Relationship Science Exam #3 (11/23/24) Flashcards
1
Q
diversity in research samples: norm
A
- psychology samples tend to predominantly come from WEIRD societies
- white wealthy, educated people are represented more than other demographics
2
Q
diversity in research samples: sexual minorities
A
heterosexual - 96.2%
gay or lesbian - functionally 0%
bisexual - functionally 0%
3
Q
diversity in research samples: gender identity
A
men - 40%
women - 60%
nonbinary - 0.02%
only 1.9% of studied included trans participants at all
4
Q
diversity in research samples: racial rep in the US
A
white - 76.2%
black - 7%
AAPI - 6.3%
Latin - 6%
Native American - 0.8%
Middle Eastern - functionally 0%
5
Q
diversity in research samples: geographic rep
A
- mostly US
6
Q
familism
A
- emphasizes interdependent family relationships that are warm close, supportive and prioritize the relationship before the self
- found to be higher among Latine people than other groups
- higher endorsement of familism leads to lower attachment avoidance and higher partner closeness
7
Q
higher SES views on relationships
A
- expressive independence
- unique, self-expressive, individual self
- how well do you express yourself to the world
- choices are abundant: what choices in your relationships do you perceive you have
- lots of room to choose who they want to associate with
8
Q
lower ses views on relationships
A
- a self that is responsive and oriented to other people
- tough and self-protective
- viewing the world as uncertain and unpredictable more likely to have on armor as you go through the world
9
Q
the vignette study
A
- participants are given prompts about difficulties in a hypothetical relationship
- lower SES participants tend to respond in a way that centers the family and emphasizes that at the end of the day, those relationships are most important
- higher SES participants tend not to just accept that family is family
-middle class suggests breaking off that relationship more than the working class
10
Q
relationship initiation study
A
- looking at different ways people met
- for mixed-sex couples, meeting online only eclipsed meeting through friends in 2010
- however for same-sex couples meeting online eclipsed through friends around 2000
- in 2017 the most common way that people met was online for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples
- even now, rate for meeting online is higher for same-sex couples
- one possibility: thin dating markets (fewer avaliable partners of interest)
11
Q
bias: okcupid study
A
- researchers looked at data to see who was responding to who
- men rating women: black women received the least amount of responses
- women rating men: asian and black men were receiving fewer responses
12
Q
bias: sexual orientation
A
- gay and straight people tend to prefer to date gay and straight people rather than bisexual people
13
Q
bias: transgender status
A
- found that 8.75% of participants said they would not engage in a relationship with a trans person
14
Q
bias: intersectionality
A
- racial issues are more prevelant amongst gay communities
15
Q
bias: interracial dating
A
- differs by political identity
16
Q
leaving relationships
A
- gay people have a greater number of “post-dissolution friendships”: friendships with people they used to date
- queer people are more likely to maintain friendships with their exses because they want to maintain feelings of connectedness and security
17
Q
stressors: same-sex relationships
A
- discrimination and harassment that couples encounter can add stress to relationship
18
Q
stressors: same-sex people experience worse relationship quality
A
- they feel motivated to conceal their queer identity (including their relationships)
- they feel their relationship is not supported by their social network
19
Q
stressors: same-sex people experience better relationship quality
A
- they feel positively about their queer identities
20
Q
stressors: racial discrimination
A
- findings are mixed
- some studies show experiencing discrimination is associated with more support given to partner
- other studies have found racial discrimination associated with reduced relationship quality
- people are also affected by their partner’s experience of discrimination - vicarious discrimination
- predicted worse health and relationship outcomes for both
- people are also affected by their partner’s experience of discrimination - vicarious discrimination
21
Q
stressors: connection vs self-protection
A
- self-protection especially likely when people are vigilant to risk
- relationships are risker when life is precarious
22
Q
