Interpersonal Exam #3 Flashcards
interpersonal attraction
a relational force that draws people together
the things that draw us to our friends are the things that draw us romantically
task attraction
when you are attracted to someone based on their ability to help you complete a task or accomplish a goal
physical attraction
being attracted to someone based on the way they look
social attraction
being attracted to someone because we enjoy being around them and interacting with them
elements of interpersonal attraction
similarity proximity physical appearance complimentary characteristics credibility reciprocity
similarity
number one force of interpersonal attraction
proximity
we are attracted to people that are physically close to us
we have increased opportunities to interact with these people
physical appearance
a piece of beauty is not in the eye of the beholder
2 indicators that are true cross-culturally
-symmetry
-proportionality
often times, beauty is tied to whatever is affluent
complimentary characteristics
the other person has skills and abilities that complement you in a relationship
doesn’t work when talking about things such as beliefs or values
credibility
we are attracted to people who are competent, confident, credible, and capable
not cocky
reciprocity
we are attracted to people who are attracted to us
pupil dilation
-when we look at someone beautiful, our pupils dilate
-when our pupils are larger, we are seen as more attractive
Duck’s Filtering Theory of attraction
tells us who we will and won’t be attracted to
each step acts as a filter to eliminate people we won’t be attracted to
steps
-sociological cues
–deals with our opportunity to meet people
-pre-interaction cues
–things that happen before we actually talk with a person (looks, dress)
–determines our approach behavior
-interaction cues
–things that happen when we meet and interact with the person
-cognitive cues
–how the person thinks, what they believe
social exchange theory
takes a business or economic model and applies it to a relationship
we want our rewards in relationships to outweigh our costs
rewards and costs
rewards -any sort of profit or gain from a relationship -people value rewards differently costs -exchanged resources that result in loss -people incur costs differently
outcomes
rewards minus costs
we want our rewards to exceed our costs
comparison level - CL
our expectations about the types of outcomes we believe we should be receiving
our expectations for romantic relationships come from three sources
-past relationships
-parents
–if parents are positive it raises our CL
-media
satisfaction
-outcome minus CL is positive = satisfaction
comparison level of alternative - CLalt
the types of alternatives you perceive outside of your current relationship
often occurs in romantic relationships
-what could you be doing instead of being in this relationship
–spend time with friends
–pursue a hobby
commitment/stability
outcome minus CLalt is positive = commitment/stability
social exchange breakdown
outcome > CL and CLalt = satisfying, stable
CLalt > outcome > CL = satisfying, unstable
CL > outcome > CLalt = dissatisfying, stable
-common in abusive relationships
CL and CLalt > outcome = dissatisfying, unstable
characteristics of friendships
voluntary equality assistance and support -there for each other emotionally activity sharing -common interests disclosure and confidentiality
Knapp’s Stage Theory of Relationships assumptions
coming together is not necessarily good
coming apart is not necessarily bad
stage theory simplifies a complex process
stage theory is oriented towards romantic relationships
movement in stage theory
related to rewards and costs
stages in coming together
initiating experimenting intensifying integrating bonding
initiating
first greeting time
positive impression
demographic information
superficial
experimenting
can move quickly self-disclosure -not much depth impression management is important people are exchanging information to find a connection
intensifying
more gradual
self-disclosure deepens and broadens
commitment is growing and time together is increasing
declarations of commitment occur
integrating
occurs if people feel there is a solid base of affection
both people begin to fuse their personalities
breadth and depth of disclosure increases
people expect to see you together
bonding
making the relationship public
making it entirely exclusive
for friends
-bridesmaids/groomsmen
stages in coming apart
differentiating circumscribing stagnating avoiding terminating
differentiating
both people begin to emphasize their differences over their similarities
may begin to argue over these differences
a lot of healthy friendships can cycle thorough this stage
circumscribing
occurs when you rope a topic off as off limits
because you don’t talk about it, communication lacks breadth and depth
may resemble small talk
-purpose is to separate
stagnating
relational standstill
avoiding
characterized by physical and psychological separation
terminating
the end of the relationship
physical termination is pretty abrupt
psychological distance can be more gradual
