Koofers

Psych 149 Midterm - Flashcards

Flashcard Deck Information

Class:PSY 149 - SOCIAL PSY RELATION
Subject:Psychology
University:University of California - Santa Barbara
Term:Fall 2013
- of -
INCORRECT CORRECT
- INCORRECT     - CORRECT     - SKIPPED
Shuffle Remaining Cards Show Definitions First Take Quiz (NEW)
Hide Keyboard shortcuts
Next card
Previous card
Mark correct
Mark incorrect
Flip card
Start Over
Shuffle
      Mode:   CARDS LIST       ? pages   PRINT EXIT
Who thinks about love and commitment first? (Ackerman) -It is believed women confess love first, but in recalled relationships and in current relationships men actually say it first
-Men think about commitment before women (by about 40 days)
Research Methods Step 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Find participants
Step 3: Find a research design
Types of Questions Descriptive questions
--i.e. what does the world look like?
--often these studies are "theory generating"
Explanatory questions
--why (or how) does this look this way?
--usually testing specific hypotheses based on theory
Types of participant samples Convenience sample
--getting those around you, i.e. college students
--volunteer bias
--can it generalize?
Representative sample
--representative of the entire desired population

Generated by Koofers.com
Research Designs Correlational: Do X & Y go together, measure direction and strength of correlation, does not imply causation, can study behavior in real-life settings, can measure a lot of variables at once, lots of data, can be used when unethical to manipulate
Experimental: if we change X what happens to Y, causation, random assignment, ethical? generalizable? practical?
Developmental: used to study the effects of time, cross-sectional, longitudinal, retrospective, all correlational, do people differ at different age/stages?
Self-Report Data -Asked about experiences
-Subjective
-Most frequently used data type
-Many different formats; questionnaires, diaries, interviews 
-personal meaning for participants, inexpensive, easy to obtain
-misinterpretation, bias, recall problems, 
Couple Report Data -Each person reports on their own behavior and partner's behavior
-often not high agreement
-important to obtain multiple perspectives
Observational Data -Many different methods: direct, video, audio
-"objective" info
-relies on reports of observers
-can be obtrusive or unoobtrusive
-pros: objective, no self-report bias
-cons: cannot tell what's going on in person's mine, reactivity bias if obtrusive, expensive, may be difficult to code 
Generated by Koofers.com
Physiological Measures (data) -Autonomic, biological, neural reactions (heart rate, blood pressure, brain activity)
-impartial, objective, out of our control
-unobtrusive markers of emotional and cognitive states (may be difficult to interpret)
Archival Data
-Governmental records, marriage licenses, photos, personal documents (diaries), personal ads, yearbooks 
-Can be used for both descriptive and explanatory research 
-Inexpensive but often limited info
Types of Validity -Construct validity
-External validity
-Internal validity
NEEDS ELABORATION
Ethical Considerations Positives: makes participants more aware of behavior, more aware of relationship, can improve relationship
Negatives: invades privacy, increases awareness of negatives, behavior could spill over into real life, could come to view research negatively
Generated by Koofers.com
How to protect participants wellbeing -Informed consent
-Debriefing
-Research approval from review board (risk: benefit ratio)
-Protect privacy (and misuse of data)
-Share research findings
-Counselling procedures

Bradbury (1994) effects of research on relationships
-Most participants reported being affected, but most effects were positive 
----Greater awareness and appreciation of their relationship 
-Only 3 – 5% reported negative reactions 
----Learned something upsetting or troubling
Interpersonal Attraction -A desire to approach or be with someone
-A motivational state in which we are predisposed to think, feel, and behave positively toward another person
-What attracts us to other people? why are we attracted to some people romantically and sexually?
Reinforcement Theory -we are attracted to those whose presence is rewarding
-What is rewarding?
---personal characteristics
--direct provision of tangible resources
--indirect provision of resources (helps you obtain resources or status)
--Associated with circumstances that are rewarding (classical conditioning)

Generated by Koofers.com
What we find rewarding depends on these variables -P Variable: your characteristics as the perceiver
-O variables: potential partner's characteristics
-PxO variables: you and your partner together (unique fit, compatibility) 
-E variables: environment or context
P (perceiver) variables -How do your own characteristics affect your attraction toward others?
--Personality factors: need for affiliation/intimacy, attachment style/social anxiety
--Social motives(goals/needs): loneliness, desire for partner
--Biology: hormones, age
Influence of biology on attraction -Women rate men with a masculine face and body more desirable during ovulation
-At other times in the cycle they find baby faces (which signal trust, kindness, more appealing
-Evolutionary explanation: importance of good genes vs. good parenting/partnering
-Haselton study: women rated as more attractively dressed on high fertility days, and they would wear sexier outfits out based on drawings of theoretically what they would wear out
O (other) Variables (physical) -What makes other people desirable? Are some qualities more attractive overall?
-Physical Attractiveness: strong predictor of initial attraction, puts people in a good mood, attractive people more likely to be hired/earn higher salaries/criminals receive lower fines
--we value it because good looks=good health/genes
--social psych says we believe that attractive people are friendly, successful, happy, healthy, strong (only true in reference to popularity and a better sex/date life)

Generated by Koofers.com
Snyder, Tanke & Bershceid (physical attraction manipulation) -Pairs of men and women interact over phone
-Physical attractiveness was manipulated, men were shown a false picture--half of attractive women half of unattractive
-When men thought they were talking to attractive (vs. unattractive women) they behaved in a more friendly, sociable, and skilled manner
Physical attractiveness in the long run? -Bersheid (1972) yearbook study
-obtained ratings of college yearbook photos, interviewed the then middle-aged graduates
-Those who were more attractive did not have any difference in marital satisfaction, life satisfaction, or overall happiness
-Diener (1995) study, no association between attractiveness and subjective happiness and well-being
Costs of physical attractiveness -Tend to discount praise, because they're aware of effect of beauty on others (Major 1984)
-Difficult to trust others, may lower confidence
-Negative stereotypes (shallow, vain, stupid) associated with beauty
-may inspire envy and hostility
O (other) Variables (personality) -Universally valued traits are: considerate, kind, understanding, dependable, loyal, honest, funny, intelligent
-Warmth and competence are major influences on attraction, the most desirable people are high on both, least desirable people are low on both (they're independent variables)
Generated by Koofers.com
PxO Variables (Compatibility) -What makes someone compatible/suitable for us?
-Matching hypothesis: we want someone who is "in our league"
-three dimensions of compatibility: warmth/loyalty, status/resources, vitality/attractiveness (three categories exist across gender and culture, but people weight them differently)
-similarity=attraction in any dimension, reassuring, convergence of goals/desires/needs, approval from others, greater acceptance, familiarity (comfort/security)
-no strong evidence that opposites attract (maybe a trade in resources, i.e. beauty for money)
Matching Hypothesis -We match up with others of comparable social worth
-We want equal assets because it will be a happier and more successful merger (decrease likelihood of rejection)
-Empirical findings support the Matching Hypothesis
-We tend to pair up with people who are similar to us on a variety of dimensions
-We typically use physical appearance as initial filter
-Sometimes trade commodities or social assets
Reciprocity and Attraction -We like those who like us
-One of the strongest predictors of attraction
-Merely being told someone likes us produces feelings of reciprocal affection
-Potential partner's desirability= His/her physical attractiveness*his/her probability of accepting you
-Exceptions: we do not like ingratiators (people who flatter themselves) and we do not like excessive flattery (decreases attraction)

Personal Ad Study (Koestner & Wheeler)
-PxO variables
-Men seek physical attractiveness, offered by women
-Women seek economic status, offered by men
-Gender differences due to evolutionary pressures and cultural standards
-evolutionary: men maximize reproductive success by mating(beauty=health/youth/fertility), women maximize by parenting(status=care for child)
-cultural standards: men control more of the resources, women forced to barter to share in resources

