Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology > Close Relationships > Flashcards

Close Relationships Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Speed dating event

A

Before:

p’s rated the importance of the following characteristics:
- physical attractiveness
- earning potential
- friendliness

After:

rate the person they speed dated on the above characteristics

and then: would you see them again? yes/no

peoples preferences did not predict who they actually selected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

speed dating event: results

A

no relationship between what people said they wanted before the vent and who they wanted to date after the event

picking partners is not the same as picking other things
e.g., an apartment - has to meet criteria –> there is a random element to partners that is not predictable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

evolutionary interpretation of speed dating results

A

random mating/mixing up the gene pool is very beneficial for a species

e.g., to avoid inbreeding -
so some psychologists say this randomness is an evolved mechanism to mix up the gene pool

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

other research related to speed dating research

A

other research finds the same results e.g. data-driven technique (Joel 2017)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

theory behind speed dating etc results

A

predicting romantic attraction is more random than we think -

-> may feel as someone is ‘all we ever wanted’ but this feeling seems to be the result rather than the cause of liking someone

–> dyadic - partners select each other, predetermined list of preferences discounts that the other person has a say too

–> before the study people may have had an idea of what they want in a partner but during the event may have learned how each person made them feel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

non-verbal signals of romantic interest

A

Andersen (2006)

  • Smiling
  • Increased eye contact
  • Pupil dilation (Pronk, 2021)
  • synchronised gestures &mimicking (Karremans, 2008)
  • touch of vulnerable body parts
  • less distance
  • speech e.g. matching volume/speed, warmth, relaxed, laughter

these can predict romantic interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

% use of online dating

A

30% in 2022

Pew Research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

online dating common demographics

A

younger adults: 18-29 (53%)

  • non-heterosexuals (gay, lesbian, bi) (51%)

those with a ‘slim market’ e.g., those in rural areas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

do online dating profiles work?

A

some claim to have a ‘match algorithm’ - but do not disclose how it works

AND as the speed dating study shows - our perceived preferences may not predict who we actually like

experts suggest:
focus on being the partner you want to be rather than on what you want e.g. sportiness important? be sporty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

online dating: disappointment

A

less attracted to others when we find out who they ‘really’ are as opposed to who we though they were (Ramirez 2015)

people are showcasing the best of themselves both physically and personality wise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

online dating future

A

Still awaiting longitudinal studies

Are online relationship meetings more likely or less likely to last

Software is relatively new so we need to wait

Effects not clear yet

We can only see signs of romantic interest when seeing people interact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

interdependence theory aims

A

applies social exchange theories to romantic relationships

aim: explain the structure of relationships that make people satisfied and committed; their interdependence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

interdependence theory theory

A

social exchange theory: rewards and costs determine satisfaction and commitment (e.g. whether to stay or leave)

rewards = desirable relationship experiences

costs = undesirable relationship experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

rewards

A

desirable relationship experiences

benefits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

costs

A

undesirable relationship experiences

e.g., arguing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

rewards and costs: tangible

A

tangible/material

e.g., making dinner, financial assistance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

rewards and costs: intangible

A

intangible/social

e.g., feeling loved, knowing your partner is dependable, jealousy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

costs and influence

A

we pay more attention to costs and remember them more (Baumeister 2001)

5x greater influence

‘magic 5:1 ratio’ - (Gottman 1992) rewards:costs –> rewards must outweigh the costs

divorcees = more likely to have 1:1

overall positive = overall satisfied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

how far are you committed to your current relationship questions

A
  1. I want our relationship to last a very long tome
  2. I feel very attached to our relationship - very strongly linked to my partner
  3. I would not feel upset if our relationship were to end in the near future
  4. It is likely that i will date someone other than my partner in the next year
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Investment model theory behind

A

commitment is influenced by 3 factors:

satisfaction
alternatives
investment

can’t JUST be satisfaction - otherwise people wouldn’t stay in unhappy relationships

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

satisfaction

A

how happy are you in the relationship?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

alternatives

A

how happy would you be in another relationship/alone

is being alone worse?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

investment

A

what have you put into this relationship that you would lose if the relationship ended

have i wasted the best years of my life?

