Interpersonal Relationships- PSCH 347

stress

external pressures or demand that originate outside the relationship but affect it indirectly (comes from the environment not the partner)

• ex. work or academic pressure, financial problems, health issues, etc.

strain

refers to the negative impact that stress has on the relationship itself

• how partners experience and respond to stress together, not just the stressor itself

• ex. increased conflict, irritability, or emotional withdrawal, reduced relationship satisfaction

how is stress and strain connected

stress creates strain within the relationships, as increased conflict, irritability, etc.

maximal inclusion

others seek us out and go out of their way to interact with us

• people eager to be with us

• change plans id they are unable to attend as their presence is of the utmost importance

active inclusion

others welcome us but do not seek us out

• get the invite but not neccesarily disappointed if u were unable to attend and would have the party anyway

passive inclusion

others allow us to be included

• no personal invitation but are welcome to join - free to join only if theres room

• not disliked, but also not high priority

ambivalencce

others do not care whether we are included or not

• show up or not doesn’t matter, non-commital

passive exclusion

others ignore us but do not avoid us

• ignored and wish that we were elsewhere but not avoided

active exclusion

others avoid us, tolerating our presence only when necessary

• people actively avoid u

maximal exclusion

others banish us, sending us away, or abandon us

• would tell us to leave the party

degree of acceptance and rejection

it exists on a continuum, ranging from strong acceptance (feeling included) through conditional or ambiguous acceptance to active rejection and ostracism (complete exclusion)

• self esteem function as an internal gauge that monitors these levels of acceptance rising with inclusion and falling when rejection is perceived

relational value

the degree to which a person believes they are valued, accepted, and wanted by others

• monitored through scoial cues, and reflected in self-esteem which functions as a soicometer signaling acceptance or potential rejection

acceptance

• boosts mood and self-esteem

• leads to positive emotions such as happiness, security; and increased self-esteem

rejection

• causes emotioanl pain because it threatens belonging

• leads to emotional distress, including hurt feeligs, sadness, anger, and anxiety

relational devaluation

apperent decreases in others’ regard for us

• causes variety of unhappy emotion

• hurt feelings feel like physical pain

attachment styles: high anxiety →

experience more hurt

• their nervous dread that others dont love them, magnifies the hurt they feel

attachment styles: high avoidance→

experince less pain

• exclusion hurts less when u dont want others to be close to begin with

low self esteem→

hurt more easily

• self esteem a great predictor for how people respond to experience of rejection

ostracism

a specific form of rejecting in which people are given the ‘cold shoulder’ and ignored by those around them

• justify their actions as an effective way to punish their partner, to avoid confrontation, or to calm down a following conflict

what social needs does ostracism threaten

• need to belong

• feelings of self worth

• our perceived control (over our own actions)

reactions of ostracism

• blunted feelings (make dumb, self defeating choices)

• poor perception of the passage of time (people who feel accepted by others have a more accurate estimate of time elapsed)

• entering a lethargic state of mind in which rational planning and complex though is reduced

jealousy

a negative emotional experience that results from the potential loss of a valued relationship to a real or imagined rival

• defined by hurt, anger, and fear

  • hurt comes form the pow that partners do not value us enough to humour their commitments to our relationships

  • fear and anxiety result from dreadful prospect of abandonment and loss

reactive jealousy

the emotional response that occurs when a person reacts to a real or confirmed threat to their relationship, such as a partner flirting with or becoming emotionally or sexually involved with someone else.

• can range form mildly overactive imagination to outirght paranoia

whos prone to jealousy

• dependence on a relationship: a low CL alt→ perceive any threat as especially menacing

• feelings of inadequcy in a relationship: high→ high jealousy

• discrepancy in mate value → less desirable partner is likely to be aware that others could be a better match for their lover

who makes us jealous

• men rend to be more jealous of men who are self confidnt, dominant, assertive, and rich than rivals who are simply handsome

• women tend to be more jealous of other women who are pretty than they are of rivals who are dominant and wealthy

*for women the threatening comparison is physical attractiveness and for men its dominance

evolutionary perspectives on jealousy

• it evolved to motivate behaviour designed to protect our close relationships from the interference of others

• men and women should be especially sensitive to different sorts of infidelity in their romantic partners

responses to jealosuy

• harmful retaliation → retaliate against partner through violence or verbal antagonism

• attempts to protect, but that ultimately undermines relationship→ spying, restricitng freedom of partner, or threatening rivals

• express concerns and try to wor things out → improve relationship by sending gifts, doing more chores, etc.