Generated by Koofers.com
Traits men and women both seek -Men and women more similar than different
-both prefer kind and intelligent over looks or money, top "10" traits are almost identical
-both seek closeness, both happier and healthier in close relationship, both cite close relationships as most important to life satisfaction, both suffer when lonely, rejected, grieving
E (Environmental) Variables -Proximity: amount of contact one of the most powerful predictors, attraction grows out of daily interactions with those around us, familiarity promotes liking
---Moreland & Beach "Mere Exposure" Effect, confederate attended 0,5, 10, 15 classes, more attendance=greater liking
-Classic Study: Festinger, Schachter, & Black (1950), studied friendship patterns, pairs assigned randomly to student housing, distance between apartments was strongest predictor of friendship
-Familiarity: we like those who are familiar with frequent contact 
Why does familiarity=attraction? -Evolutionary explanation: familiarity signals safety (novelty/uncertainty is scary; children's fear of strangers)
-Familiar stimuli are processed more "fluently" (with ease) and perceptual fluency is experience positively
-Classical conditioning: most interaction is positive, so familiar others are paired with positive affect
-Creates opportunities for interaction, mutual self-disclosure, intimacy, closeness, understanding
Reis, Maniaci, Caparariello, Eastwick, & Finkel (E variables) -Study 1: Same sex pairs discussed 2 or 6 items on a closeness task
--if you could change anything that happened to you in high school, what would that be?
--Results: more liking in the 6-item than 2-item condition
-Study 2: Sam sex pairs had online chat 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 times
---No restrictions on content, chat needs to last 15 minutes, they were coded for self-disclosure & knowledge, measured liking
-Results:increased chats/knowledge/responsiveness increased liking
-But if interactions were negative, increased interaction decreases liking
Generated by Koofers.com
Physical Environment can affect attraction -We see others as less attractive in
--hot, humid rooms, 
--unpleasant music
--distressing event (sad movie)
--bad news
-physiological arousal: increases attraction to (attractive) others
Mysteries of Attraction -Much is outside of our awareness (non-conscious)
-Large element of chance
-What gets us together might not keep us together
--initial attractions vs. relationship formation vs. relationship maintenance
What is love? Love is multi-dimensional
-an emotional state: longing, adoration, lust, giddy, passion, caring
-an attitude: idealization of other, positive evaluations, liking, respect
-a set of behaviors: verbal signals, physical affection, self-disclosure
-an experience
--falling in love
--unrequited love
--love at first sight
Types of Love -Passionate Love: state of intense longing for union with another, intensely emotional, but emotions can be mixed, intense by short-lived, declines over time
---positive: elation, desire, ecstasy, negative: pain, jealousy, anxiety
---fueled by fantasy, novelty, arousal
-Companionate Love: the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined, comfortable affectionate love, based on friendship and companionship
----I like my spouse as a person
Generated by Koofers.com
Features of Passionate love -partner preoccupies thoughts, idealize partner (see only +), intense desire to know partner
-strong physical/sexual attraction, negative feelings when things go wrong, longing for the other when apart, physiological arousal
-maintain proximity (touchiness & closeness), study other person to determine feelings (uncertainty)
-"falling in love" or "being in love"
-passionate love is universal, but not the basis for marriage in all cultures
-physiological arousal+belief partner causes the arousal
Dutton & Aron (1974) bridge study -Men crossed a safe or scary bridge
-Approached by attractive experimenter and asked to complete a questionnaire packet (projective test TAT, coded for sexual imagery)
-Here is my number if you want to call and get the results of the study
-Those on the scary bridge thought the picture was sexual, and more of them phoned
-excitation transfer (misattribution of arousal) swinging on a bridge, running, listening to a comedian can produce this effect
-arousal can increase OR decrease attraction
Can passionate love endure? (Acevedo & Aron 2009) Yes
-Need to separate "romantic love" from "obsession"
-"Obsession" tends to decline
-But, for many couples, romantic love (with intensity, engagement, and sexual interest) does endure 
-keep passion alive by recapturing novelty and arousal by sharing new, exciting, self-expanding activities together
Companionate Love -the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined, comfortable affectionate love, based on friendship and companionship
-practical type of love, emphasizes trust, caring, & tolerance of flaws
-emotional tone is moderate, warmth & affection (less extreme passions), feeling of comfortable attachment, sense of belonging
-shared activities, companionship, emotional disclosure; intimacy
-universal, tends to go stronger over time, associated with marital satisfaction, keeps couples together
Generated by Koofers.com
Triangular Theory of Love -Sternberg (1988); two types not fully adequate
-Different types of love formed from 3 core components--passion, intimacy, commitment
-8 different forms based on the 3 components, conceptualized in terms of a triangle
-passion: drive leading to romance and physical attraction, longing
-intimacy: feelings of closeness, warmth, understanding, connectedness
-commitment: long term intention to stay
Triangular love throughout a relationship -People love differently in different relationships
-Levels of each component may change over the course of a single relationship
--on average intimacy increases, passion decreases
--you may go through a rough patch when all you have is commitment holding you together
-Levels may differ for different partners
-Each partner has his/her own "love triangle"
--mismatches can lead to relationship tensions
Biology of Love -Helen Fisher (1998): 3 discrete, interrelated emotion-motivation systems
-lust: reproduction; estrogens and androgens
-attraction: reward systems; dopamine, norepinephrine, & serotonin
-attachment: pair bonding, caregiving; oxytocin vasopressin
-the different neural systems often work together, but can also be independent
-romantic attraction (passionate love) may wane while attachment (companionate love) grows stronger
Backdrop for Attachment theory -John Bowlby (British psychiatrist) asked to study orphaned and homeless children (was a major concern in post WWII Europe)
-Primate researchers also studying the effects of maternal deprivation on monkeys (Harry Harlow)
-Maternal separation associated with poor outcomes (physical and developmental delays, inability to form relationships, health problems, general "failure to thrive"
-Remarkable similarity between human and primate infants--lead Bowlby to develop Attachment Theory
Generated by Koofers.com
Harry Harlow: The Nature of Love -Monkey experiment
-Monkey infants separated from real mother and given a wire mother who provides food, and a cloth mother
-Monkey spends most of time cuddling the cloth mother and only goes to the wire mother to eat, then returns to cloth mother
-We prefer the comfort
Goals of Attachment Theory -Normative processes: to describe and explain how and why infants become emotionally attached to a primary caregiver--survival, all individuals equipped with attachment behavioral system (i.e. crying, clinging, smiling) that function to achieve a set goal of proximity to primary caregiver, promotes security and survival--later changes to psychological proximity
-Individual differences: to understand the impact of this relationship on the child's developing personality and social functioning
-Originally developed to explain parent-child bonds, but assumed to explain attachment processes across the lfiespan
Four components of attachment bonds -Proximity-Seeking: desire to be in presence of caregiver
-Separation Protest: distress when separated
-Safe Haven: seek out caregiver when distressed
-Secure Base: when confident of caregiver's availability, infant explores and masters the environment--when caregiver is unavailable or unresponsive, exploration is impaired infant attempts to regain proximity
The Strange Situation -Developed by Mary Ainsworth; lab procedure designed to elicit attachment behaviors
-Novel lab with toys and strangers, puts infant through a serious of separation and reunion episodes (typically around age 1)
-Every infant becomes attached; but different patterns of caregiving are associated with different patterns of infant behavior
-Ainsworth was first to identify secure and various forms of insecure attachment in infants
Generated by Koofers.com
Caregiving Behavioral System -Innate and universal
-Set of behaviors (e.g. monitoring, retrieving, nurturing) that function to achieve a set goal=proximity to child, safety of child
-Promotes child's security and survival by maintaining parent's proximity to their vulnerable infant/child
-Mobilizes/motivates parents to respond to child's needs
Attachment Theory: Individual Differences -Relationship between parent and child is a "goal-corrected partnership"
-Quality of parent-child relationship has profound impact on personality development
-We learn what to expect from others
-We reach important conclusions about ourselves
-Children develop working models (mental models) of self and others, contains conscious and non-conscious elements, central parts of personality, carried on to new relationships, shape affect and cognition, regulates attachment behavior in adulthood
Three types of attachment -Secure (60%): upset but easily comforted; explores-responsive moms, associated with better health, emotional well-being, and social functioning
-Anxious/Ambivalent (20%): difficult to sooth; limited exploration-inconsistent moms
-Avoidant (20%): little contact with mother; explores-relatively rejecting moms
Attachment Theory in Adulthood (does it carry on?) -Bowlby suggested that attachment processes occur from 'the cradle to grave"
-Need for felt security is fundamental for adults as well as children
-Adults are most likely to thrive when they have responsive attachment figures
-As we develop attachment transfers from parents to peers in stages, (seek proximity, comfort, safety, and protest separation from peers)
-Parents remain "attachment figures in reserve" throughout adolescence and early adulthood
Generated by Koofers.com
Hazan & Shaver (1987) attachment in adulthood -Romantic love is an attachment process
-Romantic relationships are the prototypical attachment bond in adulthood
-Normative processes: adult love relationships share the same four features of attachment bonds
-Individual differences: adults differ in their style of attachment, their tendency to be secure/insecure
-Romantic love consists of three behavioral systems; attachment, caregiving, sexuality
Similarities/Differences in infant and adult love relationships -Similarities: 
  • proximity seeking, 
  • separation protest, 
  • safe haven,
  • secure base
-Differences: 
  • mutuality (care seeking + care giving; equal status & power)
  • psychological not just physical proximity
  • Integration of sexualit
Attachment System activation in adult hood -When stressed or threatened
  • Mikulincer 2002: attachment themes/names of attachment figures are automatically activated in memory when primed with threat words 
  • Coan et al 2006: brain imaging study--electric shock while alone vs. holding husband's hand vs. holding strangers hand, lower activation of threat related brain regions when holding husband's hand
  • Eisenberger 2009: pain study--can a photo of a partner relieve threat; lower pain ratings when viewing photo
Kane, McCall, Collins & Blascovich 2011, Virtual Reality Study -Walk across a dangerous cliff in a virtual reality
-independent variable: manipulated partner presence and responsiveness, either alone, with an unresponsive partner, or with a responsive partner
-dependent variables: stress, comfort, security, behavioral vigilance, physical proximity/distancing
-task perceived as less stressful/more safe/secure when with a responsive partner, people were more vigilant (visual checking) of unresponsive partner, and kept a greater physical distance from unresponsive partner
Generated by Koofers.com
Characteristics of secure attachment in adults/children -Still 60% of the population
-1. Children: able to separate from parent, Adult: have trusting lasting relationships
-2. Children: seek comfort from parents when frightened, Adult: tend to have good self-esteem
-3. Children: return of parents is met with positive emotions, Adult: comfortable sharing feelings with friends and partners
-4. Children: prefers parents to strangers, Adult: Seek out social support
Characteristics of anxious/ambivalent: childhood and adulthood -Still 20% of the population
-1. Children: may be wary of strangers, Adults: want to get close but worry about being hurt
-2. Children: become greatly distressed when parent leaves, Adults: worry that their partner does not love them
-3. Children: Do not appear to be comforted by the return of the parent, Adults: become very distraught when a relationship ends (tend to stay in bad relationships)
Characteristics of Avoidant attachment -1. Children: may avoid parents, Adults: may have problems with intimacy
-2. Children: does not seek much comfort or contact from parents, Adults: invest little emotion in social and romantic relationships
-3. Children: Shows little or no preference between parent and stranger, Adult: Unable or unwilling to share thoughts and feelings with others
-relationships of shorter duration, less distraught when they end
Dimensions of Adult Attachment -Categorical measures of attachment style have been replaced by continuous measures
-Anxiety: concerns about being rejected, abandoned, unworthy, unloved
-Avoidance: avoid (vs. approach), intimacy, trust, and interdependence 
-Bartholomew's model four possible combos; lowlow (secure), lowhigh (dismissing), highlow (preoccupied), highigh (fearful)
Generated by Koofers.com
Problem/Issues to Think About -Is attachment style a personality or a relationship variable?
-Is attachment style "causing" relationship quality, or is it the other way around? (limitations of correlational data)
-Limitations of self report data?
-Stability of styles over time, over relationships? (can we become more secure? can we change our working models?)
Social Exchange Theory -Sociologist George Homans (1961, 1974)
-Rules that determine how benefits are given and received in relationships (of all kinds)
-Economic model of human behavior: social interactions are a process of exchange, keep track of rewards and costs, we are attracted to partners who provide most rewards, people are motivated to maximize profits (obtain greatest rewards for smallest cost)
-Behavior guided by norm of reciprocity=to receive we must also give
-Accounting keeping track of rewards and costs, then determining profit
What are rewards and costs in relationships? -Reward=any positive consequence; anything of value that you gain; anything desirable and welcome (ex: love, laughter, sex, money)
-Cost=Any negative consequence or loss; anything undesirable and unwelcome (ex: stress, compromise, effort, loss of esteem, money)
-Can be tangible or psychological/emotional
-In the "eye of the beholder" no agreed upon price tag
White (1983) social exchange and happiness -Couples who are happy spend more time interacting
-Happiness-->frequency of interaction
-Frequency of interaction-->Happiness (this effect isn't as strong)

Generated by Koofers.com
Factors that effect value of rewards and costs -Principle of scarcity: scarce resources will be valued more (i.e. men in a retirement community, or a friend when you're lonely)
-Principle of satiation: value of repeated rewards will decrease (i.e. first kiss valued much more than 100th one)
-Principle of fatigue: value of repeated costs will increase (i.e. first favor is not too bad, but 10th favor gets on your nerves)
Profit vs. Satisfaction -Outcome (Profit)=Rewards-Costs
-Profit and satisfaction are not exactly the same thing, people don't just want profit they want the best possible outcome to reach satisfaction
Interdependence Theory We seek interactions with others that provide maximum reward at minimum cost, and we only stay with those partners who provide a sufficient profit
-Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, Kelley 1979
Comparison Level -A way of evaluating outcome
-What we expect and feel we deserve from our relationships
-Standard against which we judge our happiness or satisfaction
-Satisfaction=Outcome-CL
-Based on prior experience, learning, personality, 
-People with High CLs expect relationships to be rewarding, low reward unacceptable, disappointing
-People with Low CLs expect relationships to be troublesome, low rewards are acceptable, tolerable 
Generated by Koofers.com
Comparison Level for Alternatives -What we realistically expect we could get in another relationship or situation, other alternatives currently available
-Includes other partners or no partner (being single)
-CLalt is the standard against which we decide to stay or leave
-Dependence=Outcome -CLalt
Dependence -Degree to which we are psychologically linked to our relationship
-Determines whether we are motivated to stay or leave
--Low CLalt=more dependent
--High CLalt=less dependent
-Implies that dependence (motivation to stay) is not based solely on whether or not we are happy, and not based solely on CLalt
Cl, CLalt, your outcome and your relationship -If your outcome is above your CL and CLalt you're happy and stable
-If your outcome is lower than your CL but above your CLalt you're unhappy and stable
-If your outcome is lower than your CLalt but above your CL then you're happy but unstable
-If you're outcome is below your CL and CLalt you are unhappy and unstable
Equity theory -People are more satisfied in relationships in which there is proportional justice; which means that each partner gains benefits from the relationship that are proportional to his or her contributions to it; fairness

-Equitable when your outcomes/your contributions=your partners outcomes/your partner’s contribution, equal when rewards are equal

-Doesn’t require two partners to gain equal rewards from their interaction, fair one when contributing more receives more benefits

-We want fair distribution of rewards and costs, and are most comfortable when we get what we deserve

Generated by Koofers.com
Equality Rule -Partners should obtain equal rewards from the relationship
-P1 Rewards= P2 rewards
Equity Rule -Ratio of rewards/costs should be proportional
-P1 Rewards/P1 Costs= P2 Rewards/P2 Costs
-Our "profits" should be equal
-Partners should get as much as they give, if you give less you should get less
-The more equitable the more satisfaction, intimacy, commitment, greater stability, less infidelity
-Under and Over benefit are both distressed (under-benefit is worse)
Three ways to restore equity -1. Restore actual equity: alter inputs or outputs for self or partner, 
  • reduce own inputs, demand more outputs from partner
-2. Restore psychological equity: Alter your subjective perceptions
  • believe partner deserves more
  • change your CL (e.g. downward social comparison)
-3. Exit relationship
  • Distance yourself from partner, have affair, end relationship
Problems with Equity Theory -Most studies are correlational
-Some find no link between equity and satisfaction
  • positive (concern for fairness) and negative consequences (score-keeping)
-Can score-keeping damage relationships?
-"The key to a successful marriage is to give without measure"-Collins grandpa, 1985
Generated by Koofers.com
Communal vs. Exchange Relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979) -Relationships differ in the norms regarding the giving and receiving of benefits
-A benefit is something you give to others
-Two major types of relationships
Exchange Relationships -Give benefits with the expectation of receiving comparable benefit in return
-Relatively immediate tit-for-tat repayment
-Costs should be offset by compensating rewards; costs-rewards=0
-Strict cost accounting; keep track of inputs/outputs
-Typically reflects relationships with strangers, acquaintances, business partners
Communal Relationships -Give benefits in response to need with NO expectation of receiving similar benefit in return
-Benefits given in response to needs as they arise
-No strict cost accounting
-Will incur cost without compensation, expectation of mutual responsiveness to each other's needs
-Rewards derived from meeting other's needs
-Immediate tit-for-tat repayment is disliked in communal relationships
-Relationships with family members, friends, romantic partners
-Relationships differ in communal strength
Measurements of communal strength -Would you give a friend or a neighbor $5? $10? $50?
-How far would you go to visit them?
-Greater communal strength means greater motivation to respond to other's needs, other's needs take priority, willingness to incur greater cost without expecting compensation
-Acquaintance=4.2, Friend=7.2, Romantic Partner=8.1
Generated by Koofers.com
Peggy Clark, Judson Mills & Colleagues Research on Communal/Exchange desire -Experimental research (manipulate desire for communal or exchange relationship)
  • Communal: participate with someone, attractive, single, new to the area, and looking to meet someone
  • Exchange: participate with someone attractive, but married or not looking to meet someone
-Non-experimental research:
  • Examine differences in naturally occurring communal (i.e. friends) or exchange (i.e. stranger) relationships
Clark & Mills (1979) communal vs. exchange -Do you like the person who returns a favor?
  • Manipulated desire for communal relationship
  • Men given opportunity to give letters to female participant for a word task (thank you note=no benefit, thank you note+ 1 point=benefit)
  • In exchange setting they liked those who gave a point more
  • In a communal setting they liked those who did not give the point/benefit more
Clark, Mills & Powell (1986) keeping track of exchange/communal needs -Do we keep track of the needs of communal partners more than exchange partners?
  • Manipulated desire for communal relationship
  • Participants (men & women) given an opportunity to help other participants on a word task
  • The other person could "drop a note in a box" if they needed help (DV= # of times subject checked the box)
  • Communal checked the box much more than exchange
When communal relationship is desired... -Liking decreases if other person follows an exchange norm (i.e. repaying a favor)
-Keeps track of other's needs when other is working on a task
-Feel good after helping (and hep more), feel bad when prevented from helping
-Less likely to keep track of inputs on joint task and make less distinctions between own and other's contributions
-More responsive to other's sadness
-Respond more positively to other's expression of emotion
Generated by Koofers.com
When exchange relationship desired... -Liking increases when person follows exchange norm
-Expect benefits to be repaid immediately
-More likely to keep track of inputs on a joint task
-Perceive contributions to a joint task as separate
-Monitor other's needs only when opportunity for personal gain
-Experience little boost in mood after helping another 
Boundary Conditions of Communal Relationships -Benefit won't be given (or accepted) if cost is too high, in this case exchange norms may be followed (i.e. won't give a friend a car but will sell it at a good price, won't accept a car from a friend
-Communal norm is the ideal but not always followed
-We often neglect other's needs or feel neglected
-Individual differences in communal and exchange orientation
If people are following communal norms, why is equity (sometimes) related to satisfaction? -Following communal norms may result in both increased satisfaction and increased equity
-Satisfaction may lead you to rate relationship favorable on all dimensions
-Dissatisfaction leads us to accounting, start to focus on inputs and outputs 
-Needs not being met--> feelings of inequity
-Equity matters primarily when needs are not being met, it's not the rule when determining if close relationships are satisfying
-Perceived partner responsiveness to needs is more important
What is commitment? -Tendency to maintain a relationship; to feel psychologically attached to it (Rusbult), intention to continue relationship
-3 Basic Elements: psychological attachment, motivation to stay, long-term orientation
-Degree of dependence on your relationship, willingness to stay for better or worse, typically measured through self-report scales
-A cognitive, emotional, and motivational state that influences wide range of behaviors
-Unhappy people can be committed, feel trapped, happy relationships associate commitment with positive qualities
Generated by Koofers.com
Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment What produces feelings of commitment?
-Satisfaction +
-Alternatives -
-Investments +
Satisfaction and Commitment -Degree to which relationship fulfills important needs
-Depends on CL
-Strength of forces pulling you toward your partner
-Happy couples are more committed
-ex: My relationship is close to ideal. Our relationship makes me very happy.
Alternatives and Commitment -Quality/attractiveness of your realistic alternatives
-Strength of forces pulling you away from partner, le
-Depends on CLalt, the degree to which important needs can be met in another relationship or outside of a relationship
-Quality of Alternatives sample: If I weren't dating my partner I would do fine--I would find another appealing person to date. 
-Good alternatives= low dependence, poor alternatives=high depend
-Divorce more probably when women have equal economic/social/legal power
-Happy couples view alts as less attractive
Investments and Commitment -Things you put into your relationship, or resources attached to your relationship, increase COST of ending a relationship
-People become bound to a relationship when they've invested resources that would be lost, or decline in value, if relationship ended
-Direct Resources: time, emotional energy, personal sacrifices
-Indirect Resources: mutual friends, shared memories, shared activities, possessions, personal identity
-Ex: My relationships with friends and family members would be complicated if my partner and I were to break up
Generated by Koofers.com
Other factors that affect commitment -External Pressures: family, friends
-Moral Prescriptions: religious prescriptions, personal moral imperatives like being against divorce
-Social Norms: norms of fidelity
Narcissism and commitment -Over inflated sense of self worth
-Narcissists are lower in commitment not because they are less satisfied or report fewer investments
-But because they perceive greater alternatives and pay greater attention to these alternatives
-A personality factor in commitment
Avoidant Attachment Style and Commitment -Avoidant individuals are less committed because they report lower satisfaction and fewer investments
-They also pay more attention to alternatives
-A personality factor in commitment
Gender and Commitment -There's a cultural stereotype that men fear commitment
-Markman, Stanley Johnson research if this is true
  • Women perceive that men are lower in commitment
  • But men do not report lower levels of commitment
  • Most studies find few gender differences in self-reported commitment

Generated by Koofers.com
Gender and Marriage -Young men view marriage as more desirable than young woen
-Men view marriage as coinciding with kids, and are ready later
-Men see cohabiting as a positive alternative to marriage, but they're different, much more responsibility as a husband
-Women don't see their roles in marriage or cohabitation as very different
Relationship Maintenance Behavior and Commitment
-Motivation to engage in pro-relationship behaviors & cognition 
  • Even when costly or in opposition to immediate self-interest 
-Helps relationships survive 
  • Internal threats (poor partner behavior) 
  • External threats (outside person/circumstances) 

Relationship Maintenance Mechanisms

Actions to protect, preserve, and enhance a relationship driven by commitment

-1. Accommodative behavior: People refrain from responding to provocation from their partners with similar ire of their own, Swallow insults, don’t fight back, usually good for a relationship, more difficult when you have already been working hard to self-regulate

-2. Willingness to Sacrifice: Sacrifice of self-interests for the good of the relationship, Do things they wouldn’t do if they were on their own

-3. Perceived superiority: Thinking their relationships are better than those of other people

Interdependence Dilemma -When well-being of one person is incompatible with well-being of the partner or relationship

Generated by Koofers.com
Transformation of motivation -Immediate self-interest replaced with motivation to improve welfare of relationship and partner
Approach/Avoidance motives for sacrifice (Impett, Gable, Peplau 2005) -Types of sacrifice: doing something unwanted vs. giving up something you want
-Study 1: Developed a self-report measure
--Approach: sacrifice in order to increase partner well-being, to increase relationship closeness
--Avoidance: sacrifice in order to avoid conflict, guilt, and sanctions
Gable Study 2 Approach/Avoidance Diary Study (14 days)
-Approach motives associated with increases in relationship quality and well-being
-Avoidance motives were negatively associated with personal and relational well-being
-Hope for affiliation (social approach) associated with more approach motives for sacrifice
-Perceptions of partner approach sacrifice associated with increases in positive affect and relationship satisfaction (perceptions of avoidance motives led to opposite)
Willingness to Forgive and Relationship Maintenance -Forgiveness helps relationships survive threats, but there are limits
-McNulty (2008): forgiveness associated with satisfaction only for those with partners who rarely behave negatively
-McNulty (in press): diary study of newlyweds: transgressions increased on days following forgiveness
Generated by Koofers.com
"Doormat Effect" Luchies, Finkel, McNulty & Kumashiro (2010) Effects of forgiveness on self-respect and esteem
-Can I trust this person, will I be safe and valued in the future?
-Does the transgressor make amends?
  • apologize, admit mistake, show regret, make up for it
-Four studies (longitudinal & experimental)
Hypothetical Scenarios in Forgiveness -Imagine partner betrayed your trust
-Manipulated forgiveness
-Manipulated amends
-Measured self-respect and self-concept clarity
-Results: Forgiveness without amends reduces self-respect and self-concept clarity
Protective Cognitive Biases -Protecting relationship from external threats
-Commitment predicts protective cognitive biases
  • Derogation of alternatives: downplay alt partners, pay less attention to alternatives
  • Adaptive social comparisons: make downward social comparisons
  • Protective social construal: perceived superiority over other relationships, positive illusions
Linardatos & Lydon Will relationship threat motivate people to avoid attending to attractive alternatives? -Measured an important correlate/component of commitment:
  • Relationship identification: degree to which relationship is an important part of the self
-People in relationships shown either control photos (averagely attractive) or threat photos (highly attractive)
-DV: attentional adhesion: time it takes subjects to look away 
-No difference in the control photo between high ID and low ID
-Big difference in threat photo, people with high relationship ID looked away much faster than those with low relationship ID

Generated by Koofers.com
Six Defining Characteristics of Intimacy -Knowledge: people reveal history/fear/emotions to those they're intimate with
-Caring: people care about those they are intimate with
-Interdependence: the extent to which they need and influence each other is often strong diverse, and enduring
-Mutuality: recognize the overlap between their lives, think as "us"
-Trust: the expectation that an intimate partner will treat one fairly and honorably, and no harm will come to oneself
-Commitment: expect their partnerships to continue indefinitely and they invest time and effort and resources into the relationship
Need to Belong -Humans have a need to belong in close relationships, "regular social contact" with those to whom one feels connected
-When need to belong is satiated our drive to form additional relationships is reduced
-Proof in the fact we make relationships easy and are reluctant to see them end
-Health concerns to having few intimate relationships, higher mortality rate weaker immune system
-Cohabitation increases chance for divorce
Sex Ratio The ratio of men to women in a culture
-When there is a high sex ratio there are more traditional roles for women in society 1950s
-When there is a low sex ratio times are more scandalous 1920s
Androgyny -Traits where people possess both sets of male and female traits
-Instrumental traits: "masculine" task-oriented talents 
--i.e. assertiveness, self-reliance, ambition, decisiveness, leadership
-Expressive traits: "feminine" social and emotional skills
--i.e. warmth, tenderness, compassion, kindness, sensitivity to others
-Androgynous people can effectively stand up for themselves in a heated argument then go home and sensitively comfort a toddler
-Having only one set of traits will lead to unhappiness, both sets are valuable
Generated by Koofers.com
Big Five Personality Traits

Open to experience: imaginative, unconventional, and artistic versus conforming, uncreative and stodgy

Extraversion: outgoing, gregarious, assertive, and sociable versus cautious, reclusive, and shy

Conscientiousness: dependable & orderly vs unreliable & careless

Agreeableness: compassionate, cooperative, and trusting versus suspicious, selfish, and hostile

Neuroticism: the degree to which people are prone to high levels of negative emotion such as worry, anxiety, and anger, least important to most, influential in close relationships

Self-Esteem; Sociometer -Self esteem is our evaluation of ourselves; when we hold favorable judgments of our skill and traits our self-esteem is high; when we doubt ourselves self esteem is low
-Those with high self-esteem are healthier and happier
Sociometer -Provocative theory that says our self esteem is subjective, measures the quality of our relationships with others
-If others regard us positively--> high esteem, if others regard us negatively--> low esteem
-According to sociometer theory this is due to an evolved mechanism that serves our need to belong
-Very hard to like ourselves when others don't like us
Hetero vs. Homo couples -Gay couples have more sex than heterosexual couples who have more sex than lesbian couples
--differences due to sex differences, not sexual orientation
-Homo have better relationships that heterosexual couples
-Intimacy is very similar in same sex couples and heterosexual couples
Generated by Koofers.com
Evolutionary Psych -Sexual selection: made us the species we are today, advantages that result in greater success at reproduction, reproduction is more important than survival of the fittest
-Men & women differ only in the extent that they have historically faced different reproductive dilemmas, men vs. women sex w/100 ppl
-Cultural influences determine whether evolved patterns of behavior are adaptive
Parental Investment -Women are obligated to be invested, may be due to evolution because they have to go through a much more strenuous process
-Women more selective of mates so make sure they reproduce more successfully
-Women also have more parental certainty

Singlism Stigmatism and discrimination against unwed adults 
Waist to Hips Ratio (WHR) -Women are attractive men waist is noticeably narrower than hips
-Desirable ratio is .7 where waist is 30% smaller than hips
-Waist to Bust is .75, large breasts not desirable on stocky body
-WHR for men would be a .9
Generated by Koofers.com
8 possible types of love from Triangular Theory

Nonlove: all traits are absent, you are acquaintances

Liking: intimacy high, commitment low; impassionate friendship

Infatuation: high passion, no intimacy, no commitment; aroused by someone you barely know

Empty love: commitment, no intimacy or passion; 

Romantic Love: high intimacy and passion; commitment not a defining characteristic; a combo of liking and infatuation

Companionate love: intimacy and commitment; 

Fatuous love: passion and commitment without intimacy; 

Consummate Love: intimacy, passion, and commitment all in a one 

Unrequited Love -Happens to men more than women
-Befalls people with a preoccupied attachment style rather than secure or avoidant
-Would-be lovers experience real thrill, elation, and excitement of being in love, but it's also frustrating
-Worse to be the target of undesired adoration, they find pursuer's persistence annoying and feel guilty when they turn them down, they suffer as a result of someone else's emotions
Lee's Love Styles

Eros: erotic; strong physical component and likely to be heavily influenced by physical appearance and to believe in love at first sight

Ludus: treats love as an uncommitted game, often fickle and (try to) have several partners at once

Storge: leads people to de-emphasize strong emotion and seek genuine friendships that gradually lead to real commitment

Mania: demanding, possessive, full of vivid fantasy and obsession

Agape: giving, altruistic, selfless, and treats love as a duty

Pragma: practical and pragmatic; dispassionately seek partners who will logically be a good match for them

o

Men have more ludus, women more storgic and pragmatic

Attraction and Meaning in Life--Stillman -Strong sense of meaning in life correlates to being more appealing social interactants, magnetic personality
-Study 1: independent observers watched participants interact with a friend for 5 minutes and rate how appealing participants were as social interactants, those with strong sense of meaning in life were more attractive, unless they were already very physically attractive implying their may be a ceiling affect (MLQ assessed life meaning)
-Study 2: participants made a 10 second intro video, those with stronger sense of meaning in life were more attractive
-controlled for Big 5 emotions 

Generated by Koofers.com
Attachment Avoidance--Carvallo & Gabrial -Avoidant individuals are reactive to acceptance cues, despite avoidants' claims to the contrary--self esteem reacts to positive/negative feedback
-Low/high avoidant individuals randomly assigned to interact with a positive or negative research confederate, both groups felt more connected to the positive person but the effect was even stronger for high avoidant individuals
-could be due to feelings of superiority rather than connection
-Confederate reported higher connection to high avoidant in positive than negative state (no difference for low avoidant individuals)
Sacrifice and Communal Strength Kogan, Impett, Oveis, Hui, Gordon, Keltner -Intrinsic benefits for people highly willing to sacrifice for a romantic relationship---> shows communal strength
-14 day study of 69 couples showed positive correlation between communal strength and positive emotions during sacrifice, feeling appreciated & relationship satisfaction (mediated by authenticity)
-Ruled out effects being due to high communal strength couples making qualitatively different sacrifices or more positive in general
-Authentic sacrifices help people self verify that they are responsive to their partners needs, more communal strength=more authentic in sacrifices
Gender Differences in Apology -Study 1: participants recorded any offenses they committed, and if they apologized, women apologized more but also reported more offenses, no gender differences in proportion of offenses/apologies
-Study 2: asked participants to evaluate imaginary and recalled offenses, men rated offenses less severe than women, which affected whether they believed an apology was deserved
-Men and women did not vary in sincerity of apologies, both reported more offenses from the transgressor perspective
-Study raises doubts about the claim that men report less offenses because they are reluctant to admit wrong-doings
Generated by Koofers.com