stressors: lower SES and self-protection
A
- tend to self-protect more, especially when feeling vulnerable to risks around them
- self-protection predicts lower relationship satisfaction
- when relationship has lower vulnerability, self-protection is low
23
Q
stressors: high SES and self-protection
A
- remains relatively stable in amount of self-protection despite changes in relationship vulnerability
- Lower and higher SES have same scores of self-protection when relationship vulnerability is low but extremely diff when high
24
Q
strengths
A
stressors that come from being in lower SES context may lead to resilient couple identities
25
Q
strengths: couple identity study
A
- writing about identity as a couple
- lower SES Ps talked about resilience-related things far more often
26
Q
strengths: intercultural studies
A
- relationships in which partners identify w diff cultures
- cultural sharing within intercultural relationships offers opportunities for self-expansion
27
Q
strengths: cultural self-expression study
A
- partners in intercultural relationships who reported greater cultural sharing also reported greater self-expansion associated w better relationship quality
- compared to other intercultural relationships that don’t engage in a lot of cultural sharing
28
Q
strengths: same-sex couples
A
- in general same and mixed-sex are pretty similar w regards to relationship quality and the same things tend to predict quality
- ex. viewing partner positively, effectively navigating conflict etc
29
Q
strengths: adoptive parents study
A
- looked at same-sex male, female and mixed-sex adoptive parents
- found that same-sex couples split household tasks much more equally than mixed-sex
30
Q
strengths: investment model
A
- satisfaction + alternatives = investments
31
Q
strengths: marginalized relationship study
A
- P in relationships that are negatively judged or devalued by society (same-sex, interracial and age gap) reported on investments and commitments
- found that people in marginalized relationships had fewer investments but were more committed because they perceived lower-quality alternatives
32
Q
strengths: microaffirmation def
A
- relationship partners can affirm aspects of our identities that society disregards or oppresses
- small, interpersonal interactions that communicate validation for an identity
33
Q
strengths: microaffirmation study
A
- trans Ps reflected on what positive, affirming behavior their partners engaged
- found that those who had higher degree of affirmation from their partner felt more affirmed in their identity
34
Q
attention defs
A
- seeking to understand a partner’s behaviors and experiences
- metaphorically feeling understood (seen) is linked to relationship satisfaction, especially when conflict is high
- generally when you feel understood, satisfaction is higher
- extent to which conflict is associated with less satisfaction is lower if you feel like your partner understands you
- higher conflict has decreased satisfaction for those who feel misunderstood more than those who feel understood
35
Q
attention: manifest vs latent content
A
- manifest: topic of the communication, what the partners are actually communicating about
- latent: the unstated needs and goals that give rise to the communication, underlying issues
- mutual attention to latent content is linked to greater intimacy and stronger communication
36
Q
bid for attention
A
- a bid is an attempt for attention, affirmation, affection or other positive connection (how was your day, i’m so tired, shoulder-rub etc)
- responding responsively involved “turning toward” instead of “turning away”
37
Q
attention: selective listening
A
- our motives and needs influence what we hear when listening to our partner
- this biased processing holds important clues about our most salient priorities
38
Q
self disclosure defs
A
- process of revealing personal info
- mutual self-disclosures promote closeness more strongly
- self-disclosure can undermine closeness if its inappropriate, excessive or unreciprocated
39
Q
self-disclosure and risk
A
- in study of college students, 74% indicated that they avoid at least 1 topic in their relationship
- six categories of topics were most commonly avoided
- most common: state of relationship
40
Q
experimental self-disclosure manipulations
A
- can foster closeness among strangers
- the 36-questions study (fast friends)
- P discuss 3 increasingly intimate sets of topics across 45 min
1) “would you like to be famous? in what way?”
2) what do you value most in a friendship?
3) of all the people in your family, whose death would you find the most disturbing? why?”
