Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
relationships test 1
flashcards for the first relationships test on oct. 5
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| poll: what one thing in your life has brought you the greatest happiness? (percents) | children/grandchildren 35% family 17% religion 11% spouse 9% marriage 5% |
| poll: do you do any of the following things often, to improve your mood? | women talk to friends more than men do, men prefer to listen to music than talk to friends or family |
| poll: major sources of happiness | talking to children 77% friends and friendships 76% contributing to lives of others 75% relationship with spouse 73% |
| ______ is the happiest country in the world because of _________ | denmark, its social connections |
| seminal work of Brown and Harris in 1970s | no causes of depression or loneliness are more potent than interpersonal circumstances |
| problems among psychotherapy patients in the US (percents) | troubled relationships 48% depression 27.6% self image 27.6% anxiety 20.4% phobias, fears 18% work, role issues 17% |
| what was the last bad thing that happened to you? | 1. death of a signif other 30% 2. interpersonal conflict 20% 3. health problem 23% 4. economic problem and other 14 and 14% what this tells us: 50% of problems are related to relationships |
| what was the best thing that happened today? | -interaction with friends and family 57% -work related 36% -health related 7% |
| sources of premature death in US | -behavioral patterns 40% -genetic predisposition 30% -social circumstances 15% -health care 10% -environmental exposure 5% |
| when social integration is low... | ...mortality rate is higher. 2.4x greater to die early if social integration is low |
| following marriages of people with congestive heart failure | marriage quality: how well couples got along in solving conflicts good quality marriages: 75% still alive after 4 years bad quality marriages: 50% still alive after 4 years |
| coronary artery bypass grant patients still alive after 15 years | happily married 85% unhappily married 75% not married 40% for women: unhappy line is moved down..it is about quality of marriage for men: unhappy line is moved up, not about quality of marriage for survival, being married is good enough |
| homicides in the US | 4 times as likely to be killed by someone you know intimate: 10.9% other family 8.0% friend/acquaintance 32.1% |
| feeling hurt/left out breeds actual pain: | increased activity in anterior cigulate cortex during exclusion (same as in physical pain) |
| neuroscience | -specialized brain activities -plasticity in early experience (attachment) -language |
| selfish gene | unit that got us started in surviving -we were different because of our ability to develop relationships- ability to connect, protect and bond- unit of survival for humans |
| 6 levels of analysis | 1. cultural system (exist outside of person) 2. social environment network 3. dyadic relationship- can't explain everything about one individual without studying other person in relationship 4. individual 5. organ system 6. cells- bio cell level |
| interdependence | -in order to accomplish goals, depends on behavior of other person's actions -when interacting with other, your behavior affects what they do |
| interaction process between A and B | -when this process is frequent, strong (interdependent), diverse (do many things), (long-standing- not most important) then rel exists |
| what effects interaction process between A and B | personality traits, goals, expectations, values, needs, preferences -A-sensitive, B-brash: when B is brash A is upset. when B is kind, A calms down |
| what shapes the interaction process (determinants of how A and B act together) | past experiences, genes, early experience with caregivers, other relationships |
| science is _____ in the service of _____ | science is imagination in the service of verifiable truth |
| process of studying theories | 1. insight intuition theory 2. derivation of testable hypotheses 3. use sci method to operationalize tests of hypotheses 4. evaluate data, deduct new principles -- then decide if there is truth to experience and look at insight intuition |
| establishing cause and effect | 1. start with independent variable (isolate it to show it causes changes in dependent variable and nothing else) 2. dependent variable- thing that is changed (direction is IV to DV) |
| steps in conducting an experiment after you have an empirical question | 1. manipulate IV so there are no other differences except what you are trying to measure 2. randomly assign participants to conditions (making sure there is nothing in participants behavior that leads them to a condition to join) |
| last two steps in conducting an experiment | 3. choose appropriate DV- self report, behavioral observation, psychophysiology (HR) 4. evaluate data |
