PSY 420 exam 2

Sexuality

individual’s behaviors, desires & attitudes regarding sexual intercourse & physical intimacy with others

Sexual orientation

refers to who our sexuality is directed

Kinsey Scale

sexual orientation exists on spectrum & isn’t fixed

• not a perfect indicator

Sociosexuality

degree to which a person is comfortable having sex without love/commitment

Restricted sociosexuality

sex only in commited, affectionate relationship

Unrestricted sociosexuality

don’t need commitment or closeness to have sex

Sociosexuality & gender

more unrestricted

• men

• GNC people of both genders (already more contrarian to societal norms)

Sociosexuality & personality

associated with mroe unrestricted sociosexuality

• higher self-monitoring: more superficial relationships

• psychopathy: less impulse control

• extraversion

• avoidant attachment

• less politically & socially conservative

• less religious

Sociosexuality & culture

• high past pathogen threat → more restricted (esp women)

• greater individualism in nation → more unrestricted

Sociosexuality & self-construal

when primed with independence selfconstrual → more unrestricted

Triangular Theory of Love

1. intimacy: emotional closeness

2. passion: desire for physical closeness

3. commitment

Romantic/Passionate love

high arousal & intense sexual/romantic attraction

• obsessive yearning & fixation with partner

• quick & powerful dopamine hits

• tends to fade over time

Companionate love

mutual trust, caring, respect, friendship, commitment

• less intense, but deeper & more enduring

• self-disclosure, openness, vulnerability

Constructivism

we actively construe/create much of our experience

Bottom-up processing

• perceptions guided by stimuli

• input comes directly from outside

Top-down processing

perceptions guided by perceiver

• knowledge

• motivations

• emotions

existing mental reps shape how we see the world

Attributions

explanation of why someone did something

• emphasize role of some influences

• minimize role of others

Internal attribution

related to a person e.g. personality, mood

External attribution

describing situation the person faced

Stable attribution

lasting e.g. personality

Unstable attribution

temporary e.g. mood

Global attribution

affecting many situations

Specific attribution

affecting only a few situations

Relationship-enhancing attributions

• internal

• stable

• global

Distress-maintaining attributions

• external

• unstable

• specific

Verification model

seek info that confirms our own self-perceptions

• even if negative, want partners that see us as we see ourselves

What low self-esteem people look for

• automatically want someone to see them positively

• with time to process, they say negative

• positive feedback doesn’t feel belieable as it violates their self-beliefs

How to help people with low self-esteem

• repeat positive affirmations

• verify self-views before praise

• make feedback more grounded, objective, believable

Positive illusions model

on average, want to see partners & relationships in the most positive light possible

• not totally illusory - based on kernel of truth

• not entirely/unrealistically inflated

• tested in terms of how much overlap partners agree on

Examples of Positive Illusions

• seeing partner in terms of ideal partner

• egocentrism on valued traits

• exaggerated opitimism, efficacy

• relationship-enhancing attributions

• superiority of relationship

• finding redeeming features in partner’s faults

Self-fulfilling prophecies

false predications that become true because they lead people to behave in ways that make erroneous expectations come true

Trust

reasonable expectation/confidence that other person will behave in way beneficial to self

• willingness to be vulnerable to actions of other party

Positive illusions & trust

• perceive partner values me → less risk associated with trust

• perceive partner is good → more likely to believe they will be able to act in my best interest

• partners who view each other positively are more likely to act in others’ interest

Conflict

when motives/goals/beliefs/opinions/behavior are perceived to interfere with those of another

Common topic arguments in reltaionships

• finances & equity

• affection & sex

• day-to-day & household tasks

deeper concerns about identity & relationship simmer underneath

Why close relationships are ripe for conflict

• greater interdependence: more opportunity for conflict, more at stake

• access to weaponry: partners know more about us

• humans are simultaneously desiring opposing motives: autonomy vs connection, trust vs protect

Autonomy s connection

• individuals want freedome, independence

• evolutionary perspectives & Sociometer theory → individuals depend on one another to survive & need to belong

Trust vs protect

desire to rely on others, but scared of being too reliant & vulnerable

Conflict & conflicting goals

• conflict in relationships inevitable

• constantly faced with situations that juxtapose interests for self & others

• at the heart of it, partner is/will prioritizs own concerns over mine

• signals that trust is risky, protection is necessary

4 horsemen of the apocalypse (Gottman)

predicts 96% of marriage outcomes (focus on initial moments of conflict)

1. criticism

2. defensiveness

3. contempt

4. stone-wallng

result in partner becoming self-protective over own needs

Criticism (4 horsemen)

verbal/non-verbal acts perceived as demeaning/derogatory

• global fault: you’re always like this

• different from complaint which is specific

• sets negative, hostile tone for rest of conflict

Defensiveness (4 horsemen)

protect self from perceived attack

Contempt (4 horsemen)

disrespect put down of partner

Stone-walling (4 horsemen)

withdrawal from interaction whether partner likes it or not

Intimate partner violence (IPV)

behavior intended to cause physical harm to romantic partner who doesn’t want to be harmed

Intimate Terrorism

using violence to exert control over partner

• preemptive in nature: no indicator necessarily that partner would violate trust

• largely overlapping with characterological violence

• research stems from feminist POV, argues violence is culturally condoned

Behaviors of Intimate Terrorism

• minimizing, denying, blaming

• coercion & threats

• intimidation

• emotional abuse

• isolation

• using chidlren

• economic abuse

Common Couple Violence (CCV)

• largely overlapping wiht situational violence

• violence caused by conflict situations that “get out of hand”

Characteristics of CCV

• as likely to be enacted by women as by men

• occurs approximately once every 2 months

• doesn’t usually escalate over time

• unlike intimate terrorism, it’s not usually related to desire to exert control

Survey measures for IPV

issues with self-reporting

• actual occurence of IPV

• likelihood of IPV

• approval of IPV

Laboratory analogs (IPV)

focus on agression

Ego depletion and IPV

more likely to engage in subtle reactive aggression when depleted

Marginalized relationships

non-traditional, romantic involvements

• marked by experience of social disapproval from others

• most commonly studied are same-sex & interracial

Stereotypes

beliefs about individuals solely due to group membership

Stigma

negative regard, inferior status, & relative powerlessness for those possessing particular characteristic/belong to particular group

Social Identity Theory

people naturally create in-group/out-group catergorizations

• more personal group identities & more arbitrary group identities

Why social Identity Theory

1. groups/collectives are important part of self-concept

2. people are motivated to feel good about themselves

3. people feel better when they belong to groups that are somehow better than others → motivation to better one’s in-group, often at expense of out-group

System Justification Theory

people have motivations to defend societal status quo

• systems have a lot of influence on our lives

• rely on them for resources & safety

• palliative function of believing in systems

• less threatening if higher-order systems “make sense” & can work itself out

What activates system justification

• greater dependency = greater perceived legitimacy

• exposure to threats to order & stability

System Justification Theory & Stigmatized Relationships

when motivated to believe system is fair, people rationalize systemic imbalances

• if system is fair & just

• but this group is treated unfairly

• then this group must deserve it

Evolutionary Theory & Marginalized Relationships

ostracize those seen as threat to individual & community-level fitness

• focus on pathogen/gene contamination threats

• skepticism for those visibly/noticeably different from one’s group

• could signal a threat

Attraction in same-sex

• gays & hets report similar desired attributes in prospective partners

• men more likely to prioritize partner’s physical attractiveness

• women more likely to prioritize personality traits

• sex frequency tends to decline as relationship continues

• gay men relationship had greatest sex frequency + more likely to be non-monogamous

Relationship satisfaction indicators in same-sex

• reports of love & satisfaction across gay, het & lesbian couples are similar

• empirical markers of satisfaction are similar e.g. positive illusions

• rates of breakup and stability among cohabitating couples highly similar across groups

Comms & Conflict in same-sex

• all couples tend to fight about same core issues (equity & fairness)

• more equitable role distribution among same-sex couples

• lesbian couples show highest level of sensitivity, empathy, emo awareness, expressiveness, flexible decision making & effective conflict resolution

Parenthood in same-sex

children outcomes comparable to children with het parents

• psychological adjustment

• physical health

• education outcomes

• family functioning

Self-esteem in relationships

self-evaluations projected onto partners

• assume other see them as they see themselves

• self-esteem → beliefs of partner’s evaluation of self

• if perceive that partner does not value self → question their love & acceptance

• in ambiguous situations, LSE more likely to perceive rejection & have more severe reaction

Conflict & SE

LSE & high in attachment anxiety

• more negative emotions

• less accomodation during conflict discussion

• difficulty recovering from conflict

Relationship threat situations

doubts about relationship lasting/partner being responsive

How to respond to relationship threat?

• often determined by self-esteem

• risk vs reward

• situation perceived as riskier for LSEs

• self-protection vs trust/connection

Motivational principle

people seek to expand their potential efficiency (basic human motive)

Inclusion-of-other-in-self principle

one way people seek self-expansion is thorugh close relationships

• resources, perspectives & identities are experienced as one’s own

Self-expansion

including others in self

• self-concept: traits, roles, activities etc.

