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;
81 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Nonconcscious activation of personal goals
|
-Psych presence of rel partner activates interpersonal goals in that relationship
-Mom priming test taking study. Performed better when primed with mom |
|
|
Pursuing a goal with someone...
|
makes us feel closer to them
|
|
|
How goal instrumentality shapes rel expectations
|
Pers goals fluctate
Active goal - think of close others in rel to goal. More pos view of that person. Feel closer to person helping achieve current goal |
|
|
Scrambled sentence task
|
If primed with achievement goal then the instrumental friend is seen as more important and as closer → when they are nonconsciously thinking of the achievement goal (not obvious) – subtlely brings the concept to mind
|
|
|
Instrumental friend when doing well in task
|
Less important
You start to focus on other goals When make a lot of progress on a goal, you get closer to a friend that helps for ANOTHER goal |
|
|
Disclosure decision model (omarzu), factors that influence disclosures we make
|
-Breadth - range of topics you can cover when talking to someone. So a lot of breadth = a lot of topics about you
-Depth = how personal/intimate this is (superficial? How much do you say?) -Duration - How long you engage with the person |
|
|
Disclosure decision model - Possible goals
|
1. Social approval (default goal). Disclosing increases likelihood other person will like you
2. Relief from distress 3. Social control 4. Identity - want others to know who we are Individual differences influence which goal is most salient |
|
|
Disclosure decision model - how much are you going to disclose?
|
-Subjective utility = perceived value of self disclosure goal
Subjective risk = rejection, betrayal High utility= -Breadth decreases, zero in on topic most relevant to goal -Duration increases If subjective risk increases = -Depth increases (more concerned about rejection, get less intimate) |
|
|
Activation and deactivation of intimate rel goals
|
-Young v old
-Married v separated Hyp = young people, even if separated will still have relationship goals but old people who have separated will shift from relationship goals to social goals Approach goal = make more of rel Avoidance goal = hold on, not let slip away Y in rel = approach partner goals O in rel = avoidance " " Young sep = approach " " O sep = social goals distinct from rel ones |
|
|
Rochester interaction record
|
• Think of an interaction of at least 10 mins that you had → rate from 1 to 5 how much you
disclosed you emotions disclosed your thoughts, disclosed facts about yourself, and if your interaction partner disclosed thoughts and feelings |
|
|
Affiliation motive for intimacy
|
Deficit motive
Affiliate with others bc you feel lonely and disconnected. Neediness reason for connection |
|
|
Are intimacy and closeness =?
|
No.
Closeness a broader category. Closeness about interdependence |
|
|
Model of intimacy process
|
Motives
Needs Goals Fears influence type of disclosure made Person receiving the personal disclosure hears it through their INTERPRETIVE FILTER. This is a SUBJECTIVE reality. Original self-discloser then hears response through their own interpretive filter. An intimate reaction feels good, validated, and cared for. SELF-DISCLOSURE THE KEY FACTOR |
|
|
Sorority study
|
Looked at
1. How much each individual disclosed to others 2. How much others disclosed to each individual |
|
|
Intimacy as an interpersonal process
|
Measured self disclosure, partner disclosure, ad perceived partner responsiveness
Findings: The more you said you disclosed, the more you said P disclosed, the more you rated the interaction as an inimate one. Three ingredients to intimate interaction: -Did you feel understood, accepted, cared for? -The more disclosure, the more opp to feel this way -The degree to which one felt their partner was resposive predicted how much intimacy they said was in the interac |
|
|
Imp of How to Win Friends and Influence People
|
Important to be a good reactor, responder, make the other feel important and understood
|
|
|
Identity dating goals
|
Higher in attachment anxiety
More sexual partners More unrestricted sociosexual orientation Possibly because they are still exploring who they are, experimenting with different sense of self, want to be with a number of diff people |
|
|
Intimacy dating goals
|
Higher in attachment security (they know who they are)
Longer relationships Fewer casual dating partners |
|
|
Identity, Intimacy, and sex ed
|
Tech more impt for identity, communication more impt for intimacy.
|
|
|
Intimacy goals and time/intimate opportunities
|
Strong goals - alone time doesn't matter, will make the most.
