Exam 2 (11/5) Flashcards
Hill’s ABC-X model
War induced separation and reunion
(A) The stressor event
(B) the family’s resources-strengths, things they draw on
(C) the definition or meaning attached to the event by the family, perception
(x) the stress or crisis-how much stress, degree of stress
Hill’s ABC-X model, resources involve traits and abilities of:
o Individual family members
o The family system
o The community (ex: brady bunch, leave it to beaver)
Resources also include…
-coping skills o (healthy) communicating with others, direct action, seek expert help
o (unhealthy) substance abuse, withdrawal, denial (Malcolm in the Middle)
-social support
Two types of resources
o Internal resources- redefining stressful experience in a way that makes it manageable, sense of family identity and intimacy, good communication styles
o External resources- social support from friends, neighbors, relatives. Spiritual support, communication resources such as classes, shelters, grants, programs, etc.
ABC-X shows that what perception is important?
perception of stress
McCubbin & Patterson’s Double ABC-X Model
Pre-crisis+post-crisis- long term model
Stress pile up (ex: Car accident)
Double ABC-X model types of adaptation
o Maladaptation- deteriorate, defeated
o Bonadaptation- morphogenesis, functional
o Mal-bad, bon-good
o Range
The Roller Coaster model of family stress assumptions
o No stress > predictable patterns of activities (morphostasis)
o Developmental and unpredictable stress > changes (morphohenesis)
o Families develop rules
o Family stress occurs when the system doesn’t have enough rules to transform inputs into outputs
Impact of major change
Control, loss of control, angle of recovery, return to control
Burr & Klein’s levels of family stress
Level 1 stress: Cope by making specific, superficial changes. Simple to fix.
Level 2 stress: Cope by making fundamental changes-long term. Cause you to rethink how to approach things. Ex: married, 2nd shift, strain on marriage
Level 3 stress: Fabric of family in trouble, basic philosophy must be reexamined (ex: Hannah Anderson, San Diego), trust, philosophy changes
married prisoners coping with stress study
Marriage=expectations of togetherness
Survey of M and F married prison inmates
Married 3 weeks to 38 years
Spent 8 months to 23 years in prison apart from spouse
Serving 3 months to life
Written, oral history interview
Measures of loneliness, satisfaction, and relational commitment.
Results from married prisoners experiment
o Most married prisoners not very lonely
o Relational commitment and satisfaction protect people from loneliness (internal resources)
o Loneliness is not related to length of sentence, total time in prison, or time in prison since married
o Having a good marriage is a source of hope and contentment.
defining components of social competence
Successfully and appropriately meeting expectations of social environment
Successfully coping with social situations with no clear norms/expectations
parental characteristics that influence competence
authoritative parenting, parental control,
Authoritative parenting
element of democracy but in control, cooperativeness, independent, good competence
Parental control (positive and negative)
o Positive: firm control, good, 2 types:
Induction: use of reasoning for expectations, set and explain rules
Monitoring: knowing child’s whereabouts and child in general
o Negative: excessive control, heavy-handed tactics, bad:
Punitiveness: verbal or physical punishment excessively without explanation. Builds resentment and is counterproductive
Psychological overcontrol: manipulating child’s emotions, love withdrawal, guilt induction, fosters lots of problems, like depression
support
positive behavior, being responsive, providing advice, emotional support, assistance, children with this tend to feel closer to parents.
family dynamics and developing social competence (4)
Observational learning: can be positive or negative, parents are models for children
Family cohesion: moderate
Adaptability: moderate
Conflict: moderate, no conflict-not good, don’t know how to deal with conflicts when they are adults, no problem solving skills, and don’t learn compromise like they do in conflict.
family interaction patterns that promote adolescent social competence and positive values, study:
Studied about 10,000 6-8th grade students.
Positive family communication: “I have lots of good convos with my parents” 1-5, “Important concerns would you talk to your parents about it?” definitely-no, “How often does one of your parents talk to you about what you’re doing in school?”
Findings from family interaction patterns study:
Positive values: supportive family, maintaining standards in family, positive family communication (e.g. caring, equality, integrity, honesty, responsibility, restraint justice, etc.).