List View: Terms & Definitions

  Hide All 127 Print
 
Front
Back
 Who thinks about love and commitment first? (Ackerman)-It is believed women confess love first, but in recalled relationships and in current relationships men actually say it first
-Men think about commitment before women (by about 40 days)
 Research MethodsStep 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Find participants
Step 3: Find a research design
 Types of QuestionsDescriptive questions
--i.e. what does the world look like?
--often these studies are "theory generating"
Explanatory questions
--why (or how) does this look this way?
--usually testing specific hypotheses based on theory
 Types of participant samplesConvenience sample
--getting those around you, i.e. college students
--volunteer bias
--can it generalize?
Representative sample
--representative of the entire desired population

 Research DesignsCorrelational: Do X & Y go together, measure direction and strength of correlation, does not imply causation, can study behavior in real-life settings, can measure a lot of variables at once, lots of data, can be used when unethical to manipulate
Experimental: if we change X what happens to Y, causation, random assignment, ethical? generalizable? practical?
Developmental: used to study the effects of time, cross-sectional, longitudinal, retrospective, all correlational, do people differ at different age/stages?
 Self-Report Data-Asked about experiences
-Subjective
-Most frequently used data type
-Many different formats; questionnaires, diaries, interviews 
-personal meaning for participants, inexpensive, easy to obtain
-misinterpretation, bias, recall problems, 
 Couple Report Data-Each person reports on their own behavior and partner's behavior
-often not high agreement
-important to obtain multiple perspectives
 Observational Data-Many different methods: direct, video, audio
-"objective" info
-relies on reports of observers
-can be obtrusive or unoobtrusive
-pros: objective, no self-report bias
-cons: cannot tell what's going on in person's mine, reactivity bias if obtrusive, expensive, may be difficult to code 
 Physiological Measures (data)-Autonomic, biological, neural reactions (heart rate, blood pressure, brain activity)
-impartial, objective, out of our control
-unobtrusive markers of emotional and cognitive states (may be difficult to interpret)
 Archival Data
-Governmental records, marriage licenses, photos, personal documents (diaries), personal ads, yearbooks 
-Can be used for both descriptive and explanatory research 
-Inexpensive but often limited info
 Types of Validity-Construct validity
-External validity
-Internal validity
NEEDS ELABORATION
 Ethical ConsiderationsPositives: makes participants more aware of behavior, more aware of relationship, can improve relationship
Negatives: invades privacy, increases awareness of negatives, behavior could spill over into real life, could come to view research negatively
 How to protect participants wellbeing-Informed consent
-Debriefing
-Research approval from review board (risk: benefit ratio)
-Protect privacy (and misuse of data)
-Share research findings
-Counselling procedures

 Bradbury (1994) effects of research on relationships
-Most participants reported being affected, but most effects were positive 
----Greater awareness and appreciation of their relationship 
-Only 3 – 5% reported negative reactions 
----Learned something upsetting or troubling
 Interpersonal Attraction-A desire to approach or be with someone
-A motivational state in which we are predisposed to think, feel, and behave positively toward another person
-What attracts us to other people? why are we attracted to some people romantically and sexually?
 Reinforcement Theory-we are attracted to those whose presence is rewarding
-What is rewarding?
---personal characteristics
--direct provision of tangible resources
--indirect provision of resources (helps you obtain resources or status)
--Associated with circumstances that are rewarding (classical conditioning)

 What we find rewarding depends on these variables-P Variable: your characteristics as the perceiver
-O variables: potential partner's characteristics
-PxO variables: you and your partner together (unique fit, compatibility) 
-E variables: environment or context
 P (perceiver) variables-How do your own characteristics affect your attraction toward others?
--Personality factors: need for affiliation/intimacy, attachment style/social anxiety
--Social motives(goals/needs): loneliness, desire for partner
--Biology: hormones, age
 Influence of biology on attraction-Women rate men with a masculine face and body more desirable during ovulation
-At other times in the cycle they find baby faces (which signal trust, kindness, more appealing
-Evolutionary explanation: importance of good genes vs. good parenting/partnering
-Haselton study: women rated as more attractively dressed on high fertility days, and they would wear sexier outfits out based on drawings of theoretically what they would wear out
 O (other) Variables (physical)-What makes other people desirable? Are some qualities more attractive overall?
-Physical Attractiveness: strong predictor of initial attraction, puts people in a good mood, attractive people more likely to be hired/earn higher salaries/criminals receive lower fines
--we value it because good looks=good health/genes
--social psych says we believe that attractive people are friendly, successful, happy, healthy, strong (only true in reference to popularity and a better sex/date life)

 Snyder, Tanke & Bershceid (physical attraction manipulation)-Pairs of men and women interact over phone
-Physical attractiveness was manipulated, men were shown a false picture--half of attractive women half of unattractive
-When men thought they were talking to attractive (vs. unattractive women) they behaved in a more friendly, sociable, and skilled manner
 Physical attractiveness in the long run?-Bersheid (1972) yearbook study
-obtained ratings of college yearbook photos, interviewed the then middle-aged graduates
-Those who were more attractive did not have any difference in marital satisfaction, life satisfaction, or overall happiness
-Diener (1995) study, no association between attractiveness and subjective happiness and well-being
 Costs of physical attractiveness-Tend to discount praise, because they're aware of effect of beauty on others (Major 1984)
-Difficult to trust others, may lower confidence
-Negative stereotypes (shallow, vain, stupid) associated with beauty
-may inspire envy and hostility
 O (other) Variables (personality)-Universally valued traits are: considerate, kind, understanding, dependable, loyal, honest, funny, intelligent
-Warmth and competence are major influences on attraction, the most desirable people are high on both, least desirable people are low on both (they're independent variables)
 PxO Variables (Compatibility)-What makes someone compatible/suitable for us?
-Matching hypothesis: we want someone who is "in our league"
-three dimensions of compatibility: warmth/loyalty, status/resources, vitality/attractiveness (three categories exist across gender and culture, but people weight them differently)
-similarity=attraction in any dimension, reassuring, convergence of goals/desires/needs, approval from others, greater acceptance, familiarity (comfort/security)
-no strong evidence that opposites attract (maybe a trade in resources, i.e. beauty for money)
 Matching Hypothesis-We match up with others of comparable social worth
-We want equal assets because it will be a happier and more successful merger (decrease likelihood of rejection)
-Empirical findings support the Matching Hypothesis
-We tend to pair up with people who are similar to us on a variety of dimensions
-We typically use physical appearance as initial filter
-Sometimes trade commodities or social assets
 Reciprocity and Attraction-We like those who like us
-One of the strongest predictors of attraction
-Merely being told someone likes us produces feelings of reciprocal affection
-Potential partner's desirability= His/her physical attractiveness*his/her probability of accepting you
-Exceptions: we do not like ingratiators (people who flatter themselves) and we do not like excessive flattery (decreases attraction)

 Personal Ad Study (Koestner & Wheeler)
-PxO variables
-Men seek physical attractiveness, offered by women
-Women seek economic status, offered by men
-Gender differences due to evolutionary pressures and cultural standards
-evolutionary: men maximize reproductive success by mating(beauty=health/youth/fertility), women maximize by parenting(status=care for child)
-cultural standards: men control more of the resources, women forced to barter to share in resources

