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
Proust quote about novelty in relationships
“The real voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new lands, but in seeing with new eyes”
Predictors of Breaking-up and Divorce
Le et al. (2010) meta-analysis of 137 longitudinal studies
* commitment
* closeness
* network support
* insecure attachment styles
Amato and Previti (2003) asked couples what caused their divorce
* 22% infidelity
* 19% incompatibility
* 11% substance abuse
* 10% grew apart
Wider contextual predictors of divorce
* socioeconomic status
* race
* divorce laws
* working women
Adjusting after separation; singlehood
Hurt of separation
* sensation of physical pain (Kross et al., 2011)
* duration depends on attachment
* average 6 months
* shorter than people think; durability bias; discount other experiences following separation
Wellbeing in singlehood; Girme et al. (2022) found it was based on
* desire to be single
* high-quality friendships
* perceived social support
* societal influences
