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;
184 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Six traits of intimate relationships
|
Knowledge, caring, interdependence, mutuality, trust, commitment
(Kansas City Chiefs Must Try Curling) |
|
|
Need to belong
|
"Regular social contact with those to whom one feels connected"
Mental health, physical health |
|
|
Influence of culture - change of norms in past 40 yrs (5)
|
- Marriage is now a minority
- people marry later - more cohabitation (increases risk of divorce) - 60% of children single-parent - People more individualistic/hedonistic |
|
|
Influence of culture - sources of change (3)
|
-socioeconomic: accept singles, tolerate divorce, support later marriage, financial help for education
- Individualism: cultivation of self - Technology: reproductive(sperm/egg donors), less babies due to birth control, nonsocial entertainment (TV/internet/videogames) |
|
|
Sex Ratio
|
-women/men
-low > few women. Men compete for women, women more traditional, Victorian England -High means few men. Women more independent, compete for men, more sexually permissive, US 60s>present |
|
|
Attachment styles: evolution
|
-Bowlby: Secure, anxious-ambivalent, avoidant (infants)
-Bartholomew: Secure, preoccupied, fearful, dismissing -Avoidant > fearful + dismissive |
|
|
Attachment styles: dimensions
|
Anxiety about abandonment: fear that others will find them unworthy and leave them
VS. Avoidance of intimacy: ease and trust with which one accepts interdependent intimacy w/ others |
|
|
Sex differences
|
-Think overlapping normal curves
-Sex differences may be statistically significant but there are many of one sex more extreme than average of other -More similar than portrayed in pop culture |
|
|
Gender differences
|
-Social/psychological distinctions prescribed by culture
- Instrumental: task oriented, assertive, leadership etc. - Expressive: Social, emotional, interpersonal etc. - traditionally instrumental = masculine and expressive = feminine |
|
|
Personality differences (Big 5)
|
- Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience
-Neuroticism most important > 45 yr study correlated 10% of satisfaction/contentment w/ low neuroticism |
|
|
Self-Esteem differences
|
-Low self-esteem sabotage their own relationships
-Interpret ambiguous stimuli negatively > self fulfilling hypothesis -Low SE : don't take risks to save relationships, protect ego before relationship |
|
|
Gender differences: typicality
|
-Traditional: 50%
-Androgynous(both): 35% -Cross-typed or undifferentiated: 15% -Traditional couples got along worst, one or two andro got along better |
|
|
sociometer
|
theory that SE is a subjective gauge based on others' opinions of us
|
|
|
parental investment
|
-Women need a man to be invested in them to ensure survival of child
-More sensitive to emotional infidelity -Choose sexual partners more carefully |
|
|
paternity uncertainty
|
-Could be anyone's baby
-More sensitive to physical infidelity (prevent cuckoldry) |
|
|
Long vs. Short term mating strategies
|
Men: prefer easy ST, chaste LT, youth all times
Women: prefer masculine and sexy ST and affairs, resources and status OVER masculinty LT |
|
|
Interaction effects
|
- Many effects in relationship
-Person A, Person B, interaction effects -Fluid process, different at all times although patterns do emerge |
|
|
Aristotle on relationships (3 types)
|
-Utility:transactional
-Pleasure: one finds pleasant/engaging -Virtue: attracted to virtuous character, highest form |
|
|
Early relationship science (4)
|
- Freud - parent-child relationship
- Durkheim - social disconnection and suicide -Monroe (1898) - polling 3000+ kids to find out basis of friend selection - Byrne - relationship similarity > proved liking could be generated in lab, explosion of research afterwards |
|
|
Sources of hypotheses (5)
|
-Personal experience
-Social problems -Previous research -Theories: new ones, testing old ones -Seeking to describe nature of events: causality/correlation or order of events |
|
|
Choosing participants
|
-Convenience samples: available, often psych undergrads
-Representative samples: reflect demographics |
|
|
volunteer bias
|
those who volunteer for experiments are different than those who do not
|
|
|
Developmental Design: Cross-sectional
|
-Dependent on stage of life/relationship (ie couples that have been together 5 years)
-CON: do not account for differences in time (ie couples could have been together since 25 or 65) |
|
|
Developmental Design: Longtudinal
|
-Follow a group as they age (ie newlyweds)
-CON: temporal conditions could affect whole study (ie recession increases money concerns across the board) -CON: participant attrition: loss of participants over time, may affect how representative sample is by end |
|
|
Developmental Design: Retrospective
|
-Survey of past, can be very short term or long term (past 24 hrs -> years)
-CON: subjectivity of memory |
|
|
Experiment settings (4)
|
- Lab: control variables but may be artificial
- Nature: difficult to control but may include important effects - Role play: ethical but may be artificial - Immersive virtual environment (IVE): more control over virtual components |
|
|
Necessities of data (2)
|
-Validity: we are really measuring the events we're trying measure
-Reliability: we should get same scores over time |
|
|
Dimensions of self-reports (3)
|
-Retrospective vs. contemporaneous
- Global vs. specific (how is your sex life vs. how many times did you bang last week) - Subjective vs. objective |
|
|
Self-report: benefits
|
inexpensive, easy to obtain, include subjective interpretation unable to otherwise obtain
|
|
|
Self-report: drawbacks (3)
|
1. Interpretations of questions (ie how many people have you had sex with > men count oral, women only p in v)
2. Difficulties in Recall or Awareness - subjectivity of memory 3. Bias in reports - self-serving bias, social desirability bias |
|
|
Observational research types
|
-Experience sampling: electronically activated recorder (EAR) records at intervals
-observers grade with subjective ratings or use coding procedures (more objective: ie # of smiles + touching) -Eye tracking technology |
|
|
observational research: reactivity
|
people may change behavior when they know they are being observed
|
|
|
Physiological measures
|
-Expensive but objective
-Heart rate, muscle tension, genital arousal, hormone production |
|
|
Archival data
|
-Photos, diaries, public records, etc.
-Accurate, nonreactive, but may be limited in reach |
|
|
Couples reports
|
separate different effects which is interesting
|
|
|
Statistical problems with interpretation (3)
|
1. paired, interdependent data: difficult to separate effects statistically
2. different levels of analysis: focus on individuals or dyads 3. Three sources of influence: influences from both individuals and their mutual interactions |
|
|
Rewards (attraction) (2)
|
Direct: Looks, status, personality, affection etc.
Indirect: often subconscious (Dennis/Denise/Denver), sometimes related to child bearing potential |
|
|
MIT campus housing study
|
List 3 closest companions:
1 door away: 40% 2 doors away: 22% 3 doors away: 16% 4 doors away: 10% |
|
|
Proximity and distance
|
-Proximity is rewarding
-Long distance relationships are stupid and unsatisfying, more likely to divorce if married |
|
|
mere exposure + study
|
-mere exposure: those who are recognized liked more
-Study: woman comes to class 5, 10 or 15 times rated higher w/ more attendance |
|
|
Proximity w/ obnoxious people
|
-more proximity, more hatred for annoying people
-proximity polarizes + or - feelings |
|
|
Preconceptions of beautiful people
|
- Correlate to what is seen as positive in culture: in US often interesting and successful, in Korean often conscientious and kind
-Make 5% more, unattractive make 9% less, lower fines in court, better ratings as profs - seen as more promiscuous |
|
|
What is pretty?
