Chapter 5: Communication & Interdependence (HIGH MIDTERM PRIORITY) Flashcards
Week 5 (Lecture Notes)
Interpersonal Distance
How close you are in physical Proximity
Hebel et al. (2022)
468 participants interacting in same-sex dyads
Predictor (Variable)
- Big 5 assessed by self and partner
Outcomes
- How far they sat from the end of their sofa
- Self-reported interpersonal attraction (e.g., liking)
Hebel et al. (2022)
Results
self-reports of agreeableness and other-judged agreeableness, extraversion, and openness were significantly associated with physical proximity and self-reported interpersonal attraction.
Synchrony (behavioral and physiological)
Mimicking each other’s behaviors unconsciously
Cohen et al., (2024)
Naturalistic dating study to test the association between physiological synchrony and attraction in romantic relationships
Cohen et al., (2024) Study 1
Experiment:
- Preregistered online experiment with
144 participants.
- IV (psychological synchrony)
- Watch high synchrony interaction.
- Watch low synchrony interaction.
- DV
- Participant related how romantically
attracted the people in the video
were. - Results
- Physiological synchrony increased
perceived romantic attraction,
Cohen et al., (2024) Study 2
- Lab-based naturalistic speed-dating
experiment involving 48 participants - Predictor
- Physiological synchrony (electrodermal) during speed dating interactions. - Outcome
- Romantic attractiveness (as rated by others during the speed dates) - Results
- physiological synchrony during dates was linked to speed-dating partners rating the person higher in romantic attractiveness.
Body movement
Fultz et al. 2024
- Examined the effects of attractiveness
and non-verbal expressivity on
interpersonal liking at three important
stages in a relationship: - More specifically, the researchers
conducted a longitudinal study and
assessed people at
- (a) at zero-acquaintance
- (b) after a five-minute getting-to-
know-you conversation
- (c) after becoming well-acquainted
with one another over 9 weeks. - Non-verbal expressivity refers to how
expressive someone is with their
bodies, gestures, and vocal animation
- Can be self-reported
- Rated by others - Researchers assessed interpersonal
liking (self-report) and physical
attractiveness (as rated by independent
coders)
Fultz et al. 2024
Results
- At zero acquaintance, attractive targets were liked more
- After 5-minute conversation, attractive
targets were still liked more and at this
point self-reported expressivity also
predicted targets being liked more. - By nine weeks of acquaintanceship,
both self-reported expressivity and
observer-rated expressiveness
predicted liking in addition to
attractiveness.
Facial expressions
Eye gaze
Touch
Kleinke et al. (1974) History
- videotapes were made of actors
playing the role of engaged couples in
an interview with a research
psychologist. - Independent variables
- Couples either gazed at each other
or did not gaze - Couples either touched each other
or did not touch.
- Couples either gazed at each other
- Dependent variables
- ’couples’ rated in terms of how
much they liked each other, how
close they were, and how successful
their relationship is. - Results
- Gaze was the most important
variable
- Gazing couples rated higher in
linking, closeness, and prospective
success than non-gazing couples.
- Touching couples were rated as
closer than non-touching couples.
Smell
Rotton et al. (1978) History
- Examined malodor (bad smells) and
attraction toward both similar and
dissimilar strangers. - In one experiment, 27 subjects rated
attitudinal similar or dissimilar
strangers while confided in a room
whose atmosphere was ambient (no-
odor control) or polluted by
ammonium sulfate (rotten egg smell).
Results:
- Contrary to predictions, similar
strangers elicited greatest linking in
the polluted atmosphere
Paralanguage
- Variation in a person’s voice, how they
say it
- E.g., pitch, rhythm, loudness
Farley et al. (2013)
- The researchers examined the way in
which individuals alter their voices
when speaking to romantic partners
versus close friends and if independent
raters perceive these differences. - Participants were asked to listen to
vocal clips (one side of the
conversation) obtained from telephone
calls directed toward close same-sex
friends and romantic partners
Results:
- Participants were able to identify
conversational partner (romantic vs
friend) with greater than chance
accuracy, and this accuracy was
correlated with the vocal pitch.
Montoya et al. (2018)
- conducted a meta-analysis that
investigated the relation between self-
reported interpersonal attraction (for
potential friends and romantic
partners) and enacted behaviors (e.g.,
nonverbal behaviors) for initial stage
attraction.
Results:
- Across the studies in the meta-analysis,
several non-verbal behaviours stood
out as significant predictors of
attraction. For instance, mimicry, sitting
distance, eye gaze frequency, head no,
smile frequency, laughter were
consistently linked with ratings of
attraction.
- However, not all non-verbal behaviours
were associated with attraction ratings.
For instance, head tilt, smile duration,
forward lean, open posture were NOT l
inked with attraction.