can be tangible and intangible e.g. home vs time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

investment model define

A

incorporates satisfaction, investments and alternatives and predicts when people are:

  • highly satisfied
  • have made lots of investments
  • don’t have many attractive alternatives

THEY ARE MORE COMMITED PARTNERS LONG-TERM

feeling committed = best predictor of staying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

investment model: meta-analysis

A

(Le, 2003)
52 studies
11,582 participants

satisfaction r=.68
investments r=.46
alternatives r=.48

^how much they predict commitment

satisfaction is the biggest predictor of commitment
——>
r=.47 commitment –> stay

commitment predicts staying together

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

investment model: evaluation

A

culturally and historically specific:

  • not robust to time or culture
  • Stay or leave? is a modern luxury - historically marriage was sacred and in some cultures, it still is

Nowadays marriage should be wholly fulfilling needs - sexually, socially, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

investment: pros and cons

A

pro: if you have invested you are more likely to try and work through difficulties - not flea at first sign of trouble

con: can trap people in unhealthy relationships
e.g., women with high investments and poor alternative = likely to return to abusive partners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

importance of commitment

A

helps to protect and maintain relationships:

derogate alternatives
accommodate
make sacrifices

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

importance of commitment: derogate alternatives

A

committed people rate attractive people as less sexy than single individuals (Karremans 2015)

protective mechanism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

importance of commitment: accommodate

A

committed people respond more constructively when dissatisfied (Rusbult 1991)

e.g., bite their tongue during a fight, try to work things out

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

importance of commitment: make sacrifices

A

committed people make sacrifices when conflicts of interest arise (Righetti 2017)

e.g., moving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

commitment and the investment model

A

commitment predicts pro-social relationship behaviours which are likely WHY relationships last and so WHY people stay in relationships

PLUS prosocial behaviours involve doing what is best for the relationship –> increasing investment –> increasing commitment further

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

attachment

A

an intimate emotional bond to a particular individual who is seen as providing protection, comfort and support

BOWLBY 1969

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Attachment system theory

A

observed infant/caregiver relationships:

infants who are separated from their PAF experienced intense distress

separation activates the ATTACHMENT SYSTEM:
helps ensure that infants and caregivers remain in close physical proximity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

attachment system

A

helps ensure that infants and caregivers remain in close physical proximity

helps keep infant safe to survive and thrive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

normative attachment processes

A

proximity maintenance

secure base

safe haven

(Responsive care giving is also important)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

proximity maintenance

A

staying near and resisting separations

  • distressed when not physically close
38
Q

secure base

A

using as a base from which to engage in non-attachment behaviour

  • when infant is confident that the caregiver will be available –> infant explores and can master environment

if they aren’t confident in the caregiver’s availability = impaired exploration

39
Q

safe haven

A

turning to for comfort, support and reassurance

  • seek out caregiver when distressed
40
Q

individual differences in Attachment

A

From early relationships we learn what to expect in future relationships

learn expectations about:
others: whether they will be responsive to our needs

ourselves: whether we are worthy of love

We are loveable and should trust others - secure internal working model

You cannot trust others or count on them - insecure internal working model

41
Q

secure attachment

A

low anxiety and low avoidance

  • learned that proximity seeking leads to support, protection, and relief of distress
  • turn to others when distressed
  • believe distress is manageable

have more stable and satisfying relationships

42
Q

dismissive avoidant attachment

A

Low anxiety and high avoidance

  • value self-reliance and independence
  • avoid seeking support when distressed
  • expect relationship failure. averse to commitment
  • relationships lack intimacy, keep partners at distance
  • feel higher levels of attraction when interacting with potential romantic alternatives
  • report feeling relief after break ups
43
Q

anxious-preoccupied attachment

A

high anxiety and low avoidance

  • hypervigilant about loss and rejection
  • they have excessive reliance on others when distressed
  • demand closeness, attention and approval
  • intrusive, demanding, and overly disclosing
  • Hard time getting over break-ups
44
Q

fearful-avoidant attachment

A

high anxiety and high avoidance

  • High anxiety part means that they are hypersensitive to potential hurt and rejection
  • High avoidance part means that they withdraw when upset; avoid coping
  • Relatively poor personal and social adjustment
  • Difficulty expressing feelings
45
Q

can we change attachment style?