Weak goals - need more alone time Also, only one partner needs a strong intimacy goal |
|
|
Features of intimate relationship
|
-Temporal perspective
-Commitment -Metaperspective - "couple" perspective - "we" -Mutual, reciprocal -Public -Positive, stable expectations and patterns of behavior - trust More of these features lacking, more we would hesitate to say it is intimate |
|
|
Implicit theories of relationship (Knee)
|
-Destiny beliefs
-Challenges can make love stronger - GROWTH belief Less effort put into destiny believed relationships. Conflicts more of a shock, ignored. Growth - put in more effort. But can backfire too. |
|
|
Sternberg's triangular theory of love
|
Top-down approach
Passion Intimacy Commitmet Idea that you can combine any of these to form a mix. If have all 3 = consummate love |
|
|
Features of triagular theory of love, each step
|
Passion - heart rate ncreases, euphoria
Intimacy - openness, supportive, honesty Commitment - devotio, sacrifice, protectiveness |
|
|
Erotica and men
|
Increases ratings of LOVE, not just pos feelings
|
|
|
Look of love
|
Hand gestures
Nodding Leaning forward Duchene smile Greater the self report that they love their partner. More you show look of love, more artner says you love them. nonverbal cue |
|
|
Gender differences in love
|
Women love more people than men
People love more women than men Men more likely to be in love with those whom they love than women Women love the men they sexually desire more than men love the women they sexually desire |
|
|
Mum effect
|
relevant to unrequited love
reluctance to transmit bad news Rejecter is cause Lack of a script Person who is pursuing you is reluctant to hear bad news, motivated to put a + spin on everything you say and do |
|
|
Conspiracy of silence
|
People give impersonal, unstable reasons for refusing a date
Feeds into pursuer's bias and continuous pursuit |
|
|
Self-expansion model
|
People describe themselves in more ways after falling in love than they did other times in the term
|
|
|
Bartholomew and Horowitz
|
-Positive model of self/negative others
-Positive model of others/ negative self -Posotive model of self/other = secure -Negative model of self/others = fearful |
|
|
How much stability is there in adult attachment?
|
30% shift
More shifting among the anxious attachment styles - hopeful when things are going well, but when they go badly, shift back to being anxious So not very stable |
|
|
Why is adult attachment not very stable?
|
-MEASUREMENT NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH
-Bartholomew thinks semi-structured interviews get at a deeper underlying attachment, self-report questionnaires are limited. Implicit association test (Zayas/Shoda) predicts AVOIDANCE attachment, but NOT attachment ANXIETY -CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS |
|
|
3 effects in family attachment security
|
-Actor effect = attached to others in the family in the same way
-Partner effects = people in family feel attached to you in the same way - Relationship effects = unique effect between you and that specific member of the family. Dependability strongest in rel effect MAIN point of Cook's work: show that there is a subst. amt. of this that is at the level of the rel |
|
|
model of self eq'n
|
Model of self = (secure+dismissive)-(preoccupied+fearful)
S+D = posiitve view of self P+F = negative view of self |
|
|
model of other eq'n
|
Model of other = (secure+preoccupied)-(dismissive+fearful)
S+P = pos view others D_F = neg view others |
|
|
priming and attachment names
|
Primed with threat, failure, separation, faster to recognize the name of your attachment figure
|
|
|
Stroop Color Naming Task
|
When primed with failure or separation you are slower to name the color when it is your attachment figure than if you are in a control condition.
Attachment figure name interferes with naming the color, because the name now has meaning Threat implicitly activates attachment figures |
|
|
Attachment and affect regulation
|
How teh threat influnces the self-regulation
Avoidants - deactivate the attachment system, self-reliant Anxious-ambivalent - hyperactivate the attachment system, "I'm needy, I'm helpless, help me" FINDINGS: Under failure feedbacks, AVOIDANTS BOOSTED SELF APPRAISAL " " ANXIOUS-AMB had NEGATIVE appraisals But when accompanied by a friend, even one not attached to, still see no change, act as though not primed with negatives |
|
|
Attachment and compassion
|
Primed with friend or with attachment figure.