| survey designs | 1. self report 2. longitudinal designs- good info about change and development 3. diary studies- observe processes as they unfold naturally |
| advantages and limitations of self report | adv: 1. see experience as the person sees it 2. only way to assess certain constructs 3. inexpensive and easy limits: 1. self pres and imp man 2. r. bias 3. influ of outside awareness 4. lmts of thotful awareness 5. disinguish states from processe |
| why use the term relationship science? | 1. there is evidence for the importance of relationships through: -activities, goals, well being -evolution of human nature -links to other behavioral and social sciences |
| what is a relationship? key elements | -nature of individuals involved-traits, goals, expectations, values, needs preferences -their interaction process (influence and interdependence) -rels are more than interactions: they are mental representations and freq, strength, diversity and duratio |
| 3 basic methods of relationship reserach | 1. experiment- random ass, experi control 2. survey designs- longitudinal and diary 3. types of dep variables- self reports, behav obs, psychophysiology, informant reports |
| interpersonal attraction | not JUST romance, anything that makes you feel someone is interesting and who you would like to talk to more |
| in-depth: limitations of self report | -intrinsic problems- self pres and imp man -resp bias- answer what they think interviewer wants to hear -imp man- make yourself look good in front of interviewer -distinguish states from processes- good at telling where they are now, but cant discern w |
| attraction is the gatekeeper | if not attracted from the beginning, forget it, FIRST feelings of connection |
| selective attention has to do with: | pay more attention to those more attractive. speed, novelty (more attn to newer) and impact (those who have more of an influence on you |
| snap judgments | when you see someone you don't know, it only takes 100-150 milliseconds to form an initial judgment of them-- however these judgments can be wrong evolutionary past- assess quickly whether to get away or let down guard |
| reciprocity of liking | -people like those who like them -implicitly ask, will i be liked and accepted. -if yes: approach other, express liking -if no: avoid them, dislike them |
| core principle of attraction | anticipated opportunities to interact rewardingly |
| reciprocity of liking: why do we have a "need to belong?" | -evolutionary significance of belonging- wish to be accepted by others, to survive had to bond -affectively mediated- emotional processes- when accepted= feel good and contented, when rejected= feel lonely, hurt, creates distance |
| Dale Carnegie's 6 ways to make people like you | 1. become interested in others 2. smile 3. name= most important sound 4. be a good listener 5. talk in terms of other's interests 6. make other feel important |
| dimensions of similarity of attraction | -opinions and values r=.5-.6 -attractiveness r=4.-.5 -interests, activities r=.3-.4 -personality r=.1-.2 |
| complementarity | idea that we like others whose behavior complements ours, not necessarily those who are similar- or we want people who mesh with us (dominant vs. submissive) WRONG no evidence |
| principle of similarity | more attracted to those who are similar to us |
| major histocompatibility complex | MHC=set of genes that codes cell surfaces, allowing immune system to distinguish self from pathogens -there are receptors in us that can pick up on immune system of others |
| MHC-disimilar mates | they produce heterozygous offspring who, because their MHC alleles are more diverse, can recognize greater range of foreign cells |
| byrne paradigm (experiments on similarity-attraction link | -have participants answer questions on many attributes -inform participant he/she is about to interact with someone who answered similarly or differently -actually pair participant with someone in low similarity or high similarity |
| byrne's law | law of attraction- greater proportion of similar responses= higher evaluation |
| why does byrne's law happen? | -anticipate liking leads to actual liking (reciprocity) -processes validate one's world view (confirm that this is good way to think) -serendipity and field of eligibles (chance and odds) |
| serendipity and field of eligibles (byrne's law) | -aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident -people you come into contact with everyday -defines where we have opportunities for positive interaction |
| genetic clustering in social networks | -we like those who are genetically similar to us -greater similarity in friends than non-friends |
| perceived similarity vs. actual similarity | -feel like other person is more similar to us than they actually are, feel more connected than actual (true for good relationships) |
