirm your original belief.
But consider the sequence.
You believed your coworker disliked you.
That belief influenced your behavior.
Your behavior influenced the interaction.
Your coworker's response then reinforced your original expectation.
The relationship may have become more distant, at least partly because both people were responding to interpretations of the other's behavior.
This does not mean the original belief was necessarily wrong.
Your coworker may genuinely have been unfriendly.
But it introduces another possibility.
Sometimes our expectations become active participants in the relationships we are trying to understand.
When the Map Begins to Shape the Territory
In the Cartographic Model of Interpersonal Meaning-Making, I describe how we construct interpersonal maps from observation, emotion, memory, inference, expectations, and information acquired from other people.
These maps help us understand relationships.
They also influence how we navigate them.
Once we believe we understand another person's behavior, we begin anticipating what they might do next.
Those expectations can influence our facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, willingness to engage, and emotional availability.
The other person responds to what they observe.
Their response then becomes part of our next experience.
The process can be understood as a cycle:
Experience leads to meaning.
Meaning influences expectation.
Expectation influences behavior.
Behavior influences interpersonal responses.
Those responses create new experiences.
And those experiences may reinforce or revise the original meaning.
This is a recursive interpersonal process.
In other words, the map does not simply describe the territory.
Under certain circumstances, it helps shape what happens within it.
The Relationship That Always Ends in an Argument
Consider a couple who frequently argue about household responsibilities.
One partner believes the other never takes their concerns seriously.
The other believes that every conversation about chores will become criticism.
Over time, both develop expectations about how these conversations unfold.
When the first partner brings up an unfinished task, they may already feel frustrated.
Their tone may become sharper than intended.
The second partner hears the frustration and interprets it as another attack.
They become defensive.
The first partner experiences the defensiveness as evidence that their concerns are being dismissed.
Their frustration increases.
The second partner withdraws.
Now both partners feel confirmed in their original beliefs.
One concludes, "They never listen to me."
The other concludes, "I can't do anything right."
The next time household responsibilities come up, both enter the conversation with even stronger expectations.
The cycle becomes increasingly familiar.
Eventually, the couple may stop responding only to the immediate conversation.
They begin responding to the history of previous conversations.
This is an important distinction.
Sometimes we are reacting to what another person is doing in the present.
Other times, we are also responding to what we have come to expect from them.
And sometimes both are happening simultaneously.
Why Familiar Patterns Can Feel So Certain
Once a relationship develops a recurring pattern, we become increasingly skilled at recognizing its familiar features.
A particular tone of voice may signal the beginning of an argument.
A facial expression may remind us of previous criticism.
A delayed response may suggest that someone is withdrawing.
These observations can be meaningful.
Repeated experiences provide information about how relationships function.
But expectations can also influence which details we notice.
If we believe someone is critical, we may become particularly attentive to comments that sound judgmental.
If we believe someone is rejecting us, we may focus on signs of emotional distance.
If we believe someone is unreliable, we may remember their mistakes more readily than occasions when they followed through.
This process overlaps with confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias involves tendencies to seek, interpret, or remember information in ways that support existing beliefs.
It does not mean those beliefs are necessarily inaccurate.
Sometimes a person really is consistently critical, rejecting, or unreliable.
The important question is whether our understanding remains responsive to the full range of credible information.
Do we recognize when the pattern occurs?
Can we also recognize when something different happens?
And if the relationship changes, are we capable of noticing?
When Protection Becomes Part of the Pattern
Expectations often develop for good reasons.
Someone who has experienced repeated criticism may learn to prepare for negative feedback.
Someone who has been abandoned may become particularly sensitive to signs of withdrawal.
Someone who has experienced unpredictable anger may learn to monitor subtle changes in another person's behavior.
These responses can serve protective functions.
They help people anticipate situations that have previously been painful or dangerous.
But protective strategies can sometimes create difficulties in relationships where the original threat is no longer present.
Imagine someone who grew up in an environment where expressing disagreement frequently led to conflict.
As an adult, they may approach disagreement with considerable anxiety.
They might avoid expressing preferences, agree when they actually disagree, or become guarded when someone asks for their opinion.
A supportive partner may experience this guardedness as a lack of openness.
The partner may become frustrated because they cannot understand what the person wants.
That frustration may then reinforce the original expectation that disagreement leads to conflict.
The person may conclude that expressing their needs is unsafe.
The protective strategy has become part of an interpersonal feedback loop.
This does not mean the person caused the conflict or is responsible for another person's behavior.
