Exam 3 Flashcards
Information Processing
- What we focus on
- Ways we select, interpret, and organize information about the world
Information Processing:
Cognitions influence
Which behaviors we attend to
2) How we interpret the behaviors a) Are they doing it bc they love us? b) Bc they're upset with us? 3) How we react to those behaviors a) If I interpret it as someone doing something to spite me I might react differently
Information Processing:
Hierarchical Relationship Knowlege
Global abstract vs more specific concrete 1) I love my partner a) Terrific person i) Dependable One. Punctual First. Pays bills on time every month Two. Organized ii) Supportive One. Good listener
Motivated Reasoning: Motives
Motive: drive to reach a specific goal
If I’m motivated to see you in a certain way then I probably will see you in that way
Motivated Reasoning:
Biases
Biases: Tendency to process information to protect a particular point of view
In order to maintaining seeing the world a specific way
Our motives can result in biases about how we perceive our partner’s behavior
Motivated Reasoning
Accuracy Motive
Motive
Motive: understanding and being understood
People want to believe they can predict what partner will do and how partner is likely to respond
Motivated Reasoning
Accuracy Motive
Diagnosticity Bias
Diagnosticity bias: preference for information that indicates important qualities in a partner or relationship
The diagnosticity bias is another type of motivation that people may have. This bias refers to people’s desire to view their partner in an accurate light, so that they are better able to predict their partner’s likely behavior in different situations.
Motivated Reasoning
Accuracy Motive
Confirmatiion bias
Confirmation bias: Preference for information that supports what we already know about a partner or relationship
You seek out information that keeps what you think is true
Process information that goes with your beliefs
Motivated Reasoning
Justification Motive
Motive
Supports positive view of self
Helps me feel good about myself
People in distressed relationships see partners more negatively than partners see themselves (Murray et al., 2000)
Motivated Reasoning
Self serving Bias
Self serving bias: Take credit for our successes and blame others for our failures
When having conflict with partner; may blame situation or partner rather than taking repsonsibilty for behavior
Motivated Reasoning
Enhancement Motive
Motive
Motive: Believing the best about a relationship
Married and dating couples completed a measure of interpersonal qualities for self (“actor”), partner, and ideal partner (Murray et al, 1996)
Motivated Reasoning
Enhancement Motive
Motive
Results
Actors’ view of self minimally correlated with partners’ view of self
Actor’s view of self correlated with actor’s view of partner
I see my partner similarly the way I see myself
View partners through our self-perceptions
Actors’ view of self correlated with actors’ view of ideal partner
The more I think I am open and understanding, caring kind. The higher I expect my partner to be on those things
I rate myself lower on those then I don’t really expect them in my partner
The more positive I view myself the higher the expectation I have for my ideal partner
Actor’s view of ideal partner correlated with actors’ view of partner
If the person you’re with isn’t similar to your ideal person then you probably don’t want to be with them
Ways of keeping negative information out of awarenesss
Selective attention
Empathy Accuracy
Memory Biases
Adaptive Attributions
Ways of keeping negative information out of awareness:
Selective attention
- cognitions influence what is noticed and attended to
Ways of keeping negative information out of awareness:
Empathy Accuracy
people’s motivation to understand what their partner is saying varies with whether their partner is saying something negative or positive
A positive statement leads to high motivation to understand
A negative statement leads to low motivation to understand
Ways of keeping negative information out of awareness:
Memory Biases
????
Adaptive Attributions
People may explain negative information away as being due to circumstances rathe than their parter and as beign a temporary thing
Coping With Negative Information:
Flexible Standard
People may alter their relationship standards based on how their partner behaves
Whatever is currently percieved as positive is considered important and what is currently percieved as negative is considered uniportant
Coping With Negative Information:
Cognitive Restructuring
people may link negative information with positive information about their partner
Reinterpretation: identify positive aspects of partner’s negative behavior
Refutation: “yes-but” response that minimizes impact of behavior and links it with positive behavior
Limits of Motivated Reasoning:
Cognitive Complexity
complex structures with many concrete ideas will be more flexible and less likely to change than less complex structures with fewer concrete ideas
Limits of Motivated Reasoning:
Stress
at times when people are coping with a lot of things, they may not have the cognitive resources to engage in adaptive attributions.
Limits of motivated Reasoning:
Commitment Calibration Hypothesis
People may not always feel that they have to explain away negative behavior or negative information
If people feel their relationship is strong enough to withstand the negative behavior or negative information, they will not try to explain it to others.
Love
Importance and Outcomes associated with Love:
Considered to be basis of Marriage in U.S.
