Presentation on theme: " Describe this person. What is your impression of this person? What kind of a person do you think he/she is? What do you think are his characteristics?"— Presentation transcript:
Describe this person. What is your impression of this person? What kind of a person do you think he/she is? What do you think are his characteristics? How do you feel about this person?
Little information Judged the qualities of the person Impression developed quickly, almost immediately
Made inferences based on physical features, expression Possible bias?
Chapter 16 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Social Psychology The discipline that seeks to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport, 1985)
The Social Self Self Selfhood always in a social context Self is vital for interactions/relationships “Selfhood is almost unthinkable outside of social context” (Baumeister, 1998) Self-Concept: the belief and feeling we have about ourselves a product of social interaction
The Social Self Self-Concept: Cooley’s Symbolic Interactionist Theory of Self (Cooley, 1902) We create “selves” emerges from our interactions with others and our own reflection as to how others see us We reflect about ourselves based on how we think other people see us Object of own reflection Example: A child is told he/she is “a good kid”... Treated as a “good kid” by parents and relatives... The child then believes that he/she is a “good kid”
The Social Self Self-Concept: Other influences: Gender Social roles Being a son, daughter, student, doctor etc. Self-perceptions Observations of what we like, dislike, find interesting etc. reveals our attitudes, emotions etc. Social comparisons Our abilities and attitudes compared with others (peers, friends) Collectivist or Individualistic society What characteristics are expected? What are emphasized by the culture?
The Social Self Self-Schema (Markus, 1977) System of beliefs about our self is organized “Schematic” includes extreme characteristics; repeatedly observed “I am good at _____” We easily make judgments about ourselves based on info that fit our self-schemas We predict our future behavior based on our self-schemas Filter info based on it The reason why people with poor or negative self-schema have such difficulty changing their self-concept filter out “the good stuff”... Believe “the bad stuff” Example: If you believe you are not good at...
The Social Self Self-Esteem How we evaluate ourselves: either positively or negatively Self-worth Tends to be stable over time; temporary fluctuations (Baumeister, 1998) Those with good self-esteem: Tend to be happy, healthy, successful, productive (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2006) One important source of self –worth is... Parenting (Teh, 2005) Parents who love and accept unconditionally; but still place well-defined limits Provide warmth, caring, security, availability, support
The Social Self Self-Discrepancies Actual self – how we see ourselves Ought self – consists of the characteristics we believe we should have Responsibility, duty (ex. to be studious) Ideal self – characteristics we aspire for (ex. being sociable) Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) Greater discrepancy between ACTUAL & OUGHT SELVES greater feelings of guilt, self-contempt Greater discrepancy between ACTUAL & IDEAL SELVES greater feelings of frustration, disappointment, and dissatisfaction
Social Perception: Understanding Others Social Perception: Process by which we try to understand other people & social situations Includes Impression Formation How we form impressions of other people We integrate info judgment of the person’s qualities Occur quite rapidly, even with little info Attribution Our attempt to explain why a person behaved the way they did
Social Perception: Understanding Others Impression Formation Physical features Most easily accessible info gender, face, age, build, clothes And, whatever is striking or unusual Ex. Pretty? Non-verbal behavior Facial expression Reliable basis for judging emotional states; facial expressions are universal across cultures (Ekman & Freisen,1971) Eye contact Ex. Attentive, intimacy, submissive From physical, non-verbal & verbal info initial judgements Kind? Sincere? Friendly? Flirt? Mayabang? Positive vs. Negative impression Like vs. Dislike for the person
Social Perception: Understanding Others Impression Formation We “average” not “add” info (Anderson, 1965) Average positive info with negative Example: Sincere and kind, but, shy and not too intelligent lowered positive overall impression Traits differ in importance Weighted average based on what perceiver considers as important Biases in Impression Formation Implicit Personality Theory (Anderson & Sedikides, 1991; Schneider, 1973) What personality traits are expected to go together Example: Shy & ___________ Outgoing & ____________ Stereotyping We categorize based on a need to conserve mental energy May result in erroneous perceptions
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Our attempt to explain why a person behaved the way they did Taking into account the traits of the person & the situation in which the behavior occurs It helps us predict future behavior To form a coherent understanding of the world To control the environment Particularly when something unexpected or unpleasant happens Ex. Your boyfriend/girlfriend is quiet. Is she upset? With you?