It means that strategies developed in one environment can sometimes influence interactions in another.
Recognizing that possibility creates opportunities for greater flexibility.
A Necessary Distinction: Not Every Pattern Is Self-Fulfilling
There is an important limitation to this discussion.
Not every difficult relationship is maintained by mutual expectations.
Sometimes another person is genuinely abusive, coercive, threatening, or consistently disrespectful.
A person who becomes guarded around someone who has repeatedly harmed them may be responding appropriately to an established pattern of danger.
Their caution should not automatically be interpreted as contributing to the mistreatment.
Likewise, someone who anticipates criticism from a consistently critical partner may be making an accurate prediction.
The concept of behavioral confirmation should never be used to suggest that people create their own abuse or are responsible for another person's harmful choices.
Interpersonal influence does not mean equal responsibility.
One person's behavior may influence an interaction without making them accountable for the other person's decisions.
Sometimes the map accurately identifies dangerous territory.
And when it does, the appropriate response may involve boundaries, distance, or safety planning rather than greater interpersonal openness.
The purpose of examining feedback loops is not to assign blame.
It is to identify where expectations may influence interactions and whether greater awareness could create additional choices.
How Social Signals Influence the Cycle
One of the reasons interpersonal expectations can become self-reinforcing is that we communicate far more than words.
Our facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, eye contact, timing, and willingness to engage all provide information to other people.
These behaviors are often referred to as social signals.
In Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy, or RO-DBT, social signaling is particularly important because our outward behavior influences how other people experience and respond to us.
Consider someone who feels anxious about being rejected.
They may want connection but appear emotionally distant.
Perhaps they avoid eye contact, respond briefly, or hesitate to initiate conversation.
Other people may interpret those signals as disinterest.
They may respond by giving the person more space.
The person then experiences that distance as rejection.
What makes this process particularly difficult is that the person's internal experience and external signals may communicate very different things.
Internally, they may be longing for connection.
Externally, they may appear uninterested.
The resulting interpersonal response may reinforce the very fear that influenced their behavior.
This is why understanding our social signals can be so valuable.
It allows us to consider not only what we intend to communicate but also what other people may actually experience.
Intentions and Impact Are Not Always the Same
Imagine that you are frustrated with a friend.
You do not want to start an argument, so you decide to say very little.
Your intention is to avoid conflict.
But your friend experiences your silence as disapproval.
They become anxious and begin asking whether something is wrong.
You feel pressured and withdraw further.
Your friend becomes increasingly distressed.
Now both people are responding to interpretations of the other's behavior.
You believe your friend is pressuring you.
Your friend believes you are rejecting them.
Neither person may fully understand the other's internal experience.
This illustrates an important feature of interpersonal meaning-making.
Our intentions do not always determine how our behavior is experienced.
And another person's interpretation of our behavior does not automatically establish what we intended.
Both perspectives can contain meaningful information.
Understanding this distinction creates room for clearer communication.
Instead of assuming that the other person should know what we mean, we can become more intentional about how we communicate.
Instead of assuming that our interpretation of their behavior is the only possible explanation, we can remain curious about their experience.
Radical Openness and the Willingness to Interrupt the Cycle
RO-DBT emphasizes radical openness, flexible responding, and self-enquiry.
These principles can help us examine interpersonal patterns without immediately deciding who is right or wrong.
Self-enquiry invites us to become curious about our own responses.
For example:
What am I expecting this person to do?
What previous experiences are influencing that expectation?
How might my expectation be affecting my behavior?
What social signals am I communicating?
How might another person interpret those signals?
Am I responding to what is happening now, or am I anticipating what happened before?
Is there credible information suggesting that something different may be possible?
These questions are not intended to invalidate previous experiences.
They help us examine whether our expectations are influencing the interaction in ways we may not recognize.
Sometimes the answers reveal opportunities to respond differently.
Other times, they confirm that the existing pattern remains concerning.
Both outcomes can be useful.
Radical openness does not require us to assume that our expectations are wrong.
It asks whether we are willing to consider meaningful information that could expand our understanding.
What Happens When One Person Changes Their Response?
One of the interesting aspects of interpersonal feedback loops is that changing one part of the cycle can sometimes influence what happens next.
Imagine returning to the couple who repeatedly argue about household responsibilities.
One partner expects criticism.
The other expects defensiveness.
During the next conversation, one partner notices the familiar pattern beginning.
Instead of immediately responding with frustration, they communicate their concern more directly.
"I've noticed that I'm getting frustrated because I feel overwhelmed by the household responsibilities. I want us to figure out a way to share them more effectively."