In 1960’s, 24% of women and 65% of men (Kephart, 1967)
In 1980s, >80% of women and men (Simpson et al., 1986)
Changes over 16-year period (1997-2012) (sprecher & Hatfield, 2015)
Over 80% consider it to be basis of marriage, with women slightly higher than men
Men’s ratings decreasing slightly over 26 years
Higher ratings correlated with being White (vs. Black), higher self-esteem, & secure attachment style
Effect of falling in Love
Effect of falling in love (Aron et al., 1995)
Longitudinal study of first 10 weeks of semester; tested every 2 weeks
Participants who fell in love showed increased efficacy and self-esteem from test session before to test session after falling in love
Love
Different models and definitions of love
Two and Kinds of Love
Bershied and Walters (1978)
Passionate love: a state of intense longing for union with another, regardless of whether that longing is reciprocated or is unrequited
Compassionate love: the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply entwined
Two types may solve different adaptation problems (i.e. have evolutionary significance, Buss, 1994)
Passionate solves attraction problem (disrupts existing activities, routines, and social networks to orient the individual’s attention and goal-directed behavior toward a specific partner)
Compassionate: solves commitment problem (keeping partners connected with each other over time to help raise offspring with each other and ward off sexual rivals)
Love
Different models and definitions of love
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
Componenets of love
Intimacy: coseness, bondedness, connectedness (desiring to promote the welfare of the loved one)
Passion: Intense longing to be with the loved one (expression of desire and needs)
Commitment: rational short-term decision that one is in love and long-term commitment to maintain love
Love
Different models and definitions of love
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
Types of Love
Geometry of love triangle Shape of triangle: balance of love Area of triangle: amount of love Multiple triangles of love Real vs. ideal triangles Self vs. other triangles
Love
Different models and definitions of love
Lee’s Love Styles (Colors of Love)
Eros (passionate love) Storge Affection; friendship love Ludus Game-playing love Pragma Shopping list love Mania Possessive, dependent love Agape All-giving, selfless love
Love
Different models and definitions of love
Prototype of Love
Concepts of love may represent a set of graded categorizations, with some characteristics more central than others
Contrasted with classical classification (necessary and sufficient conditions)
When people contrast types of love, they compare them on the degree to which they possess qualities central to the prototype
Love
Different Models and definitions of Love
Fehr and Russell (1991)
Free listing
Friendship, sexual, parental, brotherly, sibling, maternal
Prototype ratings
Maternal, parental, frienship, sisterly, romantic, brotherly, familial
Family resemblance
Caring, helping, bond, sharing, feel free to talk about anything
Infidelity
Why is this an important topic
Most common reason given for dissolution across 160 societies
2008 Gallup Poll: 36% of married adults said they would not forgive their spouse if they found out they were having a sexual affair; 55% said they would leave their spoud
Infidelity
Why is this an important topic
Therapists view it as an important problem
Ranked 2nd in most damaging problem (physical abuse #1)
Ranked 3rd most difficult problem to treat (lack of loving feelings #1)
Infidelity
Why is this an important topic
Adverse Effects on Partner
Symptoms of depression and anxiety (Cano & O’Leary 2000)
Major depression (Whisman, 2016)
Discovering partner had an affair was associated with an odds ratio of 10.0 for meeting criteria for major depressive episode
Association remained when controlling for marital satisfaction
Symptoms similar to PTSD
This happens because it makes people shift their world view
Infidelity
Why is this an important topic
Attitudes toward Extramarital sex
Attitudes towards extramarital sex
Most people (>75%) view it as always wrong
Extramarital sexual behavior
Lifetime : 21% (men) Lifetime : 14% (women)
Annual: 4% of men and 2% of women
Identity of extramarital partner
Close personal friend (54%)
Neighbor, coworker, long-tern acquaintance (29%)
Casual date or hookup (21%)
For pay (8%)
Infidelity
Why is this an important topic
Extramartal Sex Rate Assessment
Rates depend upon method of assessment
Lifetime estimates higher based on privacy envelope (15.5%) than on face to face interview (11.2%)
Annual estimate higher in women based on computer-assisted self-interview (6.1%) than on face to face interview (1.1%) (Whisman & Synder, 2007)
Infidelity
Characteristics/ predictors associtiated with infidelity
Involved partner predisposing factors
Gender - being male
Age- positive association until older age and then negative association
Religiosity - being less religious
Particularly, frequency of attendance at religious services
Infidelity
Characteristics/ predictors associtiated with infidelity
Marital predisposing Factors
Marital dissatisfaction
Sexual dissatisfaction
Infidelity
Characteristics/ predictors associtiated with infidelity
Contextual predisposing factors
“Opportunity” variables (urban setting, employment, greater income)
Number of days of work related travel
Larger percentage of opposite-sex co-workers
Higher prevalence/acceptability in peer or social group
Infidelity
Characteristics/ predictors associtiated with infidelity
Methodological limitation
Social desirability
Most studies are cross sectional
Marital distress predicted by over 17- year period (previti and Amato, 2004)
Infidelity
Emerging Factors
Involved partner predisposing factors
Higher neuroticism
Lower self esteem (not significant when controlling for marital satisfaction)
Marital Factors
Partner affair (not significant when controlling for marital satisfaction)
Extra-dyadic factors
Wives pregnancy
Moderated by marital satisfaction: increased risk when satisfaction was low
Treatment of infidelity (stage model)
Stage approach to forgiveness
Impact
Infidelity is risk factor for depression and anxiety
Meaning
Moving on
Relationshps in cotext
Proximal and Distal Context