|
Women: youth (baby face) with some maturity(cheekbones, narrow cheeks, broad smile)
Men: babyfaced OR rugged/masculine depending on menstrual cycle |
|
|
Attractive body types
|
Women: 0.7 WHR worldwide, big breasts help but not on stocky body
Men: 0.9 WHR, irrelevant if broke |
|
|
Attractiveness: height, scent, hair
|
-Height good for men
-Smell more important for women -Attractive women smell better, ovulating women smell better -Long hair more attractive to men, perception: less likely to be married, will put out |
|
|
Self monitoring and beauty
|
High SM more interested in having attractive partners
|
|
|
Costs and benefits of being gorgeous
|
- More social, more sex
- Lied to more often, less trusting - contrast effect: exposure to beautiful people makes less appreciative of partners, feel worse about self |
|
|
Matching
|
people tend to stay with those that are closest in physical attractiveness
|
|
|
Potential desirability equation
|
Potential desirability = physical attractiveness x probability of accepting you
|
|
|
Attractiveness vs. ambiguity
|
Only 3% of the
|
|
|
Study: two movies with attractive woman
|
Same movie: 25% sit next to woman
Different movie: 75% sit next to women (justifiable) |
|
|
balance theory
|
-People prefer to have matching of like/dislike with others
-Experiment: rude/nice experimenter and rude/nice supervisor> opportunity to help supervisor - More generous when supervisor was rude to rude experimenter or nice to nice one |
|
|
Similarity: 3 studies
|
UMichigan: free board for male students, closest friendships with those most in common with
Purdue: blind dates with similar or dissimilar couples, similar liked each other more Kansas State: 13 men in fake fallout shelter for 10 days, would have kicked out most dissimilar |
|
|
Types of similarity (3)
|
1. Demographic
2. Attitudes/Values: linear relationship 3. Personalities - even similar defects are good |
|
|
Opposites attract?
|
- Status/wealth can make up for handsomeness in men, always look for young women
|
|
|
Discovering dissimilarities
|
-May take time
-Perceived similarity big influence but falls apart -Perceived similarity more important than actual similarity in marriage satisfaction |
|
|
Stimulus-value-role theory
|
Stage 1: stimulus: age, sex, appearance
Stage 2: value: preferences and beliefs Stage 3: role: how roles of relationships and life plans mesh up |
|
|
fatal attractions
|
-what attracts initially becomes intolerable
-ex: fun and spontaneous becomes irresponsible and foolish |
|
|
Ideal self in other
|
-Like those who are close to our ideal self
-Must be attainable, otherwise implicitly discouraging |
|
|
Complementarity
|
- Dominance and submission
- Spader/Gyllenhall in Secretary |
|
|
Romeo and Juliet effect
|
More parents interfere with relationship, more kids are attracted
|
|
|
Closing time effect
|
Just wanna get a nut at 3AM y'all, less stringent on physical attractiveness limits
|
|
|
Friendships vs.relationships
|
most important relationship: 47 romantic, 36% friendship
Best times (via EAR): both spouse and friends, then friends, then spouse |
|
|
Attributes of friendships (6)
|
1. Respect - people we admire
2. Trust 3. Responsiveness 4. Capitalization - make highs higher 5. Social Comparison 6. Social support (Roll The Rim, Catch Some Scrilla) |
|
|
Rules of friendship
|
culturally prescribed, followed about 50% of the time
|
|
|
Friendship: Childhood (3 + 3)
|
Age <10 : fair-weather cooperation - self interest
Middle school: intimate-mutual sharing - possessive, jealous of others Early teens: autonomous interdependence: different friends for different need Key needs: acceptance - elementary, intimacy - preadolescence, sexuality - teen years |
|
|
Friendship: Adolescence (4)
|
-Peers replace adults as attachment figures
1. Proximity Seeking: 2. Separation Protest 3. Safe Haven 4. Secure Base |
|
|
Friendship: Young adulthood
|
-formation of long term relationships in college
-dissolution of hometown bros -more towards opposite sex after college |