*Positive family communication: strongest predictor of values. Positive family communication also predicted higher social competence (planning and decision making, getting along with friends, resistant skills) in adolescents
family structure and adolescents’ confidants (shift from early to middle adolescence, nonparental confiding and risk behaviors), study and findings
Confidant seeking is an attachment behavior
Seek emotional security in times of stress
Safe haven or secure base
Studied 4100 ages 12-14 (early adol.), followed through ages 14-16 (middle adol). “emotional problem, who would you turn to first?” Also assessed risk behavior (running away, theft, selling drugs, carrying a gun)
Confidants: mother is number 1, decreases with age however. As older, romantic partner increases. Went from mom 12-14, romantic partner 16-18, everything else stayed pretty constant.
Kids from single mother families were most likely to name moms as primary confidant. Girls from mother-step dad families more likely to report romantic partners than those from two biological parent families. Adolescents who preferred romantic partners as primary confidants over mothers showed higher levels of delinquency and substance use. Same is true of those who nominate friends over mothers.
effects of interparental conflict on adolescents (impact on dating aggression)
Social learning theory-observe role models
391 adolescents mostly 15-16 years old. About 115 engaged in aggression in relationships, physical aggression, romantic relationship aggression.
Parental modeling effect for boys but not girls. Girls internalize, while boys externalize.
family communication and adolescents’ life satisfaction, study in Scotland
6000 11-15 year olds in Scotland
How easy is it for you to talk to the following people about things that bother you (e.g. mom, dad, stepdad)
Family structure and family affluence > life satisfaction
Ease of FAMILY COMMUNICATION had strongest association with life satisfaction
Ad: communication, the anti-drug
family communication and problem drinking in college freshmen
About 750 freshman at Penn State
Report on their family communication and drinking daily for 14 days
More time in communication with parents >fewer drinks consumed, 32% less likely to engage in heavy drinking.
Especially true on weekends where those who drank consumed an average of 5.45 drinks
Suppressant effect
Effects of parenthood on marriage: changing marital satisfaction
Start off with high satisfaction (honeymoon phase), then declines with the birth of 1st child (stress), then eventually increases again when child grows up and/or moves out (but never to level of honeymoon period again)
Effects of parenthood on marriage: confound between child bearing and duration of marriage
Childbirth is usually confounded with marital duration, usually happens 2-5 years into marriage
Effects of parenthood on marriage: expectations for division of labor (what are they? what actually happens?)
The husband is used to taking care of household duties while the wife is pregnant, but then assumes the wife will go back to them after the child is born. However, the wife needs his help even more now since a baby is a lot of work and she doesn’t have time for everything
Effects of parenthood on marriage: increase in conflict/ changes in leisure
stress, being tired, sleep deprived, and short on time
Effects of parenthood on marriage: decreased intimacy
being tired, sleep deprived, short on time, spend less time coversing, their relationship becomes less central to what is important in their lives now
The spillover hypothesis for the effect of marriage and parenthood
Quality of marriage effects quality of parenting. Marital disharmony leads to child behavioral problems
socialization hypothesis
Parents are not providing good socialization skills
stress and role strain hypothesis
Marital strains create system problems, adult pair bond serves dual function. “what goes around, comes around”
nature of sibling relationships (most enduring, intragenerational, etc.)
Normative consensus for parents, not siblings, more ambigious
Most enduring relationship
Intragenerational: span of one generation
First studied by Sir Francis Galton
multiple siblings and schooling
more siblings, less schooling
family resources and multiple siblings (resource dilution hypothesis)
Parental resources spread thin
Less time for interaction
Low verbal ability in big families
diffusion of responsibility and multiple siblings
more siblings, less frequent contact with parents
more siblings, less responsibility for parental care
ex: 19 and counting
in families with impaired parent
47% of women who were only children provided care vs. 25% of all daughters
25% of men who were only children v. 90% of all sons
marriage, widowhood, and sibling bonds
Poor health/death of parents strengthens sibling bond
Marriage loosens sibling bond
Widowhood/divorce strengthens sibling bond
Parental marital conflict= more negativity in sibling relationship
effect of differential treatment from parents on sibling bonds
more negative sibling relationship
contact and closeness with siblings (e.g., race, sex, what proportion list sibling as closest friend)
50% have contact once a month
2/3 report sibling amongst their closest friends
Higher education=greater sibling contact
Blacks have most sibling contact, Asians least
Women have more contact than men
Greatest impact of life: same sex sibling
Ties to full siblings are closer than to half or step
carryover model
people with close siblings also have closer friends. Sibling warmth=positive peer relationships
scaffolding theory
practicing cognitive skills, people in our lives provide structure, supporting, reasoning. Cons: siblings give us less superior advice/skills than parents would. But it is generally viewed as good and important. Both conflict and support from siblings is important.