- P discuss 3 increasingly intimate sets of topics across 45 min
-relative to P in small talk condition, P in the 36 questions condition felt much closer after 45 min convo
41
Q
asymmetric disclosures
A
- when 1 person discloses more than the other
- tend to experience greater attraction to strangers who have (vs have not) self-disclosed to us
42
Q
responsiveness: interpersonal process model
A
3 steps in creating intimacy
1) A’s self-disclosure
2) B’s response
3) A’s reaction to B’s response
1 perceives B as responsive when A believes that B…
1) Accurately perceives A (feels understood)
2) values and appreciates A’s perspective (feels validated)
3) is oriented toward A’s well-being (feels cared for)
43
Q
one-size-fits-all platitudes
A
- can be somewhat effective
- learn what are the words you’re supposed to say to seem responsive
- self-help aisle
- but the best form of responsiveness is tailored to relationship
44
Q
tailored responsiveness
A
- tailored to partner to make them feel understood/validated/cared for
45
Q
responsiveness: IM chat study
A
- 2 strangers chatted fro 15 min via instant message
- A randomly assigned to B to either ask few questions (< 4) or many (≥9)
- B liked A more when A asked more questions, especially follow-up questions, an effect that was driven by B’s perceptions of A’s responsiveness
- however, 3rd party observers don’t show this preference
46
Q
biased responsiveness
A
- our reactions are biased by our own motivations
- following A’s disclosure: B’s filter = needs, goals and fears
- following B’s emotional and behavioral response: A’s filter = needs, goals and fears
47
Q
responsive communication during conflict
A
- paraphrasing: repeating our partner’s comment in our own words to ensure that we’ve heard it correctly
- validating: acknowledging the legitimacy of our partner’s experience
- XYZ statements: “when you do X in situation Y, I feel Z”
-“ when you told that story at the party tonight, I felt hurt and embarrased”- the power of “I statements”
- easier said than done
48
Q
responsiveness: flooding
A
- feeling of being overwhelmed by a partner’s emotions (even positive ones)
- undermines ability to process information rationally; linked to maladaptive responding (ex. stonewalling)
49
Q
willingness to sacrifice
A
- making sacrifices is virtually required to maintain a healthy long-term relationship
- ex. not taking a job bc its far away, choosing the same or close schools to stay near each other
- relationship commitment predicts greater willingness to make sacrifices to promote our partner’s goals
- effect reverses when our partner’s goals pose an existential threat to the relationship
- partner’s commitment disinclines them to make the sacrifice to support their partner’s move because he can’t risk losing her
50
Q
existential threat study
A
- Ps reported on their commitment to the relationship and on their partner’s most imp. goals
- threat manipulation: felt like having your partner pursue those goals will negatively effect your relationship
- moderate: if the partner pursues the goals, it will create some conflict, but unlikely to end the relationship
- low commitment: support partner’s goals less than high
- in general high support
- existential: goal pursuit would likely end the relationship
- low commitment: support partner’s goals more than higher
- overall less support
- moderate: if the partner pursues the goals, it will create some conflict, but unlikely to end the relationship
51
Q
how do people feel about the sacrifices they have made for their relationship?
A
- people feel better about sacrifices they make for approach reasons leads to enhanced intimacy, compared to avoidance reasons which leads to avoiding conflict
- people feel better when their partner is grateful for the sacrifice
- in early months of covid, partners who reported doing more of the housework were less satisfied, but this effect disappeared when they felt appreciated
52
Q
positive illusions
A
- are relationships happier when partners have accurate vs positively biased (idealized) perceptions of each other
53
Q
positive illusions: idealization and accuracy
A
- idealization: correlation of
- A’s rating of B
- A’s rating of the ideal partner (or attributes like kind and humorous)
- accuracy: correlation of
- A’s rating of B
- B’s rating of themselves
- most research suggests that idealization is better
- found that low idealization followed typical trend in decrease of satisfaction, but high idealization satisfaction is slightly higher and more stable over time
54
Q
positive illusions: negative effects of idealization
A
- regarding general qualities: “my partner is a good person”, idealization is beneficial bc its easy to interpret many behaviors as consistent with it
- regarding specific qualities: accuracy is beneficial bc it protects us from disappointment when counter-evidence emerges: “my partner listens well when out to dinner with friends”
55
Q
growth mindset
A
- people have intuitive theories and mindsets about how relationships function, these mindsets vary along 2 dimensions
- growth (or work it out): successful relationships are cultivated over time
- “a successful relationship evolves through hard work and resolution of incompatabilities”
56
Q
destiny mindset
A
- potential partners either are or are not “meant for each other”
- linked to disengagement in response to relationship challenges
57
Q
passion regrowth mindset
A
- passion can be rekindled
