Close Relationships Flashcards
forming and maintaining
Dating preferences
Eastwick and Finkel (2008) - speed dating study
* before - rated importance of a range of characteristics
* at the end of each date, rated person on each of the characteristics and whether they wanted another date
* preferences did not predict mate selection; seems to have random elements (irrational?)
randomness in mate selection as an evolved mechanism; mixing up gene pool important for evolution (avoid inbreeding)
(post hoc) idiosyncratic interaction between 2 people may be the key factor in romantic attraction!
Non-verbal signs of romantic interest (Andersen et al., 2006)
- smiling, increased eye contact, pupil dilation
- synchronised gestures and mimicking
- touching face, neck, torso (vulnerable body parts)
- less distance + oriented towards each other
- speech; matching volume&speed, warm, relaxed, laughter
increased usage, matching algorithms
Online Dating
Increased use of online dating
* in US, 30% in 2022
* in UK, 10 million active users
Platforms use ‘matching algorithms’, but
* don’t reveal these algorithms
* preferences do not predict selection
* meeting may be disappointing? as putting on persona, presenting best self etc. (Ramirez et al., 2015)
Joel et al. (2017) recommendations:
* meet others
* be the partner you want to have
Predicting satisfaction and commitment
Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
Social exchange theory applied to intimate relationships; rewards and costs determine satisfaction and commitment (desirable vs undesirable relationship experiences)
* can be tangible (making dinner) or intangible (feeling loved)
* more likely to remember coststhan rewards (Baumeister et al., 2001); Gottman and Levenson’s (1992) magic 5:1 ratio predicts satisfaction
Satisfaction may not be enough to stay
Investment Theory (Rusbult et al., 1998)
- satisfaction
- alternatives
- investment
predict commitment, which predicts staying vs leaving
Le and Agnew (2003) meta-analysis found moderate correlations
Rusbult and Martz (1995) - High investments:
* benefit - enable couples to endure difficulties
* issue - may trap people in unhealthy relationships
Commitment important because helps protect/maintain relationships:
* derogate alternatives; Lyndon and Karremans (2015) found committeds rate attractive people as less sexy than singles
* accommodate; Rusbult et al. (1991) found committeds respond more constructively when dissatisfied
* make sacrifices when conflicts of interest; Righetti and Impett (2017)
Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969)
Attachment: Intimate emotional bond to a specific individual seen as providing protection, comfort and support.
Attachment system: form bonds with others, distress if unavailable; evolutionary function.
Secure Attachment (low anxiety and low avoidance)
- learnt that proximity seeking leads to support, protection and relief of distress
- turn to others when distressed
- believe distress is manageable
- more stable and satisfying relationships
Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment (low anxiety, high avoidance)
- value self-reliance and independence
- avoid seeking support when distressed
- expect failure in relationships, commitment issues
- relationships lack intimacy, keep partners at a distance
- higher levels of attraction when interacting with potential romantic partner
Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment (high anxiety, low avoidance)
- hypervigilant about loss/rejection
- when distressed, overreliant on others
- demand closeness, attention, approval
- intrusive, demanding, oversharing
- hard time getting over breakups
Fearful-Avoidant Attachment (high anxiety, high avoidance)
- hypersensitive to potential hurt and rejection
- withdraw when upset, avoid coping
- relatively poor personal/social adjustment
- difficulty expressing feelings
Is attachment immutable?
Early attachment researchers claimed attachment style comes from early life and shapes all subsequent relationships
Hadiwijaya et al. (2020) - attachment style is stable overtime (especially secure)
However, new experiences have an influence
* Fraley (2019) - break-ups and new relationships
* Chopik et al. (2019) - become more secure with age
Responsiveness (Reis & Gable, 2015)
Attentive and supportive recognition of another’s needs and interests
Perceived partner responsiveness involves:
* feeling understood
* feeling valued, respected, validated
* feeling cared for
Benefits
* personal outcomes (e.g. health, wellbeing etc.)
* relationship outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, closness, commitment etc.); Joel et al. (2020) review found responsiveness was one of the strongest predictors of relationship quality
Predictors
* ego-centric simulations (projection)
* attachment orientation
Perceiving daily responsive acts predicting gratitude and satisfaction
How well can we detect sacrifices?
Visserman et al. (2019)
* did you make a sacrifice today
* did your partner make a sacrifice today
Only 50% of sacrifices detected; but also false alarms
Sacrifice Detection and Gratefulness
Perceiving partner’s sacrifices increases gratefulness; missed sacrifices causes partner to feel underappreciated (both partners less satisfied)
Gratefulness
* Wood et al. (2010) - benefits health and happiness
* Algoe et al. (2010) - benefits quality and longevity of relationships
* Park et al. (2019) - buffers insecurely attached people’s relationship satisfaction and commitment
Conflict Patterns (Gottman)
Conflict is when someone’s motives, goals, beliefs, opinions or behaviour interferes with those of another; inevitable in relationships
Conflict patterns; having a constructive approach to conflict is what matters, as large conflicts can solve large problems!
Gottman’s 4 Hostile Conflic Patterns
* criticism; attacking personality or character
* contempt; feeling/acting superior to partner, disrespect and disgust
* defensiveness; denying responsibility, making excuses, cross-complaining
* stonewalling; refusing to respond
these hostile conflict patterns predict greater relationship dissatisfaction and divorce; they are missing responsiveness!
Forgiveness
Forgoing the temptation to retaliate and instead working towards reconciliation with the offender
Helps repair relationships and promotes victim’s wellbeing
However - potential doormat effect!
Factors predicting constructive conflict and forgiveness:
* commitment to longevity of relationship –> motivated to act constructively
* self-control –> able to act constructively
* also predict accommodation and faithfulness