types of sibling relationships (e.g., caretaker)
Caretaker- 24%, parental type role for sibling, usually older sibling
Buddy- 22%, good friends, degree of mischief involved often ex: Beaver and Wally
Casual- 28%, older views younger as kind of uninteresting, prefers friends, doesn’t feel great sense of responsibility to younger sibling
None of these- 25%, detached, quarreling, competition, sometimes open hostility, trapped between loyal and hostile, least cohesion.
changes over the lifespan + Cantor’s hierarchical-compensatory model+decreases and increases in sibling contact over the lifespan
Cantor’s (1979) hierarchical- compensatory model
Charts online
Sibling proximity declines
More education= less proximity
Dissolution of marriage= closer proximity
Children, new marriage=decreased contact
Contact drops with age
Giving aid drops with age then increases at age 70
association between education and sibling proximity
more education=less proximity
association between widowhood or divorce and contact with siblings
more contact following widowhood or divorce
communicating commitment to siblings (e.g., social support, intimacy expression, direct expression)
social support: fulfilling ongoing social needs
intimacy expression: engaging in every day talk on a regular basis and engaging in activities together
direct expression: verbal or nonverbal expression of commitment
protection: most common, looking out for siblings best interests, protecting them, not letting others disparage them
Intimate play: playful behaviors that are specific to the participant and sibling
assumptions of Fitzpatrick’s typology
Different interaction styles and ideologies in different marriages
Couples can be classified into different distinct marital types
conceptual dimensions (autonomy/interdependence, etc.)
Autonomy (less connection+sharing, ex: long distance)/interdependence (companionship+sharing+organizing lives around each other)= connectedness
Conventional/nonconventional ideology (ideology of traditionalism vs. ideology of uncertainty and change). Noncoventional=unpredictability is important, novelty, spontaneity
Conflict engagement/avoidance
couple types (e.g., traditional, independent)
Traditionals, independents, separates. Classifies 60% in these, others are mived (40%)
communication behaviors of different couple types
Traditionals: few disagreements, not assertive, high self-disclosure within marriage, generally highest in reported satisfaction
Independents: avoid discussion of big issues, negative disagreements, assertive, highest in jealousy, still pretty satisfied
Separates: less talk, avoid contact, try to “top” each other
association between commitment and satisfaction in different couple types
Personal commitment: wanting the relationship to last, having a future orientation
Dedication commitment: wanting to sustain the relationship in order to benefit both members
Constraint commitment: feeling that you would lose something if you left the relationship or that you are in the relationship because of poor alternatives.
The association between marital satisfaction and commitment (personal and dedication) was highest in the separates and lowest in the traditional
Separate: if I’m happy, staying. If I’m unhappy, I’m out. Driven by rewards
Traditional: not comm. For rewards, comm.. because of ideology. More likely to stay in bad marriage than separates
Gottman’s marital typology
regulated vs. nonregulated marriages
Two classes of marriage:
o Regulated- keep a grip on negativity, more positive than negative, keep conflict under control
o Nonregulated- when fight, negativity gets out of control and does damage.
the behavioral balance theory of marriage:
set point/balance between positive and negative. 5:1 ratio of positive to negative in successful marriage
Gottman: research method
couples have three 15-minute conversations, convos coded for + or – communication behaviors, 4 years later, 92% recontacted. Are you still together? Are you happy with your marriage?
Gottmans couple types
Regulated: conflict engagers
o Volatile- high level of negativity, higher level of positivity and passion, 5:1 ratio
o Validating- medium amount of negativity, more positivity, at least 5 times more
o Avoiders- conflict avoiders, little negativity and positivity, just enough positivity to outweigh negativity
Unregulated:
o Hostile- failure to meet 5:1 ratio, lots of negative, high levels, not enough pos to outweigh neg., still passionate
o Hostile/detached- failure to meet 5:1 ratio, cobra, dangerous, not as aggressive, checked out, not real emotional about it, take it or leave it, no passion.
