Close Relationships II

Transcription

1 Close Relationships II Lecture Overview! Midterm 2 October 30th, 2009 : Lecture 15! Attachment Theory! Interpersonal Closeness! Relationship Dissolution! Rejection Midterm 2 Location of Midterm 2! Locations:! Date:! Wednesday, November 11th! Time:! 5-6 pm! AA 112, AC 223, and SW 309! Room Assignments:! AC 223: Last names within A and MAHA! SW 309: Last names within MAHM and RAM! AA 112: Last names within RAS and Z

2 Format of Midterm 2 Material Covered by Midterm 2! Format:! 30 Multiple Choice! 3 points each! 5 Matching! Lectures 8-15 (not Lecture 9)! Reading assigned for Lectures 8-15! Part of Chapter 4, Chapters 8 and 9! 2 points each Study Materials for Midterm 2 Finishing Up With Harlow s Monkeys! After November 1st:! Review Sheet & Practise Questions! exams.html! Reminder of Wire/Cloth Mothers & Fear Responses! Effects of Social Isolation

3 Harlow s Rhesus Monkeys Harlow s Rhesus Monkeys Fear Stimulus Harlow s Rhesus Monkeys Fear Response Harlow s Rhesus Monkeys! Exploration high when cloth mother is present, low when cloth mother is absent Cloth Mother Present Cloth Mother Absent

4 What if Monkey Is Socially Isolated? What if Monkey Is Socially Isolated?!! Isolated Rhesus Monkeys!! Socially isolated for 3 months Dramatic disturbances after 3 months! Huddling alone, rocking, self-mutilation! Incompetent (often abusive) parenting Still provided with regular food and contact comfort (e.g., good room temperature) Monkey Therapy What if Monkey is Socially Isolated?! Negative impact of isolation could be reduced!! Introduce isolated monkeys to therapist monkey Therapist Monkey! Non-isolated, same-age rhesus monkey

5 Monkey Therapy Which Describes You Best?! After 2-weeks, isolated monkey will play with therapist monkey! After ~6 months, isolated monkey seems mostly recovered! Remains more easily stressed out than normal monkeys A. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. B. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn t really love me or won t want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away. C. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.! Attachment Theory Infant Attachment! Infant Attachment! Adult Attachment! Attachment Styles! Attachment Dimensions! Global versus Specific Attachment Orientations! Attachment theory describes how infants become:! Emotionally attached to caregivers! Emotionally distressed at loss of caregiver! Implications of Attachment

6 Infant Attachment Imprinting! Functional purpose of attachment:! Comforts fearful child! Builds expectations for future relationships! Provides secure base for exploration! Preset in non-humans as well! A form of attachment bond which occurs shortly after birth/ hatching among many species! Must occur within the sensitive period! Animals show distress when imprinted object has been removed Attachment Among Humans Assessing Attachment! Infants enter world predisposed to seek direct contact with a primary Caregiver! Motivated by:! Infants find social interaction intrinsically rewarding! Instinctive fear of the unknown/unfamiliar! Mary Ainsworth - The Strange Situation! Child s behavior observed during separation from, reunion with parent 1. Parent and infant enter novel room with lots of toys; Stranger enters 2. Parent leaves, then returns after 1 minute 3. Parent and stranger leave 4. Stranger returns, then Parent returns

7 3 Original Attachment Styles Secure Attachment! ~! of children tested! Secure Attachment! Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment! Avoidant Attachment! Behaviour in Strange Situation:! Explores in caregiver s presence! Exhibits distress at separation! Enthusiastically greets caregiver at reunion Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Avoidant Attachment! ~10%! Behaviour in Strange Situation:! Does not explore, even in caregiver s presence! Panics at separation (extreme distress)! Ambivalent at reunion:! Crying and running to be picked up! But kicking/slapping caregiver or struggling to get down! ~15%! Strange Situation:! Focuses attention on toys; ignores caregiver! No distress at separation (might search for caregiver)! Snubs caregiver at reunion, distant and aloof

8 Outcomes of Infant Attachment Outcomes of Infant Attachment! Securely attached kids! Much more well liked by peers! Tend to have higher academic achievement/ career success! Much less instance of mental illness! Insecurely attached kids: Anxious-Ambivalent! Anxious-Ambivalent! Tend to want to get too close to others, and show preoccupation with loss of attachment figures! Trouble keeping close relationships Outcomes of Infant Attachment! Insecurely attached kids: Anxious Avoidant! Anxious/Avoidant! Trouble forming close relationships - specific lack of trust! Poor job performance! Low intrinsic enjoyment of jobs Formation of Strong Attachments! What can the caregiver do?! Caregiver s Contributions:! Sensitive! Responsive! Emotionally Accessible! Consistent

