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;
171 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
social cognition |
"Process of perception and judgement with which we make sense of our social worlds". Thoughts influence feelings, feelings influence behavior. The way we think about our relationships. What we think helps to determine what we feel, and then how we act. |
|
|
first impressions |
They matter! The judgement we form of others after a brief first meeting often have enormous staying power, with our initial perceptions continuing to be influential months later. First impressions last and continue to influence feelings. |
|
|
First impression within 1 second |
within 1 second, we evaluate: mood, attractiveness, like ability and trustworthiness |
|
|
first impressions within 5 second |
personality and intelligence |
|
|
Why do we form these judgements? |
stereotypes |
|
|
stereotypes |
Stereotypes supply us with preconceptions about what people are like. They influence us automatically, even when we are unaware of using them. Often incorrect but unavoidable |
|
|
Primacy effect |
1st piece of info carries special wait. No second 1st impressions. Quick first judgements of others influence our interpretations of the later information we encounter. |
|
|
confirmation bias |
They seek information that will prove them right more often than they look for examples that would prove them wrong. Emphasize info that suggest right and ignore info that is wrong. |
|
|
overconfident |
Looking for evidence that we are right. Overestimate how well we know someone. Making more mistakes than they realize |
|
|
How first impressions work? |
Direct our attention to certain types of new information and influence our interpretations of those new facts. What we look for and how we interpret other information. |
|
|
Perception |
Judgeing our relationships. idealizing our partners, positive illusions. Influenced by commitment and emotion. Ideals change with more information. |
|
|
idealizing partners/positive illusions |
emphasize strengths or positive attributes and minimize flaws. Such illusions are a mix of realistic knowledge about our partners and idealized perceptions of them. Positive illusions are linked with greater marital satisfaction trust and love |
|
|
Happy couples and positive illusions |
satisfied spouses perceive there partners' deficiencies as circumscribed, specific drawbacks that are less important and influential than their many assists and advantages. They have all the facts just interpret them different. |
|
|
ideals change more information |
ideal changes to match current partner. Protective factor
|
|
|
self-esteem |
Positive illusions improves self-esteem of our partner. We can slowly convince our partners that they actually are the wonderful people we believe them to be because our high regard improves their self-esteem. |
|
|
attributions |
The explanations we generate for why things happen and in particular why a person did or did not do something. Explanation for our behaviors. |
|
|
internal vs external |
internal: self, such as the person's personality, ability or effort external: implicating the situation or circumstances the person faced. EX: Someones late because they're lazy. This is internal. Someones late because traffic. This is external. |
|
|
stable vs. unstable |
Stable:Long-lasting unstable: temporary, short EX: Someones late because lazy. This is stable. Someones late because traffic. This is unstable |
|
|
specific vs global |
specific: only effects 1 aspect Global: effects multiple aspects of life EX: Someones late because lazy. This is global, it affects multiple aspects of there life. Someones late because traffic. This is specific because it only happened once. |
|
|
actor observer effects |
They generate different explanations for their own behavior than they do for the similar actions they observe in their partners. Acknowledge external influences when they explain their own actions, but they make internal attributions when other people behave exactly the same way. Overlook how the same circumstances affect others. |
|
|
self-serving bias |
In which they readily take credit for their success but try to avoid the blame for their failures. People like to feel responsible for the good things that happen to them, but they prefer external excuses when things go wrong. EX: When things are going well in a relationship we take credit but when we fight we pass the blame. |
|
|
relationship- enhancing |
Happy people make attributions for their partners' behavior that are relationship enhancing. Positive actions by the partner are judged to be intention, habitual and indicative of the partner's fine character. Happy couple make controllable, stable, and internal attributions for each others positive behavior. They also tend to discount one another's transgressions, seeing them as accidental and circumstantial; thus negative behavior is excused with uncontrollable, unstable and external attributions. Magnify partners kindness and minimize flaws |
|
|
distress-maintaining |
Dissatisfied couples exaggerate the bad and minimize the good. Regard a partners negative actions as deliberate and routine and positive behavior as unintended and accidental. EX: when dissatisfied couples are nice to one another, each is likely to write off the other's thoughtfulness as temporary, uncharacteristic in the negative routine. When kindnesses seem accidental and hurts seem deliberate, satisfaction is hard. |
|
|
attachment styles |
Secure styles: tend to tolerantly employ relationships enhancing attributions. Insecure styles: People tend to be pessimistic. |
|
|
Where do we get our relationship Beliefs? |
personal experience (how things should be). Research culture (mass media) |
|
|
romanticism beliefs |
The view that love should be the most important basis for choosing a mate. Each of us has only one perfect "true" love, true love will overcome obstacle, and love is possible at first sight. Romantic people tend to experience more love, satisfaction, and commitment in the first few months of their romantic partnerships than unromantic people but it eventually leads to disappointment. |
|
|
Destiny beliefs |
Fate. Assumes that two people are either well suited for each other and destined to live happily ever after, or they're not. Inflexible views of partnerships. Suggest that if two people are meant to be happy, they'll know it as soon as they meet; they'll encounter early doubts or difficulties and once two soul mates find each other, a happy couple is ensured. Harmful in relationships |
|
|
Whats the difference? |
Romanticism: love Destiny: fate and outside factors
|
|
|
growth beliefs |
Good relationships are believed to develop gradually as the partners work at surmounting challenges, and overcoming obstacles, and a basic presumption is that with enough effort, almost any relationship can succeed. Work in relationship in order to grow. Commitment, spend time together, give attention it needs, more than just love and fate. |
|
|
Dysfunctional beliefs |
-Fighting is destructive: avoid conflict -Mind reading is essential: if he loves me he would know -Partners cannot change: Once things go wrong, they always will -Sex should be perfect every time: Sex should be good if we love each other -Men and women are fundamentally different: can't understand other sex - great relationships just happen: don't need to work
|
|
|
self perceptions |
how we see ourselves |
|
|
self concepts |
What do we like? Makes life predictable, now expectations, awareness of who we are. All the beliefs and feelings we have about ourselves. |
|
|
self-enhancement |
We like compliments and praise. Makes us feel good. Desire for positive complimentary feedback |
|
|
self-verification |
Desire for feedback that is consistent with one's existing self concept. We want to be right |
|
|
positive self-concept |
They feel good/ congruent to what they think about themselves. Make excuses for bad feedback to maintain self-concept. |
|
|
negative self-concept |
Not congruent to what they think about themselves. Challenging self-concept. More comfortable with someone who thinks they "suck" too. EX: We want a roommate who hates us not a roommate who says theres no reason to doubt yourselves. |
|
|
Dating relationship |
Positive self concept: as Partners positive appraisal increases the high commitment rises. Negative self-concept: as Partners positive appraisal increases the high commitment rises
Attracted to people who give us praise. Self-enhancement is important |
|
|
Marriage shift |
Positive self-concept: as partners positive appraisal increases the high commitment rises Negative self-concept: as partners positive appraisals increases commitment decreases
Self-verification rises to the fore |
|
|
self-fulfilling prophecy |
False predictions that become true because they lead people to behave in ways that make the erroneous expectations come true. Are examples of the power of perceptions because the events that result from them occur only because people expect them to , and then act as if they will. Tendency to behave in way that confirm one's own or others' expectations. |
|
|
Expectations |
Expectations influence behavior. EX: Woman warm-friendly person expects others to be as well. She will act nice and friendly. She will smile and show general interest. He will do the same thing to her. She will interpret him nice and verifies what she already believes, she was right. |
|
|
impression management |
Managing others impressions of you. |
|
|
reasons for impression management |
1. Nearly anything we do in the presence of others may be strategically regulated in the service of impression management. 2. Another reason impression management matters is that is is a pervasive influence on social life. |
|
|
strategies of impression management |
ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, supplication |
|
|
ingratiation |
Create favorable impression by giving compliments. common in romantic partners
|
|
|
self-promotion |
Give self a compliment to get a favorable impression. |
|
|
intimidation |
Want people to believe your scary and have power over them. Can threaten and build resentment |
|
|
supplication |
Want people to think less of you. EX: Do a bad job so don't have to do a chore. |
|
|
Why do we stop managing how are partners see us? |
comfortable together. we've already got them. Partner/relationship management, individual self-monitoring differences |
|
|
self-monitoring |
adjust their behavior to fit the varying norms of different situations. |
|
|
emotional intelligence |
a set of abilities that describes a person's talents in perceiving, using, understanding, and managing emotions |
|
|
How well do we know our partners? |
knowledge motivation partner legibility Perceiver ability threatening perceptions perceiver influence |
|
|
Motivation |
Motivation and interest determines how insightful and accurate they will be. |
|
|
Partner legibility |
some personality traits, such as extraversion, are more visible than others |
|
|
Perciever ability |
some judges are better than others. emotional intelligence is important. |
|
|
threatening perceptions |
However, when accurate inaccurate perceptions would worrisome, intimate partners may actually be motivated to be inaccurate
|
|
|
perciever influence |
perceptions that are initially inaccurate may become more correct as we induce our partners to become the people we want them to be. |
|
|
types of communication |
nonverbal, paralanguage, verbal. we relay more on nonverbals |
|
|
interpersonal gap |
the senders intentions differ from the effect on the receiver |
|
|
nonverbal communication |
No sound, silent.Body movement, facial expressions, eye contact, touch, interpersonal distance |
|
|
nonverbals provide information |
what someone is feeling. what is going on. Nonverbal behavior provides information about people's moods or meaning. EX: If you playfully tease someone, for instance, your facial expression and the sound of your voice may be the only way listeners can tell that you don't indeed to be antagonistic. |
|
|
nonverbals regulate interaction |
Nonverbals provide cues. Eye contact if interested. Will interaction begin or not? Determine whether or not interaction ever begins. Subtle nonverbal cues allow people to take turns in a conversation. EX: someone with arms crossed will not regulate interaction. |
|
|
Nonverbals define relationships |
Shaking hands- business partners holding hands, kissing, leaning in - a couple
|
|
|
nonverbals social control |
Nonverbals to control social world. Influence people around you. EX: you want something so you butter up your mom. |
|
|
Service task function and nonverbals |
depend on job, function of job. EX: Doctor checkin patient, toughing them. |
|
|
display rules in facial expressions |
culture norms that dictate what emotions are appropriate in particular situations. |
|
|
4 ways to follow display rules |
1. intensify our expressions 2. minimize our expressions 3. minimize our expressions 4. Masking our expressions |
|
|
intensify our expressions |
Exaggerating emotions so that we appear to experience stronger feelings than we really are. EX: Even when we are underwhelmed by a gift you've just open, you should try to look pleased if the donor is present. |
|
|
minimize our expressions |
Trying to seem less emotional than we really are. EX: Western cultures assumes that "big boys don't cry" a man may stoically try not to seem too affected by a sad movie |
|
|
neutralize our expressions |
Trying to withhold our true feelings altogether. EX: Good poker players try to do this so that they give no hint of what their cards may be. |
|
|
Mask our real feelings |
Mask our real feelings by replacing them with an entirely different apparent emotion. EX: Acting happy for the winner of a beauty pageant when you are runner up. |
|
|
microexpressions |
flashes of real feelings |
|
|
visual dominance ratio |
Compares "look-speak" ( the percentage of time a speaker gazes at a listener) to "look-listen". Ex: High power people look more when speaker compared to listening |
|
|
gazing |
The direction and amount of a person's looking behavior. Gazing defines the relationship.
EX: Lovers really do spend more time looking at each other than friends do and friends look more than acquaintances do. |
|
|
intimate zone |
interpersonal distance extends out from the front of our chests about a foot-and-a-half. 0" to 18". EX: If people are standing face to face to each other, their interactions is probably either quite loving or quite hostile. |
|
|
personal zone |
Ranges from 1 1/2 to 4 feet away from us. Within this range, friends are likely to interact at smaller distances and acquaintances at larger ones, so distancing behavior helps to define the relationships people share. |
|
|
social zone |
4-12 feet. Interactions tend to be more businesslike. EX: When you sit across a desk from an interviewer or a professor, you're in the social zone. |
|
|
public zone |
Beyond 12 feet. Quite formal and structured interaction. EX: An instructor and his or her students in a lecture class. |
|
|
Paralanguage |
All the variations in a person's voice other than the actual worlds he or she uses, such as rhythm, pitch, loudness, and rate. Doesn't involve WHAT but HOW they say it. |
|
|
Mimicry |
Occurs during a conversation when the participants adopt similar postures and mannerisms, display comparable expressions and use similar paralanguage |
|
|
Nonverbal sensitivity |
How accurately we encode and decode communication. Relationship satisfaction- happy couples better at encoding and decoding Gender - woman better at encoding and decoding Trying hard - Hard workers better at encoding and decoding
|
|
|
self-disclosure |
The process of revealing personal information to someone else. Requirement for intimate relationship. Improves psychological and physical health (stress). Self-disclosre changes over time. |
|
|
Theory of social penetration |
Relationships develop through systematic changes in communication |
|
|
superficial relationship |
little risk. small talk. impersonal topics |
|
|
intimate relationships |
more risk. info about family, childhood. Don't share with just anyone. More topics and deeper than superficial |
|
|
very intimate |
very risky. vulnerable. don't share with many people (like 1 or 2). Lots of trust. Even more topics and deeper than superficial |
|
|
interpersonal process model of intimacy |
argues that dentine intimacy is likely to develop between two people only when certain conditions have been met. Need responsiveness that indicates that they care about us and understand us. When suitable responsiveness, trust builds, disclosures deepen and intimacy increase. When disinterest or uncaring, we back off and our disclosures decrease. |
|
|
Ways for people to become close |
1. Engage in meaningful self-disclosure 2.They have to respond to each other's personal information with interest and empathy 3. Then they need to recognize that the other is being responsive. |
|
|
early stages of relationships |
Reciprocity matters. Keeps interaction going and builds trust over time. Building trust with each other out to see if you can risk more. Defining what can be talked about (taboo topics, triangle test, etc.) |
|
|
triangle test |
watch partner interact with attractive 3rd party to see how committed they are. |
|
|
endurance test |
create obstacles for partners to go through. EX: Forget wallet at home, partner wakes up early to bring it too you. |
|
|
miscommunication |
common mistakes in communicating. Interpersonal gap : "senders intentions" |
|
|
Horsemen of the apocalypse
|
Gottman criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling, belligerence, kitchen-sinking, interrupting, mind reading, cross complaining, off beam, yes-buttering |
|
|
criticism |
Attacking someones character instead of their behavior. EX: You're lazy vs You burned dinner. EX: You're a slob vs I get annoyed when yo leave you re wet towel on the floor |
|
|
contempt |
Commenting on character and saying you don't like it. The form of insults, mockery, or hostile humor. EX: You're lazy and I'm sick of it. |
|
|
defensiveness |
Insult someone else before they insult you. Instead of treating the clumsy complaint as legitimate and reasonable, the partners seek to protect themselves from the unreasonable attack by making excuses |
|
|
stonewalling |
Put up emotional barrier so we are no longer affected by are partner. Cut off from situation. Withdrawing into a stony silence. Don't acknowledge partner |
|
|
Beligerence |
rejecting the other person aggressively . making threats EX:Throw someones precious items on the ground. EX: "So what? What are you gonna do about it? |
|
|
Anger/fights |
Not so important. Doesn't matter how many times you fight, its HOW you fight. NOT ONE OF THE HORSEMEN OF APOCALYPSE |
|
|
Kitchen-sinking |
lumping all frustration in 1 conversation. Addresses several topics at once. This usually causes primary concern to get lost in the barrage of frustrations that are announced at the same time. |
|
|
interrupting |
Unhappy couples also interrupt each other in negative ways more than contented couples do. People who interrupt to express agreements or ask for clarification may actually communicating well. People who interrupt to express disagreement or to change the topic are likely to leave their partners feeling disregarded and unappreciated |
|
|
Mind reading |
When people assume that they understand their partners thoughts, feelings, and opinions without asking. Assuming partner knows what you're saying or you should know what i want and i need it before i say it |
|
|
cross-complaining |
enormous pile of complaints. Fails to acknowledge others' concerns; instead of expressing interest in what their partners have to say. EX: Boy- "I hate the way you let the dishes pile up in the sink. Girl- "Well, i hate the way you leave your clothes lying around on the floor" |
|
|
off-beaming |
Going off topic. Wandering from topic to topic so that the conversation never stays on one problem long enough to resolve it. EX: "You never do what i ask. You're just as hard-headed as your mother and you always take her side" |
|
|
Yes-butting |
Dismiss partners concerns and add you own justification. EX: Woman- "We need to save money" Man - "No we're fine, I think ill get a raise" |
|
|
behavior description |
not only tells our partners whats on our mind but also focuses the conversation on discrete, manageable behaviors that, unlike personalities, can often be readily changed. |
|
|
Communicating clearly |
Prevent miscommunication slow it down and breather context matters Be polite
|
|
|
take responsibility |
speak clearly, own your feelings, perception, and needs. Helps lower defensiveness |
|
|
I-Feel-Statements/XYZ statements |
I feel (emotion) when (event) because (cognition or interpretation of event). Slows us down. own feelings and not attack EX: I feel unimportant when you don't listen because I feel like you don't value my opinion. |
|
|
Listen |
Goal is too understand someone better. Goal is NOT to respond better. Designate who will speak first and who will listen |
|
|
active listening skills |
validate the experience. Ask open-ended questions: speaker talks more = more flow. Close-ended: stop interaction and listener talks more. Prove we've been listening. Clarify/confirm (not mind reading, close interpersonal gap) |
|
|
perception checking |
People assess the accuracy of their inferences about a partners feelings by asking the partner for clarification. This communicates one's attentiveness and interest and it encourages the partner to be more open. EX: "You seem pretty upset by what i said, is that right?" |
|
|
taboo topics |
sensitive matters that, in the opinion of the partners, may threaten the quality of their relationship |
|
|
idioms |
Pet phrases and specialized vocabulary whose meaning is known only to them and the more idioms they use, the happier they are. |
|
|
blirtatiousness |
differences in verbal style |
|
|
interdependency |
mutual dependence/mutual influence. Implies an exchange or interaction. |
|
|
social exchange theory |
Logical process by which we evaluate relationships. We want to maximize rewards with low cost. Rewards - cost = outcomes. |
|
|
expectations |
comparison level. idea of what we expect. what ir should be like. Outcomes we believe we deserve |
|
|
Outcomes - comparison level = (dis)satisfaction |
More than we think we deserve = satisfaction Less than we think we deserve = dissatisfaction
|
|
|
comparison level |
Value of the outcomes that we believe we deserve in our dealing with others. Out CL's are based on our past experiences. EX: People who have a history of highly rewarding partnerships are likely to have high CLs, meaning that they expect and feel they deserve very good outcomes now. In contrast people who have had troublesome relationships in the past are likely to expect less and to have lower CLs. |
|
|
comparison level for alternates |
What we THINK it will be like. Includes cost of leaving current relationship. Access to alternatives relationships |
|
|
outcomes - CL alt = independence or dependence and instability or stability |
High outcomes - low alternatives = greater stability low outcome - better alternatives = unstable |
|
|
outcomes exceed CL but Not CL alt |
satisfied, unstable
|
|
|
outcomes exceed CL alt but NOT CL |
unsatisfied, stable |
|
|
outcomes exceed CL and CL alt |
satisfied, stable |
|
|
Outcomes exceed neither CL nor CL alt |
unsatisfied, unstable |
|
|
Easy formula? |
Sort of. Rewards and costs NOT created equal. We think about costs more. An average of 5 rewards = 1 cost to maintain satisfied relationship. Ability to see rewards are limited. |
|
|
attachment style |
fearful more likely to miss rewards. secure more likely to see rewards. Happy couples more likely to dismiss cost |
|
|
avoidance motivation |
the degree to not feel pain, avoid the cost. We seek to elude escape punishment and pain so we strive to avoid undesired experiences and to reduce negative feelings such as anxiety and fear. Don't talk about feelings. Build resentment. |
|
|
approach motivation |
In seeking rewards, we try to satisfy an appetite for desirable experiences. The degree to which we approach pleasure, add rewards. Most helpful in a relationship. EX: Having sex, for instance, would be to feel close to our partners and to enjoy the physical experience.