Couple types influence attempts and emotional expressiveness-most likely to last (Fitzpatrick)
Volatile- begin influence attempts right away
o Most emotionally expressive
o Positive and negative affect freely expressed
o Strong, passionate individuals
o High levels of disagreement as well as affection and humor
Validating- influence attempts peak during middle of interactions
o Emotional expressiveness in moderation, at the right time, and only on really central issues
o Emphasis on we-ness and companionship
Conflict-avoidant- minimize importance of a problem
o Emphasize strengths in their relationship
o All happy, low likelihood of divorce, balance of 5:1
comparison of Fitzpatrick’s and Gottman’s typologies (e.g., validator = traditional)
Validator=traditional
Volatile= independent
Avoider= separate
changes in negative and positive affect in interactions
Increases in neg. and dec. in pos. affect in parent adolescent interactions
changes in parent-adolescent conflict over time
Increasing parent-adolescent conflict as the child physically matures during adolescence.
effect of physical maturity and privacy invasions
Privacy invasion is a strong predictor of subsequent parent-adolescent conflicts
differences between adolescents’ and parents’ reports of parent-adolescent conflict
parentification
Adolescents report greater increases in conflict engagement over time with mothers than with fathers. But their mothers and fathers both reported decrease in conflict with adolescents
Change in positive problem solving and conflict engagement, move to horizontal relationship
association between parentification and parental conflict and youth behavior problems
Parentification: role reversal, children meet parents need for support and companionship, happens in dysfunctional family
Peak in mid-adolescence ex: Mackenzie Phillips, Pretty in Pink
Commonly provided by daughters, received by mothers
Parental conflict association with more parentification
Parentification leads to youth tendency to intervene in parental conflicts and leads to decrease in parental warmth and support
Maternal parentification leads to increased youth behavior problem.
corrosive marital conflict behaviors (e.g., demand-withdrawal, cross-complaining)
demand-withdrawal, cross-complaining, summarizing self, mind reading
Demand-withdrawal
o Complain, demand, criticism > withdrawal, defensiveness
o Common in divorcing couples
o Unresolved closeness-distance dilemma
o Marker of marital dissatisfaction
o Willingness to engage in conflict is generally positive
cross-complaining
o “what about you syndrome”
o Respond to partner’s complaint with complaint of your own
o Does not acknowledge partner’s original complaint
o Unlikely that either issue will be dealt with
Summarizing self
o Failure to acknowledge other’s point of view
o Continual restatement of own position
o Battle of wits
o No movement toward resolution or partner’s position
mind reading
o Partners attribute intent and motivation to each other
o Righteous indignation
o Introduced with “you always” or “you never”
o Mind reader presumes to know more about partner’s psychological state than what is evident to the naked eye
o More confident in their own interpretation
conflict (constructive and destructive behaviors) in newlywed couples and divorce proneness
Newlywed couples followed for 16 years
Destructive conflict behaviors: predicted greater likelihood of divorce by year 16.
Constructive conflict behaviors: useful at preventing divorce, only if used by BOTH spouses. Constructive behavior is useless at preventing divorce if used in a relationship where the other spouse uses withdrawal
verbal aggressiveness vs. argumentativeness and marital violence
V.A: the tendency to attack another person’s self-concept rather than their position on a topic
Argumentativeness: attacking partner’s position on a topic
V.A.: an argumentation skill deficiency-adhomanon ex: Cancun vacation
Argumentativeness (-) leads to less marital violence
Verbal aggression (mental midgets) (+) leads to more marital violence
why are some people verbally aggressive? social learning of marital conflict through observation of parents
Family conflict resolution task observed when child was 14
17 years later, measured marital adjustment, observed marital conflict resolution in a 31 year old
Higher in time 1 family of origin hostility, predicted more marital hostility in time 2.
Pos. engagement in family of origin predicted more positive engagement in time 2 marital interaction
Hostile family comm. At time 1 predicted more mental hostility at time 2
Family of origin conflict interactions patterns are learned by adolescents and reenacted in their later adult marriages
stability
longevity of a marriage, duration or persistence
satisfaction
subjective evaluation of the quality of the marriage
distress
opposite of satisfaction
are satisfaction and stability perfectly correlated?
no
natural changes in marital satisfaction over time (what are some reasons for this?)
