Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 474 > Oct 1 > Flashcards

Oct 1 Flashcards

1
Q

what’s the best predictor of relationship stability?

A

commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

3 components of commitment

A
  1. affective
  2. cognitive
  3. conative
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

affective component of commitment

A

psychological attachment to relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

cognitive component of commitment

A

taking a long-term orientation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

conative component of commitment

A

intention to persist in the relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

affective component: as interdependence grows, become…

A

increasingly susceptible to strong EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES triggered by partner

may not be fully aware of extent to which this happens

may be surprised by the impact of separation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

affective component: quote examples

A

“I feel very strongly linked to my partner - very attached to our relationship”

“I am very affected when things aren’t going well in the relationship”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

cognitive component: imagining…

A

oneself being involved with the partner in the future

making plans

adoption a shared identity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

cognitive component: quotes

A

“I’m oriented toward the long-term future of this relationship (eg. I imagine being with my partner several years from now”

“my partner and I joke about what things will be like when we’re old”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

conative component is the _______ component

A

motivational

intention to persist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

conative component: quotes

A

“I intend to stay in this relationship”

“I feel inclined to keep our relationship going”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

navigating turbulence of interdependency

A

in interdependent situations, will inevitably encounter situations where partners’ need conflict

relational turbulence model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

relational turbulence model

A

period of turmoil & dips in satisfaction

as partners ADJUST to NEW interdependence

  1. relationships begin with MASSIVE CLIMB in satisfaction
  2. and then DIP as relationship settles
    - friction, planning around partner
    - misunderstandings
  3. but then SETTLES with adjustment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

consequences of commitment: commitment can be conceptualized as…

A

a TRANSFORMATION of MOTIVATION

shifting away from selfish motivations to focus on broader relationship concerns

think in terms of “us” instead of “me” and “them”

what’s good for the partner is good for the self - reduces cost of sacrifice, derive benefit from partner’s positive outcomes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

thinking in terms of “us” instead of “me” and “them”

A

signals a transformation of motivation

from selfish concerns to relationship concerns

this shift:

  1. reduces the cost of ascrifice
  2. benefits are derived from partner’s positive outcomes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

motivated reasoning

A

process info in a way that supports relationship maintenance

  1. faults into virtues
  2. seeing one’s relationship as better than everyone else’s
  3. unwarranted optimism about the future
  4. greater perceptions of control over the relationship
  5. more benign interpretations of negative acts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

behavioural mechanisms of commitment

A
  1. accommodation
  2. greater willingness to forgive
  3. greater willingness to sacrifice
18
Q

accommodation

A

a behavioural mechanism of commitment

greater willingness to RESPOND to DESTRUCTIVE acts with CONSTRUCTIVE response

ie. suggesting discussion, waiting out the storm

19
Q

reciprocal influences: commitment

A

the following influence commitment levels:

  1. satisfaction level (positive correlation with commitment level)
  2. quality of alternatives (negative correlation with commitment level)
  3. investment size (positive correlation with commitment level)

if one of these dips/rises, the others can compensate for it

20
Q

reciprocal influences: commitment increases satisfaction through…

A
  1. MOTIVATED REASONING
  2. decreasing the PERCEIVED quality of ALTERNATIVES
21
Q

how does commitment increase satisfaction through decreasing the perceived quality of alternatives?

A

greater inattentiveness/less vigilance towards desirable alternatives

may see this even at AUTOMATIC, lower-order perceptual level

not also deliberate and conscious

22
Q

inattention to attractive alternatives study

A

when primed with romantic/sexual thoughts (ie. kiss)

more attentional adhesion to attractive faces for SINGLE, but NOT COMMITTED participants

committed people have much lower attentional adhesion to attractive alternatives

23
Q

derogation of alternatives: commitment predicts…

A

commitment predicts devaluation of attractive (threatening) but NOT unattractive (non-threatening) alternatives

commitment calibration hypothesis

24
Q

commitment calibration hypothesis

A

commitment MAINTENANCE RESPONSE may emerge when level of threat is COMMENSURATE with level of commitment

ie. will not emerge when level of threat is either HIGHER or LOWER than level of commitment

