Studied by 18 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
types of parenting styles
authoritarian, permissive, authoritative, neglectful, over-involved
authoritarian
demanding and nonresponsive ( the dictator)
Doesn’t allow much open dialogue, expects children to follow strict rules and expectations
permissive
undemanding and responsible
Parent avoids confrontation
Few rules for child’s behavior and general lack of structure
More interest in a “friend” relationship
authoritative - the healthiest
demanding and responsive (the mentor)
Parents have high expectations for their children, but temper these expectations with understanding and support
Structure for child’s life
Clear expectations for child’s behavior
Open communication between parent and child
neglectful
not responsive, not demanding (absent parenting)
over involved
Makes almost all decisions for the child
Over scheduled child
Is hesitant to let child makes mistakes (and learn from their mistakes)
separation and individuation
Power struggles and increased conflict between parents and children
During adolescence communication between parents and adolescents decreases and then recovered to be more adult-like
Level of closeness may also decrease for a bit
More reliance on peers -> peers may become more influential than parents for a period of time
Renegotiation of rules and privacy to reflect child’s age and maturity
Necessary realignment of relationship roles
This constructive process is most likely to occur when conflicts are neither extreme nor persistent and when they arise in a relationship characterized by warmth and closeness
teenage brain
Importance of sleep
Prefrontal cortex is last part of brain to develop (18-21)
Importance of learning in teenage years
Synaptic pruning - if you do not use connections in your brain you lose them
traditional marriage - PiM
One partner makes most decisions; roles are highly specific
In heterosexual marriages, by gender
Imbalanced power
egalitarian marriages - PiM
“Peer marriages”
True partnership - even power and responsibility
Based on joint decision making
Use of direct requests and bargaining as a verbal influence strategies
Use of compromise and collaboration as a conflict style
brain research to reform school
Push high school start time later due to the fact that teenage sleep cycles are pushed back. Girls brains develop faster than boys brains. Thinks boys should start kindergarten a year later than girls
relational transgressions
Occurs when individuals break implicit or explicit relational codes of conduct or upset relational expectations
Insensitivity to partner’s feelings or needs
Deception
Infidelity
transgressions often involve hurt feelings, three variables to predict intense hurt feelings
Ability to respond
When people feel like they lack the ability to respond to a hurtful event, their hurt is usually intensified
Perceived intentionality
When people feel the partner did something on purpose to hurt them, their hurt is usually intensified
Degree to which hurt feelings were expected
When hurt feelings are unexpected they tend to be most intense
deception
Managing messages so receiver will understand something in a way that the sender thinks is false
Up to 25% of daily interactions involve deception
types of deception
Lies
Information is opposite or different from what the deceiver perceives as the truth
Equivocation
Information given is indirect, evasive, and/or ambiguous
Concealment
Important information about an issue is left out
Understatement
Certain details of an issue are downplayed
Exaggeration
Information is overstated; details are sometimes added
why do we deceive
maintaining a relationship
managing face needs
managing dialectical tensions
establishing relational control
continuing deception
knowing when our partner deceives us - yes
Relational closeness helps us detect deception
Behavioral familiarity - we know how they normally behave
Informational familiarity - we have information about them
knowing when our partner deceives us - no
Relational closeness can hinder our ability to detect deception
Truth bias - tendency to judge more messages as truths than lies when liking is present
Behavioral control
positive deceptions
Situations that do not directly relate to the relationship or one partners view of the other, deception may help couples avoid arguments and hurt feelings
negative deceptions
Deceptions about topics that have a significant impact on the relationship or one partner’s view of the other
Infidelity, addiction, financial issues
When people perceive their partner as dishonest, they report less relational satisfaction and commitment
Deception is a leading cause of conflict and breakup in relationships
solvable problems
problems that can be resolved and make both parties happy
Specific, concrete, and often related to day to day (household chores, financial decisions, or time management)
unsolvable problems
problems due to fundamental differences in values, personality traits, or deeply ingrained preferences, may not have a clear, mutually satisfying resolution
power theories in relationships
power as a perception, power as a perception, power as a relational concept, power as resource based, power as having less to lose, power as prerogative
power
an individual’s ability to influence others
powerful
able to influence others
enabling power
using expressive, composed behavior to influence others
Involves the ability to communicate self confidence and competence
Uses interpersonal relationships to assist in achieving goals
disabling power
using intimidation, threats. Punishment, and other harsh tactics to influence others
Use of this power effective in short term
Tends to result in hurt feelings, resistance, resentment, and dissatisfaction
five power principles
Power dynamics in close relationships can be conceptualized in these principles
Power is dynamic
Illustrate the importance of egalitarian relationships