Marital satisfaction declines over 3-5 years of marriage
Hypotheses: presence of children (added stressor) and honeymoon effect wearing off
Satisfaction rebounds in 15-20 years
30% of husbands and 15% of wives show increased satisfaction during early years
models of changing satisfaction (e.g., emergent distress)
emergent distress, disillusionment model, enduring dynamics model
emergent distress
marriage starts out happy, antagonistic behaviors erode positive aspects of marriage
disillusionment model
couples start out happy, idealized views become difficult to sustain over time, increasing interdependence makes it hard to conceal problems and maintain exaggerated affection
enduring dynamics model
courtship is not a time of idealized or extreme impression management, newlyweds are aware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses, patterns of behavior emerge out of courtship and continue into marriage, the fate of a relationship is determined before marriage
the role of aggression and positive emotional expression in predicting and upward or downward trajectory in satisfaction
About 87% of husbands, 80% wives evidenced downward trajectories in marital satisfaction over the first 4 years of marriage
Importance of aggression decreases, importance of positive emotional expression flat lines
In first 5 years of marriage, negative communication decreased for both distressed and nondistressed couples.
how do positive and negative communication behaviors change over time in distressed and nondistressed couples?
Decreased more for nondistressed couples
Positive communication increased over time for nondistressed couples
But it decreased over time for distressed couples
reciprocity of negative affect
Negativity= disagreement, criticism, guilt induction
Negative affect reciprocity
Anger, disgust, contempt, sadness, fear
Experience of negative affect in conflict interactions predicts declines in satisfaction
sentiment override
Tendency to respond to partner behavior based on a general sentiment rather than anything about the behavior itself
More common on negative, but not positive, affect
*when are the communication behaviors that predict marital distress first evident?
PREMARITALLY
stability of satisfaction vs. communication behaviors
Satisfaction changes over time
Communication patterns are stable
Negativity, dysfunctional, conflict, criticism, poor communication skills can be identified premaritally
sleeper effect
Kicks in later on, why? Not looking at reality, see it but ignore it.
unrealistic expectations and marital distress
People enter marriage with romanticized and idealized expectations
When reality falls short, distress follows
Failure to meet expectations lead to complaints
complaints lead to
conflict
relationship-specific optimism and conflict behaviors
Newlyweds asked about their optimism for improvement in their relationship.
E.g. “I expect my partner and I will always be able to resolve our disagreements” “I expect my partner will always be affectionate”, etc.
High relationship-specific optimism was associated with less adaptive problem solving behavior during conflict
Especially when the topic was very important
optimism about future marital satisfaction and actual future marital satisfaction
“over the next four years, do you expect that your overall feelings about your marriage will become…” 1-much worse, 5=much better
*most couples exhibited declines in satisfaction
Forecasts are INVERSELY associated with actual marital trajectories
Believing the relationship will get better may set spouses up for disappointment when it does not
Believing marriage will improve may explain why many couples proceed to get married despite experiencing premarital doubts
potential media influences on unrealistic expectations
Viewing “romance genre” TV (e.g. soap operas, reality based relationship programming, romantic comedies) lead to unrealistic beliefs about marriage
divorce rate
50% of all 1st marriages will end in divorce
60-65% of all 2nd marriages end in divorce
crude vs. refined divorce rate
Crude: number of divorces per 1000 in the population (includes everyone, even infants, not that reliable)
Refined: number of divorces per 1000 married women over age 15
change in divorce rate over time
Sharp increase in divorce in the 1960s-1970s
1974 was the first year in history that more marriages ended in divorce vs. death
Death now causes 78% as many marital dissolutions as divorce
Divorce rate dropped slightly from 4/1000 in the population in 2000 to 3.5/1000 in the population in 2010
During the same time period, marriage rate also dropped from 8.2 to 6.8/1000 in the population
divorce rate in AZ
AZ has a high marriage rate and high divorce rate
In 2009, AZ had 8th highest divorce rate in the country
Divorce rate in Maricopa County is estimated at 65-70%
societal factors in divorce (e.g., attitudes toward divorce, economic changes for women)
Societal attitudes- divorce much more accepted now
Economic changes- i.e. earning status of women
individualism
individual risk factors for divorce (e.g., unrealistic expectations, age, premarital pregnancy)
unrealistic expectations
age
premarital pregnancy and birth
race (highest: black, medium: latino, lowest: asian)
children- presence of children, biological lower divorce, stepchildren higher divorce
premarital cohabitation
parental divorce
socioeconomic status (SES): education, income, etc.
