Close Adult Relationships Week 3

blahblahblahblah

Relationship

Individuals in a relationship if a change in the state of one produces a change in the state of another → having impact on eachother

• behaviour of one influences other → behaviours interdependent

Why Studies Of Relationships Are Unique

• Focus on DYADS rather than individuals

• emergent properties of relationships are often more important for outcome than individual characteristics of either partner

• systems perspective better than individualistic perspective

• Temporal phenomena

• outcome variables often dichotomous

Perspectives On Relationships

• Inside Vs Outsider Groups

• Relationships members subjective interpretation might differ from research or the previous interpretation

• might need to collect data from different perspectives

Ways to Distinguish Between Relationship Categories and Taxonomies

• Relational type → parent-child, sibling, friend

• Exchange or communal relationship

• Relational models → communal sharing, authority ranking, quality matching, market pricing

How to Distinguish Between Relationships: Processes

• quality (satisfied or not)

• relationship dimensions (cooperative vs competitive, equal vs unequal, intense vs superficial, emotionally-focussed/informal vs task focussed/formal)

• relationship closeness → based on interdependence: intimacy levels, levels of self-disclosure, emotional experience

Studying Closeness

• to study interdependence empirically, we must look at observable behaviours of person and other

• affective/physiological, behavioural, cognitive

Defining Closeness

• Frequency: frequent causal interconnections

• Diversity: interconnections across different activities/events

• Intensity: Change in P has immediate and strong impact on O

• Duration: patterns of interconnection continue overtime

Measuring Closeness

• The relationship Closeness Inventory

• Frequency: time spend alone together

• Diversity: Number of activities performed together

• Strength: perceived influence of other on decisions

Closeness Predicts Break-Up In Students

subjective feelings of "closeness"

• emotional Tone Index

• Relationships closeness inventory

• Result: RCI predicts breakup the best; (potentially because it is more normally distributed)

Inclusion of Other in the Self

• human need for “self-expansion” which includes a desire for close relationships as an unconscious way of increasing one’s own efficacy by incorporating others skills, resources, perspectives, identities, etc, into the self

• forming a new romantic relationship is akin to rapid progress toward the self-expansion goal and results in excited positive affect

• Inclusion of other in the self results in cognitions about close others resembling cognitives about self

Closeness and Emotion

• People indicate being more willing to express emotion in closer relationships

• Intensity of emotional experience in relationships positively associated with degree of closeness

• Both positive and negative emotional expression is higher in close relationships (people suppress negative emotion in less close relationships)

• emotional interdependence is less common than anticpated and isnt really related to closeness and commitment

Affective Interdependence

Partners share and respond to each others emotions

Behavioural Interdependence

Transformation in exchange from tit-for-tat to needs-based and more communal

Cognitive Interdependence

think of terms of we and us in comparison to me and mine

Self-Disclosure

people disclose more to others whom they initially like and people like others as a result of having been disclosed to

• self-disclosure levels may drop in established couple as there is less to disclose

• may lead to reciprocity

Reciprocity

• reciprocity is generally established within ongoing relationships, such that self-disclosure are typically reciprocated, although not necessarily within a single interaction

• reciprocity may signal a desire to slow the course of a relationship or to pull back an already deep relationship

Social Penetration Theory

Gradually peeling through the layers on an onion, getting progressively deeper and more personal - goal is to become better acquainted

• overstepping normative level of self-dislosure can be seen as negative

Self Relations Model

show self-disclosure is more of a relationship effect than an effect of individual personalities

Self-Presentation

Based on accessibility of different self-knowledge in the working self-concept, we would expect different self-presentation in different relationship contexts

• people motivated to be seen in certain ways by certain relationships partners

• self-enhancement happens more with strangers than friends

Self-Verification Theory

People choose to interact and form relationships with those who see them as they see themselves → prefer congruent evaluators over favourable evaluators

• particularly likely to choose self-verifying evaluations if their self-views are confidently held

Self-Enhancement Theory

Suggests everyone prefers positive feedback from others

• positive illusions contribute to relationship well-being

• having partner who sees you as own ideal creates Michelangelo effect, allowing you to approach your ideal self

Enhancing Vs Varying Feedback

• The valence of feedback influences affectvue responses; the congruency of feedback influences cognitive responses - the cognitive-affective crossfire

• positive feedback feels good but for those with negative self views, it ultimately feels invalid

• people choose positive evaluators over congruent evaluators when rushed but not when they have time to think

• dating couples refer positivity from their partners, married couples prefer self-verification

Further Moderators of Enhancement And Verification

• enhancement may be preferred on “relationship-central” traits, whereas verification may be performed on “relationship peripheral” traits

• participants seek self-enhancing feedback about physical attractiveness from dating partners but self-varying feedback on other dimensions and from other people

• people may not want to be verified if it puts them at risk of rejection

• best combination for a satsifying relationship is enhancemenet at global level and verification at specific level

Perceived Partner Responsiveness

Belief that partners understand and appreciate what is important to the self

• experience during social interaction that the relationship partners are aware of, and responsive to, core attributes to the self

• Sense of being cared for, and when needs arise artjers must go to those needs

• shaped by mutual perceptions/metaperceptions

Attributions In Close Relationships

• in satsified relationships, negative partner behaviour is attributed to unstable, situational causes

• in dissatisfied relationships, negative partner behaviour is attributed to stable, internal/dispositional causes

• reverse can be true for attributions for positive behaviour

Commitment

Long term orientation toward a relationship, including intent to persist and feelings of psychological attachment

• increases as function of satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, investment size

• commitment is related to being dependent upon the other

Investments

Investment size: the magnitude and importance of the resources that are attached to a relationships → would be lost if relationship ended

• tangible vs intangible investments

• planned investments may be importance for commitment and stability with past past tangible investments being least important

• past tangible investments may be akin to emotional investment

Processes of Commitment

• Rewards from relationship

• potential rewards from alternative relationships

• investments that would be lost if relationship ended

• costs of leaving relevant

Commitment Promotes

• Disparagement of Alternatives: Drive away/derogate tempting partners

• Willingness to Sacrifice: Forego personal benefit for sake of relationship

• Accommodative Behaviour: choose not to retaliate against partners bad act

• Cognitive Interdependence: think in terms of "we, us, our" not "I, me' mine"

• Positive Illusions: Make excessively favourable evaluations of partner or relationship

• Biased perceptions of partner responsiveness

Trust

Expectation that ones partner can be relied on to behave in a benevolent manne and be responsive to one’s needs → can lead to more commitment but mediated by persons willingness to become dependent on other

• can be build through observation or cating or tests

Three components:

• PRedictability

• Dependability

• Faith

Pro-Relationship Behaviours

• Positivity

• Openness

• Assurances

• Use of Social networks

• Sharing Tasks

• Partner responsiveness and active listening