Interpersonal relationships Flashcards
social brain hypothesis (dunbar, 1996, 2010) (3)
- intelligence not just needed for problem solving but for navigating life in social groups:
- live in social world & survive best when live/cooperate with each other, so brains evolved to understand relationships
- limit to number of relationships that can be managed & maintained
social brain hypothesis (dunbar, 1996, 2010) > relationship limits> (4)
- limit to no of relationships that can be managed & maintained
- related to Theory of Mind
- larger neocortex (front of brain)= larger social groups
- cognitive (cost) & temporal (time) constraints on relationships
social brain hypothesis (dunbar, 1996, 2010) > cognitive & temporal constraints on relationships» (2)
> Cognitive= relationships have a cost> require cognitive attention & we have limited cognitive capacity (e.g. remembering details about individual A&B)
Temporal= time constraints (i.e. if with A, cant be with B)
Neocortex & social groups>
larger neocortex= larger social groups
Theory of mind=
the theory we have understanding that others have thoughs and feelings & mind of their own
Types of relationships (5)
> Support clique (1-5)= who go to when hard times or moments of heightened joy
Sympathy group (10-15)= share thoughts & feelings but less close (good friends)
Friendship group (40-50)= friends of friends (casual)
Clansmen (120-150)= maximum no of relationships can maintain
Acquaintance (-)= different from casual friend
Situational factors for relationship formation: proximity (schacter & Black) (3)
> familiarity= (mere-exposure effect: repeated exposure increases liking & trust)
availability= (cost of interaction: how easy/hard to interact in relation to benefits)
expectation of continued interaction (we are more comfortable being liked & liking so try to maintian + relationships)
situational facotors on relationship formation: expectation of continued interaction: what is the prisoners’ dilemma?:» (6)
- arrested with somebody & are both interrogated (you=a; they= b)
- police offer deal for confession
- if both confess= 5 years
- if you rat out b & they dont= you get free, they get 20ys
- if you’re silent & b rats you out= you get 20yrs then go free
- if both silent= 1 yr
-what to do?
situational facotors on relationship formation: expectation of continued interaction: Prisoners’ dilemma> results»_space; (3)
- rational thing to do is rat out other person
- findings instead that people stay silent & trust other, even though consequence of mistrust is severe
- idea random stranger may be encountered again, so we want to be likef & may need to rely on them again> inclined to do things to maintain positive relationships as they are important to survival
How long does it take to form a relationship? (5)
- acquaintances= <10 hrs
- casual friends= 30hrs
- friends= 50hrs
- good friends= 140 hrs
- best friends= 300hrs
“clicking model” of relationship formation (berg & clark, 1986)
idea that potential friends make relatively rapid assessments of the desirability & likeability of a potential friend & shortly thereafter decide to spend time together
Mechanisms of relationship building: (2)
- similarity: attitudes, activities & even names
- matching: (assortative mating)
What are the types of assortative mating?> (3)
- social homogamy= people move in similar circles
- convergence= people growing together
- active assortment= choices (about who you want to spend time with) made in line with preferences
creating closeness in relationships: intimacy> (2)
intimacy= process in which we each feel our innermost self-validated, understood & cared for by the other
> it is: sustained, escalating, reciprocal, personalisitic self-disclosure; level of trust & authenticity
Study on how effectively/ quickly realtionships can be built & closeness: Aron et al (1997)» (5)
method: 36qns
- broguht strangers into room to test for 1 hr
- set 1: baseline superficial qns
- set 2: deeper & self-disclosure qns
- set 3: very deep & personal qns
-results: people felt closer after tasks than regular small talk
How to tell if someone likes you? (4)
- Verbal & non-verbal mimicry
- Dialated pupils & eye contact (lets in more light to take in more info)
- Body orientation & leaning
- Light touching (w: shoulders, knee, back; m: fist bumps, handshakes, one arm hug/pat)
Theories of attraction & relationships (4)
> Balance theory
repulsion hypothesis
reinforcement-affect model
gain:loss hypothesis
theories of attraction & relationships: balance theory (heider, 1946) (3)
- Formula: [P (person) x O (other) x X (idea/attitude)]
-Idea relationships are stable & balanced if ODD number of positives - (e.g. if 2 people who dislike each other (-) like same thing (+,+) it feels uncomfortable)
Balance theory (heider, 1946): unbalanced relationships & cognitive dissonance (2)
cognitive dissonance= when you hold 2 conflicting thoughts at the same time
>we try to restore balance, changing feel of O or X, but sometimes we isolate variables
Theories of attraction & relationships: Repulsion hypothesis>
attitude dissimilarity leads to repulsion, thus we avoid the person (deal-breakers)
theories of attraction: reinforcement-affect model
we like people who we share positive experiences with (reward reinforcement), but we can also dislike people with negative experiences
theories of attraction> gain:loss hypothesis
liking people more if they disliked us to start or vice versa
what is love?
- liking is a desire for interaction, love adds trust
- “in love” implies sexual desire> but difficult to disentangle
Two main types of love:
- passionate love= iintense & confused emotions
- companionate love= less intense, friendship, understanding
colour wheel of love & love attitude scale: primary [motivation] (3)
> eros (sexual)
ludos (fun)
storage (friendship/trusting/intimacy)
colour wheel of love & love attitude scale: secondary (mechanisms) (3)
> mania (posessive)
Agape (selfless)
Pragma (shopping list)
colour wheel of love & love attitude scale: gender differences in style>
m tend to be more ludic & manic
w tend to be more storgic & pragmatic
Love triangle (sternberg, 1988)>
- Passion= sexual attraction (physical)
- Intimacy= emotional (warmth & sharing)
- Commitment= willingness to stay (resolve to maintain)
Love triangle (sternberg, 1988) : combinations> (7)
- intimacy & passion= romantic love
- intimacy & commitment= companionate love
- passion + commitment= fatuous love
- intimacy= liking
- commitment= empty
- passion= infatuation
- intimacy + passion + commitment= consummate love
relationship maintenance: types (4)
- eroticism (sex) vs nurturance (emotional fulfilment)=
- mate-guarding= touching in the presence of others & jealousy
- unique-treatment over baseline personality traits= we look for global traits (kinddness) in terms of other but want unique treatment
- life advice: no two relationships alike & no one rule fits all
relationship breakdowns: fatal attraction: Felmlee, 1995 interviews» (1) + (3)
-Findings: patterns of attraction to the initial trait becomes the “cause” of the relationship breakdown
>(out-going becomes OTT etc)
- explanations:
>idealiation
>corresponding weaknesses
>opposing forces
Relationship breakdown: 4 factors (Levinger, 1980)»
- a new life needed
- alternative partners available
- expectation of failure
- lack of commitment
Relationship breakdwon: reactions to deterioration of relationships» (4)
- loyalty= waiting for improvement
- neglect= allowing deterioration to continue
- voice behaviour= working to improve
- exit behaviour= leaving