Proximal context: factors that are in close to the proximity to the relationship, such as people’s friends and immediate environment
Tend have a direct impact on relationships
Distal context: Factors that are in more distant proximity to the relationship, such as the country where people live
Tend to have an indirect impact on relationships, through the impact on the proximal context
Relationships in Context
Resources
Sources of support outside the relationship
Close extended family
Satisfactory income
Safe neighborhood
Relationships in Context
Stress
Types/ Kinds of Stress
Dyadic Stress
Stressful events that confront both partners
§ Flood, house burns down
o Stressors that originate inside the couple
o Stressors that originate in one person and crossover and affect another partner
§ Unemployment
Relationships in Context
Stress
Types/ Kinds of Stress
Perceived Stress
o Funk & Rogge (2007)
§ Sample of 5,300 married, engaged, or seriously dating adults
§ Perceived stress correlated -.51 with 11 measures of relationship quality (large effect)
How stressed one is, correlated to relationship satisfaction
Relationships in Context
Stress
Ways in which stress affects relationships
Decreased time together, which results in loss of joint experiences, weaken feelings of togetherness, decreases self-disclosure
§ Too busy for partner
o Decrease quality of communication
o Increases risk of psychological and physical problems (sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, mood disturbance)
o Increase likely that problematic personality traits will be expressed (Neuroticism, rigidity, anxiety, hostility)
o [Physiological arousal negatively impacts performance on complex tasks (such as making adaptive attributions)
§ If your partner isn’t doing something that reaches your standard, and the other person doesn’t have the energy, the other one might think that their partner is being a jerk
Stress spillover
stress from one area of someone’s life has an impact on another area
o Work -to-family and family-to-work spillover
§ I have a lot of homework and you are with our partner instead
§ One person
Stress Crosover
Stress crossover: stress that one partner has an impact on the other
§ Both people
§ Know the difference (EXAM QUESTION)
Stress
Possible Outcomes
oVulnerability-stress adaptation model (Cohen & Bradbury, 1997)
§ Stress buffering: if resources are sufficient, harmful effects are partially or completely reduced
§ Personal growth: if resources are sufficient, stress may create opportunities for psychological growth
§ Stress can increase resilience to suture stress ( increase relationship efficacy) – can you solve problems together- when you do, you feel like you can make it through other things
Infidelity
SES
People with lower SES tend to:
Be more likely to divorce
Have higher levels of marital distress
Have children before marriage and have more children
People across SES levels value marriage similarly
People with lower SES
Have more difficult time finding eligible partners (people w/ jobs who can help provide financial support)
Worry more about the possibility of divorce (due to economic burdens)
Fear losing indepenence/ autonomy (due to partner’s traditional sex roles)
Fear domestic violence
Have other challenges (e.g. health problems, less time together) that negatviely impact relationships)
Infidelity and Social networks
Usually measured by asking people about the quality and quantity of interactions with other people
Graph results to display strength and number of relationships (sociometry)
Attributes of social network
Size (number of people connected with individual)
Density (degree to which members of network are connected to other people in network)
Overlap (degree to which same individuals are part of both partners’ networks)
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Marital Satisfaction
Not significant gender difference when only include data from partners in same relationship
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Relationship Orientation
Independent versus interdependent self-construal
Women score higher than men on relational interdependent self-construal (d=.41, Cross & Madison 1997)
Commitment
i. Women score higher than men in commitment (d= .36; Agnew, 2003)
Attachment
i. Women score lower in avoidance (d=.02) and higher in anxiety (d =.04) (Del Guidice, 2011)
Women are more likely to engage in relationship maintenance behaviors
i. Express love and affection
ii. Engage in sexual activity that they do not deisre
iii. Initiate open and direct discussions about relationship
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Relationship Interests/ Desire
Similar values/goals about relationships but men are more likley than women to have their standards fulfilled
Ideal partner preference s(k=97; eastiwick et al., 2014)
Romantic evaluations more strongly associated with physical attraction (r = .40) than earning prospects (r= .10)
No significant differences between men and women
Meta-analysis of studies from 1993-2007 (Petersen & Hyde, 2010)
*see chart
Men have a more indication of casual sexual behaviors
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Family Work
Women do majority of house house work and child care
Gender difference has decreased in magnitude over time.
Gender difference is smaller in magnitude when (a) women work outside the home, and (b) men hold nontraditional (i.e. egalitarian) gender attitudes
Gender differences is greater in magnitude following transition to parenthood
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Power
Power: Ability to deliberately influence the behavior, thoughts or feelings of others
Most couples report power equality (i.e., egalitarian distribution), followed by male dominant, and then by female dominant
Egalitarian distribution of power can be achieved either by joint decision making or dividing areas of responsibility equally
Gender differences and Intimate Relationships
Health
Men derive greater health benefits from marriage
Marital quality may be more strongly associated with health for women than for me
Little evidence for gender differences in recent meta analysis of marital quality and health (Robles et. Al., 2014)
Gender Similarities
Meta-meta analysis of 46 meta-analyses on psychological variables
Gender differences were nonsignificant or minimal for most phsychological variables
