Week 6 - Lecture 6 - Romantic Relationships Flashcards
(72 cards)
1
Q
Briefly explain the gender-bread person
A
Includes:
- gender identity (womaness, manness)
- gender expression (feminine, masculine)
- biological sex (femaleness, maleness)
- sexually attracted to (nobody to women/females/femininity or men/males/masculinity)
- romantically attracted to (nobody to women/females/femininity or men/males/masculinity)
2
Q
What did Plato say love is?
A
A serious mental disease
3
Q
What did Aristotle say love is?
A
Love is composed of a single sole inhabiting two bodies
4
Q
What are the 3 points of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (1988)
A
intimacy, passion, commitment
5
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when all three components are present?
A
consummate love
6
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only intimacy is present?
A
liking
7
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only commitment is present?
A
empty love
8
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only passion is present?
A
infatuation
9
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only intimacy and commitment are present?
A
companionate love
10
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only intimacy and passion are present?
A
romantic love
11
Q
what is it called in the triangular love theory when only passion and commitment are present?
A
fatuous love
12
Q
what is companionate love?
A
intimacy and commitment
13
Q
what is liking?
A
intimacy
14
Q
what is empty love?
A
commitment
15
Q
what is fatuous love?
A
passion and commitment
16
Q
what is infatuation
A
passion
17
Q
what is romantic love?
A
passion and intimacy
18
Q
what is consummate love?
A
intimacy and passion and commitment
19
Q
who came up with the triangular theory of love?
A
Sternberg (1988)
20
Q
What theory did Sternberg (1988) come up with?
A
Triangular theory of love
21
Q
Basic principle of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love
A
different forms of love depending on which of the components are present
22
Q
Briefly explain Sternberg’s triangular love scale (1997)
A
45 item scale about their role/how they are in a relationship
WEIRD population - white, educated, intelligent, rich, democratic
23
Q
WEIRD
A
white
educated
intelligent
rich
democratic
24
Q
factors effecting attractiveness
A
proximity
familiarity
attitude similarity
hot and crowded room
fear and love
25
how does proximity effect attractiveness?
Festinger et al., 1950
geographically proximal showed more increased interpersonal attraction
26
how does familiarity effect attractiveness?
Moreland and Beach, 1992
the more they saw the researcher, the more they were perceived as attractive due to familiarity
27
how does attitude similarity effect attractiveness?
Newcomb (1956)
- 17 male ppts lived together in shared room
- initially, proximity predicted attraction
- over time, students with similar attitudes became more interpersonally attracted
- attitude similarity > proximity
Tidwell et al., (2013)
- 187 undergraduate students attended a speed-dating event and interacted with around 12 members of the opposite sex for 4 mins each
pre/post date actual and perceived similarity for each pair
perceived, but not actual, similarity significantly predicted romantic liking
- opposes view that opposites attract
28
what has the biggest impact on attractiveness, proximity or attitude similarity?
attitude similarity > proximity
Newcomb (1956)
29
how does a hot and crowded room effect attractiveness?
Griffit and Veitch (1971)
hot temp was 34 vs 23 degrees for normal
too hot or too crowded environment linked with lower attractiveness
30
how does fear and love effect attractiveness?
The Capilano Suspension bridge Study (Dutton and Aron, 1974)
- condition A: scary bridge
- condition b: safe bridge
- thematic apperception test
- researcher provided phone number
- significanly more romantic content in the stories and phone calls for those who crossed the fear inducing bridge
- increased physiological (fear) arousal on scary bridge and therefore arousal redirected into attractiveness to researcher (misattribution of arousal)
31
What data collection and analysis methods did Gottman's love lab pioneer?
Filmed couples
– Positive and Negative interactions
– Talk table
– Rating dial during conflict discussions (video-recall)
– Coding systems for positive/negative affect
– Physiological measures (e.g., skin conductance, heart rate, gross motor activity)
– Longitudinal studies
– Oral history
32
What is the seven day love prescription?
mon - turn towards and seek connection
tue - ask a big question
wed - thank you
thurs - compliment
fri - ask for what you need
sat - mini touch
sun - set up a date fortress
33
what do the four horsemen of the apocalypse show?
aspects causing issues if present in a relationship
34
what are the four horsemen of the apocalypse?
criticism
defensiveness
contempt
stonewalling
35
how to overcome criticism in a relationship (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
talk about feelings with 'I' statements instead of 'you'
36
how to overcome defensiveness in a relationship (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
accept responsibility instead
37
how to overcome contempt in a relationship (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
treat with respect and appreciation instead
38
how to overcome stonewalling in a relationship (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
break for at least 20 mins, calm down and return to conversation instead of trying to continue at that moment
39
which of the four horsemen is the worst?
contempt
40
what is criticism? (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
verbally attacking personality or character
41
what is contempt? (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
attacking sense of self with an intent to insult or abuse
42
what is defensiveness? (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
victimising yourself to ward off a perceived attack and reverse the blame
43
what is stonewalling? (four horsemen of the apocalypse)
withdrawing to avoid conflict and convey disapproval, distance and separation
44
study of homosexual vs heterosexual relationships
Homosexual vs. Heterosexual relationships
* Gottmanetal.(2003)
– Compared 40 homosexual and 40 heterosexual couples (matched - in terms of education, income, etc)
– Comparable relationship quality and satisfaction
– Affect during conflict for the receiving partner in a homosexual relationship was positive and negative for the receiving partner in a heterosexual relationship
– During conflict, homosexual couples use fewer hostile tactics during conflict than heterosexual couples
45
what was affect like during conflict like for the receiving partner in a homosexual and heterosexual relationship? (Gottman et al., 2003)
positive for homosexual
negative for heterosexual
46
during conflict, do homosexual couples or heterosexual couples use fewer or more hostile tactics? (Gottman et al., 2003)
homosexual couples use fewer hostile tactics
47
study on predicting divorce and when
Gottman and Leveson (2000)
14-year longitudinal with 79 heterosexual couples, started in 1983 (Indiana)
48
findings of Gottman and Leveson (2000) study on predicting divorce and when?
