Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
99 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Factors that influence Attraction and Liking
|
-Physical attraction
-Proximity -Similarities -Range in Self Esteem -Anxiety -Matching Hypothesis -Loneliness -Repeat exposure -Reciprocity of Liking |
|
|
|
Proximity
|
-Geographic Closeness: we are attracted to people we are close to ,those wo are nearest to us
-affects who we meet and whether the relationship will continue |
|
|
|
Range in Self-Esteem
|
Recent changes in self-eseteem can influence your choice of people
|
|
|
|
The Matching Hypothesis
|
We are not attracted to the 'most attractive person' but rather those who fit our perception of attractiveness
|
|
|
|
Loneliness
|
-Loneliness and isolation increase attraction -> standards for acceptable friends are lowered
-Fewer eligible partners may actually increase likelihood of finding one attractive |
|
|
|
Reciprocity of liking
|
We like and are attracted to people who like us, sometimes regardless of other factors
|
|
|
|
Repeat exposure
|
-Simple repeat exposure increases liking
-In studies of humans and rats, liking was a function of exposure |
|
|
|
Similarities
|
-Actually little evidence opposites attract
-We want to meet people who share our same interests |
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
-Affects our need to interact and affilate with other
-Personal anxiety kindles relationships -Anecdote evidence from crisis situations |
|
|
|
Physical Attraction
|
-Physically attractive photes rated more likeable,more friendly, more intelligent
-But in relationships, attractive people don't marry more or have more succesful relationships |
|
|
|
Other reasons people enter a relationship:
|
-Affection
-Control -Predictability -Support -Companionship |
|
|
|
Self- disclosure
|
Giving info to someone that they would not have otherwise -> sharing info about yourself
|
|
|
|
Types of Inappropiate Self- disclosure
|
-Flooded disclosure
-Premature disclosure -Disclosere unrelated to topic |
|
|
|
Social Penetration Theory
|
Onion Theory, Based on idea that relationship develop almost solely through self- disclosure, appropiate disclosure leads to increase liking
|
|
|
|
Stages in Social Penetration Theory
|
-Orientation
-Exploratory -Exchange -Affective exchange -Stable Exchange |
|
|
|
Knapp's Theory, stages of coming together:
|
-Initiating
-Experementing -Intensifying -Integrating -Bonding |
|
|
|
Knapp's Theory, stages of going apart:
|
-Differentiation
-Circumscribing -Stagnating -Avoiding -Termination |
DCSAT
|
|
|
Differentiation
|
-Talks about differents more
-More me/you than we, -disagreements |
|
|
|
Circumscribing
|
Less info exchange
Topics Controlled Superficial communication less reciprocity |
|
|
|
Stagnating
|
almost no communication
marking time |
|
|
|
Avoiding
|
Avoid Face to Face
Admit avoiding |
|
|
|
Terminating
|
Summary statements
Future apart -talk |
|
|
|
Relational climates
|
The emotional tone of an episode or relationship
Determinded by how valued people see themselves. |
|
|
|
Two types of climates
|
Confirming
Disconfirming |
|
|
|
Confirming climate characters
|
-Acknowledge the person
-Provide an authentic response to other -focus on listening |
|
|
|
Disconfirming Climate characters
|
Impervious response (ignoring)
Interrupting response (break in) Tangential response (go of ttopic) Impersonal response (disengagement) Disagreement focussing on person (rater than idea!) |
|
|
|
The Dialectical Perspective
|
Sets of opposing/Contradicting ideas or impulses that creates tesnion between two people
|
|
|
|
3 types of Dialectical Perspectives
|
Openess vs. Closeness
Certainty vs. Uncertainty Autonomy vs. Connection |
|
|
|
Norms
|
Guidelines that limit and direct behavior
Most relationships have specific norms Norms show what is important in relationship Norms become more specified in longer relationships and in marriages |
|
|
|
Roles
|
Norms that are specific to a Subclass
Such as father, husband, intructor Give predictability to relationship |
|
|
|
Expected roles
|
behaviors that are expected of you
|
|
|
|
Enacting roles
|
Acting you roles out
|
|
|
|
Inter-role
|
Conflicting expectations for two roles
ex. as a person's romantic partner you want to be casueal, they want to be serious |
|