Secure or preoccupied attachment style response to jealousy

express concerns and try to repair their relationships

dismissing or fearful attachment style response to jealousy

avoid the issue or deny their distress

• pretned nothing is wrong or act like they dont care

how do men and women react differently to jealousy

Men try to protect their ego whereas women focus on preserving the existing relationship, men consider leaving it to soothe their pride by going after new partners

self reliance

involves efforts to stay cool and avoid feeling angry or embarassed by refusing to dwell on the unfairness of the situation

self-bolstering

giving a boost to one’s self-esteem by doing something nice for oneself anf thinking about ones good qualities

• maintain sense of self confidence about ones ability to survive independently, can keep jealousy at manageable levels

deception

intentional behavior that creates an impression in the recipient that the deceiver knows is false

• occurs regularly even in intimate relationships that are based on openness and trust

lying

people fabricate information and make statements that contradict the truth

• the most straightforward example of deceptive behaviours

deceiver’s distrust

when people lie to others, they often begin to percieve the resipients of the lies as less honest and trustworthy as a result

• liars also likely to think that their lies are more harmless and inoffesnice than the recipients do

some people lie more than others do:

• more gregarious and sociable

• more concerned with the impressions they make on others

• people who have insecure attachment styles

who is more successful at lying

• those with high social skills

• those who are highly motivated→ create scripts that are more convincing; but do a poorer, more suspicious job when delivering the lie

betrayals

disagreeable, harmful actions by people we trusted that violate the expecctations we hold for close confidants

• ex. sexual and emotional infidelity and lying or any behaviour that violates the norms that support intimate relationships

• all inovlve relational devaluation

betrayers

tend to be resentful, vengeful, and suspicious people. They dont trust people much since they may strongly attribute to others the same motives they have in themselves

• underestimate the harm they do

• consider their behaviors as unconventional and blame circumstances to justify their actions

better coping with betrayal when they:

• face up to the betrayal instead of denying it happened

• reinterpret the event in a positive light and use it as an impetus for personal growth

• rely on their friends for support

forgiveness

process in which harmful behaviour is acknowledged and the harmful partner extends undeserved mercy to the one who misbehvaed

• let go of the desire to retaliate, you dont condone or forget the partners behaviour but communicate willingness to exit cyle of abuse

• get past negative feelings, hurt, and anger

what makes people more likely to forgive

• being high in agreeableness (hold wrongdoers responsible for their misbehaviour but without getting angry and hostile)

• self control promotes forgivenss a they are better able to mange their motives and control their impulses and find it easier to set aside a desire for retribution

what makes people less likely to forgive

• anxiety about abandonment and avoidance of intimacy

• high neuroticism and narcissism

important ingredients for forgiveness

• a humble, sincere apology

• empathy on the part of the victim→ people who can take their partners perspectives and imagine why they behaved the way they did are much more likely to forgive

• Forgiveness is less likely when victims brood about their partners’ transgressions and remain preoccupied with the damage done

forgiveness in close relationships

• more likely to occur in close, committed relationships than in those that are less committed

  • empathy occurs more easily, betrayers are more likely to apologize

• usually improves the relationship in which it occurs

  • partners become more repentant, and fosters constructuve and open communication

limits of forgiveness

It cant transform a selfish partner into a worthy one, and no one is suggesitng u to continue to forgive a faithless partner who repeatedly taked advantage

Fotgivenss offered in absence of of genuine contrition maybe perceived to be a licesnse to offend again

Why should they behave better if theyre certian to be ofrgiven no matter what they do

Forgiveness can be detrimental, eroding ur self respect and delaying and resolution to ur problems when ur partner is unrepentant