|
|
Friendship: Midlife
|
-dyadic withdrawal: more lover, less friends
-shared friends decrease problems in marriage |
|
|
Friendship: Old age
|
- smaller social networks
- socioemotional selectivity theory: focus on most rewarding relationship, also happens with AIDS infected |
|
|
Gender Differences in same sex relationships
|
-Women: emotional activities and self-disclosure "face-to-face"
-Men: shared activities, companionship, fun "side-to-side" -women closer and more intimate -men disclose more in cultures where it is encouraged (Middle East) |
|
|
Self-Monitoring and friends
|
Low: fewer friends, more in common with each
High: specialized for activities |
|
|
Need for intimacy (Nint)
|
-High: more loyalty and self-disclosure
- Men with high Nint at 30 more well adjusted in middle age |
|
|
Shyness
|
-Social reticence and inhibited behavior with nervous discomfort in social settings
-fear negative self-evaluation -poor self regard -seem unfriendly and aloof, reinforcing cycle |
|
|
Study: interactions with loud music
|
Meet a stranger: high or low noise
- High and low chronic shyness, HR monitor - HR decreased to normal levels |
|
|
Loneliness
|
desire for more intimate connections than we have
-social isolation: lack of social network -emotional isolation: lonely because we lack a single intense relationship |
|
|
physical effects of loneliness
|
higher blood pressure, stress hormones, poor sleep, poor immune system, more admittance to nursing homes in elderly (40% vs. 10%)
|
|
|
Loneliness and personality
|
- Extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness lower, neuroticism increase
-insecure attachment -low self esteem -Traditional men more likely to be lonely w/o partner (lack emotional relationships with friends) |
|
|
Loneliness and behavior
|
-negative attitudes towards others
- drab and dull interactions -low self disclosure -negative interpretation of ambiguous stimuli |
|
|
Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love
|
-Intimacy, passion and commitment
|
|
|
STT: One dimensional loves
|
-Liking: just intimacy
-Infatuation: just passion -Empty love: just commitment |
|
|
STT: 2+ dimensional loves
|
-Romantic love: intimacy + passion
-Companionate love: intimacy + commitment -Fatuous love: passion + commitment -Consummate love: all three, complete love |
|
|
Study: porn and love
|
men report more love for romantic partners when aroused by porn
|
|
|
Fisher: biological aspects of love
|
lust: sex hormones (T + E)
attraction: dopamine attachment: oxytocin |
|
|
excitation transfer
|
arousal caused b one event combines w/ additional arousal elicited by a second event, but the first event is ignored
-Study: attractive woman ranked more attractive when aroused, unattractive woman ranked less attractive (polarized) -nature of arousal does not matter (disgust, laughter, fear) |
|
|
Rubin's love scale
|
intimacy, dependence (neediness), caring (concern for well being)
|
|
|
Study: waitress tape
|
-Watch tape of waitress/marketer either competent or incompetent with either condition that they would go on a date or later
-Competent rated high regardless, incompetent rated low for dispassionate but high for romantic condition |
|
|
Aron: self expansion model
|
-love causes our self concepts to expand and change
-study: follow students for 10 weeks, more diversified self concepts and higher SE |
|
|
companionate love
|
-"comfortable, affectionate, trusting love for a likable partner, based on a deep sense of friendship and involving companionship and the enjoyment of common activities, mutual interests, and shared laughter"
-44% of young adults rated romantic partner as closest friend -oxytocin |
|
|
Lee: 6 styles of loving
|
Eros: physical, love at first sight
Ludus: playing the field Storge: slow developing attachments leading to lasting commitment Mania: demanding, possessive, out of control Agape: altruistic, loving without concern for self Pragma: looking for the right stats |
|
|
Attachment styles and intimacy
|