| movement toward similarity over time | -similarity is not static -when people become friends and partners over time, they tend to converge, influence each other |
| mere exposure effect- moreland and beach | 4 women arrived to class, sat in front and then walked out, no interaction with others -end of class, students asked to evaluate 4 women |
| mere exposure study results | more people saw her, more would like to become friend THAN spend time together THAN work together |
| 4 factors that explain attraction- | 1. reciprocity of liking 2. similarity 3. mere exposure 4. beautiful is good |
| proximity intensifies preexisting likelihoods | -if initially like someone, you will like them more as time goes on -if initially dislike someone, more contact with them, more you dislike them because: proximity creates opportunities to interact |
| Berscheid and Hatfield; What is Beautiful is good stereotype | trait ratings: strong= social competence, moderate= personal adjustment, weak= integrity, concern for others |
| mock jury decisions and the beautiful is good stereotype | attractive get lesser sentencing EXCEPT when they use attractiveness to get a lighter sentence |
| trait evolves only if it has some __________ | adaptive value |
| what does the face do? | allows people to make judgments about dominance and significance ability to recognize face is adaptively important |
| babies and the preference paradigm | 1. at 3 mos- look at attractive faces longer 2. at 6 mos- categorize faces on the basis of attractiveness 3. 12 mos- attribute positive characteristics to attractive faces |
| kernel of truth behind beautiful is good stereotype | those perceived beautiful: -have better social skills -less lonely, more popular -no effect on intellectual competence or personality -tend to be happier -do tend to get better grades |
| mating preferences behind beautiful is good stereotype | as reported: everyone seeks out an attractive mate as demonstrated: more of a matching hypothesis- people tend to date those who match their attractiveness |
| principle of assortative mating | higher your number, fewer offers you had to make 9s would like to pair up with 10s, but next best is another 9 (so they settle) -8s want 9s and 10s but they are taken |
| how can the beautiful is good stereotype and the kernel of truth be explained? | 1. good genes hypothesis 2. behavior confirmation processes |
| good genes hypothesis | -attractive people are healthier (darwin- fewer gene defects) -evidence from nonhuman animals -evidence from ovulatory cycles- reproductive success tripled TODAY= attractive does not equal healthy |
| what women prefer when ovulating | women prefer chiseled masculine symmetrical men in days before ovulation because fertility peaks and want to mate with someone who will provide genes upping their chance for survival |
| scent of men's shirts | men asked not to bathe for 3 days and wear same shirt- women preferred scent for asymmetrical men symmetry reflected in scent only goes up in ovulatory phase- women sensitive to good genes |
| behavioral confirmation process | 1. stereotype based expectations- she is attractive, this will be fun 2. behavior toward target- good 3. target responses to behavior- woman responds well because treated well 4. interpretation of targets behavior- i was right, attractive is fun |
| what makes a person attractive | 1. beauty is not in the eye of the beholder 2. facialmetrics |
| prototype approach | people prefer composite (average) faces that do not have unique features |
| miss universe explains what is attractive is universal | africa, europe, asia, americas- their composites ALL look similar |
| greeks golden mean | perfect example of beauty- averageness is most attractive on an evolutionary basis |
| attractive is universal | their rank ordering is similar to ours |
| what purpose do taxonomies serve? | a taxonomy is a system for naming and organizing things into groups that share similar charac 1. map of sci territory 2. language for discussing territory 3. tells how things are similar and different, and determines which properties are important |
| nominal types of relationships | list of categories- not interesting, all are different |
| nominal vs. basic processes | life defined by social situations that present recurring problems whose solutions may have adaptive signif -certain brain mechanisms created to help us accomplish tasks -innate in us to do relating (finding a mate) |
| what unique and recurring problems does life present us with? | situations such as finding a mate- socialization process |
| domain: communal relationships | central problem: maintaining safety of self, signif others and offspring social-emotional regulating systems- proximity seeking and maintenance when threats occur, care-giving and support receiving |
| domain: mating | central problem- finding, bonding and retaining a reproductive partner social-emotional regulating systems- romantic love, courtship, jealousy |
| domain: exchange/reciprocity | central problem- facilitating coordinated mutually beneficial action among equals (perspective taking) social-emotional regulating |
| domain: hierarchical power | central problem: maintaining positions and resources within social hierarchies social-emotional regulation systems: power and either dominance or submission |
| domain: conditions among groups | central problem- mutual protection and acquisition of resources social-emotional regulating systems- ingroup favoritism, outgroup rejection |
| communal v. exchange | -resp for welfare v. min resp 4 welfare -give when other in need v. benefit given after prior benefits -benefits considered inappr. if given in repsonse v. benefits same and close -expect rel cont. v. no expect -strong affec conseq v. weak affect cons |
| expected level of responsiveness v. social network size | fewer people are higher (most communal, like spouse) more people are less communal (like strangers) |
| interaction effect with Trisha and the tiles | 1. when she gives tiles and asks for points- like her better in exchange rel 2. she gives tiles does not ask for help- like her better comm rel 3. does not give you points asks for tiles- comm rel liked 4. no aid, no request- comm and exchange rel same |
| explain Trisha and the tiles study | -one person makes 10 4 letter words from 55 tiles -one makes 10 4 letter words from 44 tiles -key difference- in one- Trisha new to school wants to make friends, or she is married with family |
| measure of communal strength | as communal strength increases- feel more willingness to express each emotion. -positive emotions start out higher than negative and steadily increase as comm strength increases -neg emotions start lower and sharply increase as comm. strength increases |
| collectivist perspective | define self in interdependent terms, relationships with others are primary unit of society |
| individualist perspective | individual is most basic unit of society, people defined by their own attainments, define self independently |
| power distance | measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations(like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. |
| collectivist v. individualist | -group membership fixed v. group membership flexible -restrain self v. express self -emotionally depend v. emo indep -suppress pride show embarrass v. revel pride hide embarrass |
| key elements of procedure for creating closeness | 1. personalistic self disclosure 2. graduated levels of revealingness 3. likelihood of reciprocity 4. potential for responsiveness 5. perceived similarity- sense of connection |
| socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen) | 1. potent in younger people- to develop skills and resources, learn new things, meet new people 2. as we age: regulate emo states thru contact with others, participate in emo signif interactions -percents of who we spend time w/ equal out as we get olde |
| self disclosure | act of revealing something about oneself 1. what effect it has on you 2. how self disclosure affects your rel with them |
| expressive writing as a form of therapy | those in the trauma group had less visits to the health service |
| volunteers to be injected with dead virus | high disclosers had enhanced immune system response |
| expressive writing helps to actually _________ | BE healthier |
| when expressive writing is most effective: | 1. when trauma event is further back 2. when writing is private 3. has to be about EVENT not just general feelings 4. better handwritten 5. good in ind and collec cultures |
| 3 plausible mechanisms for why expressive writing works | 1. labeling- can make sense of emotion, better way to improve it 2. assimilate- acknowledge it and organize thoughts 3. disinhibition/catharsis- not influential, feels great in moment but feeling is still stuck |
| altman and taylor's social penetration theory | -early in relationship stick to superficial and kind of intimate level -as rel develops- more topics go to very intimate level -making core aspects of self accessible to others through words and actions |
| key processes in self disclosure | self disclosure leads to liking liking leads to self disclosure WHY? signals acceptance, fosters trust, provides opportunity for support and validation |
| 2 more key processes in self disclosure | -reciprocity- amount told has to match between two people -risks of SD- disclose too much- feel weak, become vulnerable, fear of abandonment, fear of loss of independence |
| personalism and exclusivity | -if people did not watch tape of someone revealing sickness- disclosed more to that person -if people saw tape- did not disclose to person -want to be special- want them to feel trusting and safe -want it to be personal- tell us bcuz comfortable with u |