25
Q

commitment calibration hypothesis study setup

A

ostensible goal of study: evaluate a new dating service

had to create & evaluate dating profiles

presented a profile of someone who was:
- attractive and desired sex
- “single and not currently involved”
- pleasant personality

two conditions
1. MODERATE THREAT: “algorithm may or may not have matched you”

  1. HIGH THREAT: “the target chose you”
26
Q

commitment calibration hypothesis study results

A

MODERATE THREAT condition:

  1. low commitment level:
    - don’t derogate
  2. moderate commitment level:
    - DEROGATE
  3. high commitment level:
    - don’t derogate

HIGH THREAT condition:

  1. low commitment level:
    - don’t derogate
  2. moderate commitment level:
    - don’t derogate
  3. high commitment level:
    - DEROGATE
27
Q

commitment calibration hypothesis study takeaway

A

in moderate threat condition, those with a moderate commitment level derogate the profile

(low and high do not)

in high threat condition, those with a high commitment level derogate

(low and moderate do not)

28
Q

we have seen that tallying of rewards and costs isn’t as simple as initially suggested…

A

foregoing attractive alternatives can be seen as a COST

and it should decrease DEPENDENCE

but MOTIVATED reasoning processes DISCOUNT that cost

29
Q

interdependency & relationship decisions

A
  1. previously discussed self-focused reasons for staying in or leaving a relationship

ie. investments

  1. but make relationship decision WITH PARTNER IN MIND too
  • less likely to initiate breakup when we believe that partner is highly dependent on the relationship
30
Q

equity

A

fairness in a relationship

each partner gains benefits from the relationship that are PROPORTIONAL to their contributions to it

31
Q

equity: the ratio of…

A

ratio of your outcomes/your contributions

should equal

ration of your partner’s outcomes/partner’s contributions

32
Q

is equity a big concern in intimate relationship?

A

UNDERbenefited partner may feel frustrated

OVERbenefited partner may feel guilty

33
Q

equity is particularly important for what?

A
  1. division of labour
  2. childcare

but may not engage in strict cost-accounting if relationship is highly rewarding and both partners are prospering

34
Q

exchange relationships

A

governed by EXPLICIT NORMS of EVEN EXCHANGE (tit-for-tat)

keep track of each other’s contributions

expect immediate repayment for benefit given, and more comfortable repaying others right away

35
Q

communal relationships

A

governed by GENUINE CONCERN for WELFARE of the other

avoid strict cost accounting

do favours & make sacrifices without expecting explicit repayment

36
Q

do processes of social exchange still apply in communal relationships?

A

yes

exchanges still take place

  1. but they involve DIVERSE TYPES of rewards that are provided over a LONG TIMESPAN
  2. people don’t “sweat the small stuff” in happy, highly rewarding relationships
  3. but they may begin to do so if dissatisfaction looms
37
Q

do we have a progression bias for initiating & maintain romantic relationships?

A

saw earlier that STATED romantic standards aren’t really good PREDICTORS of romantic interest

  1. dating preferences BECOME LESS STRICT after LIVE interaction with potential dating partner
  2. willing to OVERLOOK ‘dealbreakers’ in favour of moving relationship forward
38
Q

progression bias: in ‘choose your own adventure’ paradigm…

A
  1. takes over 4 common dealbreakers to reject hypothetical partner
  2. we tend to OVERESTIMATE our WILLINGNESS TO REJECT others by
    underestimating other-focused concern
    - we have more concern than we think we do
39
Q

relationship inertia

A

part of progression bias

stay together and ‘slide’ into marriage due to accumulation of investments

may help explain higher divorce rates among those who COHABITATE before marriage

backfires: people underestimate the effect that moving in may have on the relationship ie. moving in together massively increases your shared investments (pet, mortgage, rent, furniture)

causes you to slide further into relationship, even if not particularly satisfied

40
Q

progression bias isn’t always deliberate/about making investments into relationship

A

ie. moving in together

“it just kinda happened over time”

relationship inertia

41
Q

lecture takeaways

A
  1. interdependence theory and investment model explain why and how people choose and persist in relationships
  • may help explain why individual may persevere even in unhappy relationships
  1. although costs may feel more psychologically aversive, may also be biased towards pro-relationship decisions

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions