Oct 1 Flashcards

Question

commitment calibration hypothesis study setup

Answer 1

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" 2. HIGH THREAT: "the target chose you"

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

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)

Answer 4

foregoing attractive alternatives can be seen as a COST and it should decrease DEPENDENCE but MOTIVATED reasoning processes DISCOUNT that cost

Answer 5

1. previously discussed self-focused reasons for staying in or leaving a relationship ie. investments 2. 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

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

ratio of your outcomes/your contributions should equal ration of your partner's outcomes/partner's contributions

Answer 8

UNDERbenefited partner may feel frustrated OVERbenefited partner may feel guilty

Answer 9

1. division of labour 2. childcare but may not engage in strict cost-accounting if relationship is highly rewarding and both partners are prospering

Answer 10

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

Answer 11

governed by GENUINE CONCERN for WELFARE of the other avoid strict cost accounting do favours & make sacrifices without expecting explicit repayment

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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

Answer 16

ie. moving in together "it just kinda happened over time" relationship inertia

Answer 17

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 2. although costs may feel more psychologically aversive, may also be biased towards pro-relationship decisions