16-18 Social Thinking Attribution The Dimensions of Causality Internal/External Causes Stable/Unstable Causes Controllable/Uncontrollable Cause
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Internal Attribution We attribute according to their internal characteristics Emotional state, beliefs, attitudes, personality etc. Ex. He argued with the stranger ‘coz he’s a jerk. External attribution Attribute behavior to external factors Situation or social context Ex. He argued with the stranger ‘coz that stranger was being rude.
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Theories Correspondent inference theory (Jones & Davis, 1965) How people make internal attributions of the actor’s behavior Actor’s intentional behavior corresponds to internal characteristic/disposition of the actor Important factors: social desirability & noncommon effects Ex. Gary is nice... But only when cute girls are around Noncommon effect : ‘being nice” Social desirability factor : wants to impress cute girls
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Theories Covariation model (Kelley, 1967) We attribute the cause to what “covaries” with the behavior If behavior occurs, the cause is always present If behavior doesn’t occur, cause is always absent We make 1 of 3 types of attribution to explain behavior Internal attribution to the actor External attribution to the entity (person/object behavior is focused on) External attribution to the situation/circumstances
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Theories Covariation model (Kelley) 3 types of Information Consensus: what we know about how other people behave in the same situation. Distinctiveness: what we know about actor’s behavior toward other entities. Consistency: what we know about actor’s behavior in other situations. Covariation model: People tend to make internal attributions (to the actor) when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency are high. People make external attributions (to the entity) when consensus and distinctiveness are both high and consistency is still high. When consistency is low, they will make situational attributions – external attribution (to the circumstance).
Social Perception: Understanding Others Attribution Theories Covariation model (Kelley) Example: If a manager yells at a person, we assume it is his nature if he is the only person to yell at that person (low consensus), he yells at other people too (low distinctiveness) and he yells at them often. However, if everyone else gets cross with the same person (high consensus) and the manager does not yell at other people (high distinctiveness), we assume it is something external—probably the person being yelled at. Finally, if the manager has not yelled at the person before (low consistency), we assume that something unusual has happened (situational attribution).
Social Perception: Understanding Others Biases in Attribution Fundamental Attribution error (Ross, 1977) Tendency to overestimate internal causes and underestimate situational causes for other people’s behavior This can be due to our focus on the person more than their situation, about which we may know very little. When we are playing the role of observer, which is largely when we look at others, we make this fundamental attribution error.
Social Perception: Understanding Others Reasons for Fundamental Attribution Error Actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) We tend to see other people’s behaviors as being caused by their personal disposition, while perceiving our own actions as due to situational factors. Ex. When other people are rude They aren’t nice. When we are rude because we had a bad day Perceptual salience We tend to over-estimate the causal role (salience) of information we have available to us. From the observer’s point of view: actor stands out Therefore, observer makes internal attribution From the actor’s point of view: the situation stands out Therefore, actor makes external attribution (situational)
Social Perception: Understanding Others Biases in Attribution Self-serving Bias This is our tendency to take credit for success (attribute to internal factors) and deny any responsibility for failure (attribute to external factors). This helps to protect our ego. Example I am proud of my good exam results except for the failure in one subject where I was unfortunately rather ill on the day of the examination.
Social Perception: Understanding Others Explanatory Style and Life Perspective How we approach life is shaped by the attributions we make The difference between optimists & pessimists Explanatory style – how they habitually make attributions Optimists: explain good experiences due to permanent, universal, & internal causes. Pessimists: explain good experiences as being due to external, temporary, or specific causes. the opposite for pessimists/optimists concerning bad experiences Origins of explanatory style? Childhood parent optimists or pessimists? How would they explain things? Type of criticism received bad experiences (leads to pessimism)
Attitudes: Understanding How We React to Our Social World Attitudes: Predispositions towards action. About or towards people and things. (like/dislike; favorable/unfavorable) Evaluative of people, objects and ideas. 3 components: Made up of emotional reactions (affective), thoughts and beliefs (cognitive), and actions (behavioral) components Three components may not always be consistent (Affective usually more powerful) Ex. Smoke cigarettes even though cognitively one is aware of the facts about smoking
Attitudes: Understanding How We React to Our Social World Forming Attitudes Direct experience with object Was it a positive or negative experience? Observations of own behavior (Self-Perception Theory) If unaware of our attitude, we make conclusions based on our own behavior Ex. “I spend a lot of time with Juan I must like Juan.” “My best friend and I don’t talk as much maybe I’ve outgrown her” Influence of media Classical and operant conditioning
16-30 Social Thinking Attitudes Can Behavior Predict Attitudes? Cognitive Dissonance Theory A concept developed by Festinger that refers to an individual's motivation to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) caused by two inconsistent thoughts. Self-Perception Theory Bem's theory about the connection between attitudes and behavior; it stresses that individuals make inferences about their attitudes by perceiving their behavior.
16-31 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
16-32 Social Perception Theory
... What is your reaction to the following ads?
Attitudes: Understanding How We React to Our Social World Attitudes & Behavior A person’s behavior does not always correspond with their attitude Do you care about the environment? Do you believe in honesty? In not stealing? Some factors Is there freedom of choice? Situational pressures
Attitudes: Understanding How We React to Our Social World Attitude Change Variables Source (communicator) Message (communication) Channel (medium) Receiver Research reveals More credible the source produces more attitude change. The more attractive/likable produces more attitude change.
Attitudes: Understanding How We React to Our Social World Research reveals When a person is more motivated to and able to assess merits central route of persuasion will be taken Merits of the message When person is not motivated or able to examine merits peripheral route of persuasion (peripheral cues) Attractiveness of communicator? Number of arguments (regardless of quality) Fear is more effective... If consequences are likely; And person is capable of taking the action recommended Contact with people, more effective than the mass media More likely to change attitudes, during adolescence & early adulthood
16-42 Social Influence Conformity and Obedience Conformity Involves a change in a person's behavior to coincide more with a group standard. Asch’s Conformity Experiment “choose the matching vertical line” Factors that Contribute to Conformity Normative Influence The influence that other people have on us because we seek their approval or avoid their disapproval. Informational Influence The influence other people have on us because we want to be right.
16-43 Social Influence Conformity and Obedience Conformity Factors that Contribute to Conformity Unanimity of the Group Prior Commitment Personal Characteristics Group Member’s Characteristics Cultural Values
16-44 Social Influence Conformity and Obedience Obedience Milgram’s Obedience Study Resisting Social Influence
The Milgram Study: The experiment The experimenter The “teacher” The “learner” year-old with a heart condition Told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations. The "teacher" was given a 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing for each wrong answer.voltelectric shock After a number of voltage level increases, the “learner” started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease. At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order: [ Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice, you must go on. If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.
Menu LO 13.4 Obedience
The Milgram Study: Results The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a sadistic few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. No participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level. Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results
The Milgram Study: Professor Milgram elaborated two theories explaining his results: A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model. the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.
16-49 Milgram Obedience Study
The Tragedy of the Commons The Tragedy of the Commons is a type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good. The term derives originally from William Forster Lloyd – observed a medieval village land holding for his 1833 book on population Current problems Uncontrolled human population Water over-extraction of groundwater and wasting water Forests - slash and burn Energy resources and climate - Burning of fossil fuels and consequential global warming Animals - Habitat destruction and poaching Oceans – Overfishing
The Tragedy of the Commons Preventing the Tragedy of the Commons The individualistic solution Making the collectivist interest profitable to people acting to promote their own short –term interests Taxes Fines The collectivistic solution Inducing individuals to accept values which serve the group’s interest or to act explicitly with the group’s interest in mind Social norms Learning to line up? To wait your turn? Learning to follow traffic rules?
Group Behavior Group Structure Roles Leader Member Norms rules Culture How do groups make decisions? Informational influence (intellective tasks) Who has the best factual info and arguments Normative influence (judgemental tasks) Conformity that leads to consensus Group Polarization effect Tendency of groups to arrive at decisions that are more extreme than the initial opinions of the members If already cautious.. After group discussion, more cautious If already a risk-taker... After group discussion, more risk-taking All arguments in one direction leads to extreme position
Group Behavior Groupthink Faulty decision-making that happens when a group fails to examine alternative courses of action leading to defective decisions Why? To achieve consensus... And a pleasant social atmosphere Lead to the explosion of the Space shuttle Invasion of Iraq? How to avoid? Leader should first take impartial position, be open to criticism Should encourage members to question, criticize Assign devil’s advocate Outside experts 2nd round of discussion
Group Behavior Leadership Tries to achieve “constructive or adaptive change” 3 interrelated processes Leader establishes direction Aligns people to the vision Motivates and inspires
Individual Decision Making vs. Group Consensus 1.The Problem: Your spaceship has just crash-landed on the “dark side” of the moon. You are scheduled to rendezvous with the mother ship 200 miles away on the lighted side of the moon, but the crash-landing has ruined your spaceship and destroyed all the equipment on board, except for the 15 items listed below. Your crew’s survival on the moon depends upon reaching the mother ship, so you must choose the most critical items available to take with you on the 200- mile trip to reach the mother ship. 2.Your task is to rank order the 15 items below in terms of their importance for your survival. 15 ITEMSYOUR RANKINGSYOUR GROUP’S RANKINGS Box of matches Food concentrate Fifty feet of nylon rope Parachute silk Solar-powered portable heating unit Two.45 caliber pistols One case of dehydrated milk Two 100-pound tanks of oxygen Stellar map of the moon’s constellation Self-inflated life raft Magnetic compass Five gallons of water Signal flares First aid kit containing injection needles Solar-powered FM receiver-transmitter
NASA’s rankings of the 15 items Box of matches No oxygen on the moon to sustain flame; virtually useless15 Food concentrateEfficient means of supplying energy requirements4 Fifty feet of nylon ropeUseful in scaling cliffs, tying injured together6 Parachute silkProtection from sun’s rays8 Solar-powered portable heating unitNot needed on dark side13 Two.45 caliber pistolsPossible means of self-propulsion11 One case of dehydrated milkBulkier duplication of food concentrate12 Two 100-pound tanks of oxygenMost pressing survival need1 Stellar map of the moon’s constellationPrimary means of navigation3 Self-inflated life raftCO2 bottle in military raft may be used for propulsion9 Magnetic compassMagnetic field on moon is not polarized; worthless for navigation14 Five gallons of waterReplacement for tremendous liquid loss on lighted side2 Signal flaresDistress signal when mother ship is sighted10 First aid kit containing injection needles Needles for vitamins, medicines, etc. 7 Solar-powered FM receiver-transmitter For communication with mother ship; 5 but FM requires line-of-sight transmission and short ranges
Individual Decision Making vs. Group Consensus Were two heads better than one? Do groups make better decisions than individuals? If so, what goes on in the group decision-making process that makes this possible? If not, why not? Answers to these questions are important because throughout life you will have many opportunities to make decisions alone or in groups. The activity was to help you develop effective group decision-making skills.
Group Behavior Organizational Effectiveness How good companies become great? Clear understanding of What they can be the best in the world at What are they deeply passionate about What drives their economic engine
Interpersonal Attraction: Go to the board and make a list of qualities you would want in the opposite sex/romantic partner Everyone! Write at least one each
Top-Ten Attributes: Robin Gilmore (1988) found that men and women, when asked to list and rank desirable attributes in the other gender, produced dramatically different lists. Women Find Attractive in a ManMen Find Attractive in a Woman a.a record of achievementa. physical attractiveness b.leadership qualitiesb. ability in bed c.skill at his jobc. warmth and affection d.earning potentiald. social skill e.a sense of humore. homemaking ability f.intellectual abilityf. dress sense g.attentivenessg. sensitivity to others’ needs h.common senseh. good taste i.athletic abilityi. moral perception j.good abstract reasoningj. artistic creativity
Interpersonal Attraction: 2 loves (Hatfield) Passionate love Physiological arousal Companionate love Affection Sternberg triangular theory of love 3 basic components: Intimacy (connection/closeness) Passion (romantic/sexual) Commitment (the decision to love & maintain the relationship)
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love Sternberg’s Triangle of Love Liking-- Intimacy-- Empty Love-- -- Commitment Romantic Passion Intimacy--
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love Lee Six Love Styles Eros erotic/physical Storge affection/deep friendship Ludus Love is a game/no commitment Mania Obsessive/jealous Pragma Pragmatic (ex. Arranged marriages) Agape Selfless and altruistic
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love What makes loving relationships last? Sternberg We each have a schema of love: a love story with a plot, theme & characters We are guided by this love story We subconsciously write these stories beginning in childhood Garden story Loving relationships are nurtured and cared for by partners Sacrifice story Giving and sacrificing is central to the story Business story Like a business partnership Government story Power is a concern Teacher-student story Travel story Fantasy story etc.
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love What makes loving relationships last? Sternberg We fall in love with those whose stories are similar, but whose roles are complementary Ex. Fantasy story The knight in shining armor Princess Incompatible stories lead to difficulties Different expectations and role enactments You should know your love story! Seek out a compatible partner based on the story Or, change story We can write a happy ending!
What is your Love Story?
Rate each statement on a scale from 1 to 9, 1meaning that it doesn't characterize your romantic relationships at all, 9 meaning that It describes them extremely well. Then average your scores for each story. In general, averaged scores of 7 to 9 are high, Indicating a strong attraction to a story, and 1 to 3 are low, indicating little or no interest in the story. Moderate scores of 4 to 6 indicate some Interest, but probably not enough to generate or keep a romantic interest. Next, evaluate your own love story. (There are 12 listed here; see Sternberg’s book “Love is a Story” for more.)
What is your Love Story? STORY #1 1. I enjoy making sacrifices for the sake of my partner. 2. I believe sacrifice is a key part of true love. 3. I often compromise my own comfort to satisfy my partner's needs. Score: The sacrifice story can lead to happy relationships when both partners are content in the roles they are playing, particularly when they both make sacrifices. It is likely to cause friction when partners feel compelled to make sacrifices. Research suggests that relationships of all kinds are happiest when they are roughly equitable. The greatest risk in a sacrifice story is that the give-and-take will become too out of balance, with one partner always being the giver or receiver.
What is your Love Story? STORY #2 Officer: 1. I believe that you need to keep a close eye on your partner. 2. I believe it is foolish to trust your partner completely. 3. I would never trust my partner to work closely with a person of the opposite sex. Score: Suspect: 1. My partner often calls me several times a day to ask exactly what I am doing. 2. My partner needs to know everything that I do. 3. My partner gets very upset if I don't let him or her know exactly where I have been. Score: Police stories do not have very favorable prognoses because they can completely detach from reality. The police story may offer some people the feeling of being cared for. People who are very insecure relish the attention that they get as a "suspect," that they are unable to receive in any other way. But they can end up paying a steep price. As the plot thickens, the suspect first begins to lose freedom, then dignity, and then any kind of self-respect. Eventually, the person's mental and even physical well-being may be threatened.