9 Formation of Strong Attachments Adult Attachment! What can the infant do?! Infants Contributions:! Smiling at Caregiver! Reaching for Caregiver! Seeking social interaction with Caregiver! Adult romantic relationships function like caregiverchild attachment relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)! Prefer proximity, with distress upon separation! Turn to partner for support when stressed, in danger! Derive security from partner, enabling exploration of and engagement with the rest of the world Which Describes You Best? Secure attachment style A. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. B. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn t really love me or won t want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away. C. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.! I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

10 Secure Attachment Style (56%) Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Style! Experience of love!! Trust, friendship, positive emotions! View of self / relationships!! Believe in enduring love! Others are trustworthy! Self is likable! Memories of caregivers! I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn t really love me or won t want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.! Dependably responsive and caring Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Style (19%) Avoidant Attachment Style! Experience of love! Preoccupying, almost painfully exciting struggle to merge with someone else! View of self / relationships!! Fall in love frequently, easily! Have difficulty finding true love! Have self-doubts! Memories of caregivers! I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.!! Mixture of positive and negative experiences

11 Avoidant Attachment Style Attachment Dimensions! Experience of love! Fear of closeness! Lack of trust! View of self / relationships!! Doubtful of existence or durability of romantic love! Don t need love partner in order to be happy! All these styles feel a bit tautological! Self as independent, self-reliant! Memories of caregivers! Cold and rejecting Attachment Dimensions Global vs. Specific Attachment! Now we think of attachment in terms of two continuous dimensions:! Attachment Avoidance! Attachment Anxiety High Anxious Ambivalent Avoidant! Global Attachment:! Generalized attachment tendency! How you typically approach attachment relationships! Specific Attachments:! Distinct attachment to each attachment figure Low High Avoidance! E.g., An avoidant person can be securely attached to their best friend Secure Attachment Low Anxiety! Almost everyone has (had) a specific attachment representing each style

12 Close Relationships Types of Relationships! Types of Relationships! ABCs of Relationships:! Cognition: Self-Expansion Theory, Interdependence Theory! Affect: Theories of Love, Positive Illusions! Friendship! Enemies! Romantic Relationships! Behaviour: Equity Theory, Co-operative Dilemmas in Close Relationships Friendship Cultural Variations in Friendship! Adams & Plout, 2003! Platonic interpersonal closeness Ghana % US % Reports more than 5 friends Caution or suspicion about friends 44 4 Many friends target is foolish or naïve No friends target is bad or wrong No friends target is sad or regrettable Material and practical support Emotional support Trust, respect 8 36

13 Enemyship Cultural Variations in Enemyship! Adams & Plout, 2003! Strong bond of animosity, distrust, and goal interference Ghana % US % Do you have enemies? People without enemies = foolish/naïve If hidden enemies: target is suspicious 9 45 Explanations -Group-based (e.g., I Hate Americans.) Inevitable part of social life Product of Enemy s Choices 6 48 Romantic Relationships Self-Expansion Theory Self Other! Interpersonal closeness for which there is a sexual, procreative goal! The experience of closeness is an associative overlap of our self-concept with our concept of a close other! AKA Inclusion-of-Other-in-Self! Information about close others are closely associated with self-related information! Cognitive component of closeness

14 Self-Expansion Theory Implicit Personality Test Self Other Me Not Me! Self/Other Cognitive Overlap:! Longer reaction times when making me / not-me judgements of spouse s characteristics Personality Trait! Make more situational attributions for self and close others, but dispositional attributions for non-close others Implicit Personality Test Implicit Personality Test Me Not Me Me Not Me Your Trait Honest

15 Implicit Personality Test Implicit Personality Test Me Not Me Me Not Me Punctual Friend s Unique Trait Implicit Personality Test Self-Expansion Theory Me Not Me Self Other Artistic! Self/Other Cognitive Overlap:! Longer reaction times when making me / not-me judgements of spouse s characteristics! Make more situational attributions for self and close others! Make more dispositional attributions for non-close others (Fundamental Attribution Error only applies to non-close others)

16 Interdependence Theory Interdependence Theory! 3 Components of Commitment:! Called Investment Model by your textbook! Commitment! A mental state characterized by a pluralistic, collective representation of the self-in-relationship! Satisfaction! Product of perceived rewards, costs, and comparison level! Quality of Alternatives! Resource Investment Commitment = (!Satisfaction)+("Quality of Alternatives)+(!Resource Investment) Interdependence Theory Interdependence Theory! When commitment is high:! More spontaneous use of plural pronouns! Rusbult (1983)! Method:! Measure satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and resources in dating couples at Time 1! Contact them 7 months later to ask about relationship! Rusbult (1983) Commitment! Results: ! Commitment 7 months later: Satisfaction Satisfaction Quality of Alternatives Resource Investment Quality of Alternatives Resource Investment

17 Interdependence Theory Theories of Love! Rusbult (1983)! Results:! Break-up 7 months later: % Broken-up Satisfaction Quality of Alternatives Resource Investment! Companionate & Passionate Love 0 Satisfaction Quality of Alternatives Resource Investment Companionate Love Passionate Love! Feelings of intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person, but without sexual arousal or passion! Can exist between lovers or friends! Valued in all cultures! Feelings of intense longing for a person, usually accompanied by physiological arousal! Valued in 144 of 167 cultures

