Love & Relationships

Question 1

what makes relationships last?

Answer 1

• maintaining commitment (Rosbult’s Investment Model of Commitment)
• Interaction Dynamics Approach (Gottman)

Question 2

Maintaining commitment (Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment)

Answer 2

• a “wide-angle lens”
• 3 key variables predict commitment: relationship satisfaction, investment, quality of alternatives
• applies to straight people, gay men, and lesbians
• can be used to help explain why women return to abusive husbands

Question 3

relationship satisfaction

Answer 3

Satisfaction = rewards (ie. Kisses -> anything positive you get from your partner) - costs (ex. Dirty dishes -> anything negative you get from your partner)

Question 4

investment

Answer 4

How much have you invested in the relationship that would be lost if it ended? (ex. House, kids, many years in relationship)

Question 5

quality of alternatives

Answer 5

Other people and things available outside relationship

Question 6

Rusbult’s model and abused wives

Answer 6

• Can’t just look at relationship satisfaction, have to look at 2 other variables
• Investment (women who have been in long relationships and/or who have more children are more likely to go back)
• Quality of alternatives (ex. Opportunities for income, transportation options)

Question 7

Interaction Dynamics Approach (Gottman)

Answer 7

• an “extreme close-up”
• After watching couples interact for 15 minutes, Gottman can predict whether they’ll divorce (apparently with 90% accuracy)
• also gets similar results with gay/lesbian couples (interesting difference: fear/tension -> relationship satisfaction)

Question 8

Interaction Dynamics Approach (Gottman): what does he look for during interactions?

Answer 8

• “4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse”
• • Criticism
• • Defensiveness
• • Stonewalling (withdrawal)
• • Contempt

Question 9

Interaction Dynamics Approach (Gottman): positive vs. negative emotions

Answer 9

• In first 10 years of marriage, negative affect (ie. Contempt) predicts early demise of marriage (like fire, will destroy something quickly)
• After first 10 years of marriage, lack of positive affect (ie. Humour) predicts eventual demise of marriage (like ice, will destroy something eventually)
• Okay to have negative emotions/interactions, but need 5:1 ratio of good:bad interactions

Question 10

how to improve relationships?

Answer 10

• keep it exciting
• respond well to positive events
• respond well to conflicts

Question 11

Keeping it exciting (Dutton and Aron’s research)

Answer 11

• Dutton & Aron’s “Love on the Bridge” study: men found female experimenter more attractive on scary suspension bridge (vs. Regular bridge)
• Aron’s extension study on long-term couples: exciting activities -> less boredom -> relationship satisfaction (correlational research)
• Aron then did an experimental study on this: Couples randomly assigned to do novel-arousing activity (completing obstacle course for prizes) or mundane activity (completing questionnaire) -> couples in arousal condition reported increased relationship satisfaction

Question 12

Responding to positive events

Answer 12

• Capitalization (Shelly Gable): making the most of a positive event by sharing it with a loved one (“capitalizing” on it)
• Variation in responses to capitalization attempts:
• 2 dimensions:
• • Constructive -> destructive
• • Passive -> active

Question 13

Capitalization: active-constructive

Answer 13

• Expresses joy and interest
• Highlights importance
• Asks questions
• Elaborates on positive implications
• The best strategy

Question 14

Capitalization: active-passive

Answer 14

Pleasant, but says little (no questions or elaboration)

Question 15

Capitalization: active-destructive

Answer 15

• Questions positivity
• Minimizes importance
• Points out negative implications

Question 16

Capitalization: passive-destructive

Answer 16

Barely acknowledges event or changes topic

Question 17

Finkel et al. conflict reappraisal study: what did they do?

Answer 17

• Married couples randomly assigned to receive reappraisal intervention or not
• Intervention focused on emotional reappraisal – re-interpreting the meaning of emotion-eliciting situations
• • Asked to think about recent conflict with the perspective of a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved
• • Asked to think about obstacles making their neutral viewpoint difficult
• • Asked to use this neutral perspective during conflict with partner, and to think of strategies they could use to do so

Question 18

Finkel et al. conflict reappraisal study: what did they find?

Answer 18

over a period of 2 years, couples assigned to receive reappraisal intervention experienced reduced conflict and eliminated decline in marital quality

Question 19

Finkel et al. conflict reappraisal study: why did they find what they did?

Answer 19

Worked because the intervention allowed for self-distanced psychological perspective and adaptive framework of wanting the best for all involved