- hypothesis: a passion regrowth mindset buffers people against the commitment-undermining effects of low passion
- study 1: cross-sectional (correlational)
- low passion regrowth mindset steep increase in commitment btw low passion and high
- study 2: experimental and longitudinal
- passion regrowth condition: Ps wrote 2 essays on the idea that passion can be rekindled
- control: no intervention
- DV: 4 assessments of commitment over 9 months- found passion regrowth condition start with higher commitment than control and
58
Q
attributions
A
- our explantations for others’ behaviors
- we have broad latitude in generating such explanations
- the tx addresses attributions for a partner’s negative behavior, such as arriving late
59
Q
attribution style
A
- the tendency to interpret a partner’s behavior in distress-maintaining vs relationship-enhancing ways
- its possible to interpret apparently negative behaviors as positive and apparently positive behaviors as negative
- attachment insecurity is linked to more negative attributions in response to the identical partner behaviors
60
Q
memory distorition
A
- we tend to think of our memories as accurate representations of reality - akin to a recording
- in reality our memories are biased, partly to sustain our self-serving hopes and expectations
61
Q
transgression experiences study
A
- over 2 weeks, Ps reported right away on each behavior their partner enacted that upset them, and vice versa as soon as possible
- later they tried to recall what they had reported about how angry they were at the time
- found that when trust was low, Ps (ungenerously) remembered their own initial anger as the victim (but no their partner’s) as more severe than it really was
62
Q
forgiveness
A
- previously viewed as undisputable good thing
- forgiveness has relational, psychological and physiological benefits
- but also costs, especially if the perpetrator hasn’t made amends
63
Q
forgiveness: doormat effect
A
- forgiving in the absence of amends undermines our self-respect
- strong amends are associated with greater self-respect but when we make weak mends forgiveness is associated with low self-respect
64
Q
sexual attitudes
A
- sexual attitudes have become far more permissive over the past half-century
- full, unambiguous approval of premarital sex
- 1972 very little approval over premarital sex 2012 much higher
- same sex: very little approval in 1972/1992, big boost in 2012
- extramarital: still very little even in 2012
65
Q
sexual behavior
A
- sex recession since 2000, Americans have been having less sex
- adults have sex 15-20% fewer times per year than in the late 20Th century
- decreasing btw 1992-2010
- young men (18-34) are far less likely to have sex at least weekly and far more likely to have no sex at all in the past year
- at lest weekly: used to be 62%, down to 43%
- none: 11% in 1990, now 22% in 2018
66
Q
sex and well-being
A
frequency and quality of sex predicts psychological and physical well being
- sex is our most pleasurable daily experinece by a lot
67
Q
more frequent sex and happiness
A
- linked to greater happiness with life in general
- on average people who make more money have high life satisfaction
- however there is more substantial effect on overall life quality for people who have sex less than monthly vs about weekly
- more frequent than weekly isn’t better
- weekly is gold standard
- more frequent than weekly isn’t better
68
Q
sexual frequency and feelings of closeness
A
- a clitoral stimulation procedure called orgasmic meditation increased feelings of closeness in the woman and her partner
- some are done with partners, some with people they knew but weren’t involved with
- found that they were especially closer if they weren’t already romantic partners
- some are done with partners, some with people they knew but weren’t involved with
69
Q
sexual afterglow
A
- a short term surge in relationship satisfaction following sex
- found using a nightly survey paradigm to monitor if they had sex and to what degree they felt closer
- increased closeness for 2 days
70
Q
frequent sex and risk factors
A
- more frequent sex can help to buffer out relationship against other risk factors
- highly neurotic partners tend to have less satisfying marriages but that effect disappears among couples who have frequent sex
- sex also buffers against adverse effects of conflict
71
Q
sexual fantasy def
A
- a sexually exciting mental image that comes to mind while we’re awake
- fantasies often misalign with our preferences in nonsexual domains
- survey found that many of our fantasies are transgressive
72
Q
shame about fantasies
A
- many feel ashamed about our fantasies
- climate of shame is linked to lower sexual fulfillment and mental health challenges
- < 1/3 of people have acted out their #1 fantasy
73
Q
what do we fantasize about
A
- most ppl fantasize at least occasionally about
- group sex (mostly threesomes)
- novelty, adventure and variety
- BDSM (higher % for receiving vs inflicting pain, being forced to have sex (not rape) more than half of people)
74
Q
fantasy differences btw men and women
A
- generally similar, but some differences
- women’s sexual orientation in their fantasies is more flexible
- women care less about who their partners are rather about where they have sex
- men have more group-sex fantasies
- women have more BDSM fantasies
75
Q
sexual arousal def
A
- a nontargeted physiological state oriented toward sexual expression