- presence of any of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse = divorced after an average of 5.6 years (9 couples)
– Emotional disengagement presence = divorced after an average of 9.4 years (13 couples)
– Divorce predictions had 93% accuracy
49
magic ratio of positive: negative interactions during conflict
5:1
50
magic ratio of positive: negative interactions outside of conflict
20:1
51
social exchange theory
Relationship between two people is created through a process of cost-benefit analysis (including factors like time and money, etc, as well as intimacy, trust, etc)
* Cost reward ratio
* Minimax - Strive to maximise rewards and minimise costs
* Profit – rewards exceed costs (both in state of profit maintains relationship)
* Comparison used to assess profit
1. Comparison Level (deserved reward amount)
2. Comparison Level of Alternatives (would other relationships be more profitable than current)
52
Levinger (1980) 4 signs of relationship breakdown
1. A new life is the only solution
2. Alternatives are available (other people are available)
3. Expectation that the relationship will fail (no saving it)
4. Lack of commitment
53
what are the factors impacting a persons response to relationship breakdown?
passive, active, constructive, destructive (Rusbullt and Zembrodt, 1983)
54
what will a passive and constructive response to relationship breakdown lead to?
loyalty - just staying put
55
what will a passive and destructive response to relationship breakdown lead to?
neglect - no effort, time or commitment put in
56
what will an active and constructive response to relationship breakdown lead to?
voice behaviour - talking about problems and trying to come up with a solution to fix them
57
what will an active and destructive response to relationship breakdown lead to?
exit behaviour - relationship ends
58
what are relationship enhancement programmes?
“...those that aim to improve the relationship between two people who are involved romantically” (Reardon-Anderson, 2005, p. 5)
education not therapy, prevention not cure
enhancing a relationship whilst we are in it to avoid relationship counselling later down the line
59
positive outcomes of relationship enhancement programmes
Stanley, et al. (2002)
– Specific skills (e.g., conflict management, team working)
– Reduce number of negative interactions
– Maintain higher levels of relationship satisfaction
– Reduced chance of break-up
– Effects can last up to 5 years
* Benefits in terms of pre-marital, marital and family satisfaction (Guerney & Maxson, 1990)
60
definitions of relationship maintenance
Dindia & Canary (1993) “...the strategies used to keep a relationship in a specified state.”
* Canary & Stafford (1991;1992): Relationship maintenance behaviours are verbal/nonverbal expressions and actions that sustain and contributes to the quality and growth of the relationship (allowing relationship to grow and develop)
* Canary&Stafford(1994): A relationship needs to be maintained or it will end (if we neglect the relationship it will end)
61
Rhind and Jewett (2010) research on coach-athlete relationships
Interviews were conducted with 6 coaches and 6 athletes on their coach-athlete relationship
1. “Think of a time when you felt close, committed or complementary towards your coach/athlete...what factors contributed to this?”
2. “Think of a time when you did not feel close, committed or complementary towards your coach/athlete...what factors contributed to this?”
compass model
62
What are the elements of the COMPASS model (what does it stand for?)
conflict management
openness
motivational
preventative
assurance
support
social networks
63
conflict management (COMPASS)
being able to negotiate and solve problem in a clam manner
proactive
64
openness (COMPASS)
being able to talk about everything
65
motivational (COMPASS)
wider relationships should keep going
66
preventative (COMPASS)
to prevent conflict management
setting up boundaries and expectations
67
assurance (COMPASS)
committed to relationship and being there for someone
followed up with action rather than just verbalising
68
support (COMPASS)
being able to notice when something isn't right and then having a conversation about it to offer support
69
social networks
having shared networks between you both
70
LGBT+ study
Haas & Lannutti (2022)
* 1, 303 participants (USA)
* Gender
– Cisgender male (n = 604, 46.4%),
– Cisgender female (n = 628, 48.2%)
– Female-to-male transgender (n = 15, 1.2%)
– Male-to-female transgender (n = 10, .8%)
– Nonbinary (n = 3 2.7%)
– Other (n = 11, 2.7%)
* Sexual orientation:
– Gay (n = 608, 46.7%)
– Lesbian (n = 486, 37.3%)
– Bisexual (n = 96, 7.4%)
– Queer (n = 77, 5.9%)
– Straight (n = 5, .4%)
– Other (n = 31, 2.4%)
* Online survey
– Relational outcomes (commitment, satisfaction, closeness, control mutuality, resilience)
– Engagement in relational maintenance behaviours
* Results:
– Assurances emerged as the primary predictor of all of the relational outcomes (similar to heterosexual relationships)
– Higher use of communicating relational assurances in unmarried relationships
– Commitment was positively predicted by shared networks
– Satisfaction was positivity predicted by conflict management and shared networks
71
CARM-Q
Coach Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire
* Item generation of 50 items
* Content validity assessed by expert panels
* Tested with coach and athletes
* 28-items measure to develop to measure the 7 strategies within the COMPASS model
72
Rhind and Jewett (2011) CARM-Q study
Rhind & Jowett (2011) administered the CARM-Q to 146 athletes and 105 coaches along with the Coach Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)
* Strongassociationswerefoundbetweenthe measures
– Closeness was associated with openness, support and social networks
– Commitment was associated with motivation and assurance
– Complementarity was associated with conflict management and preventative strategies
use of COMPASS strategies leads to these positive outcomes in relationships