 Traits men and women both seek-Men and women more similar than different
-both prefer kind and intelligent over looks or money, top "10" traits are almost identical
-both seek closeness, both happier and healthier in close relationship, both cite close relationships as most important to life satisfaction, both suffer when lonely, rejected, grieving
 E (Environmental) Variables-Proximity: amount of contact one of the most powerful predictors, attraction grows out of daily interactions with those around us, familiarity promotes liking
---Moreland & Beach "Mere Exposure" Effect, confederate attended 0,5, 10, 15 classes, more attendance=greater liking
-Classic Study: Festinger, Schachter, & Black (1950), studied friendship patterns, pairs assigned randomly to student housing, distance between apartments was strongest predictor of friendship
-Familiarity: we like those who are familiar with frequent contact 
 Why does familiarity=attraction?-Evolutionary explanation: familiarity signals safety (novelty/uncertainty is scary; children's fear of strangers)
-Familiar stimuli are processed more "fluently" (with ease) and perceptual fluency is experience positively
-Classical conditioning: most interaction is positive, so familiar others are paired with positive affect
-Creates opportunities for interaction, mutual self-disclosure, intimacy, closeness, understanding
 Reis, Maniaci, Caparariello, Eastwick, & Finkel (E variables)-Study 1: Same sex pairs discussed 2 or 6 items on a closeness task
--if you could change anything that happened to you in high school, what would that be?
--Results: more liking in the 6-item than 2-item condition
-Study 2: Sam sex pairs had online chat 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 times
---No restrictions on content, chat needs to last 15 minutes, they were coded for self-disclosure & knowledge, measured liking
-Results:increased chats/knowledge/responsiveness increased liking
-But if interactions were negative, increased interaction decreases liking
 Physical Environment can affect attraction-We see others as less attractive in
--hot, humid rooms, 
--unpleasant music
--distressing event (sad movie)
--bad news
-physiological arousal: increases attraction to (attractive) others
 Mysteries of Attraction-Much is outside of our awareness (non-conscious)
-Large element of chance
-What gets us together might not keep us together
--initial attractions vs. relationship formation vs. relationship maintenance
 What is love?Love is multi-dimensional
-an emotional state: longing, adoration, lust, giddy, passion, caring
-an attitude: idealization of other, positive evaluations, liking, respect
-a set of behaviors: verbal signals, physical affection, self-disclosure
-an experience
--falling in love
--unrequited love
--love at first sight
 Types of Love-Passionate Love: state of intense longing for union with another, intensely emotional, but emotions can be mixed, intense by short-lived, declines over time
---positive: elation, desire, ecstasy, negative: pain, jealousy, anxiety
---fueled by fantasy, novelty, arousal
-Companionate Love: the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined, comfortable affectionate love, based on friendship and companionship
----I like my spouse as a person
 Features of Passionate love-partner preoccupies thoughts, idealize partner (see only +), intense desire to know partner
-strong physical/sexual attraction, negative feelings when things go wrong, longing for the other when apart, physiological arousal
-maintain proximity (touchiness & closeness), study other person to determine feelings (uncertainty)
-"falling in love" or "being in love"
-passionate love is universal, but not the basis for marriage in all cultures
-physiological arousal+belief partner causes the arousal
 Dutton & Aron (1974) bridge study-Men crossed a safe or scary bridge
-Approached by attractive experimenter and asked to complete a questionnaire packet (projective test TAT, coded for sexual imagery)
-Here is my number if you want to call and get the results of the study
-Those on the scary bridge thought the picture was sexual, and more of them phoned
-excitation transfer (misattribution of arousal) swinging on a bridge, running, listening to a comedian can produce this effect
-arousal can increase OR decrease attraction
 Can passionate love endure? (Acevedo & Aron 2009)Yes
-Need to separate "romantic love" from "obsession"
-"Obsession" tends to decline
-But, for many couples, romantic love (with intensity, engagement, and sexual interest) does endure 
-keep passion alive by recapturing novelty and arousal by sharing new, exciting, self-expanding activities together
 Companionate Love-the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined, comfortable affectionate love, based on friendship and companionship
-practical type of love, emphasizes trust, caring, & tolerance of flaws
-emotional tone is moderate, warmth & affection (less extreme passions), feeling of comfortable attachment, sense of belonging
-shared activities, companionship, emotional disclosure; intimacy
-universal, tends to go stronger over time, associated with marital satisfaction, keeps couples together
 Triangular Theory of Love-Sternberg (1988); two types not fully adequate
-Different types of love formed from 3 core components--passion, intimacy, commitment
-8 different forms based on the 3 components, conceptualized in terms of a triangle
-passion: drive leading to romance and physical attraction, longing
-intimacy: feelings of closeness, warmth, understanding, connectedness
-commitment: long term intention to stay
 Triangular love throughout a relationship-People love differently in different relationships
-Levels of each component may change over the course of a single relationship
--on average intimacy increases, passion decreases
--you may go through a rough patch when all you have is commitment holding you together
-Levels may differ for different partners
-Each partner has his/her own "love triangle"
--mismatches can lead to relationship tensions
 Biology of Love-Helen Fisher (1998): 3 discrete, interrelated emotion-motivation systems
-lust: reproduction; estrogens and androgens
-attraction: reward systems; dopamine, norepinephrine, & serotonin
-attachment: pair bonding, caregiving; oxytocin vasopressin
-the different neural systems often work together, but can also be independent
-romantic attraction (passionate love) may wane while attachment (companionate love) grows stronger
 Backdrop for Attachment theory-John Bowlby (British psychiatrist) asked to study orphaned and homeless children (was a major concern in post WWII Europe)
-Primate researchers also studying the effects of maternal deprivation on monkeys (Harry Harlow)
-Maternal separation associated with poor outcomes (physical and developmental delays, inability to form relationships, health problems, general "failure to thrive"
-Remarkable similarity between human and primate infants--lead Bowlby to develop Attachment Theory
 Harry Harlow: The Nature of Love-Monkey experiment
-Monkey infants separated from real mother and given a wire mother who provides food, and a cloth mother
-Monkey spends most of time cuddling the cloth mother and only goes to the wire mother to eat, then returns to cloth mother
-We prefer the comfort
 Goals of Attachment Theory-Normative processes: to describe and explain how and why infants become emotionally attached to a primary caregiver--survival, all individuals equipped with attachment behavioral system (i.e. crying, clinging, smiling) that function to achieve a set goal of proximity to primary caregiver, promotes security and survival--later changes to psychological proximity
-Individual differences: to understand the impact of this relationship on the child's developing personality and social functioning
-Originally developed to explain parent-child bonds, but assumed to explain attachment processes across the lfiespan
 Four components of attachment bonds-Proximity-Seeking: desire to be in presence of caregiver
-Separation Protest: distress when separated
-Safe Haven: seek out caregiver when distressed
-Secure Base: when confident of caregiver's availability, infant explores and masters the environment--when caregiver is unavailable or unresponsive, exploration is impaired infant attempts to regain proximity
 The Strange Situation-Developed by Mary Ainsworth; lab procedure designed to elicit attachment behaviors
-Novel lab with toys and strangers, puts infant through a serious of separation and reunion episodes (typically around age 1)
-Every infant becomes attached; but different patterns of caregiving are associated with different patterns of infant behavior
-Ainsworth was first to identify secure and various forms of insecure attachment in infants
 Caregiving Behavioral System-Innate and universal
-Set of behaviors (e.g. monitoring, retrieving, nurturing) that function to achieve a set goal=proximity to child, safety of child
-Promotes child's security and survival by maintaining parent's proximity to their vulnerable infant/child
-Mobilizes/motivates parents to respond to child's needs
 Attachment Theory: Individual Differences-Relationship between parent and child is a "goal-corrected partnership"
-Quality of parent-child relationship has profound impact on personality development
-We learn what to expect from others
-We reach important conclusions about ourselves
-Children develop working models (mental models) of self and others, contains conscious and non-conscious elements, central parts of personality, carried on to new relationships, shape affect and cognition, regulates attachment behavior in adulthood
 Three types of attachment-Secure (60%): upset but easily comforted; explores-responsive moms, associated with better health, emotional well-being, and social functioning
-Anxious/Ambivalent (20%): difficult to sooth; limited exploration-inconsistent moms
-Avoidant (20%): little contact with mother; explores-relatively rejecting moms
 Attachment Theory in Adulthood (does it carry on?)-Bowlby suggested that attachment processes occur from 'the cradle to grave"
-Need for felt security is fundamental for adults as well as children
-Adults are most likely to thrive when they have responsive attachment figures
-As we develop attachment transfers from parents to peers in stages, (seek proximity, comfort, safety, and protest separation from peers)
-Parents remain "attachment figures in reserve" throughout adolescence and early adulthood
 Hazan & Shaver (1987) attachment in adulthood-Romantic love is an attachment process
-Romantic relationships are the prototypical attachment bond in adulthood
-Normative processes: adult love relationships share the same four features of attachment bonds
-Individual differences: adults differ in their style of attachment, their tendency to be secure/insecure
-Romantic love consists of three behavioral systems; attachment, caregiving, sexuality
 Similarities/Differences in infant and adult love relationships-Similarities: 
  • proximity seeking, 
  • separation protest, 
  • safe haven,
  • secure base
-Differences: 
  • mutuality (care seeking + care giving; equal status & power)
  • psychological not just physical proximity
  • Integration of sexualit
 Attachment System activation in adult hood-When stressed or threatened
  • Mikulincer 2002: attachment themes/names of attachment figures are automatically activated in memory when primed with threat words 
  • Coan et al 2006: brain imaging study--electric shock while alone vs. holding husband's hand vs. holding strangers hand, lower activation of threat related brain regions when holding husband's hand
  • Eisenberger 2009: pain study--can a photo of a partner relieve threat; lower pain ratings when viewing photo
 Kane, McCall, Collins & Blascovich 2011, Virtual Reality Study-Walk across a dangerous cliff in a virtual reality
-independent variable: manipulated partner presence and responsiveness, either alone, with an unresponsive partner, or with a responsive partner
-dependent variables: stress, comfort, security, behavioral vigilance, physical proximity/distancing
-task perceived as less stressful/more safe/secure when with a responsive partner, people were more vigilant (visual checking) of unresponsive partner, and kept a greater physical distance from unresponsive partner
 Characteristics of secure attachment in adults/children-Still 60% of the population
-1. Children: able to separate from parent, Adult: have trusting lasting relationships
-2. Children: seek comfort from parents when frightened, Adult: tend to have good self-esteem
-3. Children: return of parents is met with positive emotions, Adult: comfortable sharing feelings with friends and partners
-4. Children: prefers parents to strangers, Adult: Seek out social support
 Characteristics of anxious/ambivalent: childhood and adulthood-Still 20% of the population
-1. Children: may be wary of strangers, Adults: want to get close but worry about being hurt
-2. Children: become greatly distressed when parent leaves, Adults: worry that their partner does not love them
-3. Children: Do not appear to be comforted by the return of the parent, Adults: become very distraught when a relationship ends (tend to stay in bad relationships)
 Characteristics of Avoidant attachment-1. Children: may avoid parents, Adults: may have problems with intimacy
-2. Children: does not seek much comfort or contact from parents, Adults: invest little emotion in social and romantic relationships
-3. Children: Shows little or no preference between parent and stranger, Adult: Unable or unwilling to share thoughts and feelings with others
-relationships of shorter duration, less distraught when they end
 Dimensions of Adult Attachment-Categorical measures of attachment style have been replaced by continuous measures
-Anxiety: concerns about being rejected, abandoned, unworthy, unloved
-Avoidance: avoid (vs. approach), intimacy, trust, and interdependence 
-Bartholomew's model four possible combos; lowlow (secure), lowhigh (dismissing), highlow (preoccupied), highigh (fearful)
 Problem/Issues to Think About-Is attachment style a personality or a relationship variable?
-Is attachment style "causing" relationship quality, or is it the other way around? (limitations of correlational data)
-Limitations of self report data?
-Stability of styles over time, over relationships? (can we become more secure? can we change our working models?)
 Social Exchange Theory-Sociologist George Homans (1961, 1974)
-Rules that determine how benefits are given and received in relationships (of all kinds)
-Economic model of human behavior: social interactions are a process of exchange, keep track of rewards and costs, we are attracted to partners who provide most rewards, people are motivated to maximize profits (obtain greatest rewards for smallest cost)
-Behavior guided by norm of reciprocity=to receive we must also give
-Accounting keeping track of rewards and costs, then determining profit
 What are rewards and costs in relationships?-Reward=any positive consequence; anything of value that you gain; anything desirable and welcome (ex: love, laughter, sex, money)
-Cost=Any negative consequence or loss; anything undesirable and unwelcome (ex: stress, compromise, effort, loss of esteem, money)
-Can be tangible or psychological/emotional
-In the "eye of the beholder" no agreed upon price tag
 White (1983) social exchange and happiness-Couples who are happy spend more time interacting
-Happiness-->frequency of interaction
-Frequency of interaction-->Happiness (this effect isn't as strong)

 Factors that effect value of rewards and costs-Principle of scarcity: scarce resources will be valued more (i.e. men in a retirement community, or a friend when you're lonely)
-Principle of satiation: value of repeated rewards will decrease (i.e. first kiss valued much more than 100th one)
-Principle of fatigue: value of repeated costs will increase (i.e. first favor is not too bad, but 10th favor gets on your nerves)
 Profit vs. Satisfaction-Outcome (Profit)=Rewards-Costs
-Profit and satisfaction are not exactly the same thing, people don't just want profit they want the best possible outcome to reach satisfaction
 Interdependence TheoryWe seek interactions with others that provide maximum reward at minimum cost, and we only stay with those partners who provide a sufficient profit
-Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, Kelley 1979
 Comparison Level-A way of evaluating outcome
-What we expect and feel we deserve from our relationships
-Standard against which we judge our happiness or satisfaction
-Satisfaction=Outcome-CL
-Based on prior experience, learning, personality, 
-People with High CLs expect relationships to be rewarding, low reward unacceptable, disappointing
-People with Low CLs expect relationships to be troublesome, low rewards are acceptable, tolerable 
 Comparison Level for Alternatives-What we realistically expect we could get in another relationship or situation, other alternatives currently available
-Includes other partners or no partner (being single)
-CLalt is the standard against which we decide to stay or leave
-Dependence=Outcome -CLalt
 Dependence-Degree to which we are psychologically linked to our relationship
-Determines whether we are motivated to stay or leave
--Low CLalt=more dependent
--High CLalt=less dependent
-Implies that dependence (motivation to stay) is not based solely on whether or not we are happy, and not based solely on CLalt
 Cl, CLalt, your outcome and your relationship-If your outcome is above your CL and CLalt you're happy and stable
-If your outcome is lower than your CL but above your CLalt you're unhappy and stable
-If your outcome is lower than your CLalt but above your CL then you're happy but unstable
-If you're outcome is below your CL and CLalt you are unhappy and unstable
 Equity theory-People are more satisfied in relationships in which there is proportional justice; which means that each partner gains benefits from the relationship that are proportional to his or her contributions to it; fairness

-Equitable when your outcomes/your contributions=your partners outcomes/your partner’s contribution, equal when rewards are equal

-Doesn’t require two partners to gain equal rewards from their interaction, fair one when contributing more receives more benefits

-We want fair distribution of rewards and costs, and are most comfortable when we get what we deserve

 Equality Rule-Partners should obtain equal rewards from the relationship
-P1 Rewards= P2 rewards
 Equity Rule-Ratio of rewards/costs should be proportional
-P1 Rewards/P1 Costs= P2 Rewards/P2 Costs
-Our "profits" should be equal
-Partners should get as much as they give, if you give less you should get less
-The more equitable the more satisfaction, intimacy, commitment, greater stability, less infidelity
-Under and Over benefit are both distressed (under-benefit is worse)
 Three ways to restore equity-1. Restore actual equity: alter inputs or outputs for self or partner, 
  • reduce own inputs, demand more outputs from partner
-2. Restore psychological equity: Alter your subjective perceptions
  • believe partner deserves more
  • change your CL (e.g. downward social comparison)
-3. Exit relationship
  • Distance yourself from partner, have affair, end relationship
 Problems with Equity Theory-Most studies are correlational
-Some find no link between equity and satisfaction
  • positive (concern for fairness) and negative consequences (score-keeping)
-Can score-keeping damage relationships?
-"The key to a successful marriage is to give without measure"-Collins grandpa, 1985
 Communal vs. Exchange Relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979)-Relationships differ in the norms regarding the giving and receiving of benefits
-A benefit is something you give to others
-Two major types of relationships
 Exchange Relationships-Give benefits with the expectation of receiving comparable benefit in return
-Relatively immediate tit-for-tat repayment
-Costs should be offset by compensating rewards; costs-rewards=0
-Strict cost accounting; keep track of inputs/outputs
-Typically reflects relationships with strangers, acquaintances, business partners
 Communal Relationships-Give benefits in response to need with NO expectation of receiving similar benefit in return
-Benefits given in response to needs as they arise
-No strict cost accounting
-Will incur cost without compensation, expectation of mutual responsiveness to each other's needs
-Rewards derived from meeting other's needs
-Immediate tit-for-tat repayment is disliked in communal relationships
-Relationships with family members, friends, romantic partners
-Relationships differ in communal strength
 Measurements of communal strength-Would you give a friend or a neighbor $5? $10? $50?
-How far would you go to visit them?
-Greater communal strength means greater motivation to respond to other's needs, other's needs take priority, willingness to incur greater cost without expecting compensation
-Acquaintance=4.2, Friend=7.2, Romantic Partner=8.1
 Peggy Clark, Judson Mills & Colleagues Research on Communal/Exchange desire-Experimental research (manipulate desire for communal or exchange relationship)
  • Communal: participate with someone, attractive, single, new to the area, and looking to meet someone
  • Exchange: participate with someone attractive, but married or not looking to meet someone
-Non-experimental research:
  • Examine differences in naturally occurring communal (i.e. friends) or exchange (i.e. stranger) relationships
 Clark & Mills (1979) communal vs. exchange-Do you like the person who returns a favor?
  • Manipulated desire for communal relationship
  • Men given opportunity to give letters to female participant for a word task (thank you note=no benefit, thank you note+ 1 point=benefit)
  • In exchange setting they liked those who gave a point more
  • In a communal setting they liked those who did not give the point/benefit more
 Clark, Mills & Powell (1986) keeping track of exchange/communal needs-Do we keep track of the needs of communal partners more than exchange partners?
  • Manipulated desire for communal relationship
  • Participants (men & women) given an opportunity to help other participants on a word task
  • The other person could "drop a note in a box" if they needed help (DV= # of times subject checked the box)
  • Communal checked the box much more than exchange
 When communal relationship is desired...-Liking decreases if other person follows an exchange norm (i.e. repaying a favor)
-Keeps track of other's needs when other is working on a task
-Feel good after helping (and hep more), feel bad when prevented from helping
-Less likely to keep track of inputs on joint task and make less distinctions between own and other's contributions
-More responsive to other's sadness
-Respond more positively to other's expression of emotion
 When exchange relationship desired...-Liking increases when person follows exchange norm
-Expect benefits to be repaid immediately
-More likely to keep track of inputs on a joint task
-Perceive contributions to a joint task as separate
-Monitor other's needs only when opportunity for personal gain
-Experience little boost in mood after helping another 
 Boundary Conditions of Communal Relationships-Benefit won't be given (or accepted) if cost is too high, in this case exchange norms may be followed (i.e. won't give a friend a car but will sell it at a good price, won't accept a car from a friend
-Communal norm is the ideal but not always followed
-We often neglect other's needs or feel neglected
-Individual differences in communal and exchange orientation
 If people are following communal norms, why is equity (sometimes) related to satisfaction?-Following communal norms may result in both increased satisfaction and increased equity
-Satisfaction may lead you to rate relationship favorable on all dimensions
-Dissatisfaction leads us to accounting, start to focus on inputs and outputs 
-Needs not being met--> feelings of inequity
-Equity matters primarily when needs are not being met, it's not the rule when determining if close relationships are satisfying
-Perceived partner responsiveness to needs is more important
 What is commitment?-Tendency to maintain a relationship; to feel psychologically attached to it (Rusbult), intention to continue relationship
-3 Basic Elements: psychological attachment, motivation to stay, long-term orientation
-Degree of dependence on your relationship, willingness to stay for better or worse, typically measured through self-report scales
-A cognitive, emotional, and motivational state that influences wide range of behaviors
-Unhappy people can be committed, feel trapped, happy relationships associate commitment with positive qualities
 Rusbult's Investment Model of CommitmentWhat produces feelings of commitment?
-Satisfaction +
-Alternatives -
-Investments +
 Satisfaction and Commitment-Degree to which relationship fulfills important needs
-Depends on CL
-Strength of forces pulling you toward your partner
-Happy couples are more committed
-ex: My relationship is close to ideal. Our relationship makes me very happy.
 Alternatives and Commitment-Quality/attractiveness of your realistic alternatives
-Strength of forces pulling you away from partner, le
-Depends on CLalt, the degree to which important needs can be met in another relationship or outside of a relationship
-Quality of Alternatives sample: If I weren't dating my partner I would do fine--I would find another appealing person to date. 
-Good alternatives= low dependence, poor alternatives=high depend
-Divorce more probably when women have equal economic/social/legal power
-Happy couples view alts as less attractive
 Investments and Commitment-Things you put into your relationship, or resources attached to your relationship, increase COST of ending a relationship
-People become bound to a relationship when they've invested resources that would be lost, or decline in value, if relationship ended
-Direct Resources: time, emotional energy, personal sacrifices
-Indirect Resources: mutual friends, shared memories, shared activities, possessions, personal identity
-Ex: My relationships with friends and family members would be complicated if my partner and I were to break up
 Other factors that affect commitment-External Pressures: family, friends
-Moral Prescriptions: religious prescriptions, personal moral imperatives like being against divorce
-Social Norms: norms of fidelity
 Narcissism and commitment-Over inflated sense of self worth
-Narcissists are lower in commitment not because they are less satisfied or report fewer investments
-But because they perceive greater alternatives and pay greater attention to these alternatives
-A personality factor in commitment
 Avoidant Attachment Style and Commitment-Avoidant individuals are less committed because they report lower satisfaction and fewer investments
-They also pay more attention to alternatives
-A personality factor in commitment
 Gender and Commitment-There's a cultural stereotype that men fear commitment
-Markman, Stanley Johnson research if this is true
  • Women perceive that men are lower in commitment
  • But men do not report lower levels of commitment
  • Most studies find few gender differences in self-reported commitment

 Gender and Marriage-Young men view marriage as more desirable than young woen
-Men view marriage as coinciding with kids, and are ready later
-Men see cohabiting as a positive alternative to marriage, but they're different, much more responsibility as a husband
-Women don't see their roles in marriage or cohabitation as very different
 Relationship Maintenance Behavior and Commitment
-Motivation to engage in pro-relationship behaviors & cognition 
  • Even when costly or in opposition to immediate self-interest 
-Helps relationships survive 
  • Internal threats (poor partner behavior) 
  • External threats (outside person/circumstances) 

 Relationship Maintenance Mechanisms

Actions to protect, preserve, and enhance a relationship driven by commitment

-1. Accommodative behavior: People refrain from responding to provocation from their partners with similar ire of their own, Swallow insults, don’t fight back, usually good for a relationship, more difficult when you have already been working hard to self-regulate

-2. Willingness to Sacrifice: Sacrifice of self-interests for the good of the relationship, Do things they wouldn’t do if they were on their own

-3. Perceived superiority: Thinking their relationships are better than those of other people

 Interdependence Dilemma-When well-being of one person is incompatible with well-being of the partner or relationship

 Transformation of motivation-Immediate self-interest replaced with motivation to improve welfare of relationship and partner
 Approach/Avoidance motives for sacrifice (Impett, Gable, Peplau 2005)-Types of sacrifice: doing something unwanted vs. giving up something you want
-Study 1: Developed a self-report measure
--Approach: sacrifice in order to increase partner well-being, to increase relationship closeness
--Avoidance: sacrifice in order to avoid conflict, guilt, and sanctions
 Gable Study 2 Approach/AvoidanceDiary Study (14 days)
-Approach motives associated with increases in relationship quality and well-being
-Avoidance motives were negatively associated with personal and relational well-being
-Hope for affiliation (social approach) associated with more approach motives for sacrifice
-Perceptions of partner approach sacrifice associated with increases in positive affect and relationship satisfaction (perceptions of avoidance motives led to opposite)
 Willingness to Forgive and Relationship Maintenance-Forgiveness helps relationships survive threats, but there are limits
-McNulty (2008): forgiveness associated with satisfaction only for those with partners who rarely behave negatively
-McNulty (in press): diary study of newlyweds: transgressions increased on days following forgiveness
 "Doormat Effect" Luchies, Finkel, McNulty & Kumashiro (2010)Effects of forgiveness on self-respect and esteem
-Can I trust this person, will I be safe and valued in the future?
-Does the transgressor make amends?
  • apologize, admit mistake, show regret, make up for it
-Four studies (longitudinal & experimental)
 Hypothetical Scenarios in Forgiveness-Imagine partner betrayed your trust
-Manipulated forgiveness
-Manipulated amends
-Measured self-respect and self-concept clarity
-Results: Forgiveness without amends reduces self-respect and self-concept clarity
 Protective Cognitive Biases-Protecting relationship from external threats
-Commitment predicts protective cognitive biases
  • Derogation of alternatives: downplay alt partners, pay less attention to alternatives
  • Adaptive social comparisons: make downward social comparisons
  • Protective social construal: perceived superiority over other relationships, positive illusions
 Linardatos & Lydon Will relationship threat motivate people to avoid attending to attractive alternatives?-Measured an important correlate/component of commitment:
  • Relationship identification: degree to which relationship is an important part of the self
-People in relationships shown either control photos (averagely attractive) or threat photos (highly attractive)
-DV: attentional adhesion: time it takes subjects to look away 
-No difference in the control photo between high ID and low ID
-Big difference in threat photo, people with high relationship ID looked away much faster than those with low relationship ID

 Six Defining Characteristics of Intimacy-Knowledge: people reveal history/fear/emotions to those they're intimate with
-Caring: people care about those they are intimate with
-Interdependence: the extent to which they need and influence each other is often strong diverse, and enduring
-Mutuality: recognize the overlap between their lives, think as "us"
-Trust: the expectation that an intimate partner will treat one fairly and honorably, and no harm will come to oneself
-Commitment: expect their partnerships to continue indefinitely and they invest time and effort and resources into the relationship
 Need to Belong-Humans have a need to belong in close relationships, "regular social contact" with those to whom one feels connected
-When need to belong is satiated our drive to form additional relationships is reduced
-Proof in the fact we make relationships easy and are reluctant to see them end
-Health concerns to having few intimate relationships, higher mortality rate weaker immune system
-Cohabitation increases chance for divorce
 Sex RatioThe ratio of men to women in a culture
-When there is a high sex ratio there are more traditional roles for women in society 1950s
-When there is a low sex ratio times are more scandalous 1920s
 Androgyny-Traits where people possess both sets of male and female traits
-Instrumental traits: "masculine" task-oriented talents 
--i.e. assertiveness, self-reliance, ambition, decisiveness, leadership
-Expressive traits: "feminine" social and emotional skills
--i.e. warmth, tenderness, compassion, kindness, sensitivity to others
-Androgynous people can effectively stand up for themselves in a heated argument then go home and sensitively comfort a toddler
-Having only one set of traits will lead to unhappiness, both sets are valuable
 Big Five Personality Traits

Open to experience: imaginative, unconventional, and artistic versus conforming, uncreative and stodgy

Extraversion: outgoing, gregarious, assertive, and sociable versus cautious, reclusive, and shy

Conscientiousness: dependable & orderly vs unreliable & careless

Agreeableness: compassionate, cooperative, and trusting versus suspicious, selfish, and hostile

Neuroticism: the degree to which people are prone to high levels of negative emotion such as worry, anxiety, and anger, least important to most, influential in close relationships

 Self-Esteem; Sociometer-Self esteem is our evaluation of ourselves; when we hold favorable judgments of our skill and traits our self-esteem is high; when we doubt ourselves self esteem is low
-Those with high self-esteem are healthier and happier
 Sociometer-Provocative theory that says our self esteem is subjective, measures the quality of our relationships with others
-If others regard us positively--> high esteem, if others regard us negatively--> low esteem
-According to sociometer theory this is due to an evolved mechanism that serves our need to belong
-Very hard to like ourselves when others don't like us
 Hetero vs. Homo couples-Gay couples have more sex than heterosexual couples who have more sex than lesbian couples
--differences due to sex differences, not sexual orientation
-Homo have better relationships that heterosexual couples
-Intimacy is very similar in same sex couples and heterosexual couples
 Evolutionary Psych-Sexual selection: made us the species we are today, advantages that result in greater success at reproduction, reproduction is more important than survival of the fittest
-Men & women differ only in the extent that they have historically faced different reproductive dilemmas, men vs. women sex w/100 ppl
-Cultural influences determine whether evolved patterns of behavior are adaptive
 Parental Investment-Women are obligated to be invested, may be due to evolution because they have to go through a much more strenuous process
-Women more selective of mates so make sure they reproduce more successfully
-Women also have more parental certainty

 SinglismStigmatism and discrimination against unwed adults 
 Waist to Hips Ratio (WHR)-Women are attractive men waist is noticeably narrower than hips
-Desirable ratio is .7 where waist is 30% smaller than hips
-Waist to Bust is .75, large breasts not desirable on stocky body
-WHR for men would be a .9
 8 possible types of love from Triangular Theory

Nonlove: all traits are absent, you are acquaintances

Liking: intimacy high, commitment low; impassionate friendship

Infatuation: high passion, no intimacy, no commitment; aroused by someone you barely know

Empty love: commitment, no intimacy or passion; 

Romantic Love: high intimacy and passion; commitment not a defining characteristic; a combo of liking and infatuation

Companionate love: intimacy and commitment; 

Fatuous love: passion and commitment without intimacy; 

Consummate Love: intimacy, passion, and commitment all in a one 

 Unrequited Love-Happens to men more than women
-Befalls people with a preoccupied attachment style rather than secure or avoidant
-Would-be lovers experience real thrill, elation, and excitement of being in love, but it's also frustrating
-Worse to be the target of undesired adoration, they find pursuer's persistence annoying and feel guilty when they turn them down, they suffer as a result of someone else's emotions
 Lee's Love Styles

Eros: erotic; strong physical component and likely to be heavily influenced by physical appearance and to believe in love at first sight

Ludus: treats love as an uncommitted game, often fickle and (try to) have several partners at once

Storge: leads people to de-emphasize strong emotion and seek genuine friendships that gradually lead to real commitment

Mania: demanding, possessive, full of vivid fantasy and obsession

Agape: giving, altruistic, selfless, and treats love as a duty

Pragma: practical and pragmatic; dispassionately seek partners who will logically be a good match for them

o

Men have more ludus, women more storgic and pragmatic

 Attraction and Meaning in Life--Stillman-Strong sense of meaning in life correlates to being more appealing social interactants, magnetic personality
-Study 1: independent observers watched participants interact with a friend for 5 minutes and rate how appealing participants were as social interactants, those with strong sense of meaning in life were more attractive, unless they were already very physically attractive implying their may be a ceiling affect (MLQ assessed life meaning)
-Study 2: participants made a 10 second intro video, those with stronger sense of meaning in life were more attractive
-controlled for Big 5 emotions 

 Attachment Avoidance--Carvallo & Gabrial-Avoidant individuals are reactive to acceptance cues, despite avoidants' claims to the contrary--self esteem reacts to positive/negative feedback
-Low/high avoidant individuals randomly assigned to interact with a positive or negative research confederate, both groups felt more connected to the positive person but the effect was even stronger for high avoidant individuals
-could be due to feelings of superiority rather than connection
-Confederate reported higher connection to high avoidant in positive than negative state (no difference for low avoidant individuals)
 Sacrifice and Communal Strength Kogan, Impett, Oveis, Hui, Gordon, Keltner-Intrinsic benefits for people highly willing to sacrifice for a romantic relationship---> shows communal strength
-14 day study of 69 couples showed positive correlation between communal strength and positive emotions during sacrifice, feeling appreciated & relationship satisfaction (mediated by authenticity)
-Ruled out effects being due to high communal strength couples making qualitatively different sacrifices or more positive in general
-Authentic sacrifices help people self verify that they are responsive to their partners needs, more communal strength=more authentic in sacrifices
 Gender Differences in Apology-Study 1: participants recorded any offenses they committed, and if they apologized, women apologized more but also reported more offenses, no gender differences in proportion of offenses/apologies
-Study 2: asked participants to evaluate imaginary and recalled offenses, men rated offenses less severe than women, which affected whether they believed an apology was deserved
-Men and women did not vary in sincerity of apologies, both reported more offenses from the transgressor perspective
-Study raises doubts about the claim that men report less offenses because they are reluctant to admit wrong-doings
36, "/var/app/current/tmp/"