power as a perception
Others are only powerful to the extent to which we think they are powerful
power as a relational concept
Power exists in all relationships
People are most happy in egalitarian relationships
Though most romantic relationships involve small power imbalances
However, power is dynamic
power as resource based
More resources = more power
Traditionally conceptualized in terms of money. This narrow conceptualization has been criticized
Parenting ability, physical attractiveness, communication skill, sexual rewards
scarcity hypothesis
People have the most power when the resources they possess are hard to come by or in high demand
power as having less to lose
In a relationship, the person with less to lose has a greater amount of power
Dependence power
People who are dependent on their relationships and have low quality alternative are in a powerless position
Principle of least interest
The person who is more attracted and/or more in love has less power
power as a prerogative
The partner with more power can make and break the rules
enacting power
People use power tactics to get people to do things
Power tactics can be classified in two dimensions
how direct or indirect
how unilateral or bilateral
direct - indirect
Asking, persistent
Suggesting, positive affect, use of negative affect
unilateral - bilateral
Unilateral tactics
Taking independent action to influence others. Strategies include:
Telling, withdrawing
Bilateral
Using interactive strategies to influence others. Strategies include:
Persuasion, bargaining, reasoning
direct and bilateral is associated with
Relationship satisfaction and egalitarian relationships
powerful speech
Persuasive and influential
Communicates confidence and competence
characterized by:
Self focus, more talk time, redirection of conversation away from topics others are discussing, interruptions
powerless speech
Less persuasive and influential
Communicates uncertainty
characterized by the prominent use of hedges and tag questions
hedges
Qualifying statements that give the sender or receiver an “out”
“I’m probably way off base here, but…”
tag questions
Asking people to affirm that you are making sense or that they understand you
“... do you know what I mean?”
self determination theory
Theory of motivation and personality that focuses on understanding the factors that drive human behavior and lead to personal growth, well being, and fulfillment
involves autonomy, competence, and relatedness
the three fundamental psychological needs related to SDT
Autonomy
The need to feel in control of one’s own actions and decisions, rather than feeling controlled by external forces
Competence
The need to feel capable and effective in one’s pursuit and endeavors
Relatedness
The need for meaningful connections, relationships, and a sense of belonging with others
in relationships, individuals may be motivated to interact with their partners because of:
Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation
Extrinsic motivation
engaging in activities to gain rewards, approval, or to avoid conflict or negative consequence
amotivation
a lack of motivation or interest in the relationship, which can lead to disengagement and apathy
intrinsic motivation SDT
engaging in activities / behaviors within the relationship because you like them or they align with one’s values and desires
***big emphasized**
SDT suggests:
people in healthy relationships are able to balance need for autonomy with desire for emotional closeness and connection
IM is nurtured when the relationships supports autonomy, competence. and relatedness
types of infidelity
sexual, emotional, communicative, online
sexual infidelity
Occurs when someone engages in sexual activity outside of their committed relationship
20 to 40% of dating/cohabiting relationships are marked by sexual infidelity
Self reported
more equal between men and woman now
emotional infidelity
Occurs when someone is emotionally attached to or “in love with” a potential rival
Goes hand and hand with deception
May or may not have a sexual component
communicative infidelity
Occurs when people engage in sexual activity with a third party to communicate a message to their partner
Signal need for attention, means of revenge, message of dissatisfaction
online infidelity
Romantic or sexual communication facilities by internet use
why does infidelity occur
Relational dissatisfaction
boredom/need for excitement and variety
Wanting to feel attractive
Sexual incompatibility
revenge
discovering sexual infidelity
thirdparty/firsthand, having the partner tell you on their own, partner admits when you question them
finding out infidelity from third party or witnessing it first hand
Most relationship damaging
Likely very hurtful
Unexpected
Can’t really respond
Perception of intentionality
finding out infidelity from your partner on their own
Least relationship damage
Suggests partner feels badly/guilty
We tend to be more forgiving if we perceive that the person who committed a transgression feels badly or guilty about what they have done
having partner admit infidelity after you question them
Falls in the middle in terms of relational damage
impact of infidelity
Emotional distress
Erosion of trust
Lowered self esteem
Possible relationship dissolution
what percent of mammals are monogamos
5%
jealousy
Result of a relational transgression, such as a partner having a sexual or emotional affair
Jealousy can be seen as a transgression in itself, when a partner’s suspicions are unfounded
romantic jealousy
Occurs when someone worries rival could interview with the existence or quality of their relationship
Feeling insecure or fearful about the character of the relationship
Also feeling insecure about ourselves - “I’m not going to be ok without my partner”
primary appraisals - jealousy
General evaluations about the existence and quality of the threat
Does a rival exist?