- secure more trusting, more self disclosure
- avoidant more suspicious, do not disclose as much |
|
|
Attachment styles and passion
|
- securely attached have best and most sex
- avoidant more impersonal, detached |
|
|
Attachment styles and commitment
|
- secure commit more
- more positive and satisfying interactions |
|
|
Attachment styles and caring/caregiving
|
- insecure are less effective caregivers, need support themselves, make partners uneasy
- avoidant may get angry when asked to console a partner - anxious offer help for selfish reasons - secure are most altruistic |
|
|
Sex differences in love
|
-Women: more emotional volatility, more discriminating,
-Men: more dismissive, more romantic attitudes, more love at first sight, fall in love faster, more stock in passion |
|
|
Romantic love: arranged vs. love marriages
|
Rubin's love scale:
-arranged increases -love starts higher but decreases after 5 years |
|
|
Romantic love: fantasy
|
-idealization of partner
-Study: Men learn incompatibilities and meet woman or vice versa and rate attractiveness > gloss over if meeting is first -fades over time |
|
|
Romantic love: novelty
|
-Coolidge effect
-couples decrease sex over time, but increase if remarried |
|
|
Romantic love: arousal
|
- arousal fades over time
- lack of dopamine |
|
|
permissiveness with affection standard
|
sex outside of marriage is acceptable w/in context of a committed relationship
|
|
|
Regan - Love and Lust
|
couples that are hot for each other are more in love, more committed, and happier
|
|
|
Tolerance of homosexuality + origin
|
inborn - 78% accept
upbringing - 30% accept |
|
|
Reasons for sex - m/w
|
-Emotional, physical, pragmatic, insecure
-Men and women endorse emotion, men more likely to do other 3 |
|
|
Extradyadic sex by group
|
Men - 32%
Women - 21% Gays - 80+% |
|
|
sociosexual orientation
|
unrestricted - extraverted, drink a lot, sociable
vs. restricted - squares |
|
|
good genes hypothesis
|
-dual-mating strategy: pursue long term relationship with stable guy for resources, seek good genes by banging other guys
-as many of 2% of children being raised by other men |
|
|
Sex drive - m/w
|
-Men have higher sex drive (37 instances of desire vs. 9)
-Masturbate more often - >50% w/in relationship vs. 16% for women -fantasize more: 60/wk vs. 15 |
|
|
illusion of unique invulnerability
|
happens to everyone else but me
|
|
|
Faulty decision making and safe sex
|
Men are more tolerant of weird shit when aroused: spanking, mmf threesome, sex w/ a 60 year old, drugging more acceptable
|
|
|
pluralistic ignorance and safe sex
|
everyone thinks that others enjoy hookups more than they do, fake peer pressure
|
|
|
Sexual Coercion: 4 types
|
-Type of pressure: verbal > physical
-Unwanted sexual behavior: fondling > intercourse |
|
|
relational evaluatoin
|
degree to which someone deems relationship w/ us to be valuable, important or close
|
|
|
Degrees of acceptance/rejection (7)
|
1. Maximal inclusion
2. Active inclusion 3. Passive inclusion 4. Ambivalence 5. Passive exclusion 6. Active exclusion 7. Maximal exclusion |
|
|
Reactions to acceptance/rejection
|
-bottoms out when any rejection is encountered (ie hating same response as disliking)
-plateaus at high liking, diminishing returns after -evolutionary perspective; monitor who one can acquire resources from |
|
|
relational devaluation
|
-particularly hurtful, regard for relationship drops in other
- high anxiety of abandonment correlated w/ pain, also low SE |
|
|
ostracism
|
-being ignored by partner or others
-difficult to understand to ostracized partner,often frustrating and ineffective -time slows down -High SE will not put up with ostracism, low more likely hang around and be spiteful |
|
|
Jealousy
|
- defined by hurt, anger, fear
- involves relationship to lose and rival to lose it to |
|
|
Types of jealousy (2)
|
-Reactive jealousy: becoming aware to actual threat, felt by everyone
-Suspicious jealousy: no wrongdoing in partner, tendencies to feel vary |
|
|
Who is prone to jealousy?
|
- dependent on relationship, low CLalt
- inadequacy: feeling less worthy relative to partner - preoccupied attachment style, negative for secure + dismissive - high neuroticism - sexual exclusivity and traditional gender roles |
|
|
Danger of rivals
|
- Men jealous of dominance, women of looks
- men and women tend to overestimate attractiveness/threat of rivals |
|
|
Infidelity m/w
|
- Men fear sexual infidelity > paternity uncertainty
- Women fear emotional infidelity > investment - Study: deep emotional attachment or sex, which is most distressing? -Men: 60% sex/40% emotion -Women: 17% sex/ 83% emotion -Grandparents' choices consistent with gender of parent |
|
|
Reactions to jealousy (AS, M/W)
|
-Secure/Preoccupied: fix, dismissive/fearful: avoid
-Ex at party scenario: women: improve relationship, men: protect egos -women try to make men jealous |
|
|
Coping w/ jealousy
|
self-reliance and self-bolstering
|
|
|
Deception vs. lying
|
-conceal information
-divert attention from facts -tell half-truths |
|
|
deceiver's distrust
|
people who lie to others perceive others to be less honest and trustworthy
|
|
|
Traits of liars
|
- High SM, more social
- frequent liars are more successful - care less = more convinced - nonverbal behavior: high pitch, more errors, pupils dilate, blink more, incongruent in general |
|
|
Truth bias
|
-people assume partners are telling the truth because of trust
- overall 54% ability to tell truth from lie (50/50 is chance) - people also overestimate how good they are at telling lies |
|
|
Betrayals
|
- disagreeable, hurtful actions
- happen to everyone, often result of conflicting interests - betrayers underestimate effect of betrayal |
|
|
Betrayal: demographics
|
- technical fields less betrayal, business + arts more
- betrayal less for older, better educated, and religious - betrayers poorly adjusted - men more likely to betray romantic partners and business associates - women more likely to betray friends + family |
|
|
Forgiveness
|
- giving up right to get even or hold in contempt
- agreeable more likely, narcissists less likely - apology and empathy help |
|
|
interpersonal conflict
|
-occurs whenever one person's motive, goals, beliefs, opinions or behavior interfere w/ or are incompatible with those of another
|
|
|
dialectics (4)
|
- autonomy vs. connection
- openness vs. closedness - stability vs. change - integration vs. separation - 1/3rd of conflicts in one study |
|
|
frequency of conflicts
|
- 1/3.6 minutes w/ 4 years olds
- 3.3 disputes per meal - 2.3/week for couples |
|
|
Demographics of conflict
|
- neuroticism +, agreeableness -
- anxiety over abandonment correlated to perceived conflict - peak at mid 20s - more similarity, less conflict - drunk peeps have more conflict |
|
|
Instigating conflict
|
- criticism
- illegitimate demands - rebuffs - cumulative annoyances (women pissed off by uncouth habits, men by lack of consideration) |
|
|
Attributions and conflict
|
-actor-observer effects: perspective issues
-self-serving bias -men more likely to interpret conflict as intentional betrayal |
|
|
attributional conflict
|
fighting over whose explanation is right
|
|
|
Effects of venting
|
- does not actually work, create higher stress, anger lasts longer
- hurts partner - chill out and find humor to defuse |
|
|
Engagement and escalation
|
- process through which problems are negotiated or avoided
- sometimes involves escalation which must be resolved before negotiation through conciliation or separation and reconciliation |
|
|
Escalation (4/4)
|
Direct tactics: negative attributions, hostile commands w/ threats, antagonistic questions, surly/sarcastic putdowns
indirect tactics: condescension or implied negativity, dysphoric affect, changing the topics, evasive remarks - hurt immune system and replicate stress |
|
|
negative affect reciprocity
|
- escalation of negative attitudes in a reciprocal fashion
- less likely with secure attachment style, less physiological response |
|
|
Demand/withdraw pattern
|
- One makes demands, other withdraws, demander demands more, withdrawer withdraws more
- Generally, women demand, men withdraw because women seek closeness and men seek autonomy |
|
|
Negotiation and accommodation
|
- direct: showing willingness to deal with situation, supporting others' POV through paraphrasing, offering self-disclosure through I-statements, providing approval and affection
-Indirect: non-sarcastic humor to lighten mood |
|
|
Rusbault: 4 responses to dissatisfaction
|