Watch someone else do gross, gory things 70% primed with AF will switch, noly 38% primed with friends. Almost 2x as likely when primed with AF |
|
|
Three component approach to trust
|
1. Predictability
2. Dependability -Not predictability, but a trait of that person. Nice, caring person. 3. Faith -Not just dispositional attribution, but INTERPERSONAL |
|
|
Accomodation stage of close rels
|
Increased interdependence
-More chance for conflict -Increased feelings of ambivalence, conflicts of substance -Trust can be built Sacrifice of self interest -Message that they can trust you Reciprocity -Involvement, but not explicit exchange -Because there is uncertainty in this stage |
|
|
Attributes of responsiveness
|
Extrinsic payoffs
- Money, status (outside relationship) -By virtue of being in the rel. Instrumental -Support, praise, sex (inside rel) -Not something that comes outside of the rel, but suggests that he is being responsive only conditionally Intrinsic -Values the rel -Unconditional acceptance -Rel not a means to something else |
|
|
Attributes of responsiveness and trust
|
-Report more LOVE and satis. if you think partner has INTRINSIC OR INSTRUMENTAL
-TRUST associated with INTRINSIC ONLY |
|
|
High trust
|
-expect the best, partner's motives not in ?
-Even if he messes up, blame it on a bad day. Don't question if he cares about you |
|
|
Moderate trust
|
-Uncertain, vigilant, motives in doubt
-Because the motives are in doubt, you are looking for signs that will help you see it one way or another. -Engagement, could go either way -Does he really care about you? It's a ? |
|
|
Low trust
|
-Question answered - he doesn't care, neither do I
-In lab, don't even want to talk about it |
|
|
Reactions to trust violation by attachment type
|
Securely attached = talk
Avoidantly attached = escape Anxiously attached = worry (and talk) |
|
|
Paradox of Trust for Male Couples
|
Risky sexual behavior can become a symbol of trust
Trust is a risk |
|
|
Interdependence dilemma
|
The more you care, hte more you have to lose
More at stake when interdependent |
|
|
Risk regulation model
|
Balance trust against self protection
Based on partner's regard for you |
|
|
Relationally interdependent self construal (RISC)
|
How do you construe who you are?
Do you define yourself in terms of your close rel'ships? How different cultures construe themselves Gender differences - women associate with friends, family, men with things WOMEN HIGHER ON THE SCALE THAN MEN |
|
|
RISC scale and implicit association test
|
Those high on RISC have a stronger implicit association of relationship = good rather than individual = good
|
|
|
Get acquainted study
|
If high on the RISC, would that influence how you are in getting acquainted with others?
Female students **Ppl high on the RISC were perceived to be higher in self disclosure and seemed to be more responsive to other person |
|
|
Roommate Study
|
Ppl high on RISC do things to enhance rels and actually tHINK about socl info in a dif way than those low on RISC
More accurate in perceiving partners Care about partners, becausethey define themselves in terms of them Remember partner's disclosure better Ppl high on RISC are motivated ALL the time (even for someone they aren't close to) Even if low on RISC, will be close to someone who is high on RISC |
|
|
RISC - trait v. rel
|
May not have gen disp to define self in rel to others, but it may be high with a particular person
ACTUAL EXPERIENCES IN THE REL MATTER Intimate rel, self-disclosure, building trust allow for sense of identification |
|
|
Inclusion of other in self (IOS)
|
High IOS = equity not linked to satisfaction
Equity: how much you put in/get out vs. same for partner For people high on IOS, while ineq. doesn't make them happy, equity may be IRRELEVANT because blurring distinction btwn self and partner |
|
|
Study: predicting rel stability in dating rels
|
-Found that # of other dating and sex partners predicted if still dating a person 6 months later.