- lust/horniness, but not for a specific partner
76
Q
arousal: the cold-hot empathy gap
A
- when we’re in a “cold” cognitive state, we can’t fully forecast what our preferences will be when we’re in a “hot” state
77
Q
arousal: masturbation study
A
- male undergrads answered questions while sexually aroused or not
- special keypad allowed responses with one hand to answer how likely you would be to do certain things (No, Possibly, Yes)
- in arousal condition, Ps were only allowed to answer if their arousal was at least 75: had photos and self-report arousal meter
- in no arousal condition: no photos, no meter
- sometimes the same person did both conditions
78
Q
arousal: masturbation study results
A
kinkiness: sexual arousal make us kinky
- when not aroused Ps reported lower interest, much higher interest when aroused in kinky behavior
risky sexual behavior: sexual arousal makes us incautious, more likely to indulge our cravings even if risky
- much less likely to practice safe sex when aroused
- however sexual arousal doesn’t make one ‘forget’ how pregnancy and things work
sexual assertiveness and aggression: sexual arousal increases our tendency to be manipulative or worse to get sex
- men are more likely to engage in manipulative and predatory behavior when aroused, even roofies (25%)
79
Q
arousal: sexual risk study
A
- men and women watched either sexual or nonsexual films
- then responded to scenarios about sexual situations
- found that they were more willing to engage in risky (not safe sex) behavior when aroused
80
Q
desire def
A
a targeted psychological state oriented toward sexual expression
- craving for sexual union with a specific person
81
Q
frequency and intensity of desire
A
- tends to decline over time in relationship
- one reason for decline is that there’s an inherent tension at the heart of romantic relationships
- intimacy thrives on familiarity and security but desire thrives on novelty and risk
- transition to parenthood depresses desire during newborn stage
82
Q
method of maintaining desire: adopting approach goals
A
- striving towards good things in relationship
- contrasts with avoidance goals: striving away from bad things in relationship
- high approach (but not avoidance) goals appear to buffer against declines in desire over time
83
Q
adopting approach goals: freshman dating study
A
- followed up every 2 weeks for 6 months
- asked about level of sexual desire
- especially high sexual desire for people higher in approach goals
- low approach goals also caused level of sexual desire to decrease in 6 months
84
Q
method of maintaining desire: shared novel activities
A
- Ps in 2 experimental conditions read a rigged article about which activities strengthen relationships
- comfortable vs novel activities
- over next 72 hours Ps assigned to pursue either comfortable or novel activities or no intervention
- found that novel activities had a statistically significant increase in sexual desire compared to comfortable activities or no intervention
85
Q
social networks def
A
- an individual’s constellation of relationships
- romantic relationships are embedded within the partners’ broader social networks including “other significant others” (OSOs)
- in general a relationships functions better when the partners’ social networks approve of it
86
Q
social networks: social portfolio diversity
A
- variation in relationship types across one’s social interactions
- greater SPD is linked to higher psychological well being
- effect emerges beyond both the total amount (or level) of social interaction and the diversity of activities involved
- Relatively higher social diversity = relatively higher psychological well being
87
Q
social networks: SPD 2x2 depiction
A
- high/low level and high/low diversity
- level of interaction: people with low level of interaction spend more time alone compared to high level
- diversity of activities involved: among other people that isn’t spending time alone, more diversity of activities means they have more different relationships
88
Q
network configuration model
A
- goal fulfillment through various SOs
- an emphasis on instrumentality
- 4 prototypical configurations:
- how many goals each SO supports (one v multiple)
- how much responsibility each SO has for supporting each goal (sole vs shared)
- how many goals each SO supports (one v multiple)
89
Q
network configuration model: Jasmine’s goals
A
- to feel deeply bonded social connection (bond)
- to have hot sex life (sex)
- to make the world a better place (world)
90
Q
network configuration model: segregated configuration
A
- each SO has 1 goal linked to them, multiple SOs each of whom is solely responsible for helping Jasmine fulfill one goal
- ONE, SOLE
- bond: kyoko
- sex: madison
- world: jacob
91
Q
network configuration model: one to multiple configurations
A
- one SO solely responsible for filling multiple goals
- MULTIPLE, SOLE
- bond, sex and world: madison
92
Q
network configuration model: multiple to one configuration
A
- multiple, SOs each of whom has shared responsibility for helping Jasmine fulfill one goal
- ONE, SHARED
- bond: K, M, J
- sex: SO 4, 5
- world: SO 6, 7
93
Q
network configuration model: saturated configuration
A
- multiple SOs, each of whom has a shared responsibility for helping Jasmine fulfill multiple goals
- MULTIPLE, SHARED
- everyone in Jasmine’s life helps her fulfill all her goals
94
Q
infidelity def
A
- difficult to define: lots of subjectivity
- intimate emotional conversations?