18 Positive Illusions in Close Relationships Equity Theory! Idealization of close others; seeing them as more positive than they see themselves! Over the course of 1-year, couples who maintain positive illusions of their partner (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996):! Decreasing instances of conflict! Increasing satisfaction! Decreasing doubts about the relationship! Were more likely to be together at the end of the year! Close relationship are transactions in which partners exchange goods and services! Relationship satisfaction predicted by equity! However, relationship quality is predicted by the way you evaluate equity! Two Equity Orientations:! Exchange Orientation! Communal Orientation Exchange Orientation Communal Orientation! Interactions between relationship partners are governed by equity concerns! Tit-for-tat strategy! Typically observed among new acquaintances! A partner gives in response to their partner s needs, regardless of whether they are paid back! Typically observed with high quality close relationships

19 Co-operative Dilemmas in Close Relationships Relationship Dissolution! What to do when one partner behaves destructively?! Attributions for partner s behavior! Better to make positive/non-dispositional attributions! Transformation of motivation in long-term relationships: Partner B s Response Constructive Destructive Partner A s Initial Behaviour Constructive Destructive Long-Term, Cooperative Goals Short-Term, Self- Serving Goals! Why Relationships Fail! After Relationships Fail: Rejection What Couples Do Well? What Couples Do Well?! Most studies of marital stability correlate relationship longevity with:! Married after age 20, similar age! Grew up in 2-parent homes! Dated for a long time, but did not live together! Same level of education, especially if high! Good income! Religious, and of same religious affiliation! Sense of equity! Novel Experiences (Aron & Aron, 1986)! Sharing new experiences together! Exploration of environment with partner as secure base! Sex often, arguments rarely

20 Why Relationships Fail Why Relationships Fail! Top Causes of Conflict:! Low Equity in Relationship! Lack of Positive Illusions (particularly negative illusions)! Low interdependence! Boredom - Lack of exploration/novel activities! Sex! Money! Kids:! Marital satisfaction dives with first child! Slowly returns to pre-child levels by empty nest Why Relationships Fail How Relationships Fail! Gottman (1994): 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse in 15-minute conflict conversations 1. Criticism (e.g., listing personal flaws, attacking) 2. Defensiveness (e.g., denying, excusing, or counter-criticizing) 3. Contempt (e.g., rolling eyes, sarcasm, insulting) 4. Stonewalling (e.g., non-response to communicative attempts)! Friendships! People typically use passive strategies to end the relationship! Avoidance or withdrawal! Romantic Relationships! People typically use direct strategies to end the relationship! Direct confrontation

21 Rejection Neurochemical Basis of Social Rejection! Neurological Experience of Physical Pain:! Neurochemical Basis of Rejection! Interpersonal Rejection Sensitivity! Reactions to Rejection! Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC)! Associated with distress signal during physical pain! Right Ventral Prefrontal Cortex (rvpfc)! Associated with regulation and inhibition of felt pain Neurochemical Basis of Rejection Is Social Pain Pain?! fmri scans show cortical activity in ACC and rvpfc during social rejection! If social pain is physically painful! Interrupting the experience of pain should dull the hurt of rejection

22 Is Social Pain Pain? Is Social Pain Pain?! DeWall, MacDonald, et al. (2008)! Method: 1. Randomly assign participants to take Tylenol or Placebo twice daily for 21 days 2. Report on social experiences each day, particularly related to social rejection or social exclusion! DeWall, MacDonald, et al. (2008)! Results:! Tylenol participants reported less physical pain! Tylenol participants reported less hurt feelings on days when they experienced social rejection or exclusion than placebo Interpersonal Rejection Sensitivity Reactions to Rejection! Sustained vigilance for rejection cues and emotionallycharged, hot reaction when rejection is perceived! Perceive rejection in ambiguously rejecting situations! Respond intensely to perceived rejection! Just as common in men as women! Hot Sauce Study (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008)! Method: 1. Female participants believe they will have a social interaction and complete a personality profile that will be given to their partner! Rejection Condition: Participant reads profile of attractive, opposite-sex partner, Alex (note: Alex hates spicy foods ). Alex supposedly discontinues the study after reading their profile.! Control Condition: Participant thinks partner just didn t show up. Alex is some other random participant. 2. Experimenter asks participant to make Alex a drink for an unrelated study on personality & taste preferences 3. How much hot sauce does the participant put in Alex s drink?

23 Reactions to Rejection What Is Love? Baby Don t Hurt Me! Hot Sauce Study (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008)! Results: Hot Sauce in Alex s Drink by Rejection Sensitivity Hot Sauce Administered (g) 20 Control Rejection Low Rejection Sensitivity High Rejection Sensitivity! Next Time (11/4):! Culture! Related Website:! Psych Quizzes on Love & Relationships with instant feedback:! APS Article on Kids & Marital Satisfaction:! gorchoff.cfm