Close Relationships Flashcards
Speed dating event
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
speed dating event: results
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
evolutionary interpretation of speed dating results
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
other research related to speed dating research
other research finds the same results e.g. data-driven technique (Joel 2017)
theory behind speed dating etc results
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
non-verbal signals of romantic interest
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
% use of online dating
30% in 2022
Pew Research
online dating common demographics
younger adults: 18-29 (53%)
- non-heterosexuals (gay, lesbian, bi) (51%)
those with a ‘slim market’ e.g., those in rural areas
do online dating profiles work?
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
online dating: disappointment
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
online dating future
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
interdependence theory aims
applies social exchange theories to romantic relationships
aim: explain the structure of relationships that make people satisfied and committed; their interdependence
interdependence theory theory
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
rewards
desirable relationship experiences
benefits
costs
undesirable relationship experiences
e.g., arguing
rewards and costs: tangible
tangible/material
e.g., making dinner, financial assistance
rewards and costs: intangible
intangible/social
e.g., feeling loved, knowing your partner is dependable, jealousy
costs and influence
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 far are you committed to your current relationship questions
- I want our relationship to last a very long tome
- I feel very attached to our relationship - very strongly linked to my partner
- I would not feel upset if our relationship were to end in the near future
- It is likely that i will date someone other than my partner in the next year
Investment model theory behind
commitment is influenced by 3 factors:
satisfaction
alternatives
investment
can’t JUST be satisfaction - otherwise people wouldn’t stay in unhappy relationships
satisfaction
how happy are you in the relationship?
alternatives
how happy would you be in another relationship/alone
is being alone worse?
investment
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
investment model define
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
investment model: meta-analysis
(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
investment model: evaluation
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
investment: pros and cons
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
importance of commitment
helps to protect and maintain relationships:
derogate alternatives
accommodate
make sacrifices
importance of commitment: derogate alternatives
committed people rate attractive people as less sexy than single individuals (Karremans 2015)
protective mechanism
importance of commitment: accommodate
committed people respond more constructively when dissatisfied (Rusbult 1991)
e.g., bite their tongue during a fight, try to work things out
importance of commitment: make sacrifices
committed people make sacrifices when conflicts of interest arise (Righetti 2017)
e.g., moving
commitment and the investment model
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
attachment
an intimate emotional bond to a particular individual who is seen as providing protection, comfort and support
BOWLBY 1969
Attachment system theory
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
attachment system
helps ensure that infants and caregivers remain in close physical proximity
helps keep infant safe to survive and thrive
normative attachment processes
proximity maintenance
secure base
safe haven
(Responsive care giving is also important)
proximity maintenance
staying near and resisting separations
- distressed when not physically close
secure base
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
safe haven
turning to for comfort, support and reassurance
- seek out caregiver when distressed
individual differences in Attachment
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
secure attachment
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
dismissive avoidant attachment
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
anxious-preoccupied attachment
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
fearful-avoidant attachment
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
can we change attachment style?
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)
responsiveness
attentive and supportive recognition of one person’s needs and interests by another
can come from romantic partners, caregivers and friendships
attachment style dimensions
anxiety over abandonment
avoidance of intimacy
perceived partner responsiveness examples
feeling understood
feeling valued, respected and validated
feeling cared for
Reis 2015
predictors of perceived responsiveness
ego-centric stimulation (projection)
attachment type
predictors of perceived responsiveness: ego-centric stimulation (projection)
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)
predictors of perceived responsiveness: attachment type
e.g. anxiously attached people are hypervigilant to signs of rejection
type of responsive acts in daily life
sacrifices
responsive acts: sacrifices
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
how well can we detect a partner’s sacrifices
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
gratitude and relationships
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)
conflict arises when….
arise when partners’ motives, interests, goals etc interfere with each other
conflict frequency: dating couples
2.3/ week
Lloyd (1987)
conflict frequency: married couples
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
hostile conflict patterns/strategies
4 negative approaches to conflict that can be detrimental to relationships
Gottman
conflict patterns: The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse
criticism
contempt
defensiveness
stonewalling
criticism
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.”
contempt
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.”
defensiveness
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!”
stonewalling
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.
hostile conflict patterns are associated with
relationship dissatisfaction
robust to other cultures - Li 2019
good/cosntructive conflict patterns
Responsiveness!!!!1
empathy, respect, understanding, validation
being collaborators vs antagonists
transgressions
hurtful actions by others we trusted and whom we did not expect to misbehave (e.g., infidelity, lying, breaking promises)
responses to transgressions
can end a relationship - deal breaker - no trust
may choose to forgive and repair
middle group - stay with but with dissatisfaction
forgiveness
deliberate decision to release resentful feelings and reconcile with offender
forgiveness benefits
helps repair relationships (Fincham 2007)
promotes victims personal wellbeing (Karremans 2003)
factors that predict constructive conflict navigation
commitment: motivation to act constructively –> want to work it out
self-control: ability to act constructively –> pause and think before responding
commitment and self control both predict
accommodation
staying faithful
forgiveness
commitment and self control both predict: accommodation
inhibit destructive impulses, respond constructively when partner behaves negatively (Finkel 2001)
e.g., staying cool and not fighting fire with fire
commitment and self control both predict: staying faithful
resist attractive alternative partners (Pronk 2011)
commitment and self control both predict: forgiveness
inhibit impulse to go on the offensive (Karremans 2003)
best case scenario in relationship is high levels of both…
commitment AND self-control
MOTIVATION AND ABILITY
Van Der Wal 2014
self-expansion: new relationships
people rapidly expand their sense of self through new experiences with their partner
self-expansion: as relationships progress
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
measuring self-expansion in a relationship
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
how to keep the spark alive
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
predictors of break-up and divorce: meta-analysis
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
statistics when people were asked what caused their divorce
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
statistics when people were asked what caused their divorce
theory/investment model
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
larger context: predictors of divorce
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)
Adjusting after break up: the hurt
- may feel like physical pain (Kross 2011)
Adjusting after break up: duration
- takes time to detach (Peplau 1982)
- must redefine self-concept (Slotter 2010)
average of 6 months (Vonk 2013)
durability bias
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
wellbeing in singlehood is based on
whether the individual:
- wants to be single
- having high-quality friendships
- perceived social support
- societal influences
singlehood: perceived social support
- 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!
singlehood: societal influences
- Endorsement of marriage and family ideology
- Stigma and discrimination (“singlism”)
-Traditional norms about gender and parenthood
