Lecture 7: relationships Flashcards
seeking connectedness is also known as ….
-> what evidence suggests this?
the need to belong = the need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships
- > occurs early in development
- > across cultures
- > people readily form social attachments and resist dissolution
what is Relational models theory (Fiske)
- communal sharing (CS)
- authority ranking (AR)
- Equality matching (EM)
- market pricing (MP)
what are they? examples
different relationships are governed by different rules of interaction/exchange
- shared identity: family, romantic partners
- sharing, empathy, community, care - linear ordering: bosses/employees, student/teacher, military
- hierarchy, order, respect, discipline - even balance:
colleagues, housemates, peer groups
- 1 to 1 reciprocity, equality - proportionality rule of exchange
customer/sales, business partners
-input/output ratios, equity
Relational models theory
mixed models
- romantic partner
- parent-child
-> can they change?
what other theories does it combine to give a more broad overview?
- mostly CS, also EM
- CS and AR
- > different stages of the same relationship can be characterised by different exchange rules
e. g. start EM -> CS
equity theory (MP and EM); Clark and mills theory (CS and EM)
Importance of relationships and well-being
- close relationships
> Impact on mortality risk
Holt-Lunstad
-> social support
> emotional and physical coping resources (e.g. money, run errands)
Impact on mortality risk
Holt-Lunstad:
range of factors linked to mortality
-> social support has impacts on mortality risk that equal to or outweighs risks such as smoking, obesity, vaccinations, air pollution etc
= social support protects us
The costs of loneliness
-> risks associated
- > feeling isolated
- > increase risks of negative health conditions; cognitive decline and impaired EF
relationship formation: getting acquainted
- what factors influence attraction and liking?
attraction = desire for a voluntary relationship
liking = positive evaluation of a object/person
- physical attractiveness
- similarity
- positive interaction
> proximity, familiarity and mimicry
- physical attractiveness
relationship formation: getting acquainted
- physical attractiveness
- >beauty is good effect - self-fulfilling prophecy
> Snyder, tanke, Berscheid
-> vary across time and culture
- > some general:
- symmetry
Beautiful is good effect
- > stereotype that physically attractive people are warm and friendly
- > can become self-fulfilling
- phone conversations between women and men
- > men told the woman was either attractive or unattractive
attractive = men were more sociable, more warm, bold and humorous
> the ‘attractive’ women then reciprocated
= increased mutual liking (both rated one another highly)
= self-fulfilling
= this can reinforce the stereotype
relationship formation: getting acquainted
- similarity
- condon and crano
-> why does this increase liking/attraction?
-> similar others attract = similarity-attraction principle
- > participants gave attitude judgements
- > give judgement about another person: either similar or dissimilar to them
= as attitude similarity increases, people become more attracted to the person they are judging
= also asked how much do you think that person likes you? the more similar, the more they said that the person would like them (reciprocal attraction)
= correlation between inferred attraction and own attraction of .6
= out perceptions of how much others are attracted to us is related to how much we are attracted to them
why?
- > common ground = more likely to have a positive interaction
- > similar others validate our beliefs and attitudes = positive reinforcement
- > inferred reciprocal attraction -> we believe they will like us
relationship formation: getting acquainted
- proximity
- Festinger, Schachter and Back
-> why does proximity increase attraction?
- we tend to like the people we frequent interact with
> we frequently interact with people we are close to (proximity or propinquity = same thing!)
STUDY
living quarters
how room allocation (proximity) would influence liking
top 3 social contacts rated
-> 63% lived within 2 apartments
= physical proximity plays a role in development of liking
why?
- > increases frequency of interaction
- > proximity increases familiarity = mere exposure effect
Familiarity leads to liking (the mere exposure effect)
- Moreland and beach study (lectures)
females who attended more classes (15 compared to 5 or 10 times) they were rated more attractive
= female viewed as more attractive
= female viewed as more similar to the person who is rating
Positive interaction: mimicry
Chartrand and Bargh
- study 1 (shaking and rubbing)
- study 2 (confederate mimics participant)
face 2 face interaction = non-verbal processes to impact liking
- study 1
- > interact with confederate
- > turn-taking picture description task
- > confederate told to either rub face or shake foot
- > would the participants mimic this behaviour?
= when the confederate rubs face, participants are more likey to rub face (rather than shake their foot)
= when the confederate shakes foot, participant more likely to shake food (rather than rub face)
= participants non-consciously mimicked the confederate
= participants had no notion that this is what was being measured - they did it nonconsciously
- study 2
- > confederate instructed to subtly mimic behaviours of participant
- > this increased participant liking of the confederate
= mimicry increases liking
from acquaintance to friend and beyond: building close relationships
- self-disclosure
- consequences of self-disclosure (2)
- > depth: wortman
- revealing information about oneself
- > facts, thoughts, feelings
self-disclosure increases in:
- breath: more topics
- depth: levels of intimacy
- a) self-disclosure increases liking
- > mutual self-disclosure can increase perceived similarity
= depth needs to be calibrated to relationship stage:
-> confederate who made early disclosure was liked less compared to later disclosure
b) signals trust in relationship partner
> mutual trust can strengthen relationship
= working together towards a common goal is easier when the relationship partners know about each others’ preferences and abilities
from acquaintance to friend and beyond: building close relationships
- who self-discloses?
