Intimacy Flashcards
caution:
some + behaviors could be interpreted - under different circumstances
nonverbal signals of love (2001 study)
- 60 dating couples
- discussions: first date, plan for tomorrow, area of conflict, etc.
- self reports of love correlated with:
- more affirmative head nods, Duchenne smiles, forward lean, and hand gestures
nonverbal behavior and relational states (1979) study
- 20 distressed and nondistressed married couples
- conflict resolution task
- then, half were instructed to act happy and content (fake good) and half to act unhappy and distressed (fake bad)
- verbal (e.g. compromise, problem description, agreement, approval, excuse, criticize) and nonverbal (e.g. attention, positive physical, no response, laugh) behaviors were recorded.
nonverbal behavior and relational states (1979) results
- both distressed and non altered behavior in response to the instructions to fake good and fake bad
- no differences in couples’ nonverbal behaviors (pos. or neg.) in the fake good or fake bad conditions
- couples can fake happiness or distress verbally, but their nonverbal behaviors reveal the true state of their relationship.
Gaze and intimacy
- couples who score high on romantic love scales exhibit a lot of mutual gaze (rubin)
- need for affiliation in positively correlated with mutual gaze (Exline)
- better adjusted married couples exhibit more mutual gaze than distressed couples (Noller)
Gaze and initial attractiveness (2008)
*d2l chart
-heterosexual participants look at photos of men and women
-remote eye tracking recording system
-all participants initially attracted to face of opposite sex models (especially women)
….then:
-women shift attention to legs, men to the chest
speech rate and intimacy
- fewer and shorter pauses
- faster speech rate
- matching partners vocal cues
pitch and romantic relationships (faney)
- method: place call to a close same sex friend or romantic partner
- pose two questions: how are you? what are you doing?
- men raised pitch when talking to romantic partner vs. friend
- women lowered pitch.
pitch and target attractiveness (2010)
- make phone calls to attractive and unattractive targets
- showed them photos in advance of making the calls
- no answer, so callers left a message on their voice mail
- male and female spoke in lower pitch when talking to attractive targets
- results on d2l
gesture and intimacy
- in positive, friendly interactions, people exhibit more object focused gestures and fewer body focused gestures (freedman)
- also use more illustrators when interacting with friendly others
posture and intimacy
- more forward lean
- direct shoulder/body orientation
- greater postural mimicry
smiles and intimacy
- not a very reliable sign of intimacy and involvement
- some people smile more in negative situations than in positive ones (e.g. phony smiles)
romantic display rules (2012)
- male subjects watched 3 videos
- horror film, infants, and a neutral film
- thought they were being observed by an attractive or unattractive female research assistant
- “attractive observer”=frowned less during horror film
- “attractive observer”=smiled more while watching infant film
- impression management via facial expression
space and intimacy
- intimate 0-18”
- coupled with body (direct) orientation
touch and intimacy
- more touch (esp. middle stages of close relationship)
- greater body accessibility
decoding of nonverbal behavior and intimacy
- Shrout and Fiske (1981) coded behavior in interactions
- speakers were rated on socially desirable traits (e.g. friendly, snobbish)
-which behaviors were associated with judgements of social desirability?
- more head nods
- more short back channels (yes, uhuh, sure)
- longer smile duration
- more frequent filled pauses
- longer gaze duration
- d2l chart, decoding and intimacy*
decoding touch and intimacy (2001)
- touch to face=most affection, attraction, love (jay-z and beyonce)
- touch to waist and forearm show high romantic attraction
- …but also indicative of harassment
relationship closeness and decoding nonverbal behaviors (2004)
- close friends are better decoders of each others nonverbals than strangers are
- close friends performed worse than acquantiances at decoding partners negative affect when partners attempted to disguise their negative emotion (e.g. sadness and anger)
- close friends performed worse than strangers in this condition
motivated inaccuracy model
-when a relational partner has thoughts or feelings that could prove to be distressing to the perceiver, and are not clearly expressed, we choose to “look the other way”
explanations of mimicry (ex: the transporter)
- role taking
- empathy
- communication
Lakin 2004 explanations of mimicry
- nonconscious mimicry creates affiliation and affiliation can create nonconscious mimicry
- this played an important part in human evolution
- important for group members to feel a sense of psychological connection with each other
- individuals with tendency to mimic others establish this sense of connection would therefore continue to be included in the group
developmental aspects of interactive intimacy behavior
- mothers and infants synchronize facial expressiveness, gross body movements, and vocalizations
- more synchrony in full term. vs. pre term infants and more in 5 months vs 3 months old
Street and Capella 1989
found 3-6 year old children converge to the speech rate and the response latency of an adult who interacted with them.
- this reciprocity is associated with attraction toward the partner
- interaction processes are regulated in adults, children, and young infants, and disturbance of their regulations causes problems
