Categorie: Tutti - relationships - commitment - investment - satisfaction

da Emily Barnett mancano 15 anni

460

Close relationships

The dynamics of close relationships involve various factors such as commitment, satisfaction, and investment. Higher commitment often leads to sacrifices and forgiveness within relationships, while lower commitment may result in infidelity.

Close relationships

meet/exceed expectations are more satisfying

Michaels et al 1984

happy not nec stable

Close relationships

attachment style
Baldwin 1992

affect perceptions/evaluations of current r'ships

investment/commitment
commitment

Drigotas et al. 1999

more sex outside of relationship

Buunk & Bakker, 1997

more unprotecte sex outside of relationship

Finkel et al. 2002

committed individuals forgive betrayals/mistakes

Van Lange et al. 1997

make sacrifices for relationship

investment model

comparison level - ALTERNATIVES

low

Simpson 1987

more likely to stay in costly relationship

high

Drigotas & Rusbult 1992

less committed to present

comparison level

low CL

expects unrewarding relationships

high CL

expects rewarding relationships

intimacy
Reis & Patrick, 1996

3 aspects

validation

understanding

caring

attribution; social comparisons;equity
equity

those who PERCEIVE equity

most satisfied

social comparisons

Bunk, 1990

happy couples see relation as better than others'

unhappy couples envious

maladaptive attributions

low in satisfaction

stable/global problems

developing relationships

Equity theory
criticism

Cate & Lloyd 1998

absolute reward better predictor

endurance

satisfaction

BUT more serious for underbenefitted

Sprecher & Schwartz 1994

both Ub and Ob shld be moved to restore equity

inequitable relationships

underbenefitted

ANGRY, RESENTFUL

overbenefitted

GUILTY, UNCOMFORTABLE

Homans 1968

benefits + costs similar for both

Social exchange theory
Honeymoon period

before 3 months

costs not related to satisfaction

costs fairly unimportant

Hays 1985

SOCIAL REWARD
pleasing to be around someone who likes us
pleasing to have attitudes valuated
Homans 1961; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959
economic model of costs-benefits

more satisfying

fewer costs

annoying habits

giving up opportunities

compromise

working to maintain

more rewards

consolation in distress

love

companionship

self-disclosure
greater SD leads to:

Hansen & Schuldt, 1984

greater marriage satisfaction

Rubin et al. 1980

greater emotional involvement

Collins & Miller, 1994

we like those to whom we have disclosed

we like those who diclose to us

we disclose to those we like

Altman & Taylor, 1973

theory of social penetration

deeper (more important/intimate)

broder (more areas of life)

progress from superi#ficial to intimate

revealing intimate facts/feelings

initial attraction

physical attractiveness
"What is beautiful is good" stereotype
Walster et al. 1966

Random blind date. determinant of date = physical attractiveness. intelligence, condience, friendliness not relevant.

reciprocity
self-fulfilling prophecy

Curtis & Miller (1986)

Pairs meeting - either told other person likes them/not. Those who thought they were liked acted in warmer/friendlier way. Those that believed they were liked came to be liked more.

makes up for absence of similarity

Gold, Ryckman & Mosley (1984)

Greater liking for female confederate (eye-contact, listened attentively) despite disagreeing on important issues.

like those who like us
similarity
why important?

character conclusions of others

need to be validated

feel we are right

need to be liked

Condon & Crano 1998

interests and experiences

(strengthening friendships)

new similarities created by sharing experiences

Kubitchek & Hallinan (1998)

students choose friends from their academic 'track' i.e. ability

situations you choose likely contain similar others

opinions and personality

Byrne (1971

'law of attraction' - attraction increases in line with similarity of attitudes

Boyden, Carroll & Maier (1984)

Homosexual men sought men with similar personalities to themselves e.g. logical, expressive

Newcomb (1961)

Male roommates - initial attraction due to proximity. lasting friendships due to similar attitudes (e.g. same major, liberal political views)

propinquity
mere exposure effect

Moreland & Beach (1992)

female confederates into large classroom

see people a lot, become familiar

Zajonc

More exposure we have to a stimulus, the more we like it

Festinger, Schachter, Back (1950)

62% of friends lived in same building

41% next-door neighbours were friends

22% living 2-doors away were friends

10% opposite end of hall were friends