The other partner may still become defensive.
Changing one person's behavior does not guarantee a different response.
But the interaction now contains a new possibility.
Perhaps the second partner notices that the conversation feels less accusatory.
Perhaps they respond with curiosity.
Perhaps both begin recognizing that they have been anticipating conflict before it actually occurs.
Over time, repeated experiences of responding differently may create opportunities for the relationship to develop a different pattern.
However, this requires attention to what actually happens.
If one person consistently changes their approach and the other continues behaving harmfully, that information matters.
Psychological flexibility does not mean endlessly attempting to repair a relationship without reciprocal effort.
Sometimes changing our behavior improves connection.
Sometimes it clarifies that the relationship itself is not changing.
Both outcomes provide information about the territory.
Learning to Recognize Our Own Interpersonal Loops
Think about a relationship in which you frequently experience the same uncomfortable pattern.
Perhaps you feel criticized, ignored, misunderstood, or rejected.
Consider what typically happens before the interaction becomes difficult.
What are you expecting?
How do you prepare yourself?
Do you become guarded?
Do you withdraw?
Do you become more controlling, defensive, or insistent?
Do you seek reassurance?
Do you stop communicating your needs?
Now consider what the other person does in response.
Does their behavior reinforce your original expectation?
Are there moments when the interaction unfolds differently?
What seems to contribute to those differences?
These questions can help identify the sequence of events without assuming that either person is entirely responsible for the pattern.
The goal is to understand the process.
When we recognize the process, we may discover opportunities to respond with greater intention.
A Small Exercise: Mapping an Interpersonal Feedback Loop
Choose a recurring interaction that you would like to understand more clearly.
Try identifying the following parts of the cycle.
The original experience
What happened that contributed to your current understanding of the relationship?
The meaning you assigned
What did you conclude about the other person or the relationship?
Your expectation
What do you anticipate will happen during future interactions?
Your behavior
How does that expectation influence your communication, emotional expression, or willingness to engage?
The interpersonal response
How does the other person typically respond?
The new meaning
How does their response influence what you believe about the relationship?
A possible point of flexibility
Is there anything you could do differently that would be consistent with your values, needs, and safety?
You may discover that your expectations are contributing to a recurring pattern.
You may recognize that another person's behavior remains consistent regardless of how you respond.
Or you may find that both people are participating in a cycle that neither fully understands.
The purpose is not to force change.
It is to recognize what is happening with greater clarity.
When the Map Becomes Part of the Relationship
Our interpersonal maps are essential.
They help us learn from experience, recognize patterns, and navigate relationships with greater awareness.
But our maps are not passive.
The expectations they contain can influence how we communicate, how we interpret other people's behavior, and how we respond to uncertainty.
Sometimes those expectations help us protect ourselves from repeated harm.
Sometimes they allow us to recognize familiar patterns accurately.
And sometimes they influence our behavior in ways that contribute to the very outcomes we fear.
Understanding this process does not mean blaming ourselves for difficult relationships.
It means recognizing that our beliefs can influence how we participate in them.
We can become curious about what we expect.
We can notice the social signals we communicate.
We can examine whether our responses are shaped by present information, previous experiences, or both.
And we can remain open to discovering whether something different is possible.
Sometimes changing our response changes the interaction.
Sometimes it reveals that the relationship is not capable of changing in the way we hoped.
Either way, we learn something about the territory.
Perhaps the most important question is not simply whether our expectations are accurate.
Perhaps it is whether those expectations are helping us respond effectively to what is happening now.
Because sometimes the map helps us navigate the relationship.
And sometimes the map becomes part of the relationship itself.
Coming Next in The Maps We Carry
In our next article, "Confirmation Bias in Relationships: Why We Notice What We Already Believe," we will explore how established beliefs influence the information we notice, remember, and interpret.
We will also examine why recognizing confirmation bias does not mean dismissing legitimate concerns or abandoning conclusions supported by consistent evidence.
The Maps We Carry is an educational series based on the Cartographic Model of Interpersonal Meaning-Making, developed by Emily Williams, LPC/S, LAC/S, MAC, DBT-LBC, of Upstate Integrative Mind Counseling.
Foundational Reading
Williams, E. (2026, October). When the map becomes the territory: A model of interpersonal meaning-making. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 62(1).
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 377–386.
Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A., Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.
Lynch, T. R., Hempel, R. J., & Dunkley, C. (2015). Radically open-dialectical behavior therapy for disorders of over-control: Signaling matters. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 69(2), 141–162.
