Interpersonal Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
What is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?
A
- from top of pyramid to bottom, most essential at bottom
- things that are essential for human well-being:
- self-actualization
- esteem
- love/belonging
- safety
- physiological (food,water)
2
Q
Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950)
proximity makes relationships easier
A
- examined friendships between students in dormitories at MIT
- likelihood of friendship diminished as rooms became further apart
- suggests that physical proximity alone can be enough to want to form relationships
- more likely to form relationships with those that are physically closer (easier to form bonds through conversation and experiences if rooms are close)
3
Q
Moreland and Beach (1992)
proximity effect
A
- had 4 confederates posed as students in a lecture theatre for intro psych course
- had 4 women attend classes under different conditions (0 times attended, 5 times, 10 times, 15 times) where they wouldn’t talk, just sit there
- students given pictures and took measures of their perceived familiarity
- no strong effect on familiarity
- increased effects of attraction with the more exposure
- gradual increase in effects if similarity with more exposure
- simply being there is enough for people to feel warmer
4
Q
How is need to belong essential?
A
- to maintain normal psychological functioning we need frequent affectively pleasant/positive interaction with same individuals of a long-term, stable, caring and concerned framework
- can create problematic relationships if formed without interactions
- we have inborn tendency towards human like stimuli so there’s evolved tendency to form relations
5
Q
Kenrick and Johnson (1979)
aversive conditions on interpersonal action
A
- testing hypothesis that negative experience might project negative feelings onto others there
- varied whether noisy tape was playing in background while participants filled out surveys (aversive condition (high noise) or not (low noise))
- split up and taken to separate rooms and filled out evaluations of person (either person they were with before (real stranger) or bogus stranger)
- in low noise (control) they rated real stranger more positively
- in aversive high noise condition real stranger was rated significantly more positively
- any shared experience makes feelings towards someone more positive
6
Q
Cohen et al (1997)
social connections and health
A
- healthy adults exposed to cold virus under quarantine conditions
- prior to exposure they reported on their social networks of the last 2 weeks
- those with low exposure were more likely to contract the cold virus
- those with moderate/high levels of prior contact were less likely to record cold virus
- suggests forming social bonds is important for physical health
7
Q
What effect does social connections have on public health?
A
- public health and interventions should incorporate quality of social networks into treatments as social bonds are important for physical health
- social group ties with community/peer groups are important in protecting us from situations like cognitive decline and brain injuries
8
Q
Williams, Cheung and Choi (2000)
cyber ostracism
A
- developed paradigm to study ostracism: ball thrown back and forth between characters in game
- participants can pass ball to whichever other character they want
- after a number of turns the other 2 characters stop throwing to the participant
- control condition where they play normally
- in included condition the threatened needs and negative moods were relatively low
- when excluded they felt more threatened and had more negative mood
- possible they felt worse when rejected by people they shared experience with (all in the study together)
9
Q
Gonsalkorale and Williams (2007)
ostracism by hated group
A
- varied inclusion/exclusion
- varied group in-group/out-group/despised group (allegedly KKK)
- when included by all groups there was no difference in how positive they felt about themselves
- when excluded had similar levels across measures (e.g. belonging,control, meaningful existence), just as damaged as when excluded despised group
- possible that neurological correlates are activated separately so group membership doesn’t matter
10
Q
Baumeister et al (2002)
anticipated social exclusion and cognitive functioning
A
- took fake personality test and given feedback on possible futures
- 3 conditions (future belonging, future misfortune, alone)
- then completed a test on their general mental abilities
- future belonging: attempted fair amount of questions with a lot correct
- future misfortune: attempted quite a lot and got fair amount correct
- alone: attempted fewer questions and got fewer correct
11
Q
Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams (2003)
brain when being excluded
A
- had MRI scans while being excluded in cyber ball game
- activation in anterior cingulate cortex (detects if automatic response is inappropriate) (parallels physical pain)
- right ventral prefrontal cortex (related to pain/distress) was active
- social exclusion gives same sensation as physical pain
12
Q
What’s the evolutionary perspective of forming relationships?
A
- mate choice is motivated by reproductive fitness
- men: reproduction is easy, primary concern of knowing child is theirs, look for indicators of fertility and quantity
- women: reproduction is costly, primary concern of ensuring child is provided for and can survive, look for indicators that man can provide for offspring and quality
13
Q
Wiederman (1993)
personal ads
A
- examined qualities people offer and seek in personal ads
- found that men seek younger than themselves, seek attractiveness rather than advertising themselves
- women likely to seek financial resources
- men more likely to request photograph
14
Q
Do men and women look for different qualities?
A
- most want to settle in long-term relationship
- gender differences disappear when they answer honestly, answer about real people over hypotheticals and are exposed to similar mating contexts
15
Q
Alexander and Fischer (2003)
gender differences
A
- standard survey on sexual history under normal conditions or attached to what they thought was a polygraph
- gender differences in survey disappeared in polygraph condition
- moderate differences in anonymous condition
- greatest differences in exposure condition
16
Q
Eastwick and Finkel (2008)
preferences
A
- examined preferences for physical attractiveness, earning potential and personability in abstract or in relation to speed dating partners
- participants didn’t predict what they actually fell for in the speed dating context
17
Q
Finkel and Eastwick (2009)
women’s choosiness
A
- examined whether women were more ‘choosy’ than men when men approach women or vise versa in speed dating context
- rotators were significantly less selective than those who sat down
- tendency for men to be less selective when they rotated seemed to disappear
- effect was driven by increased self confidence that comes with getting up and approaching the next person
18
Q
Eagly, Eastwick and Johannesen-Schmidt (2009)
social norms of genders
A
- looked at role of possible future selves in mate preferences
- looked at difference in division of household labour at home
- had to imagine future self and how they’d divide tasks between themselves and partner
- imagine they were married with kids and decide majority provider/housekeeper
- those who expected to be homemaker looked for different traits to those who expected to be provider
- women gave value to skills (like providing) more highly than men
- women preferred older, men preferred younger
19
Q
Del Guidice (2011) (evolutionary perspective)
A
- meta-analysis
- consistent with evolutionary perspective
- men avoid long-term relationships more than women
- women are anxious about romantic relationships
20
Q
Byrne (1971)
whether opposites attract
A
- showed generally speaking similarities led to attraction
- looked at attitudes, values, personality characteristics, bad habits, intellect, income level, choice of cinema aisle
21
Q
What is the Rosenbaum- repulsion hypothesis?
A
- that it’s not similarity that makes you attracted to someone but dissimilarity that repulses you
- info about dissimilarity has been shown to have slightly stronger effect on attraction than same amount of info about similarity
- positive/negative asymmetry (effects of bad are stronger than effects of good)
22
Q
What theories explain similarity effects?
A
- balance theory (people naturally organise their likes and dislikes symmetrically)
- social comparison theory (compare attitudes and beliefs with others we meet in order to evaluate own views)
23
Q
What is the triangular model of love?
A
- intimacy
- commitment
- passion
- balance of the 3 ideals creates the idea of consumer love