|
|
|
Three types of commitment
|
Personal commitment (satisfaction-based)
Structural commitment (committed bc of external constraints, feel you have to) Moral commitment (internal constraints, value-oriented approach) |
|
|
Moral commitment and students in LD rels
|
Correlation btwn commitment and satisfaction were low
-knew they were facing uncertainty, thought of rel more deeply and complexly People high in moral commitment = rel had more meaning for them , moral commitment positively correlated with investment People high in personal commitment = satisfaction and attraction to partner |
|
|
Type of commitment that predicts distress at breakup
|
Moral commitment
Experienced anger, guilt, depression, and illness symptoms. not anxiety |
|
|
Rel maintenance responses
|
1. How we tolerate/respond to our partners' transgressions
2. What sacrifices you make 3. Exaggerating our partners' qualities |
|
|
Accommodations (4)
|
Four responses to partners transgressions
1. Active/constructive: voice 2. Active/destructive: exit 3. passive/constructive: loyalty 4. passive/destructive: neglect |
|
|
Print ad study results
|
Commitment negatively correlated with self-measured report of attractiveness to alternatives = HIGHER COMMITMENT, LESS ATTN TO ALTERNATIVES
Small but sig cor between commitment and how long they look at the slide - more commitmed, shorter look at slide |
|
|
Resisting temptation paradigm
|
Commitment will motivate people to devalue attractive alts (devaluation hypothesis)
|
|
|
Calibration hypothesis
|
You have to calibrate the level of commitment with the level of the threat.
|
|
|
Findings for attraction ratings of the alt.
|
-When level of threat was similar to level of commitment, DEVALUE attractive alternative
|
|
|
Empathetic accuracy/inaccuracy
|
insecurity+threat = empathetic inaccuracy. Inaccurate in gauging your partner's thoughts and feelings
|
|
|
IM paradigm
|
Does identification predict spontaneous behavior with an attractive alternative or a pattern of comm with anyone?
If identify with rel, will mention it to anyone -Rel threat hypo says that bc it is an att alt, you want to comm your unvailability. -If high on RISC scale, will tell same sex too, but when spec to rel threat idea then when with opp sex CORRELATION BETWEEN IDENTIFICATION AND # OF PARTNER MENTIONS (N=119) |
|
|
Relationship illusions
|
DWs see DHs more pos than DHs see themselves
DH s see DWs more pos than DWs see themselves dating women see boyfriends more pos than they see themselves boyfriends do NOT see girlfriends more pos than they see themselves |
|
|
Willingness to sacrifice
|
More you are willing to sacrifice, high the couple is functioning, the more likely the relationship will last
Correlation not causation |
|
|
Dot probe paradigm
|
measures how quickly you can shift you attention.
|
|
|
attentional adhesion
|
distractor captures attention
Stuck on distractor Slower you are to disengage from that image and slower to shift attn to diff quadrant Generally, attention grabbed by att person of oppsex |
|
|
Attntional adhesion study, primed with mating goals
|
Found that daters found as much if not more att adh as single people
|
|
|
att adh study, primed with love
|
primed with love, paid LESS attention to att. person
|
|
|
Forbidden fruit
|
Can avoiding attn to att alts backfire?
80% of the time, the letter appears where ordinary female is Learn to shift attn away from appealing image Attn captured for single and dating by attractive person Remembered attractive faces better |
|
|
Shooter paradigm
|
Men in rels made more errors shooting att women without guns
weapons efect |
|
|
3 rel steps
|
rel initiation - satisfaction
rel maintenance - commitment rel internalization - identification |
|
|
satisfaction and commitment
|
more commitment, more likely to keep the rel
but in order to get that commitment, need satisfaction to see if it's worth keeping in the first place |
|
|
Disillusionment model (marriage)
|
disillusionment
gain-loss model |
|
|
Emergent distress
|
Do not expect to maintain high levels of love
Negativity and conflict corrode rels Pos factors predict marital choice but negatives predict marital success |