reasons for relationship termination
context -geographical -social --what do friends and family thing --friends and family generally see our relationships with less bias than we do lack of fulfillment -needs and desires not met precipitating events -cheating -deception -big conflict -loss of child boredom -number 1 reason -"lost the spark"
relational maintenance strategies
positivity
-most important for satisfaction
-the number one thing people look for in a relationship is warmth
openness
-being willing to self-disclose
-romantic relationships need to be able to talk about the relationship
assurances
-assuring the other person of your commitment to the relationship
-typically verbal
social networks
-greater social circles merge together
sharing tasks/activities
-tasks: doing your fair share of the relationship
–the friend who always reaches out to set up times to hang out
dialectical theory (Baxter’s Dialectical Approach)
assumptions
- relationships are never stable, instead they are constantly changing
- dialectics are the push-and-pull of contradictory needs
- how you manage dialectic tensions will determine the change/direction of the relationship
dialectical internal tensions
within the relationship
connection vs. autonomy
-draw away from others vs. being drawn closer to others
-interdependent vs. independent
-plays out in how much time a couple spends together
predictability vs. novelty
-desire to reduce uncertainty vs. desire for spontaneity
openness vs. closedness
-need to be known vs. need for privacy
nonverbal intimacy components
indicate that we are either in a close relationship or want a close relationship close proximic distance forward lean eye contact direct body orientation smility touch vocal expressiveness
verbal intimacy components
self-disclosure
-especially true when sharing information that we wouldn’t normally share with anyone else
-indicates a deep sense of trust and connection
-primary way that we create trust through language
altercentrism
-focused on others
relationship talk
-using language to show your care for the relationship
-similar to assurance - this is more about showing you care about the relationship rather than the future
inclusive pronouns
-used to build stronger relationships with others
-shows how people think about things
casual forms of address
-nickname
Lee’s Love Styles
eros storge ludis mania agape pragma
eros
physical love
finding someone physically attractive/beautiful
maintaining a sense of eros in a long term relationship is important
storge
companionate love
love based on friendship
high degree of sharing tasks and activities
ludis
game playing love
see relationships as casual and playful
avoid commitment
like to play the field
mania
possessive love
love that is demanding and dependent (on being in a relationship)
always need to be in a relationship
high degree of need to be in control
tend to experience extremes in relationships
agape
unselfish love
you’re more focused on giving than receiving
in line with 1 Cor. 13
goal is to meet the needs of the other person
can lead to your needs not being met
can be taken advantage of
can cause a lot of guilt in the other person
pragma
practical love
look for an individual that meets the characteristics you think will work well with you
common sense approach to love
rational
sex differences with love styles
women score higher in storge, mania, and pragma
men score higher in ludis
what is conflict
an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive that they have incompatible goals
conflict myths
conflict always damages relationships
-negative conflict can hurt a relationship
-productive conflict can hurt a relationship
conflict can always be avoided
conflict always occurs because of misunderstanding
conflict is always the sign of a poor relationship
conflict can always be resolved
conflict styles
based on two things -concern for self --scale of passive to assertive -concern for others --scale of uncooperative to cooperative avoiding accommodating competing compromising collaborating
avoiding
denial of conflict
changing topics, making jokes
lose, lose situation - won’t cooperate but won’t assert yourself
accommodating
lose, win
- don’t assert individual needs
- put others before yourself
competing
win, lose
-can come off as uncaring
compromising
moderately everything
trade-offs and exchanges
collaborating
win, win
high in assertiveness and cooperativeness
most constructive
like to create a new solution that satisfies both parties
takes a lot of time and energy
involves coming up with a new and creative solution
both parties have to collaborate
if used on a regular basis…
competing and avoiding put a negative strain on relationships
-erodes commitment, trust, and satisfaction
collaboration, compromising, and accommodating nourish relationships
-result of a high concern for others
conflict goals
content
relational
identity/face-saving
process
content
deal with "what do we want?" can be listed and described 2 struggles -we want different things -we wand the same thing
relational goals
who are we to each other?
deal with “how do I want to be treated; how much time do we spend together”
identity/face-saving goals
when our goals focus on us in the interaction
-“who am I in this interaction”
goal is to protect self from humiliation, embarrassment, exclusion
process goals
how we deal with conflict
what process will be used to manage conflict
questions
-how formally/informally will conflict be dealt with
attributions and conflict
giving a cause to people's behavior attributions in conflict -attributions for negative behaviors --internal/external -who caused the conflict --irony of the situation --"your fault" ---leads to avoiding/competing --"my fault" ---leads to collaborating/compromise/accommodating -avoid undue negative attributions
rules for positive conflict management
define the problem and the goals avoid evaluative stagements -focus on descriptive statements avoid gunny-sacking -storing up problems and unleashing them all at once -two responses --get defensive --gunny-sack back manage emotions perspective taking (other oriented)
types of communication at work
upward communication
downward communication
horizontal communication
outward communication
upward communication
subordinate to superior
diluted communication
-make yourself look better
downward communication
superior to supordinate
horizontal communication
communication among peers people with similar power more casual more disclosure gossip
outward communication
someone inside the organization to someone outside the organization
exemplified in sales position
polite
informative
types of power
what is power -ability to influence others -ability to resist others' influence attempts legitimate referent expert reward coercive
legitimate
power based in the position
respect for the position
referent
power based in attraction
due to being likeable, charismatic, physically attractive
expert
power based on a person’s knowledge, experience, or skills
everyone is an expert in something
reward
ability to give a reward/satisfy a need
one of the most underutilized types of rewards is praise and recognition
coercive
the ability to punish
leadership styles
the behavioral patterns a person enacts when they are trying to lead
task-oriented
person-oriented
Laissez-Faire style
task-oriented (authoritarian)
exercise direct control over people
specify what needs to be done and how to do it
more effective when the leader is the expert
accomplish more work
person-oriented (democratic)
suggest ways of proceeding
encourage groups to determine what will actually be done
stronger relationships are formed under this style
more time but more creativity
Laissez-Faire style
do nothing
the worst style
family defined
traditional
-husband, wife, children all living in same house together
-focuses on blood and legal relationship
a system with two or more interdependent people who have a common history, a present reality, and who expect to influence each other in the future
communication rules in families
conversation orientation
conformity orientation
conversation orientation
the degree to which a family favors an open climate of discussion
high conversation orientation family
-interacts frequently nd freely
-feel comfortable talking to parents about a whole host of issues
low
-some topics may be off limits/taboo
conformity orientation
the degree to which the family stresses uniformity
typically in beliefs, values, behaviors
high
-hierarchical
-expectation that the family comes first
low
-stress individuality, independence, equality
-up to the individual to determine their path
-accepted to do what is best for you first
family types
consensual
pluralistic
protective
Laissez-Faire
consensual
high conversation, high conformity
manage the tension between these two things
pluralistic
high conversation, low conformity
talk about a low but few rules
can look more like a friendship
protective families
low conversation, high conformity communication is to emphasize rules stereotypes -military -religious
Laissez-Faire
low conformity, low conversation
lack of involvement
sometimes not by choice but because that’s the way it has to be
family type trends
a lot of families shift as children grow
-begin as protective
-move to consensual
-move to pluralistic
the conformity orientation is much less important than the conversation orientation
-when there is conversation, self-esteem increases, children are less likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, and better performance in school
Fitzpatrick’s Marriage Types
traditionals
independents
separates
traditionals
highly interdependent
-share a lot of time and space
see themselves as a couple opposed to two individuals in a relationship
tend to believe that sometimes independence has to be sacrificed for the good of the relationship
tend to engage traditional gender roles
tend to not be overly assertive in conflict
tend to emphasize stability over spontaneity
most satisfied
-closest relationship
independents
share and exhibit some companionship, but less so than the traditionals
allow each other individual space and time
the relationship itself shouldn’t limit personal freedoms
have androgenous gender roles
-male/female responsibilities are shared
more spontaneous than traditionals
deal better with change
engage conflict head on
separates
spend very little time together
-share very little companionship
very independent
maintain a distance with their relationship partner
relationship can be seen as a convenience
tend to avoid conflict
Gottman’s Four Horseman of the Apocalypse
if these 4 behaviors are seen in a marriage, there is a 93-96% chance the marriage will end in divorce
criticism
-making personal attacks on character
defensive
-ward off personal attack
-“it’s not my fault”
-whine
–present themselves as an innocent victim
contempt
-any statement you make to your partner from a superior place
-contempt is primarily an emotion
-when you display contempt, it causes a physiological response in the other person
-most damaging of the four behaviors
stonewalling/avoidance
-listener withdrawal from the conversation
-type of avoidance
-elevated heart rate predicts stonewalling
definitions of sex and gender
sex -biological differences -male/female gender -psychological/social differences -masculine/feminine
feminine communication is
communal - for the purpose of building relationships
caring
masculine communications is
assertive
straightforward
content-oriented
instrumental - goal/achievement-oriented
alpha and beta bias
alpha -the assumption of differences -can miss similarities -can exaggerate differences beta -the assumption of similarities -can miss differences we have an alpha bias in relation to sex differences
challenge of cross-sex friendships
emotional bond challenge
-generally, men and women are socialized to see each other as potential romantic partners
-it can create a lot of uncertainty in the relationship
–occurs because there is the potential for a romantic relationship to occur
sexual challenge
-men and women are socialized to see each other as potential sexual partners
-bigger issue for men
public presentation challenge
-“Whitworth Challenge”
-when people see you together, they assume something romantic is happening when there isn’t
how LDR’s are different
idealization -tend to put best foot forward -more positivity -minimize differences --picture painted of the relationship that is not as clear as it could be mediated communication -the relationship is primarily built on talk and self-disclosure conflict avoidance -feeds into idealization
strategies to improve LDRs
be intentional
