Test #3 Flashcards
What can dyadic models help us understand?
(dis)similarity between partners
- to what event does sexual/relational satisfaction correlate across partners
influence of self and/vs. partners
- what extent am i driving this outcome compared to my partner driving it
accuracy and bias in interpersonal perception
- “how much sex would you think your partner would ideally have”
“couple-level” predictors/outcomes
Relational approaches: strengths
- a lot of sex occurs in relational contexts
- provides theory/methods for studying relational influence
- speaks to the emotional processes often involved
Relational approaches: limitations
- recruiting couples is very difficult
- analytic approaches currently promote gender dichotomies/heteronormative inquiries
- dyadic data analyses are more complicated than analyses of individuals
Theoretical perspectives of sexual relationships
- as an attachment process
- as a group process
- as an assortative personality process
- as an economic process
Interdependence theory
relationship stability depends on commitment level which is determined by relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investments
- main predictor is the subjective sense of commitment
Major relationship characteristics
- Structure/orientation: monogamous, open, swinging, etc
- Type: one-night stand, ongoing “casual” sex, etc
- Relationship norms: content (interpersonal scripts, exchange vs. communal norms), strength (agreement/coherence of norms)
Casual relationship factors
- frequency of contact
- type of contact
- personal disclosure
- discussion of relationship
- friendship
How attachment develops: Mikulincer & Shaver
- Threat
- Attachment figure responsiveness
- Viability of proximity seeking
- hyperactivating strategies: trying to get attention from caregivers
How working models develop
reflect mental amalgamation of all attachment related experiences
- good outcomes result from positive experiences with attachment figures, leading to positive internal working model
- not set in stone
Secure attachment
positive working models of self/other
anxious-ambivalent attachment
negative working model of self, ambivalent working model of other
avoidant/dismissive attachment
ambivalent working model of self, negative working model of other
fearful-avoidant attachment
- negative working models of self/other
- not consistently detectable
low anxiety & low avoidance
- more accurate perception of others’ sexual interest
- pursue sex for pleasure
high anxiety
- pursue sex for emotional reassurance
- conflate sex and love (belief that sex is connected to love)
- more frequent submission fantasies
high avoidance
- more difficulty with sexual communication
- pursue sex for esteem needs
sexual violence
any non-consensual, unwanted actual, attempted, or threatened act or behaviour, that is carried out through sexual means or by targeting a person’s sex, sexual identity, or gender identity or expression
Necessary conditions for legal rape
1) the incident of nonconsensual sex must map onto qualities of the legal definition of rape
2) the person who’s consent was violated needs to label the event as “rape”
- <50% of people with experiences matching legal definition label experience it as “rape”
- even fewer (<10%) if experience was attempted
match and motivation model
labeling rape is driven by 2 processes:
1) the extent to which the nonconsensual event matches the individual’s rape script
2) the extent to which the individual is motivated (or not) to label the event as rape, based on the expected outcomes of either decision
Motivations in reporting rape
1) Reputational/social/relational focused
- victimization, support
2) Empowerment/autonomy/forgiveness focused
- depends on how someone wants to move on
3) Justice/support focused
- get justice vs. move on and forget
Perpetrator motivation for rape
1) Sexual - sexual violence is about attaining sex
2) Power - sexual violence is about expressing power over others
3) Identity protection - sexual violence is about in group favoritism/ out group derogation
Normative approach to reducing sexual violence
1) Strong, unequivocal, consistent zero-tolerance policy
2) Well-defined reporting channels
3) Active involvement of management/group-leaders
4) Investment of resources (time and money)
5) Regular assessment procedures
How do UVics policys hold up?
Have a well-defined reporting channel
Mediocre: active involvement + investment of resources
Poor: strong no-tolerance policy + regular assessment procedures