Could be real or imagined
Is the rival a threat to the relationship?
Threat might be real or imagined
secondary appraisals - jealousy
Motives for partner’s interest
Why is my partner interested in the rival?
Real or imagined interest
Comparisons to the rival
Am I better than the rival?
Along dimensions of perceived importance
Evaluation of alternatives
What would I do without my partner? Be single? Date someone else?
Assessment of potential loss
How devastated would I be without my partner?
why do people make appraisals for jealousy
To plan coping strategies
Individuals often believe that jealousy will keep them from being surprised, help them defend their rights, and learn how their partner “really” feels
jealous emotions
Fear and anger
Fear of losing partner
Anger at partner, rival, or self for not being able to “keep” partner
communicative response types to jealousy
constructive, destructive, avoidant, rival focused
constructive response to jealousy
Integrative communication
Calm, direct, non aggressive way of disclosing feelings and asking for an explanation
Compensatory restoration
Doing something to improve self
New interests, hobbies, appearance
Doing something to improve the relationship
Prosocial maintenance behaviors
Active listening
destructive response to jealousy
Negative communication
Arguing, cold looks, sarcasm
Violent communication
Violent threats or actual violence
Counter jealousy inductions
Trying to make partner jealous
Communicative infidelity
avoidant response to jealousy
Denial or silence of/about jealous feeling
It can be neutral - could be great if jealous feelings are unfounded but could backfire and exponentially the bad feelings
rival focused response to jealousy
Signs of possession
Verbally and non verbal communicating to others that the partner is “taken”
Derogating competitors
Making fun of the rival
Rival contacts
Communicating with rival
Obsessive relational intrusion
Repeated and unwanted pursuit and invasion of ones sense of physical or symbolic privacy by another person, either stranger or acquaintance, who desires and/or presumes an intimate relationship
Persistent unwanted behavior
Lack of consent or reciprocity
Intrusiveness
Manifests as unwanted attention, invasion of privacy, and disregard for personal space or autonomy
Common ORI situations involve unrequited love between:
Acquaintances
Former relational partners
One person wants the relationship to continue
One person wanting a platonic friendship to turn romantic
examples of ORI behaviors
Repeated calls and/or texts
Repeated social media posts
Repeatedly asking for another chance
Watching from a distance
Making exaggerated statements of affection
severe:
Invading one’s home
Damaging property
Causing physical harm
motivations for ORI
ORIs may stem from feelings of infatuation, obsession and belief that a relationship is meant to be, despite evidence to the contrary
They can also be driven by a desire for control, possessiveness, or a need for validation
impact of ORI
Fear, anxiety, stress, and a sense of helplessness or vulnerability
Can interfere with their ability to feel safe and secure in their own lives
reasons for ORI
Relational scripts, particularly those regarding the establishment of romantic/sexual relationships, often idealized and reward persistence
Indirect or ambiguous communication
It can be very difficult to tell another person you are not interested in them when they are clearly interested in you
In most instances we don’t want to hurt another person’s feelings, so we use indirect or ambiguous communication - which may be misinterpreted
“This person is playing hard to get”
Another cultural script that may encourage ORI
Unrequited love can cause an individual to fixate on a desired person and “justify” (in their own minds) the use of unhealthy pursuit strategies
flirting behaviors can turn into ORI behaviors if
The flirtee repeatedly indicates they aren’t interested
The flirtee repeatedly does not reciprocate the flirting behaviors
The flirter feels they have to work hard to get the other person’s attention
relational goal pursuit theory
theory that explains why ORI behaviors occur
Relational Goal Pursuit Theory reasons
People expend energy to develop or re-initiate relationships to the extent that they perceive a relationship is desirable and attainable
When a relationship is perceived to be unattainable, people abandon their original goal and seek an alternative
You like someone but they tell you they are not so you go for someone else - this is healthy
ORI behaviors are most likely when people continue to believe a relationship is attainable even though it is not
mental links within ORIs
links the desired relationship to exaggerated feelings of happiness and self worth
“I will never be happy unless they go out with me”
“I know I am a good person if they go out with me”
produces exaggerated negative feelings toward failing to “win” the other person over
“I am worthless unless they go out with me”
discourages people from stopping their ORI behaviors and tend to mentally reinforce the importance of a relationship with the other person
investment model of relationships - maintaining behavior
Predicts that level of commitment helps to buffer relationships against the effects of transgressions
level of commitiment involves
satisfaction, investments, alternatives
satisfaction - part of level of commitment
Rewards, costs, outcomes, and comparison levels
Outcomes: reward-cost ratio
Comparison level: how rewarding or costly you expect your relationship to be relative to your perception of other relationships
investments - part of level of commitment
Unrecoverable inputs that individuals deposit into relationships
Intrinsic investments: resources like time and effort - intangible
Extrinsic investments: resources developed over course of relationship - possessions, social networks - likely tangible
High investment (both types) predict commitment - much more to lose if relationship ends
alternatives - part of level of commitment
Considering one’s relational options
Would you be better off with someone else or single?
Perception of poor alternatives predicts commitment and good alternatives predicts less commitment
Commitment is predicted by:
High satisfaction
High investment
Poor quality of alternatives
pro relationship behaviors
committed couples are more likely to engage in these behaviors - used intentionally to maintain a relationship
pro relationship behaviors include
Deciding to remain
Commitment predicts making the choice to not exit a relationship after transgression have taken place
Accommodating the parter
Commitment predicts making choice to resist engaging in negative reciprocity
Derogating alternatives
Commitment predicts will actively find fatal faults with other potential partners
Being willing to make sacrifices
Commitment predicts making choice about one’s time, money, career, and living situation with the relationship in mind
Perceiving relationship superiority
Commitment predicts that couples choose to believe that their relationship is better than others’ relationships
relational redefinition
Instead of reconciling, some former romantic partners redefine their relationship
Spouses become co-parents
A romantic relationship is redefined as a friendship
~12% regard themselves as good friends 5 years after the divorce
Friendship is more likely if the divorce was non-adversarial (adversarial around children or resources)
when romantic partners become friends
Most dating couples do not continue any type of relationship after breaking up
Among those who do remain friends:
Around 60% showed a pattern of relationship decline over time (with commitment to the friendship declining in the months after the breakup)
About 21% of ex couples become better friends over time
Former romantic couples are more likely to be successful in transitioning to friendship if they:
Engage in reflective talk
Realize that they can be happy just benign friends
Exchange social support
Communicate forgiveness for actions that occurred when they were a couple
17 year panel survey
Limitation was that they were only heterosexual couples
About 52% got divorced!
main reasons couples get divorced:
Infidelity (21.6% of divorces)
Sexual infidelity
Emotional infidelity
Incompatibility (19.2% of divorces)
“Birds of a feather” v “opposites attract”
Alcohol or drug abuse (10.6% of divorces)
Violence
Legal problems
Something consistent in literature the satisfaction in their marriage after kids goes down until the kids move out
communication patterns that predict dissolution
Withdrawal (associated with the demand-withdraw pattern)
Lack of supportiveness
Lack of listening
Infrequent time spent together
Negative communication
Unconstructive criticism, use of negative conflict styles
Frequency of conflict does not predict level of satisfaction, but conflict style does
Lack of verbal and nonverbal intimacy
Low levels of disclosure and touch
Gottman’s four horsemen of the apocalypse
Abusive communication
Name calling, insults, physical violence
why people stay in abusive relationships
Financial dependence
Perceived or real
Family history of violence
“This is how marriages are”
Psychological variables
“It is my fault” or “I do not deserve better than this”
intergeneration transmission of divorce
Data supported the idea that children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves. More likely if:
Both partners are from divorced parents
Divorce occurred before either partner was younger than age 12
Children of divorced parents may be…
Exposed to poor models of dyadic behavior and communication
May not learn skills and attitudes that facilitate successful functioning in marital roles
Predisposed to develop traits that exacerbate relationship tension
Issues with trust, commitment
duck’s process model of dissolution
Focuses on communication processes that occur prior to, during, or after breakups
Stage model has the limitation that not all relationships go through stages
intrapsychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing, resurrection
intrapsychic - duck’s process model of dissolution
Triggered by relational dissatisfaction or discomfort
There’s something wrong but partners keep it to themselves. Rumination occurs
Involves:
Mentally weighing costs and rewards of relationships
Withdrawal, being secretive, and contemplation
Quality of communication with partner is going down
dyadic - duck’s process model of dissolution
Presentation of dissatisfaction to partner
Arguments and discussions with partner about what is wrong
Negotiate and reconcile differences
If successful, process stops here
Or, discussing arguments may lead to realization that the relationship is not worth saving -> onto phase 3
social - duck’s process model of dissolution
Couple “goes public” about the problems in their relationship
Social networks find out about the relationship problems
Involves:
Seeking support from social network
Complaining about partner to others
Face saving efforts (telling one’s side of the story)
Preparing the social network for a possible breakup
grave dressing - duck’s process model of dissolution
Focus on coping with breakup in a socially acceptable way
Partner creates an acceptable story about their love and loss
Involves:
Developing and refining the “break up story” for different audiences
More face saving communication (often differs for the initiator vs. the dumpee)
Note 
Flashcard (29)