- open to an affair that never happens?
- masturbating to porn?
- personally made viodes?
- immersive VR
95
Q
infidelity: within a cultural
A
- substantial agreement about which behaviors are “unfaithful”
- on a 1-7 scale (not at all to absolutely), what percentage of Ps gave a score higher than 1 (at least a little bit unfaithful)
- considered least unfaithful: attraction to celeb
- considered most unfaithful: having sex - small difference between receciving flirtatious text and sex
- substantial variation about how ‘unfaithful’ each act is, SD is bigger than 1
96
Q
risk factors for infidelity: sociosexuality
A
- an individual difference variable assessing interest in casual sex
- higher sociosexuality is linked to:
- higher perceptions of sexual interest from others
- stronger flirtatiousness
- a stronger preference for sexual variety
97
Q
risk factors for infidelity: desirable/alive
A
- wanting to feel desirable/alive
an underappreciated set of motivations linked to identiy
98
Q
risk factors for infidelity: opportunity
A
- infidelity is more likely when circumstances make it more accessible
- work travel, attractive person flirts with you etc
99
Q
the cheating Germans study
A
- followed ~14,000 married Germans from 2008-2020
- reports of ~1000 infidelity events
- 3 key findings
- declining relationship quality preceded infidelity
- infidelity events were linked to higher divorce likelihood
- likelihood was 36% for couples reporting an infidelity, compared to 24% for those that didn’t
- for marriages that remained intact, the decline in relationship quality ceased
100
Q
declining relationship quality and infidelity patterns
A
- ends fragile relationships and once those relationships end, they are no longer a part of the reporting study
- the reason it seems like after infidelity event, relationship satisfaction increases is bc the ones left are stronger
101
Q
resisting infidelity
A
- highly committed people are motivated to avoid tempting alternatives
102
Q
resisting infidelity: derogation
A
- evaluate attractive alts as less desirable
- dating service study
- Ps reported on their commitment to their current partner
- then evaluated a potential partner, who was created to be either moderately or highly appealing
- hypothesis: the highly appealing partner is threatening and therefore could trigger derogation
- found that for both low and high commitment moderate attractiveness is average
- for low commitment, they say they would find them attractive but in high commitment they say no bc the more attractive potential partner is more threatening
103
Q
resisting infidelity: inattention
A
- they shift their attention away from attractive alts
- motivated inattention study
- performed a computer task that measured how quickly they disengaged from photos of attractive vs average looking men and women
- attentional disengagement task
- found slower disengagement from photos of attractive other-sex ppl predicted infidelity during first 3 years of marriage
- 100ms faster disengagement predicted a 50% reduction in the likelihood of infidelity
104
Q
Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) def
A
- a relational arrangement in which partners agree that its acceptable to have more than one sexual and/or romantic partnership at the same time
- contrasts w nonconsensual nonmonogamy (cheating)
105
Q
3 types of CNM: open relationships
A
partners pursue independent sexual relationships outside of their primary dyad
106
Q
3 types of CNM: swinging
A
partners engage in extradyadic sex, usually at social events where both of them are in attendance
107
Q
3 types of CNM: polyamory
A
partners have consensual loving and romantic relationships with more than one partner
108
Q
principles underlying CNM
A
- one person shld not be expected to meet all the needs of their partner
- anticipating sexual attraction for one’s partner will be unwavering over course of a given relationship is unrealistic
- engaging in multiple loving relationships
- communication and openness are the keys to ethical and successful relationships
109
Q
is monogamy or consensual nonmonogamy better
A
- no differences in satisfaction, commitment and passion
- slight differences in jealousy: monogamous has more jealously than CNM
- CNM has more trust than monogamy
- no clear evidence either way