*forgivenss is good for us and our relationship s when they are worthy of it

the nature of conflict

• occurs when one person’s motives, goals, beliefs, opinions, or behavior interfere with or are incompatible with those of another

• due to dissimilarity

• when ones wished or actions impede those of someone else

autonomy versus connection

people want to freely do what they please and value their independence and autonomy on the other hand they seek warm, close connection to other people that make them dependent

• embracing one may deny the other

• have to balance both → cant maintain independence while also also having high interdependence with a partner

openness versus closedness

Intimacy calls for self-disclosure but people also value their privacy→ fight between transparent authenticity versus discretion and restaint

Stability versus change

People want to maintain and portect their relationship but at the same time they desire novelty and excitement

• Too much stagnant predictability becomes monotonous

• People are attracted to both the familiar and the new

Integration versus separation

Theres dialectic tension between integration with and separation from one’s social network or other people outside of ones partnership

frequency of conflict

varies with the population studied and the way in which conflict is defined and assessed

• Little children and their parents are often at odds

• Adolescents encounter an average of 7 disagreements per day

• Dating couples report 2.3 conflicts per week

• Many conflicts are never addressed

personality differences and conflict

• high in neuroticism→ more conflict

  • more impulsive and irritable, they tend to have more unhappy disagreements with other people than those lower in neuroticism

• high in agreeableness→ less conflict; more constructuve reactions to conflict

  • tend to be good-natured, cooperative, and generally easy to get along with (experiencing fewer conflicts may be due to easily compromising)

attachment style differences and conflict

anxious about abandonment→ perceive more conflict; consider conflict more damaging

• nervously expect the worse and so they beieve there is more conflict in their relationship than their more secure partners do

• they perceive danger and threat where it may not exist

stage of life difference and conflict

conflit with romantic partners increases steadily from late teens to mid 20s, but decreases after that

• Being a young adult means u may experience more conflict with ur partners than u used to — go theough many big life chnages around this time

similarity differences and conflict

the less similiar dating partners are, the more conflict tehy experience

• those who share more similarities with their partners often have less conflicts

• dissimilarity fuels friction

stress differences and conflict

The greater the combined stress two partners have experienced during the day, the more likely they are to encounter conflict that evening (Timmons et al., 2017)

• People who had stressful days tend to be irritable and ill tmepered when they get home

• The more stress each partner had encountered in their days the mor elikely conflict is to occur later on in the evening

sleep differences and conflcit

Partners tend to sleep poorly after they quarrel, and that leaves them grumpy and irritable the next day (El Sheikh et al., 2013)

• Whenever wither of them has slept poorly, romantic ciples encounter more conflicts that day

what are the categories of instigating events

• criticism

• illegitimate demands

• rebuffs

• cumulative annoyances

criticism

Involves verbal or nonverbal acts that are perceived as demeaning or derogatory

• Involves actions that are judged to ocmmunciate unfair dissatisfaction with partners’ behaviour, attitude, or trait

  • Does not matter what the actor intends what matters is that the target interprets the action as unjustly critical

illegitimate demands

Involve requests that seem unjust because they exceed the normal expectations that the partners hold for each other

rebuffs

Involve situations in which one person appeals to another for a desired reaction, and the other person fails to respond as expected

• Ex. someone whose partner rolls ove and goes to sleep after receiving an implicit invite ot have sex is liekly to feel rebuffed

cumulative annoyances

Relatively trivial events that become irritating with repetition

• Social allergies, through repeated exposure to small recurring nuisances, people may develop hyper sensitive reactions of disgust and exasperation that seem out of proportion to any particular provocation

direct tactics

explicitly challenge one’s partner

• Accusations that criticize the partner and attribute negative qualities to them;

• Hostile commands for compliance;

  • Sometimes involves threats of physical or emotional harm

• Antagonistic questions; and

• Surly or sarcastic put-downs

  • May communicate disgust or disapproval including argumentative interruptions and shutting down one’s partner

indirect tactics

Manage the conflict in a less straightforward manner

• displeasure is hidden, ones intentions are lesse xplicit

• Condescension or implied negativity;