|
|
Intra-role
|
Conflicting expectations for one role
ex. you are someone's tutor and also their friends |
|
|
|
Gender based behaviors verbal and non verbal, Women
|
Women smile more
Women disclose more Women give more cues Women speak more sophisticated Women do NOT talk more than men |
|
|
|
Gender based behaviors verbal and non verbal, Men
|
Men control conversation more
Men speak in higher dynanism speak at same time, interrupt |
|
|
|
Edelsky's floor model
|
Floor one
Floor two |
|
|
|
Floor one characters
|
Monologues
Single speaking turns Declarative statements Men are more likely to speak this way |
|
|
|
Floor two, characters
|
Free for all
Lack of clear turn taking Conversations overlap Agreement structures Women are more likely to speak this way |
|
|
|
Conversational Structures
|
The way conversations are structured of organized
|
|
|
|
Gender Linked Language Effect (GLLE)
|
transcripted conversations are rated, sex of speakers is unknown
Males language: higher in Dynanism Females language: Aesthetic quality, higher socio-intellectual status |
|
|
|
"Relational succes" hetero(sexual) couples
|
endurance of relationship
|
|
|
|
"Relational succes" homo(sexual) couples
|
Satisfaction, equality, etc
|
|
|
|
Same sex couples
|
Exhibit many of same differences as men-female couples
Source of difference seems to be relative powers: - one partner in male-male relationships often has more power (& uses more PMR's) - Lesbian couples tend to avoid "unbalanced" interactions due to power of sensitivity |
|
|
|
Persuasion
|
The psychology of influence
|
|
|
|
Three potential influences
|
Belief/Cognition
Attitude Behavior |
|
|
|
Belief/Cognition
|
A "truth" held by a person about something
-knowledge/factual info; primarly cognitive |
|
|
|
Attitude
|
A person's evaluation of something
-Stable disposition; mostly affective |
|
|
|
Behavior
|
-Overt response to something
|
|
|
|
Four kinds of strategies that makes persuasion effective:
|
Source characteristics
Message characteristics Foot in door Door in face |
|
|
|
Source characteristics
|
Credibility
Similarity, shared characteristics between source and receiver Atractiveness |
|
|
|
two types of credibility
|
1 expertise; amount of training, knowledge, experience that source has on topic
2 Trustworthiness: how honest or unbiased the source is perceived to be? |
|
|
|
Message characteristics
|
Positive emotion
Evidence Fear Appeal (only effective when) One sided vs. Two Sided |
|
|
|
Message characteristics, Positive emotion
|
Vivid message designed to arouse positive feelings. How?
-colorful pictures -vivid descriptions -stories -humor |
|
|
|
Message characteristics,
Evidence |
-Factual statements
-statistics -Testimonials -Eyewitness reports |
|
|
|
Message characteristics,One-sided vs Two-sided messages
|
Do we present our own side only or present both and attach opposing view?
|
|
|
|
Message characteristics,One-sided if
|
audience agrees already
no controversy low familiarity |
|
|
|
Message characteristics,two-sided if
|
Audience disagrees
Controversial topic High familiarity |
|
|
|
Message characteristics,Fear appeal only effective when
|
Threat is serious
Threat is likely to happen to them Specific steps given to ward off danger Receiver(s) are able to follow steps |
|
|
|
Foot in door
|
First request something small, then make larger request
Research shows that once people comply with a small request, they're more likely to comply with the larger |
|
|
|
Door in face
|
Start with large request
One you know will be rejected Then move to smaller request This strategy also affective |
|
|
|
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
|
We have a need for consistency
-(beliefs, cognitions, attitudes, behaviors) -"dissonance" is uncomfortable feeling caused by inconsistency in the above -motivated to reduce it |
|
|
|
Fitzpatrick's couples typology
|
Based on personal beliefs and behaviors regarding relationships
|
|
|
|
Three dimensions characterizing Fitzpatrick's theory
|
Ideology, belief system about relationships
Autonomy/interdepence Conflict, level of |
|
|
|
Marital Styles, Fitzpatrick's
|
Traditional
Independents Separates |
|
|
|
Traditional
|
Traditional attitudes towards marriage
Interdependent use of time and space Moderate conflict- about "big" stuff Report most satisfaction of the types |