| assumed hierarchy of exclusivity | gossip- feel okay about upward transmission, don't want close friend to tell stranger -specialness, do not want them to violate confidence |
| individual differences in self disclosure | 1. women reveal more to women than men do to men 2. women reveal more to men and women than men do to men and women 3. men disclose more to women than to men 4. hong kong and jordan- men disclose more to other men than to women |
| more lonely= more social anxiety= more discomfort w/ closeness= | =less SD =less SD =less SD |
| behavioral criteria for defining closeness | social network analysis: 1. time spent together 2. % shared activities 3. proximity measurement presence of sexuality 1. percent shared DNA |
| properties of interdependence | extent to which individuals alter their behavior in order to coordinate their actions and preferences with actions and preferences of others |
| how SD leads to intimacy via perceived responsiveness | -feeling that partners attend to and react supportively to core features of the self A discloses-B responds-A reacts |
| A's reaction to B's response after B self discloses | understanding- getting facts right validation- expressing respect caring- willingness to help meet needs |
| how does listener show responsiveness? | -verbal content- stays relevant, maintains focus, elaborates on communication -nonverbal content (provides info and helps regulate interaction)- attn on speaker, gaze, appropriate body posture, appropriate facial expressions and paralanguage |
| actual understanding v. perceived understanding | actual understanding matters in early stages, seems to asymptote early perceived understanding is more important in established relationships (how funny would your partner say you think joke is) |
| kitchen sinking | addressing several topics or complaints at once |
| mind reading | assuming you already know what other person is thinking or feeling |
| yes-butting | acknowledging others point but then undermining it |
| generalizing | saying "you always" and "you never" criticizing other person (their character) not the behavior |
| contempt | criticism plus disgust |
| defensiveness | refusing to consider or deflecting other person's point of view to protect the self |
| stonewalling | closing up, withdrawing, stalling, refusing to participate |
| me-tooing | switch perspective from other to self |
| diverting | changing the topic prematurely |
| minimizing | suggesting other person's problem is less than really is |
| XYZ statements | when you do X in situation Y i feel Z |
| behavior description | focus on other person's behavior, not inner traits that may be causing the problem |
| active listening | show that you are paying attention, engaged |
| staying cool | not escalating, increase gap from impulse to action |
| respect | acknowledge legitimacy of other's position |
| warmth | display acceptance and caring |
| paraphrasing | repeating speaker's message in one's own words, to check on accurate reception |
| humor | finding the lighter side of a disagreement |
| inclusion of other in the self | -motivation to benefit the other-attributions of close other mirror that of the self (high credit for success, low responsibility for failure) -mental reorganization of self and other- recall fewer nouns of self and close, recall more for celebrity |
| more mental reorganization models of self and other | 1. when self and other are same word- recall faster for when true of self, recall slower when its false of self 2. when self and other are dfrnt words- still recall faster when tru of self and not other, recall slower when false of self but tru of other |
| interdependence approach | -respond to wishes and concernes -modify behaviors to be together -allocate tasks -react to behaviors -take into acct for everyday life and long term |
| relationship closeness inventory | 1. freq of impact- how often spend time together 2. diversity of impact- how often do different things 3. strength of impact- how much partner influences things you do |
| happy stable vs happy unstable | 1. outcome is better than alternatives which is better than what we expect we deserve 2. alternatives are better than the outcome which is better than what we expect we deserve |
| unhappy stable vs. unhappy unstable | 1. what we expect we deserve is better than the outcome which is better than the alternatives 2. alternatives are better than what we think we deserve which is still better than the outcome |
| concept of interdependence | by myself have given preferences--transformation of motivation--together we have effective preferences cultural- better to give than receive personal-i am generous rel specific- i want partner happy |
| concept of interdependence: cultural, personal dispositions, relationships specific | cultural group norms- things everyone knows, ex. oldest chooses personal dispositions- one always says "do what other wants" dominant doesn't learn anything about submissive rel specific- when you transform preferences that reveals how you feel abt othe |