• aspects of partner included in self-concept

Self-expansion in established relationships

• most learning & growing together early on in relationship

• can occur from initial meeting to years into relationship

• partner support for individual self-expansion

• shared, novel, challenging activities

• greater increase in satisfaction & love → more productive communication

Breaking up (self-expansion)

• low self-expansion → relationship dissolution

• aspects of former partner may be removed from self-concept but not always

• depends on investment in activity & valence of aspect

Social Safety System

humans need to feel safe, secure, & like the world “makes sense”

• fundamental psychological need/goal underlying human behavior

• similar to psychological needs like hunger & thirst

• multiple ways to attain, incl. close relationships

Social Safety System & relationship

when outside world feels unsafe, unpredictable & meaningless, people defensively enhance perceptions fo relationship

• grappling with meaninglessness

• feeling public is untrustworthy/disagree with you

• strongest increases in commitment for those low in satisfaction: become motivated to see thier partner in this way

• instability in relationship → more positive feelings toward political & social figures

Jealousy

aversive emotional state that occurs when people face potential loss of valued relationship to real/imagined rival(s)

Suspicious Jealousy

when partner hasn’t misbehaved, & one’s suspicions don’t fit facts

• mistrust & snooping

• people vary in this jealousy in absence of any real threat

Reactive Jealousy

response to actual threat to valued relationship

• can occur with phsyical acts with another/flirting/fantasies of being with another

• some justification for jealousy

Evolutionary approach to jealousy

• evolved to ensure reproductive success

• motivates fending off interlopers who take resources

Paternal uncertainty (jealousy)

men are less certain about if offspring is really theirs

• must avoid being “cuckolded”

• sensitive to sexual infidelity

• but also more likely to commit (gap closing over time)

Differential investment (jealousy)

women must avoid abandonment/losing resources

• sensitive to threats of loss of investmetn from mate → emotional infidelity

Double-shot hypothesis (jealousy)

when beleive that emotional infidelity = sexual (but not vice versa), report that emotional infidelity is more distressing

• women more likely to hold htis belief, but men can also believe

• this belief is stronger indicator than one’s biological sex

Visualizing (jealousy)

• men more likely to visualize sexual acts, hence rate more negatively

• women show similar pattern as men when primed to visualize partner cheating

Distinct reactions (jealousy)

• men: anger & violence

• women: sadness & seek out support

PAIR project

13 year longitudinal study that started within 2 months of wedding day

• attitudes about closeness & attachment

• beliefs about partner’s personality

• affectionate expression & negativity

major outcome: marital satisfaction & stability

Disillusionment model

• start relationship with unrealistically positive expectations

• as time goes on, partner’s faults surface

• best predict divorce for couples of >7 years

Emergent distress model

• problematice behavior emerges after couple has married

• often stems from relationship stressors & external pressures

• marriages headed for divorce no different from successful ones at the start

• might work in tandem with disillusionment

Enduring dynamics model

• problems & incompatibilities from courtship carry over into marriage

• marriages headed for divorce weaker at the start

• best predictor for short marriages (2-7 years)

• predicts unhappiness over time

Consequences for divorced individuals

• greater psyschological distress & mental health problems

• more health problems & higher mortality

• more economic & other practical challenges

• 6 years after divorce, most remarry & look back on divorce as good thing

Gender differences on divorce

• men more vulnerable to psychological consequences, higher mortality

• women more financial & practical challenges

Better coping after divorce

• attachment security

• forgiveness of partner

• emotional regulation skill

Romantic Rivals (RRJ)

• usually opposite sex

• perceived as romantic threat

Partner Friend (RFJ)

• usually same-sex

• not usually a romantic threat, but feels like threat to importance to partner

Similarities in romance and friendship

• close

• voluntary

• non-family

• emotional closeness

Differences between Friendship & Romance

• interdependence

• commitment

• selectively

Interdependence & Commitment

• friendships: less interdependent

• romantic relationships: exclusivity, legal contracts, sex

Selectivity with friends

less selective, less emphasis on

• status

• intelligence

• phsyical attractiveness

• agreeable, engaging personality

Friends with Benefits

distinguished from other casual sexual relationships & experiences (CSREs) in frequency & intimacy

Misalignment of intentional attachment (FWB)

degree of focus on friends vs benefits

• sex is the most reported primary motivator

• men more likely to focus on benefits

• women more likely to focus on friends