|
|
|
Independents
|
Nontraditional attitudes about marriage
Independent use of time and space Open and assertive conflict style |
|
|
|
Separates
|
Traditional attitudes about marriage
Independent use of time and space Low conflict but high negativity Least satisfied of the types |
|
|
|
Assumptions on the dialectical perspective
|
Contradiction is inherent in social life
These conflicts drive change and vitality There is dialectical change |
|
|
|
Dialectical Perspective, Autonomy vs Connection
|
Independence vs interdependence
-want to be connected with others, yet want to be autonomous One of the most powerful dialectics These needs are dynamic and frequently shifting Also tend to vary among individuals |
|
|
|
Dialectical Perspective,
Certainty vs Uncertainty |
We like predictability, but we also crave excitement
-things can get 'too predictable' but too much chaos is also not comfortable Psychological trust, knowing how/what you think Behavioral trust, knowing how you'd act |
|
|
|
Dialectical Perspective,
Openness vs Closedness |
Opennes is akin to sharing
How much we share is a dialectic Dialectic scholars argue that true self disclosure is relatively infrequent... "small talk" just for talks sake is also relationally significant |
|
|
|
Various conflict styles
|
Compete
Collaborate Accomodate Avoid Compromise |
|
|
|
Avoidance
|
Low on assertiveness and cooperativeness
Denial Topic avoidance Topic shifting Joking |
|
|
|
Competition
|
High Assertiveness Low cooperativeness
Use of agression and power Persuing one's own goal Events perceived as "win or lose" Extreme language: threats, criticisms |
|
|
|
Compromise
|
Moderate cooperativeness and assertiveness
Offer to give in on something if other gives in on something too Not most effective strategy Both parties win but they also both lose |
|
|
|
Accomodation
|
High on cooperativeness low on assertiveness
Giving in Appeasing Smoothing over |
|
|
|
Collaboration
|
High cooperativeness, high assertiveness
NOT playing to win.. working towards solving the problem Work jointly for "win/win" outcome Identify the REAL problem |
|
|
|
Dominance
|
Need for control over others
|
|
|
|
Power
|
Has to be given to dominant person
|
|
|
|
Conflict tactics, Avoidance
|
Postponement
Resorting to formal rules Controlling the process (arguing how to argue) Gunnysacking |
|
|
|
Gunnysacking
|
Your conflict put away by yourself until it explodes
|
|
|
|
Conflict tactics, Escalation
|
Labeling
Issue expansion Coalition formation Threats Breaking relational rules |
|
|
|
Conflict tactics, Maintainance
|
Quid pro quo
Combining reduction/escalation tactics |
|
|
|
Conflict tactics, Reduction
|
Break larger conflicts into smaller parts
Ask for more information Metacommunication Respond to all levels of conflict (facts&feelings) |
|
|
|
Types of conflict tactics
|
Avoidance
Escalation Maintainance Reduction |
|
|
|
Triangle of love, specific behaviors
|
Passion
Commitment Intimacy |
|
|
|
Chilling effect
|
Dominant person forces submissive person into silence
ex. abusive husband |
|
|
|
Intimacy
|
Knowing the innermost aspects of someone and being known in a like manner, NO SEXUAL MEANING!
|
|
|
|
Sudden death
|
Immediate breaking up
main reason cheating and major life changes! |
|
|
|
Duck's stages of Dissolution
|
Intrapychic
Dyadic Social Gravedressing |
|
|
|
Duck's stages of Dissolution, Intrapsychic
|
You become aware of the situation
"I'm not happy in this relationship" |
|
|
|
Duck's stages of Dissolution, Dyadic
|
You inform the other person
to that person: "I'm not happy in this relationship" |
|
|
|
Duck's stages of Dissolution, Social
|
Inform friends/family, seeing others
|
|
|
|
Duck's stages of Dissolution, Gravedressing
|
Final break up and you tell the 'social story'
Why did you break up, how did it happen |
|
|
|
Language: Two dimensions of communication
|
Content approach
Relational approach |
|
|
|
Language: Two dimensions of communication, Content approach
|
Communication tells something about the relationship of people
|
|
|
|
Language: Two dimensions of communication, Relational approach
|
Things you say can influence the relationship
|
|
|
|
How do we reduce dissonance?
- |
-add consonant congition/belief
-alter importance of cognition/belief -change behavior |
|