| examples of transformation of motivation | domination and submission (bad) turn-taking (not the worst) maximizing joint outcomes (constructive) minimize individual costs sacrifice (good or bad) you go your way, i go mine (not good) stalemate (no progress, not good) |
| maximizing joint outcomes | i REALLY want to see this movie, partner only kind of wants to see his movie, so go with person who feels stronger about her choice |
| minimizing individual costs | how painful is the less preferred option for each person? person who finds their alternate MOST painful, we go to their first choice movie |
| sacrifice | you are making the choice to give this up, it is not forced on you |
| division of household labor data- potential moderating variables (the "what") | type of housework- man's is pleasant, woman- childcare women in the workforce- more women working does not change political ideology- chart looks the same either way sex. orientation- taking one task each doing it half the time instead of splitting tas |
| division of household labor- explanatory mechanisms (the "why") | relative power/resources in home- more money= more power (does not fully indicate sex differences) rational choice in scheduling- does not explain sex diff. socialization and gender ideology explains divide- girls do cooking and cleaning, boys work on c |
| division of household labor relevant to transformation of motivation BECAUSE: | -they are not pleasant activities, but they need to be done and need to figure out how -have to choose transformation that maximizes joint outcome (we are socialized to do this) -far from optimal |
| commitment | the intent and likelihood of persisting in a relationship -the opposite of ambivalence -better predictor of divorce than satisfaction ^things that make one dependent on rel= better predictors |
| Caryl Rusbult's investment model of commitment | satisfaction, quality of alternatives, investment size-- lead to commitment-- leads to willingness to enact pro-relationship mech.-- which leads to actual persistence |
| investment model in-depth | satis- more needs are fulfilled, more committed qual of alt- another rel, or just self may be better than current rel (including barriers) investment- things put into rel go down in value, retirement, memories |
| investment model: willingness to enact "pro-relationship maintenance mechanisms" | product of level of commitment- the more committed you are, the more you want the relationship to thrive |
| applying investment model to abused women | 1. still have pos. feelings about rel (most controversial) 2. quality of alternatives (like no job or education) are very low 3. investment- committed because you are married and invested in kids -more committed- less likely to leave |
| mechanisms for relationship maintenance | things people do in close relationships already-- to keep it that way and keep over time behavioral: willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness, accommodate cog: superiority, unrealistic optimism, derogation of alts, positive illusions |
| the ELVN model of accommodation | 1. active-constructive=voice=discuss problems 2. passive-constructive=loyalty=accept faults, dont try to change partner (good/bad) 3. destructive-active=exit=irritated, end it 4. destructive-passive=neglect=sulk instead of confront |
| why do accommodation and sacrifice promote relationship well-being? | 1. encourage reciprocity- when you behave pro-rel, causes partner to also 2. improvement of social reputation- by being more accomm. to partner, he recognizes you are nice, makes you more desirable 3. fosters trust- partner takes your needs into priori |
| mutual cyclical growth | 1. A sees B do something good 2. increases A's commitment 3. A takes on pro-rel behavior 4. B sees A doing good 5. B's own commitment goes up 6. B acts beneficially goes back to 1. HAS to be partner specific- not just "is A nice to everyone?" |
| cog mech fore rel maintenance= perceived superiority | lake-wobegon effect- 90% of ppl say their rel is above avg. -18% think likely to divorce when really is 50% |
| derogation of alternatives focus article | -those in relationships rate attractive pictures lower than those not in rels. BECAUSE- created threat that there are attractive alternatives- mentally say they are NOT that attractive to feel more positively about current relationship |
| positive illusions | more committed you are, more positively you rate partners than self -friend's rating of partner is lower than your self rating |
| we believe positive illusions allow you to.. | ..reframe. when partner is obnoxious- oh, that's cute. when partner is late- oh, he's working hard |
| too much idealization can be bad.. | ..out of touch with reality low satisfaction, higher idealization |
Created by:
slombar2
Popular Psychology sets