1/27
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
Relationships
initimate or close relationships include family, roommates, friends, mentor, etc.
Culture plays a role
Affiliation
Our need to make contact and maintain our relationships with others motivates us to establish a sense of belonging
Universalism
Certain absolutes apply across the board, regardless of circumstances or situation
Try to apply the same rules to everyone in like situations
To be fair is to treat everyone alike and not make expectations
Particularism
how you behave in a given situation depends on the circumstances
You treat family, friends, the best you can, let the rest of the world take care of itself
Everything depends on whom you’re dealing with
No one expects life to be fair
Concepts of power
consider how cultures deal with people’s different level of status, access to power
Manifests especially in workplace relations, particularly in the role and relationship of the manager and subordinates
Two sides of the continuum: high power distance, low power distance
High power distance
Inequal in power and status are natural- some have more power and influence others
Those with power tend to emphasize it, hold it close
Distinguish themselves from others as much as possible
Expected to accept the responsibility that goes with power
Low power distance
people in these cultures see inequality in power and status as largely artificial→ not natural though it may be convenient that some people have power over others
Those with power tend to demphasize it
Delegate and share when possible
The source of status
related to power distance in some respects and to the individualism/collectivism dichotomy in others
People come by their status, in their organizations, and in society in general
Fiske and fiske
Came up with the relational models theory
4 relationship types
Communal Sharing
People share responsibility
Ex. Parents with child or pets
Authority ranking relationships
Relationships where there are social rankings
Ex. Boss and employee
Equality matching
All parties viewed as equal
Ex. Ppl all in line together at Starbucks
Market pricing
Relationships where we weigh cost/benefits
Ex. Having to pay for others
Proponquity effect
Tendency to be friends w, date and form committed relationships with others we live near of see regularly
Ex. Roommate
Similarity attractions effect
Tendency to gravitate to people who share interests, attitudes, values, believes with us. Also physical attraction
Matching hypothesis
Predicts we will date and form committed relationships who are similar to us with physical attraction
Culture and friendships in childhood (Chen, 2011)
culture will shape our friendships
For many young western children, friendships provide play and playmates
In other cultures, children spend less time at play bc expected to work and contribute to family
Love
love as emotional component of romantic relationships
Love → multiple meanings
Helps facilitate bonding and pairing in both humans and other animals
Sternbergs triangular theory of love
intimacy
passion
Commitment
Intimacy
Level of closeness and connectedness
Passion
Attraction romance and sexual relation
Commitment
Investment one if willing to make in the relationship
Rothbaum
Critiqued sterns work
Challenges to sternbergs triarchic theory of love
love is incomplete or unfulfilled when commitment is present without passion and intimacy
This would not do justice to a Japanese couples experience
Romanticism and romantic love in India
romantic love and intimacy not as important
Marriages are still arranged
Rise in self reflection, make selection with parents
Romanticism and romantic love in Turkey
viewed as a society in transition
Arranged used to be norm
Parents from each family introduce individual to one another
Love in the US
fear of lack of romance within couples
New, exciting, passion
If you don’t love me, I’m gone
Mate selection openly discussed and talked about
Buss
Research worldwide to explore what is universal