remarriage (2nd marriages 60-65% divorce rate, first 50%)
religion
As divorce rate changes, marriage rates are also changing
family issues that change with the divorce rate (e.g., marriage rate, single parent households)
While the divorce rate increases, the number of marriages decrease; people don’t view marriage as an essential part of life anymore, they live longer so they stay single
Female headed households are much more common than male only households
Uncoupled child rearing with marriage
marital interactions predictive of divorce (e.g., low intensity negative affect, husband’s refusal to accept spouse influence)
Results of negative affect:
Husband and wives high intensity negative affect (belligerence, defensiveness, contempt) in the conversation predicted divorce
Wives only low intensity affect (whining, anger, sadness, domineering, disgust, fear, stonewalling) predicted divorce
Results of interaction process:
Negative affect reciprocity (wives): wives who redirect/diffuse negative affect of husbands will decrease divorce
Refusing to accept influence from spouses (husbands) increase in divorce
Failure to de-escalate low intensity negative affect from spouse (skills husbands need to learn)
the general interaction pattern predictive of divorce (e.g., negative start up from the wife)
negative start up from the wife (wife presents complaint to husband)
refusal to accept influence from her by the husband
wives reciprocity of low intensity negativity (she would get angry right back) (couples heading to happiness, the wife would be more calm and not get more angry)
the absence of de-escalations of negativity by the husband (he lets her go off and get more and more angry without doing anything to settle things down a little bit)
what is the cascade model?
Cascade: once it starts in full force, future stages are inevitable (phenomenon)
Four horsemen of the apocalypse
complain/criticize
defensiveness
contempt
stonewalling
complain/criticize
identify the spouse or spouses behavior as problematic or defective, way of complaining that suggests something’s wrong with their spouse.
o Masters complain but they complain about themselves, what they feel, and what they need
o When complaints become criticism that’s the beginning
defensiveness
attempts to ward off or protect the self from perceived attack (denial of responsibility or counter blame); warding off attack
o Righteous indignation- act like an innocent victim, whine
o Masters accept part of the problem, “you did something” good point I did, I’m sorry
o No conflict resolution
contempt
insult, mockery, sarcasm, disapproval, and put down of the spouse, sending the message of hatred.
o Calling partner names or directly insulting them “you’re a jerk, you only talk about yourself”
o Single best predictor of divorce
o Masters: create a culture of appreciation
o Built by scanning environment for things you can praise and appreciate
stonewalling
listener withdrawal, no feedback or eye contact, more peaceful because both members have checked out, not interested anymore. It’s over with, emotional withdrawal from conflict. Speaker feels like they aren’t getting through
the distance and isolation cascade (e.g., flooding, perception of problems as severe)
Flooding > emotional disengagement > parallel lives >loneliness >divorce
Flooding is the first step, when flooded, unable to effectively listen. No one is really hearing each other
As a response to disengagement, start doing things separately.
positive and negative premarital communication and risk for divorce
?
Bohannan’s six stations of divorce (e.g, emotional divorce, legal divorce)
- ) emotional divorce- experience a change in their feelings towards their partner
2. ) legal divorce- working through the legal dissolution of the marriage, a lot of negotiation, couples communication actually increases
3. ) economic divorce- division of your accounts and your assets
4. ) co-parental divorce- optional, you only go through this if your parents, the primary task is the resolution of how the kids will be supervised and raised and who will have responsibility of their welfare
5. ) community divorce- when you tell your parents, friends, co workers, etc. Sometimes comes first, sometimes last
6. ) psychic divorce- psychological closure on their marriage, they no longer think of themselves as married (usually the last stage but harder with couples with kids), accept the fact that they are single
legal vs. physical custody
Legal- human being who has responsibility for the child, in a “normal divorce” both husband and wife can have legal custody
Physical- there are some parents who have legal custody and don’t have physical custody
sole vs. joint custody
Sole- child lives with one parent
Joint- both parents share physical and legal custody, children in joint are better adjusted than those in sole custody and equal those intact families.
from movie: good and bad conflict in marriage
masters vs. disasters
3 things for friendship to increase
love maps (feeling like your partner is interested in you and your stressors and dreams), fondness and admiration, and bids for emotional connection (don’t turn away), ask open ended questions
What override do you want?
positive sentiment override not negative (chip on shoulder), you want shared meaning with partner.