• Hint at animosity or arrogance, attmetos to change topics preemptively

• Attempts to change topics preemptively; and

• Evasive remarks

  • That fail to acknowledge partner ot ehe conflict

dysphoric affect

refers to a general state of negative emotions, such as sadness, anxiety, irritability, or emotional discomfort

• affect such as melancholy, dejction, or whining

secure attachment style during conflcit

milder physiologial responses to conflict

• are less angry, calmer, more collaborative, and optimistic when conlits arise

  • They bounce back from conflict and put dissension behind them asnd returto a positive stare of mind more quickly

avoidant attchment style durig conflict

higher levels of hostility

• They are less willing to compromise and are more annoyed by sacrifices made on the partners behalf

anxious attachment style during conflict

increases in heart rate and blood pressure

• May lead to hypertension over time

demand/withdraw pattern

One member (the demander) criticizes, nags, and makes demands of the other, while the other (the withdrawer) avoids confrontation, withdraws, and becomes defensive

• A pattern wherein onepartner engages in demanding forms of behaviour such as complaints, criticisms, and pressures for change while the other partner enagegs in withdrawing behvaiours such as half-hearted involvement, changing th topic, avoiding discussion or even walking away

negotiation

partner announce theri positions and work toward a solution ina sensible manner

direct negotion tactics

• Showing a willingness to deal with the problem by accepting responsibility or by offering concessions or a compromise;

• Exhibiting support for the other’s point of view through paraphrasing;

• Offering self-disclosure with “I-statements”;

• Providing approval and affection

Voice

Behaiving in n active constructive manner by trying to improve the citation by discussion matters with the partner, changing one’s behaviour i effort to solve the problem or by obtaining advice froma friend or therapist

• Communicates interest and concern typically gets a positive response from ones partner

Loyalty

Behaving in a passive but constructive manner by optimistically waiting and hoping for conflict to improve

• Often goes unnoticed and therefore does no good

Exit

Bhvaing in an actively destructive manner by leaving the partner, threatening to end the relationship, or engaging in abusive acts such as yelling or hitting

• usually employed when attractive alternative partners are available → people re more likey to exit a relationship that is struggling than work to sustain it when tempting alternatives exist

Neglect

Behvaing in a pasisve bur destructive manner by avoiding discussion of critical issues and reducing interdependence withthe partner

• Stands aside and lets things get worse

strategies of those with high avoidance of intimacy

more passive and destructive

• sit back and let the relationship deteriorate instead of striving to repair them

startegies of masculine people

they are more likely to engage in destrucitve exit and neglect, than in constructive responses

startegies of people from individualistic cultures

Use more destructive exit or neglect, and less voice and loyalty

• People from individualistic cultures tend to engeg in mor destructive exit and neglect and elss voice and loyalty than people from collectivist cultures do

volatile couples

Have frequent and passionate arguments. They often display high levels of negative affect, but they temper their anger with plenty of wit and evident fondness for each other Have frequent and passionate arguments. They often display high levels of negative affect, but they temper their anger with plenty of wit and evident fondness for each other

validator couples

Fight more politely. They tend to be calmer and behave more like collaborators than like antagonists as they work through their problems

• Disucsisons may become heated but they frequently validate each other by expressing empathy and understanding of the others pointof view

avoider couples

Rarely argue. Avoid confrontation, and if they do discuss their conflicts, they do so mildly and gingerly

• Often try to fix it on their own or wait it out, hoping tht the passage of time will solve the problem

Hostile Couples

Their discussions are sprinkled with too much criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal, and the longer they last, the more oppressive they become. Are simply meaner to each other than other couples are

• Discussions have much criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal

  • The longer they last the more oppressive they become

ways of ending conflict

• separation

• domination

• compromise

• integrative agreements

• structural improvement

Separation

One or both partners withdraw without resolving the conflict

• Offers no real solution to thier problems and may lead to further disord

Domination

One partner gets their way when the other capitulates

• Happens often when their is a power imbalance

  • Aversive for the loser and may breed ill well and resetnment

Compromise

Both parties reduce their aspirations so that a mutually acceptable alternative can be found