A

Bowlby: cradle to grave

others: attachment style is stable over time

BUT NEW RESEARCH:

breaks up/ cheated on = less stable
new good relationships = more stable
(Fraley 2019)

we become more stable with age (Chopik 2019)

46
Q

responsiveness

A

attentive and supportive recognition of one person’s needs and interests by another

can come from romantic partners, caregivers and friendships

46
Q

attachment style dimensions

A

anxiety over abandonment

avoidance of intimacy

47
Q

perceived partner responsiveness examples

A

feeling understood
feeling valued, respected and validated
feeling cared for

Reis 2015

48
Q

predictors of perceived responsiveness

A

ego-centric stimulation (projection)

attachment type

49
Q

predictors of perceived responsiveness: ego-centric stimulation (projection)

A

we assume others see/think/feel/view the world the same way we are (use ourselves as a benchmark) - project our own feelings onto others (Epley 2008)

50
Q

predictors of perceived responsiveness: attachment type

A

e.g. anxiously attached people are hypervigilant to signs of rejection

51
Q

type of responsive acts in daily life

A

sacrifices

52
Q

responsive acts: sacrifices

A

actual sacrifices: activities and behaviours we display for the sake of our partner e.g. hoovering when our partner is busy

engaging in social activities you would rather not

hobbies you would rather not do e.g. camping

53
Q

how well can we detect a partner’s sacrifices

A

asked multiple married couples - partners were in separate rooms

did you make a sacrifice today?
did your partner make a sacrifice today?

50% of sacrifices were undetected

false alarms = sometimes said yes my partner did make a sacrifice when they did not

Lots of mismatch

Visserman 2019

54
Q

gratitude and relationships

A

feeling grateful benefits health and happiness (Wood 2010)

benefits the quality and longevity of relationships (Gordon 2012) - win-win for both people

feeling appreciated buffers insecurely attached individuals relationship satisfaction and commitment (Park 2019)

55
Q

conflict arises when….

A

arise when partners’ motives, interests, goals etc interfere with each other

56
Q

conflict frequency: dating couples

A

2.3/ week

Lloyd (1987)

57
Q

conflict frequency: married couples

A

memorable differences in opinion: 3-4/week (Papp 2002)
e.g. about household chores

unpleasant disagreements: 1-2/month (McGonagle 1992)
e.g. about how to discipline their children

58
Q

hostile conflict patterns/strategies

A

4 negative approaches to conflict that can be detrimental to relationships

Gottman

59
Q

conflict patterns: The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

A

criticism
contempt
defensiveness
stonewalling

60
Q

criticism

A

attacking personality or character rather than airing disagreements by focusing on a specific behaviour

“I can’t believe you didn’t take out the trash. You are so irresponsible!”

Vs.

“I’m upset that you didn’t take out the trash.”

61
Q

contempt

A

involves tearing down or being insulting towards the partners

Disrespect and disgust, acting superior
e.g., rolling eyes, sneering, or using sarcastic put-downs

“You are so stupid, you wouldn’t know the answer if it walked up and hit you in the face.”

62
Q

defensiveness

A

Denying responsibility, making excuses, or cross-complaining

Natural response to ‘attack,’ but causes tension and prevents partners from hearing each other

“I did not cheat on you, we were on a break! And you were the one who left me in the first place!”

63
Q

stonewalling

A

Refusal to respond –
this is a withdrawal from the conflict, the relationship, and from the partner

e.g., ignoring the partner, leaving the room, picking up book, turning on computer etc.

