Close relationships 2 - maintaining relationships Flashcards
Responsiveness
- Attentive and supportive recognition of one person’s needs and interests by another
- Perceived partner responsiveness:
- Feeling understood
- Feeling valued, respected, and validated
- Feeling cared for
Benefits of responsiveness
· Personal outcomes e.g., health wellbeing, non-defensiveness, intellectual openness
· Relationship outcomes e.g., satisfaction, closeness, trust, commitment, prosocial orientation
- One of the strongest predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal studies (Joel et al, 2020)
Predictors of perceived responsiveness
· Perception also stems from projection
· Perceived responsiveness may not be accurate
· Where do perceptions stem from?
- Remember Epley (2008) - “ego-centric simulations” (aka “projection”)
- Attachment orientation (anxious - hypervigilant to signs of rejection) (Collins and Feeney, 2004)
Responsive acts in daily life - sacrifices
· Sacrifices in activities and behaviours
· E.g., taking up domestic burden
· E.g., hang out with friends even if you don’t like them
· E.g., partake in activity that you might not enjoy
How well can we detect a partner’s sacrifices?
· “Did you make a sacrifice today?”
· “Did your partner make a sacrifice today?”
· Only 50% of sacrifices were detected
· But also “false alarms”
To “see” is to feel grateful?
· Seeing partners sacrifices boosts gratitude
· Missed sacrifices leave partner feeling underappreciated after they sacrificed
- Both partners less satisfied
Gratitude is powerful
· Feeling grateful benefits people’s health and happiness (Wood et al, 2010)
· Benefits the quality and longevity of relationships (Algoe et al, 2010; Gordon et al, 2012)
· Feeling appreciated by partner buffers insecurely attached individuals’ relationship satisfaction and commitment (Park et al, 2019)
Conflict
· Motives, goals, beliefs, opinions, or behaviour interfere with those of another
Conflict frequency
· Conflict is inevitable in relationships
· Dating couples:
- 2.3 couples per week (e.g., Lloyd, 1987)
· Married couples:
- “Memorable differences of opinion” ~ 3 to 4 per week (Papp et al, 2009)
- “Unpleasant disagreements” ~ 1 to 2 per month (McGonagle et al, 1992)
Conflict patterns
· It is not whether couples experience conflict, but how they approach conflict that matters - if you are fighting things out then I believe things can get better
· “A big conflict might lead to a big problem getting fixed” (Baker and McNulty, 2020)
· Four horseman of the apocalypse (John Gottman) - conflict patterns that are particularly toxic and predictive of divorce:
- Criticism
- Contempt
- Defensiveness
- Stonewalling
Criticism
· Attacking personality or character rather than airing disagreements by focusing on specific behaviour
· “I cant 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
· Described as the worse one of the four
· One step up from criticism - involves tearing down or being insulting towards partner
· 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 engenders feelings of 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.
Conflict patterns 2
· These hostile conflict patterns are quite common & associated with relationship dissatisfaction
- (Busby & Holman, 2009 – 2,000 couples: 24% reported hostile patterns)
- (Li et al., 2019 – same patterns and associations with dissatisfaction in China)
· What’s missing here? Responsiveness!
- Empathy, respect, understanding, validation
- Being collaborators vs. antagonists
- (Busby & Holman, 2009)
Transgressions
· Have a damaging affect on relationships
· Hurtful actions by others we trusted and whom we did not expect to misbehave (e.g., infidelity, lying, breaking promises)
· What can we do in the face of transgression - break up or forgive or stay in the relationship with a lack of trust
Forgiveness
· Forgoing motivation to retaliate and work towards reconciliation with offender
- Helps to repair relationship (Fincham et al, 2007)
- Promote victims personal well-being (Karremans et al, 2003)
Factors that benefits constructive conflict and forgiveness:
· What can predict conflict and forgiveness?
· Commitment - motivation to act constructively
· Self-control - ability to act constructively
- “The ability to regulate one’s thoughts, motivations, and behaviours in a goal-directed manner“ (e.g., Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994)
Factors that benefits constructive conflict and forgiveness 2
· Commitment & Self-control each predict:
- Accommodation - inhibit destructive impulses, respond constructively when partner behaves negatively (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Rusbult et al., 2001)
- Staying faithful - resist attractive alternative partners (Pronk et al., 2011)
- Forgiveness - inhibit impulse to ruminate about offense (Burnette et al., 2014; Karremans et al., 2003)
· Best case scenario when high commitment + self-control (Van der Wal et al., 2014)
Novelty and growth
· In new relationships, people rapidly expand their sense of self through new experiences with their partner (“self-expansion”)
Declines in self-expansion
· We tend to get into routines, fewer novel and exciting activities
· We need to engage in activities that enable us to keep expanding our sense of self
Measure of self-expansion:
· “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?”
Predictors of break-up and divorce:
· A meta-analysis of 137 longitudinal studies of dating and married couples (+37,700 participants) (Le et al, 2010)
· Powerful predictors:
- Commitment
- Closeness
- Network support
- Insecure attachment styles
Predictors of break-up and divorce 2:
· When people are asked what had caused their divorce (Amato & Previti, 2003)
- 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
Predictors of break-up and divorce 3:
· What about couples’ larger context? Some predictors of divorce:
- Socioeconomic status (income, education) (Wilcox & Marquardt, 2010)
- Race, when facing other adversities (Johnson, 2012)
- Divorce laws (“no-fault legislation”) (Wolfers, 2006)
- Working women (e.g., Mencarini & Vignoli, 2018)
- Expensive wedding (Francis-Tan & Mialon, 2015)
- Age at marriage (Glenn et al., 2010)
- Parental divorce (Amato & Patterson, 2017)
- Stressful life events, trauma (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009)
Adjusting after break-up/divorce:
· The hurt of separation
- May feel like physical pain (Kross et al., 2011)
- Duration may depend on attachment
- Detaching takes time (Peplau et al., 1982)
- Redefine self-concept (Slotter et al., 2010)
· How long? Average of ~6 months (Vonk, 2013)
- In any case, typically shorter than people forecast: durability bias (Gilbert et al., 1998)
- Discount other experiences that will follow (e.g., see partner more negatively, gain positive experiences)
Wellbeing in singlehood:
· Wellbeing as single based on for example:
- Wanting to be single
- Having high-quality friendships
- Perceived social support
· Societal influences:
- Endorsement of marriage and family ideology
- Stigma and discrimination (“singlism”)
- Traditional norms about gender and parenthood