• Partners interests are diluted rather thn reconciled. Neither partner gets everything they want but neither goes empty handed wither

Integrative agreements

Satisfy both partners’ original goals and aspirations, usually through creativity and flexibility

• Not easy to reach

  • Invent new ways of attaining their goals that dont impose upon their partner

Structural improvement

The partners not only get what they want, they also learn and grow and make desirable changes to their relationship

• Not frequent, usually occurs as a cause of significant turmoil and upheaval

• Stress and serious conflict that lead them to rethink their habits and muster courage and will to change them

• Each person ill know more about the other than before and attribute more highly valued qualities to the other than before

self control

the extent that u work at remaining optimistic, avoid balming attributions and mastering ur anger, ur more likely to be tolerant, flexible, and creative and agreements are more likely to be reached

Gottman’s list of Dont’s

• Don’t withdraw when your partner raises a concern or complaint. Defensively avoiding a discussion of conflict is obnoxious and it doesn’t fix anything

• Don’t go negative. Stifle your sarcasm, contain your contempt, and discard your disgust

• Don’t get caught in a loop of negative affect reciprocity. Pay attention, and when you realize that you and your partner are hurling stronger and stronger insults and accusations back and forth, stop

speaker listener technique

a communication strategy used during conflict in which one partner speaks while the other listens without interrupting, then paraphrases what was said before responding.

• Reduces defensiveness

• Increases understanding

• Helps manage conflict more constructively

Rules of Speaker-listener technique

• The speaker talks briefly and clearly about their feelings

• The listener does not interrupt or argue

• The listener summarizes/paraphrases to show understanding

• Partners switch roles

why has the divorce rate increased

• we expect more out of marriage

• Working women have more financial freedom and better access to attractive alternatives, and they experience corrosive conflict between work and family

  olding it to higher standards

• Creeping individualism and social mobility leave us less tied to, and less affected by, community norms that discourage divorce

• Lower sex ratios undermine men’s commitment to any one partner

• New laws have made divorce more socially acceptable and easier to obtain

• Casual cohabitation weakens commitment to marriage

• Children of divorce are more likely to divorce when they become adults

• More of us have friends who are divorced

We expect more out of marriage, holding it to higher standards

• Peopela re more likely than before to pursue marriage as a path to a personal fulfillment

• Expectations for marriage is too high

• A happy, warm, rewarding partnership mays till seem insufficient if measured against overlorified and unrealistic expectations

Creeping individualism and social mobility leave us less tied to, and less affected by, community norms that discourage divorce

Womens increased partipation in the workforce has perhaps increased conflict at home , made attractive new romantic partners more available, and decresed wives economic dependence on their husbands

• People are less connected to those around them than they used to be– participate in fewer club organizations, entertain at home frequently and move more often

• Receive less social support and companionship form friends and acquaintances → rely on our partners more

• Expect them to fulfill a wider variety of interpersonal needs and that increases the probability that will disappoint us in some way

Lower sex ratios undermine men’s commitment to any one partner

Sex ratio is much lower than it was in the 1960s– divorce rates ar ehigher when women outnumber men

Casual cohabitation weakens commitment to marriage

increases risk of divorce

• chages their beliefs and expectations about marriage→ lead to less respect for institution of marriage, less favorable expectations about the outcomes of marriage and greater wilignness to divorce

3 types of factors that influence the breakup of relationships:

• Attraction is enhanced by the rewards a relationship offers, and it is diminished by its costs

• Alternatives one possesses, including other partners, and any alternative to a current relationship

→ Alternatives = singlehood, and occupational success

• There are barriers around the relationship that make it hard to leave

^→ Ex. legal and social pressures to remain married, religious and morial constraints, costs of divorce and maintiang 2 housholds

Enduring vulnerabilities

Characteristics of people in a marriage that increase their risk of divorce

• Might include adverse experiences in one’s family, poor education, maladaptive personality traits, bad social skills, or dysfunctional attitudes toward marriage

• These traits dont make divorce inevitable but thye may shape the circumstances that a couple enocunters and influence the adaptive process with which people try to cope with stress