64
Q

hostile conflict patterns are associated with

A

relationship dissatisfaction

robust to other cultures - Li 2019

65
Q

good/cosntructive conflict patterns

A

Responsiveness!!!!1

empathy, respect, understanding, validation

being collaborators vs antagonists

66
Q

transgressions

A

hurtful actions by others we trusted and whom we did not expect to misbehave (e.g., infidelity, lying, breaking promises)

67
Q

responses to transgressions

A

can end a relationship - deal breaker - no trust

may choose to forgive and repair

middle group - stay with but with dissatisfaction

68
Q

forgiveness

A

deliberate decision to release resentful feelings and reconcile with offender

69
Q

forgiveness benefits

A

helps repair relationships (Fincham 2007)

promotes victims personal wellbeing (Karremans 2003)

70
Q

factors that predict constructive conflict navigation

A

commitment: motivation to act constructively –> want to work it out

self-control: ability to act constructively –> pause and think before responding

71
Q

commitment and self control both predict

A

accommodation

staying faithful

forgiveness

72
Q

commitment and self control both predict: accommodation

A

inhibit destructive impulses, respond constructively when partner behaves negatively (Finkel 2001)

e.g., staying cool and not fighting fire with fire

73
Q

commitment and self control both predict: staying faithful

A

resist attractive alternative partners (Pronk 2011)

74
Q

commitment and self control both predict: forgiveness

A

inhibit impulse to go on the offensive (Karremans 2003)

75
Q

best case scenario in relationship is high levels of both…

A

commitment AND self-control

MOTIVATION AND ABILITY

Van Der Wal 2014

76
Q

self-expansion: new relationships

A

people rapidly expand their sense of self through new experiences with their partner

77
Q

self-expansion: as relationships progress

A

decreases

get into routines = fewer novel and exciting activities

effort = required to engage in new things to keep expanding in the company of someone who is no longer new and novel

78
Q

measuring self-expansion in a relationship

A

measure through open-ended questions:

“how much did being with your partner expand your sense of the kind of person you are?’

“how much did being with your partner result in you having new experiences’

Muise 2019

ballroom dancing
beer pong
baking

79
Q

how to keep the spark alive

A

inject novelty and excitement into the relationship

does not need to be extreme but just seeing things from different viewpoints

Benefit to an awareness that routine and sameness isn’t ideal for relationships

80
Q

predictors of break-up and divorce: meta-analysis

A

Le 2010

137 longitudinal studies of dating and married couples around 40k participants

commitment
closeness
network support
insecure attachment styles

Gottman 5:1 ratio

not many non-relational factors = chemistry between the 2 is what matters most

81
Q

statistics when people were asked what caused their divorce

A

22% Infidelity
19% Incompatible
11% Drinking/substance abuse
10% Grew apart
9% Personality problems
9% Communication difficulties
6% Physical or mental abuse
4% Love was lost (one of the least likely causes)
3% Don’t know

82
Q

statistics when people were asked what caused their divorce
theory/investment model

A

all feed into lower satisfaction –> making alternative more attractive —> outweighing investments

in other words :

feeding into peoples commitment

or

peoples attachment insecurities e.g., difficulty communicating

83
Q

larger context: predictors of divorce

A

socioeconomic status (Wilcox 2010)

working women (Mecarini 2018) divorce rates increase the more that women enter the workforce

age at marriage (Glenn 2010) - if under 25 = higher odds of divorce later

expensive wedding (Amato 2017) - the more expensive the ring and the wedding = the more likely divorce

parental divorce - genetic (Amato 2017)

84
Q

Adjusting after break up: the hurt

A
  • may feel like physical pain (Kross 2011)
85
Q

Adjusting after break up: duration

A
  • takes time to detach (Peplau 1982)
  • must redefine self-concept (Slotter 2010)

average of 6 months (Vonk 2013)

86
Q

durability bias

A

Gilbert 1998
takes less time to get over someone than we forecast

bc

we discount other experiences that will follow e.g. see them more negatively and begin to gain other positive experiences

87
Q

wellbeing in singlehood is based on

A

whether the individual:

  • wants to be single
  • having high-quality friendships
  • perceived social support
  • societal influences
88
Q

singlehood: perceived social support

A
  • social connection is what matters not being married or living alone

high quality relationships e.g. close ties

diverse social portfolio - easier when not in a relationship – MORE TIME!

89
Q

singlehood: societal influences

A
  • Endorsement of marriage and family ideology
  • Stigma and discrimination (“singlism”)

-Traditional norms about gender and parenthood

Social Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions