Lecture 9: Interdependence Part 2 Flashcards
velocity
- The velocity with which we approach a desired goal is an important predictor of affective experience
- Emotions are reactions to change
- Satisfaction is based more on recent improvements (changes) in relationship quality than the overall quality of the relationship
marital satisfaction over time
- Overall, marital satisfaction declines as the years go by
- This doesn’t happen to everyone
- About ¼ couples do not experience large declines in satisfaction
reasons for changes in marital satisfaction according to an interdependence perspective
- Effort declines
- Interdependence is a magnifying glass for conflict & friction
- In intimate relationships, high access to weaponry
- Unwelcome surprises
Deromantization
reduction in impressive management
behaviours of couples vs. strangers
Spouses display more negative and fewer positive behaviours towards each other than they do towards strangers
examples of unwelcome surprises
- Fatal attractions
- May discover undesirable things about our partner when adjusting to new circumstances or roles
construal level theory
Different mental representations of events based on the psychological distance of the event
Higher-level construal
psychologically distant events are thought of in abstract terms
Lower-level construal
psychologically near events that are thought of in concrete terms
Optimism
the tendency to expect good things to happen
should we be optimists or pessimists?
- Optimism is good for a relationship
- Optimists enjoy more satisfying relationships
- The key is probably the expectation that inevitable difficulties can be resolved
2 relationship beliefs
destiny & growth beliefs
destiny beliefs
people are either compatible or they are not
growth beliefs
relationship challenges can be overcome
destiny beliefs and satisfaction
- People with destiny beliefs are initially happier with their relationships
- But when faced with conflict, satisfaction declines
- Especially sensitive to signs that their relationship is “not meant to be”
- Disengage from the relationship when there is a problem
growth beliefs and satisfaction
- People with growth beliefs are constructive, optimistic, and committed in the face of conflicts
- Fewer one-night stands, dating a partner for a longer period of time
- Try to maintain the relationship when there is a problem
changes in CL
Satisfaction may go down when outcomes deteriorate or CL goes up
The Hedonic Treadmill
When we attain positive outcomes, our happiness levels may temporarily increase, but so do our expectations
variety
- The extent to which events of a given valence vary in their context
- Adaptation occurs to constant/repeated stimuli, not varying ones
Longitudinal study of happiness intervention
- Students were told to repeat the same kind of acts every week for 10 weeks (low variety condition)
- Or vary the kind of acts they performed (high variety condition)
- In the high variety condition, happiness increased following intervention
- In the low variety condition, happiness declined
applying the hedonic treadmill to relationships
- Variety may indeed be the spice of relationship satisfaction
- Maintain reasonable expectations & aspirations
- Cultivate gratitude
- Experimental manipulations cultivating gratitude improve relationship closeness
what is the best predictor of stability?
commitment
3 components of commitment
affective, cognitive, and conative
affective commitment
- Psychological attachment to the relationship
- As interdependence grows, we become increasingly susceptible to strong emotional experiences triggered by partner
- We may not be fully aware of the full extent to which this happens
We may be surprised by the impact of separation
cognitive commitment
- Imagining oneself being involved with the partner in the distant future
- Making plans and adapting a shared identity
conative commitment
intention to persist in the relationship
turbulence in relationships
In interdependent situations, we will inevitably encounter situations where partners’ needs conflict
Relational turbulence model
periods of turmoil & dips in satisfaction as partners adjust to new interdependence
consequences of commitment
- Commitment can be conceptualized as a transformation of motivation
- Shifting away from selfish motivations to focus on broader relationship concerns
- Think in terms of “us” instead of “me” and “him”
- What’s good for the patterns is good for the self; it reduces the cost of sacrifice, derives benefit from the partners’ positive outcomes
motivated reasoning
Process information in ways that support relationship maintenance
motivated reasoning includes
- Faults into virtues
- Seeing one’s relationship as better than everyone else’s
- Unwarranted optimism about the future
- Greater perceptions of control over the relationship
- More benign interpretations of negative acts
behavioural mechanisms
- accommodation: greater willingness to respond to destructive acts with a constructive response
- Greater willingness to forgive
- Greater willingness to sacrifice
investment model of commitment
satisfaction level + -> commitment level
quality of alternatives - -> commitment level
investment size + -> commitment level
reciprocal influences
- Commitment increases satisfaction through motivated reasoning
- Commitment also decreases the perceived quality of alternatives
- Greater inattentiveness/less vigilance towards desirable alternatives
- May see this even at automatic, lower-order perceptual level
inattention to attractive alternatives
When primed with romantic/sexual thoughts (e.g., kiss), more attentional adhesion to attractive faces for single, but not committed participants
derogation of alternatives
Commitment predicts devaluation of attractive (threatening) but not unattractive (non-threatening) alternatives
Commitment calibration hypothesis
- Commitment maintenance response may emerge when the level of threat is commensurate with the level of commitment
- We will not emerge when the level of threat is either higher or lower than the level of commitment
Commitment calibration hypothesis study method
- Ostensible goal of the study: evaluating new dating service
- Create & evaluate dating profiles
- Presented profile:
Attractive desired-sex target or
“Single and not currently involved” - Moderate threat condition: The algorithm may or may not have matched you
- High threat condition: target chose you
Commitment calibration hypothesis study findings
- The moderately committed group confronted with a moderate threat devaluated the attractive target
- The highly committed group confronted with a high threat devaluated the attractive target
rewards and costs summary
- We have seen that the tallying of rewards & costs is not as simple as initially suggested
- Foregoing attractive alternatives can be seen as a cost that should decrease with dependence, but motivated reasoning processes discount the cost
- With interdependence, we do not see ourselves as an entirely separate entity from our partner
- Focus shifts from single-minded self-interest to broader relationship concerns
interdependence and relationship decisions
- We make relationship decisions with our partner in mind as well
- We are less likely to initiate a breakup when we believe that our partner is highly dependent on the relationship
equity in relationships
- Fairness in a relationship
- Each partner gains benefits from the relationship that is proportional to his or her contributions to it
- The ratio of your outcomes divided by your contributions is equal to the ratio of your partner’s outcomes divided by your partner’s contributions
under- vs. over-benefited partners
- The under-benefited partner may feel frustrated, and the over-benefited partner may feel
guilty - Seems to be particularly important for the division of household labour & childcare
- But may not engage in strict cost accounting if the relationship is highly rewarding and both partners are prospering
exchange relationships
- Governed by explicit norms of even exchange
- We keep track of others’ contributions
- We expect immediate repayment for the benefits given and we’re more comfortable repaying others right away
communal relationships
- Governed by genuine concern for the welfare of the other
- We avoid struct cost accounting
- We do favours and make sacrifices without expecting explicit repayment
does social exchange still apply in communal relationships?
- Yes, the processes of social exchange still apply
- Exchanges still take place in communal relationships, but they involve diverse types of rewards that are provided over a long span of time
- People don’t need to “sweat the small stuff” in happy, highly rewarding relationships
- But they may begin to do so if dissatisfaction looms
progression bias
- Dating preferences become less strict after a live interaction with a potential dating partner
- We’re not always deliberate about making investments in a relationship
progression bias study
- We’re willing to overlook dealbreakers in favour of moving a relationship forward
- In a “choose your own adventure” paradigm, it takes 4 common dealbreakers to reject a hypothetical partner
- Additionally, we tend to underestimate our willingness to reject others by underestimating other-focused concern
relationship inertia
stay together and slide into marriage due to the accumulation of investments
what theory can help explain higher divorce rates among those who cohabitate?
relationship inertia
