Close Relationships

Question 1

Speed dating event

Answer 1

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

Question 2

speed dating event: results

Answer 2

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

Question 3

evolutionary interpretation of speed dating results

Answer 3

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

Question 4

other research related to speed dating research

Answer 4

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

Question 5

theory behind speed dating etc results

Answer 5

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

Question 6

non-verbal signals of romantic interest

Answer 6

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

Question 7

% use of online dating

Answer 7

30% in 2022

Pew Research

Question 8

online dating common demographics

Answer 8

younger adults: 18-29 (53%)

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

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

Question 9

do online dating profiles work?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

online dating: disappointment

Answer 10

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

Question 11

online dating future

Answer 11

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

Question 12

interdependence theory aims

Answer 12

applies social exchange theories to romantic relationships

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

Question 13

interdependence theory theory

Answer 13

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

Question 14

rewards

Answer 14

desirable relationship experiences

benefits

Question 15

costs

Answer 15

undesirable relationship experiences

e.g., arguing

Question 16

rewards and costs: tangible

Answer 16

tangible/material

e.g., making dinner, financial assistance

Question 17

rewards and costs: intangible

Answer 17

intangible/social

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

Question 18

costs and influence

Answer 18

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

Question 19

how far are you committed to your current relationship questions

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Investment model theory behind

Answer 20

commitment is influenced by 3 factors:

satisfaction
alternatives
investment

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

Question 21

satisfaction

Answer 21

how happy are you in the relationship?

Question 22

alternatives

Answer 22

how happy would you be in another relationship/alone

is being alone worse?

Question 23

investment

Answer 23

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

Question 24

investment model define

Answer 24

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

Question 25

investment model: meta-analysis

Answer 25

(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

Question 26

investment model: evaluation

Answer 26

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

Question 27

investment: pros and cons

Answer 27

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

Question 28

importance of commitment

Answer 28

helps to protect and maintain relationships: derogate alternatives accommodate make sacrifices

Question 29

importance of commitment: derogate alternatives

Answer 29

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

Question 30

importance of commitment: accommodate

Answer 30

committed people respond more constructively when dissatisfied (Rusbult 1991) e.g., bite their tongue during a fight, try to work things out

Question 31

importance of commitment: make sacrifices

Answer 31

committed people make sacrifices when conflicts of interest arise (Righetti 2017) e.g., moving

Question 32

commitment and the investment model

Answer 32

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

Question 33

attachment

Answer 33

an intimate emotional bond to a particular individual who is seen as providing protection, comfort and support BOWLBY 1969

Question 34

Attachment system theory

Answer 34

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

Question 35

attachment system

Answer 35

helps ensure that infants and caregivers remain in close physical proximity helps keep infant safe to survive and thrive

Question 36

normative attachment processes

Answer 36

proximity maintenance secure base safe haven (Responsive care giving is also important)

Question 37

proximity maintenance

Answer 37

staying near and resisting separations - distressed when not physically close

Question 38

secure base

Answer 38

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

Question 39

safe haven

Answer 39

turning to for comfort, support and reassurance - seek out caregiver when distressed

Question 40

individual differences in Attachment

Answer 40

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

Question 41

secure attachment

Answer 41

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

Question 42

dismissive avoidant attachment

Answer 42

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

Question 43

anxious-preoccupied attachment

Answer 43

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

Question 44

fearful-avoidant attachment

Answer 44

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

Question 45

can we change attachment style?