> Reis - gender
- culture
- -> college students rate intimacy and frequency of disclosures
= female disclose more (highest)
= male - male interaction is low on intimate self-disclosure
= male-female interactions are higher
- > individualistic cultures more than collectivist cultures
interdependence and close relationships
- what is interdependence?
- what is a close relationship?
- when each partner’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours influences the other
= increases likelihood of a close relationship - a relationship involving strong, frequent interdependence:
> cognitive, behavioural and affective
= NOT defined in terms of positive feelings (can be associated with high levels of conflict)
= its about how intertwined 2 people are
interdependence and close relationships
- cognitive interdependence
- > IOS scale: Aron
overlapping of representations of the self and other
- > other in self (IOS)
- > 2 circles, how closely they overlap: 1 representing you, 1 representing the other person
interdependence and close relationships
- behavioural interdependence
- > Aron study
influence on other partner’s decisions, activities and plans
-> move from EM to CS
= the way you decide on what to do is based on need rather than equality
-> giving becomes less contingent on the possibility of reciprocation
> participants given money to share
> between you and best friend vs you and stranger
> condition: the other person will know how you’ve decided to share the money (role known)
= more likely to give money to themselves in the stranger condition compared to with their friend -> more likely to give their best friend more money
= when other person is a best-friend, knowledge of them knowing of your role or not doesn’t make a difference
= when other person is a stranger, knowledge of them knowing of role = more money is given to them compared to when they don’t know their role
= expectation of reciprocation matters with strangers but not with interacting with best friend = best friend = CS model
= stranger = EM model
interdependence and close relationships
- Affective interdependence
intimacy = positive emotional bond that includes understanding and support
increasing closeness = BEYOND reciprocal disclosure to deeper relations of:
- acknowledgement
- acceptance/understanding
- emotional responsiveness
- increasing sensitivity and care
= calibrated to the needs of the relationship partner
= affective interdependence is one of the primary bases of the important social support functions played by relationships
commitment
-> deinfe
interdependence for the long-haul
-> long-term orientation towards a relationship with the intention to maintain it over time
- > commitment develops over time
- > projects interdependence into the future
Rusbult investment model of commitment (3)
- satisfaction level: net cognitive, affective and behavioural benefits provided
= positively associated with commitment - quality of alternatives
= negatively associated with commitment
(higher quality of alternatives = less committed to relationship) - investment size: resources put into the relationship
= positive associated with commitment
= more satisfaction and investment, with fewer viable alternatives increases commitment
satisfaction doesn’t translate into commitment:
- > you can be satisfied and not committed
- > you can be dissatisfied and committed
Rusbult and Martz
100 women interviewed (fleeing abusive relationships - in a shelter)
- > more likely to be committed and stay if fewer viable alternatives and higher investment
- > satisfaction had LESS impact
Love definitions -> what is love?: Fehr and Russell - types -prototypical
types of love
top = friendship, sexual, paternal, brotherly, sibling, maternal
prototypically of types of love:
top = maternal, paternal, friendship, sisterly, romantic, brotherly, familial
= many types/ large variety
components of love
-> Sternberg: triangle theory of love (3)
-> kinds of love
- intimacy : closeness, connected, interdependent
- commitment: long term orientation to relationship
- passion: physical and sexual attraction, intensity of emotional connection
Consummate love (perfect) = high 1, 2 and 3
romantic = 1 and 3
companionate = 1 and 2
fatuous (pointless) love = 2 and 3
relationship threat and conflict
threats to relationships (2)
- Baxter (8) “rules” of love
- external:
- financial
- gender roles
- rivals - internal
- illness
- change/mismatch/expectations
BAXTER
- > accounts of breakups
- > extracted relationship rules: if breached lead to breakups
- autonomy = acknowledge individual identities (F>M)
- similarity display = express similar attitudes, values
- supportiveness = enhance one another’s self worth and self esteem
- openness = open, genuine, authenticity (F>M)
- loyalty/fidelity
- shared time
- equity (F>M)
- romance: inexplicable ‘magic’ (M>F)
managing conflicts (relationships)
- whats accommodation?
- types of accommodation
- -> resolving conflict: processes of responding to a negative action by the partner
- > destructive accommodation = Gottman’s ‘four horsemen’:
- criticism
- contempt
- defensiveness
- stonewalling
= negative outcomes (dissolution) is likely to occur if conflict is approached in this way
- > constructive accommodation =
1. open discussion
2. patience
3. forgiveness
= maintain AND strengthening of relationship, deepening of the bond
= conflicts aren’t the problem, its the accommodation strategies used that is the problem
consequences of accommodation strategies
- > Rusbult
1. constructive x active
2. constructive x passive
3. destructive x active
4. destructive x passive
- voice: discuss, seek help, change
- loyalty: wait, hope, support
- Exit: abuse, scream, threaten, seperate
- Neglect: ignore, avoid, let fall apart
fostering constructive accommodation
-> constructive accommodation is aided by
- implicit theories: knee
- Incremental vs entity theories: kammrath and dweck
- commitment
- idealisation of partner
- implicit theories: beliefs about how the world works
Implicit theories
> growth vs destiny
> people who believe in growth = constructive accommodation is used
Incremental vs entity theories
incremental = personality can change and improve over time entity = personality is fixed
INCREMENTAL
=fosters active constructive processes
ENTITY
=fosters passive constructive processes
= more likely to use neglect