Verbal Communication
Self-Disclosure
Revealing personal information to someone
Social Penetration theory (of Self-disclosure)
- Social penetration theory
- Relationships develop through
systematic changes in communication- Breadth
- Variety of topics
- Depth
- The personal significance of the
topic
- The personal significance of the
- Breadth
- We like the gradual escalation of
reciprocating disclosure
- Relationships develop through
Fast friends paradigm
Gradually adding breadth or depth over time (fast-tracked)
Computer-mediated communication versus Face-to-Face communication
- Computer-mediated communication
(CMC)
- less non-verbal cues, could be
misinterpreted
- time to consider responses - Face-to-face communication (FtF)
- Non-verbal cues facilitate
information
- harder to control - Which mode is better?
- Evidence is mixed.
- CMC can enhance communication
in existing relationships (e.g.,
continuous contact)- Face-to-face communication is more rewarding and associated with higher levels of interpersonal attraction
Brinberg et al. (2021)
- Examined verbal behaviors (digital
traces) in computer-mediated
communication as a relationship
develops - Researchers assessed text messages
that college-age romantic couples sent
to each other during their first year of
dating. - The goal was to assess whether
romantic couples use more similar
language over time? - Language similarity assessed in terms
of how conversation partners use
particular parts of speech or function
words
Results
- Language similarity increases as the
relationship progresses during the first
year of dating.
Interdependence
- Extent to which interacting persons
influence one another (i.e., thoughts,
feelings, motives, behaviors) - Concept first introduced by Kurt Lewin
(first discussed in the context of groups)
Thibault & Kelly
Social Exchange Explanation
- Central assumption:
- Individuals persist in relationships if
the rewards outweigh the costs - based on economic model
- Individuals persist in relationships if
3 key elements of social exchange theory
1) outcomes
2) Comparison levels
3) Comparison level for alternatives
1) Outcomes
- based on Rewards and Costs
- Rewards come in many forms (not
necessarily monetary)- E.g., happy memories, fulfilling
opportunities, acceptance
- E.g., happy memories, fulfilling
- Costs come in many forms
- E.g., frustration, regret,
uncertainty, annoyances
- E.g., frustration, regret,
- Rewards come in many forms (not
Outcomes = rewards - costs
Outcomes = rewards - costs
- The greater the rewards than the costs,
the more positive the outcome (i.e.,
higher relationship quality) - Note.
- relationship rewards and costs
determined by expectations
- relationship rewards and costs
How many more rewards than costs are needed for a relationship to be satisfying?
- Not quite as simple as rewards JUST
being higher than costs for the
relationship to be satisfying. - Negative experiences tend to be more
memorable and impactful and so
people might need much more
rewards than costs.
2) Comparison level
- The standards (expectations) that we
use to measure our relationship
satisfaction- High comparison level, expect high
rewards - Low comparison level, expect low
rewards
- High comparison level, expect high
- If outcomes > comparison level =
satisfaction - If outcomes < comparison level = dissatisfaction
3) Comparison level for alternatives
- People have expectations with regard
to their belief about the availability of
other relationships - Comparison level for alternatives
determine our dependence on the
relationship
- Belief: other relationships available
- more likely to leave bad
relationship
- Belief: no alternative relationships
- more likely to stay
With social exchange theory…
Outcomes (assessment of rewards and costs)
Two expectations influence outcomes:
- Comparison level (satisfaction)
- Comparison level for alternatives
Clalt (dependence)
Investment theory
- Extention of social exchange theory
- Focuses on painting long term
relationship - Individuals do not always leave if they
are dissatisfied (i.e., outcomes fall
below the comparison level), or if they
have attractive alternatives - There is one additional factor, namely,
investment, that shapes “stay or go
decisions” - Investment level:
- refers to how much the individual
has invested that would be lost by
leaving it- E.g., time, emotions, finances,
children
- E.g., time, emotions, finances,
- refers to how much the individual
- Investments shape the comparison
level for alternatives
According to the investment model…
Commitment scale
- Commitment
- a desire for the relationship to
continue
- a desire for the relationship to
- E.g.,
- I intend to stay in this relationship
- I am orientated toward the long-
term future of this relationship - I feel inclined to keep our
relationship going
Arriaga & Agnew, 2001
Thus, social exchange theory + investment theory
- Outcomes (assessment of rewards and costs)
Outcomes influenced by two expectations:
- Comparison level (satisfaction)
- Comparison level for alternatives Clalt
(dependence)*
*Investments are considered with the comparison level for alternatives
Equity theory
- emphasizes the importance of fairness in relationships (i.e., proportional justice)
- Your outcomes = Your partner’s
outcomes
Your contributions Your partner’s
contributions
E.g., three examples of equally satisfying relationships according to equity theory
You Partner
80/50 80/50
20/100 20/100
50/25 100/50
**VERY RIGID THEORY, CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
Equirt theory evidence?
- Evidence to support this theory?
- There are contradictory findings…
- Over benefitted- happy
- Under benefitted- unhappy - Current research on equity in
relationships has shifted away from
this theory to studying topics like
shared household labour