Answer 45

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)

Question 46

responsiveness

Answer 46

attentive and supportive recognition of one person's needs and interests by another can come from romantic partners, caregivers and friendships

Question 46

attachment style dimensions

Answer 46

anxiety over abandonment avoidance of intimacy

Question 47

perceived partner responsiveness examples

Answer 47

feeling understood feeling valued, respected and validated feeling cared for Reis 2015

Question 48

predictors of perceived responsiveness

Answer 48

ego-centric stimulation (projection) attachment type

Question 49

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

Answer 49

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)

Question 50

predictors of perceived responsiveness: attachment type

Answer 50

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

Question 51

type of responsive acts in daily life

Answer 51

sacrifices

Question 52

responsive acts: sacrifices

Answer 52

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

Question 53

how well can we detect a partner's sacrifices

Answer 53

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

Question 54

gratitude and relationships

Answer 54

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)

Question 55

conflict arises when....

Answer 55

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

Question 56

conflict frequency: dating couples

Answer 56

2.3/ week Lloyd (1987)

Question 57

conflict frequency: married couples

Answer 57

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

Question 58

hostile conflict patterns/strategies

Answer 58

4 negative approaches to conflict that can be detrimental to relationships Gottman

Question 59

conflict patterns: The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

Answer 59

criticism contempt defensiveness stonewalling

Question 60

criticism

Answer 60

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.”

Question 61

contempt

Answer 61

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.”

Question 62

defensiveness

Answer 62

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!”

Question 63

stonewalling

Answer 63

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.

Question 64

hostile conflict patterns are associated with

Answer 64

relationship dissatisfaction robust to other cultures - Li 2019

Question 65

good/cosntructive conflict patterns

Answer 65

Responsiveness!!!!1 empathy, respect, understanding, validation being collaborators vs antagonists

Question 66

transgressions

Answer 66

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

Question 67

responses to transgressions

Answer 67

can end a relationship - deal breaker - no trust may choose to forgive and repair middle group - stay with but with dissatisfaction

Question 68

forgiveness

Answer 68

deliberate decision to release resentful feelings and reconcile with offender

Question 69

forgiveness benefits

Answer 69

helps repair relationships (Fincham 2007) promotes victims personal wellbeing (Karremans 2003)

Question 70

factors that predict constructive conflict navigation

Answer 70

commitment: motivation to act constructively --> want to work it out self-control: ability to act constructively --> pause and think before responding

Question 71

commitment and self control both predict

Answer 71

accommodation staying faithful forgiveness

Question 72

commitment and self control both predict: accommodation

Answer 72

inhibit destructive impulses, respond constructively when partner behaves negatively (Finkel 2001) e.g., staying cool and not fighting fire with fire

Question 73

commitment and self control both predict: staying faithful

Answer 73

resist attractive alternative partners (Pronk 2011)

Question 74

commitment and self control both predict: forgiveness

Answer 74

inhibit impulse to go on the offensive (Karremans 2003)

Question 75

best case scenario in relationship is high levels of both...

Answer 75

commitment AND self-control MOTIVATION AND ABILITY Van Der Wal 2014

Question 76

self-expansion: new relationships

Answer 76

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

Question 77

self-expansion: as relationships progress

Answer 77

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

Question 78

measuring self-expansion in a relationship

Answer 78

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

Question 79

how to keep the spark alive

Answer 79

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

Question 80

predictors of break-up and divorce: meta-analysis

Answer 80

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

Question 81

statistics when people were asked what caused their divorce

Answer 81

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

Question 82

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

Answer 82

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

Question 83

larger context: predictors of divorce

Answer 83

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)

Question 84

Adjusting after break up: the hurt

Answer 84

- may feel like physical pain (Kross 2011)

Question 85

Adjusting after break up: duration

Answer 85

- takes time to detach (Peplau 1982) - must redefine self-concept (Slotter 2010) average of 6 months (Vonk 2013)

Question 86

durability bias

Answer 86

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

Question 87

wellbeing in singlehood is based on

Answer 87

whether the individual: - wants to be single - having high-quality friendships - perceived social support - societal influences

Question 88

singlehood: perceived social support

Answer 88

- 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!

Question 89

singlehood: societal influences

Answer 89

- Endorsement of marriage and family ideology - Stigma and discrimination (“singlism”) -Traditional norms about gender and parenthood