- Active to passive vs. constructive-destructive
1. A/C Voice: improve the situation through discussion 2. P/C Loyalty: optimistically waiting for conditions to improve 3. A/D Exit: leaving or threatening, being abusive 4. P/D Neglect: avoid and reduce interdependence |
|
|
Gottman: Four types of couples in conflict
|
Volatile: frequent and passionate arguments, high anger but high fondness
Validators: Behave more collaboratively more empathy Avoiders: avoid, tread lightly if forced Hostiles: do not maintain 5:1 ratio |
|
|
Ending conflict (5)
|
1. Separation - one/both withdraw, no solution
2. Domination - one wins, other capitulates, aversive for loser 3. Compromise - both reduce, diluted instead of reconciled 4. Integrative agreements - win/win solution, takes time, creativity and effort 5. Structural improvement - improvement in the process of settling conflicts |
|
|
Techniques for conflict resolution
|
- Speaker-listener technique, use I statements to avoid mind reading yadda yadda
|
|
|
Reasons for divorce rate
|
- Cohabitation is more prevalent, more economic freedom
- Increasing demands for spouse as lover, friend, therapist etc - increased demands of dual income homes - individualism, more reliance on spouse because less on groups and ext. family |
|
|
Levinger's Barrier Model
|
- Attraction, alternatives and barriers to exit
- dependence on spouse and religious belief were only ones that predicted divorce from not |
|
|
Karney Bradbury's Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model
|
- some enter marriage with enduring vulnerabilities (background/personal)
- adaptive processes allow for weathering storms, if no conflicts couples w/ shit AP can survive -Stressful events: adverse life events -Interaction between three |
|
|
PAIR Project results
|
-enduring dynamics model: difficulties in dynamics before marriage destroy it
-emergent distress model: difficulties arising after marriage destroy -disillusionment model: fantasy dissolves - results: enduring dynamics predicted happiness, disillusionment predicted divorce |
|
|
Early year of marriage project results
|
- Black couples more likely to divorce (55% vs. 36%)
-reasons: more cohabitation, lower income, more likely to have children before marriage, more likely to have come from a broken home -education, higher decreases for whites but no effect for blacks |
|
|
Perceptions of problems (3)
|
-cultural context: society
-personal context: realities of life situation -relational context: how we react to events w/in relationship |
|
|
Life course study: "What caused your divorce?"
|
Women: 25% Infidelity, 19% incompatibility, 14% drinking/drugs, 10% grew apart, 9% abuse
Men: 19% incompatibility, 16% infidelity, 13% communication difficulties, 10% personality problems, 9% don't know, grew apart |
|
|
Break up dimensions (2/4)
|
-Self vs. other oriented: whose feelings are in primary consideration
-Direct vs. indirect: indirect more prevalent -Gradual vs. sudden: 25% of time one instance -Individual vs. shared desire to end: 1 in 66% of cases -Rapid vs. protracted nature: usually attempted several times -Presence vs. absence of repair attempts: usually not |
|
|
persevering indirectness
|
-most frequent pattern at 33% in Baxter's study
|
|
|
Duck's 5 stages of dissolution
|
1. Personal phase: frustration and disgruntlement
2. Dyadic phase: revealing of discontent and battles 3. Social phase: airing of discontent to friends for support/understanding 4. Grave-dressing phase: cognitive restructuring of memories to get over it 5. Resurrection phase: returning the wounded fawn to the wild as a single |
|
|
Aftermath of breakups
|
-60% stay friends
21% become more committed -12% have shitty ups and downs or months |
|
|
Getting over it
|
-Sucks but gets better
-People overestimate shittiness -high anxiety over abandonment ruminate more, less willing to let go, not willing to accept finality of end |
|
|
adjustment patterns
|
-divorcees start out less happy, become more relieved after divorce but not as happy
- widowing is brutal - 68% of those who divorce remarry, but most of them do w/in 4 years |
|
|
Relationships between ex-spouses (4)
|
1. Fiery foes: constant odds
2. Angry associates: some collaboration 3. Cooperative Colleagues: civil and pleasant 4. Perfect pals: strong friendship w/ mutual respect |
|
|
Children of divorce (3 models)
|
- worse off all over
1. Parental loss: one parent, smaller effects if see both 2. Parental stress: quality of parenting diminished by stress, economic hardship big factor 3. Parental conflict: conflict hurts children development, well studied, - unhappy house that stays together is worst |
|
|
interpersonal gap
|
sender's intentions differ from effect on receiver
|
|
|
Function of nonverbal behavior (6)
|
1. provides information: context for words being spoken
2. regulates information: determine flow of conversation and whether it starts at all 3. define relationships: indicate nature of relationship, romantic, power, etc. 4. social control: influence 5.presentational function: for appearance, fighting couple holding hands in public 6. service-task: doctor's office |
|
|
display rules
|
- cultural norms regarding the expression of emotion
- may intensify, minimize or neutralize, or mask |
|
|
gazing
|
-lovers gaze more
-Visual dominance ratio (VDR): % of time gazing during speaking speaking/listening -normal VDR about 40/60, high status 60/40 |
|
|
Body language
|
-leakier than facial expression, used by customs officials
-High power = asymmetric, take up space |
|
|
Interpersonal distance (4 zones)
|
intimate distance: 0-18" loving or hostile
personal distance: 1.5-4' friends and acquaintances, closer means closer Social distance: 4-12' business Public distance: >12'' -More power means more distance -Latin, French and Arabic smaller |
|
|
Paralanguage
|
-mode of language
-lovers say less overall and tolerate more silence -women are more scatterbrained and submissive to boyfriends than others -Women sound more attractive when ovulating |
|
|
mimicry
|
-people who are having a good time synchronize body language
-people attracted to body language similar to their own |
|
|
Nonverbal sensitivity
|
-Women better at encoding and decoding NVB
-men in unhappy marriages correlated with more confusing messages and poor comprehension, but completely unaware -both men and women in unhappy marriages decode third parties better |
|
|
demographics of nonverbal sensitivity
|
-rapists and abusive mothers worse at detecting discontent
-preoccupied and fearful are vigilant for negative cues |
|
|
self disclosure
|
process of revealing personal information to someone else
|
|
|
social penetration theory
|
breadth: of topics
vs. depth: personal significance of the topics they discuss -wedge starts out narrow and shallow and becomes deeper over time -responsiveness is more important than reciprocity of feelings |
|
|
taboo topics
|
- sensitive matters that may threaten quality of the relationship if discussed
- Top are state of relationship (68%), other relationships (31%), past relationships (25%) |
|
|
secret tests (psychotic bitch 101)
|
triangle test: test loyalty by an attractive third party
endurance test: cook up difficulties to test devotion separation test: go away to see how warm their return will be welcomed |
|
|
idioms
|
-pet phrases and inside jokes shared between lovers (</3)
-more for happier couples |
|
|
gender differences in verbal communication
|
-Topics: men impersonal, women women talk about feelings
-Styles: women more indirect and tenative, men more direct, speak up less but for longer (monologue) -Difference in words spoken/day is trivial -Self disclosure: women share more and invite more, traditional men disclose with women but not other men -Due to stereotypes, women interpret no news as good news, men interpret lack of talking as hostility |
|
|
blirtatiousness
|
-tendency to just say whatever on your mind rather than deliberating
-women who are blirtatious may irritate traditional men by flooding conversation during conflict |
|
|
miscommunication
|
1. do not say what they mean
-kitchen-sinking: "everything and" -off-beam: can't stay on topic long enough to resolve 2. poor job hearing each other -mindreading -interruptions -yes-butting -criticizing other POV -cross-complaining: responding to complaints with other complaints 3. display negative affect -criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling, belligerence |
|
|
saying what we mean
|
-behavior description: say what they're doing, avoiding always or never
-I-statements: say how "I" feel rather than what they do -XYZ statement: when you do X in situation Y, I feel Z |
|
|
How to communicate concern
|
Best is straight forward "I'm so sorry/I feel so sad for you" and stop
Idioms suck |
|
|
active listening
|
-paraphrasing: repeat statement to assure intent before getting pissed
-perception checking: opposite of mindreading; state your interpretation and ask if you are right |
|
|
validation
|
acknowledging an opinion, does not necessarily mean you agree with it
|