Approaching pleasure and rewards |
|
|
How to ADD rewards and avoid cots? |
Do what partner wants innovations novelty open-ended questions meet partners approach goal |
|
|
Relationships in the beginning DIP |
There is a dip in a relationship. During that dip a couple defines their relationship. Lots of couples break up. Realized interdependence. Partners perceive greater turmoil at this point. |
|
|
Relationships in the beginning |
as the level of involvement increases the level of satisfaction increases and there is a dip about in the middle. |
|
|
relational turbulance |
We should expect a period of adjustment and turmoil as new partners become accustomed to their increasing interdependence. |
|
|
relationships over time |
decline of level of involvement decreases the satisfaction. Decline due to boredom, greater interdependency, expectations meets experiences, lack of effort, access of information, and unrealistic/unmet expectations |
|
|
investment model |
satisfaction level: more satisfaction = more commitment Quality of alternatives: less alternatives = more commitment investment size: more investment = more commitment
|
|
|
quality of alternatives in the investment model |
decrease in alternatives = increase in commitment
|
|
|
investment size in the investment model |
increase in investment = increase in commitment |
|
|
personal commitment |
" I want to be in this relationship", strongest type
|
|
|
constraint commitment |
"I have to be in this relationship" EX: finance, kids, etc
|
|
|
Moral commitment |
"I should be in this relationship" EX: religion, vows, reason to work through it |
|
|
consequences of commitment |
easier to bear bad times: they know their committed creates mutuality (weness) promotes relationship maintenance behaviors alter comparative perceptions |
|
|
relationship maintenance |
accommodating behavior willingness to sacrifice perceived superiority |
|
|
accommodative behavior |
People refrain from responding to provocation from their partners with similar ire of their own. Accommodating people tolerate destructive behavior from their partners without fighting back; they swallow insults, sarcasm, or selfishness without retaliating. EX: Grumpy respond nicely |
|
|
Willingness to sacrifice |
They do things they wouldn't do if they were on their own, and they do not do things they would have liked to do in order to benefit their partners and their partnerships |
|
|
Perceived superiority |
They think their relationships are better than those of other people. Think that they enjoy more rewards and fewer costs than other people encounter in their relationships |
|
|
self-expansion model |
human motivation that holds that we are attracted to partnerships that expand the range of our interest, skills and experiences |
|
|
exchange relationships |
people do favors for others EXPECTING to be repaid by receiving comparable benefits in return. EX: situation- when we do others favors Exchange relationships- we prefer those who pay us back immediately. |
|
|
communal relationships |
Partner's feel a special concern for the other's well-being, and they provide favors and support to one another WITHOUT expecting repayment. More satisfied in marriages. EX: situation- when we do others a favor communal relationships - we prefer those who don't repay us immediately |
|
|
Equity |
Occurs when both partners gain benefits from a relationship that are proportional to their contributions to it. |
|
|
overbenefited |
receiving better outcomes than he or she deserves |
|
|
underbenefited |
receiving less than he or she should |
|
|
greater religiousness |
greater relationship stability greater commitment better communication lower rates of infidelity |
|
|
How religion influences relationships
|
social support, Provides "map" for family life, sanctification |
|
|
social support |
provides instrumental and emotional support. relives stress. provide norms of behavior and sanctions for infidelity/divorce. wide support network. Social support can mediate stress to maintain positive relationships. EX: Ask 50 people for support = more support
|
|
|
instrumental support |
tangible. EX: poor: partner gives you money jobless: Partner gives you job
|
|
|
emotional support |
NOT tangible. EX: Give partner a hug when they are sad. Listen to them when they are upset. Tell them you love them |
|
|
Provides "Map" for family life |
religious teachings/rituals that help families navigate difficulties.
Transitions (baptism, marriage), conflict resolutions strategies, positive religious coping
|
|
|
conflict resolution strategies |
Don't judge, forgive, "confession" (catholic) |
|
|
sanctification |
ascribing sacred qualities to everyday aspects of life. Sacred words-blessed, infinite, miracle. can be a role, relationship, object, or time. can occur theistically or non theistically. when we sanctify something we find it important. We put more time and energy in it. |
|
|
risks of religion |
desecration and sacred loss, not fitting the "ideal" family structure, negative coping |
|
|
desecration and sacred loss |
a violation/betrayal of the divine or a loss of connection. EX: When you sanctify a marriage but then you get a divorce. |
|
|
not fitting the "ideal" family structure |
divorce, gay couple |
|
|
negative coping |
"deferring" prayer/coping style. unhealthy alliances, malevolent reappraisals.
EX: "I'm a bad person, thats why bad things happen to me" |
|
|
"deferring" prayer/coping style |
not deal with anything. Leave it in gods hands
|
|
|
unhealthy alliances |
instead talking with partner about problems, talk to god |
|
|
malevolent reappraisals |
reinterrupting something in a negative way |
|
|
increasing rates of interfaith relationships |
mobility, secularization, religious distance |
|
|
mobility |
we go different places. we have more access to people |
|
|
secularization |
less religious, don't need to find someone in same religion |
|
|
religious distance |
distance between religions. EX: jew and catholics -far catholic and lutheran - close |
|
|
risk of interfaith marriages |
increased risk of divorce increased conflict, especially about religion risk of social and familial sanctions some report greater tolerance of others and greater understanding of own faith |