What is your Love Story? STORY #3 1. I believe that, in a good relationship, partners change and grow together. 2. I believe love is a constant process of discovery and growth. 3. I believe that beginning a relationship is like starting a new journey that promises to be both exciting and challenging. Score: Travel stories that last beyond a very short period of time generally have a favorable prognosis, because if the travelers can agree on a destination and path, they are already a long way toward success. If they can't, they often find out quite quickly that they want different things from the relationship and split up. Travel relationships tend to be dynamic and focus on the future. The greatest risk is that over time one or both partners will change the destination or path they desire. When people speak of growing apart, they often mean that the paths they wish to take are no longer the same. In such cases, the relationship is likely to become increasingly unhappy, or even dissolve completely.
What is your Love Story? STORY #4 Object: 1. The truth is that I don't mind being treated as a sex toy by my partner. 2. It is very important to me to gratify my partner's sexual desires and whims, even if people might view them as debasing. 3. I like it when my partner wants me to try new and unusual, and even painful, sexual techniques. Score: Subject: 1. The most important thing to me in my relationship is for my partner to be an excellent sex toy, doing anything I desire. 2. I can never be happy with a partner who is not very adventurous in sex. 3. The truth is that I like a partner who feels like a sex object. Score: There are no obvious advantages to the pornography story. The disadvantages are quite dear, however. First, the excitement people attain is through degradation of themselves and others. Second, the need to debase and be debased is likely to keep escalating. Third, once one adopts the story, it may be difficult to adopt another story. Fourth, the story can become physically as well as psychologically dangerous. And finally, no matter how one tries, it is difficult to turn the story into one that's good for psychological or physical well-being.
What is your Love Story? STORY #5 Terrorizer: 1. I often make sure that my partner knows that I am in charge, even if it makes him or her scared of me. 2. I actually find it exciting when I feel my partner is somewhat frightened of me. 3. I sometimes do things that scare my partner, because I think it is actually good for a relationship to have one partner slightly frightened of the other. Score: Victim: 1. I believe it is somewhat exciting to be slightly scared of your partner. 2. I find it arousing when my partner creates a sense of fear in me. 3. I tend to end up with people who sometimes frighten me. Score: The horror story probably is the least advantageous of the stories. To some, it may be exciting. But the forms of terror needed to sustain the excitement tend to get out of control and to put their participants, and even sometimes those around them, at both psychological and physical risk. Those who discover that they have this story or are in a relationship that is enacting it would be well-advised to seek counseling, and perhaps even police protection.
What is your Love Story? STORY #6 Co-dependent: 1. I often end up with people who are facing a specific problem, and I find myself helping them get their life back in order. 2. I enjoy being involved in relationships in which my partner needs my help to get over some problem. 3. I often find myself with partners who need my help to recover from their past. Score: Person in recovery: 1. I need someone who will help me recover from my painful past. 2. I believe that a relationship can save me from a life that is crumbling around me. 3. I need help getting over my past. Score: The main advantage to the recovery story is that the co-dependent may really help the other partner to recover, so long as the other partner has genuinely made the decision to recover. Many of us know individuals who sought to reform their partners, only to experience total frustration when their partners made little or no effort to reform. At the same time, the co- dependent is someone who needs to feel he or she is helping someone, and gains this feeling of making a difference to someone through the relationship. The problem: Others can assist in recovery, but the decision to recover can only be made by the person in need of recovery. As a result, recovery stories can assist in, but not produce, actual recovery.
What is your Love Story? STORY #7 1. I believe a good relationship is attainable only if you spend time and energy to care for it, just as you tend a garden. 2. I believe relationships need to be nourished constantly to help weather the ups and downs of life. 3. I believe the secret to a successful relationship is the care that partners take of each other and of their love. Score: The biggest advantage of a garden story is its recognition of the importance of nurture. No other story involves, this amount of care and attention. The biggest potential disadvantage is that a lack of spontaneity or boredom may develop. People in garden stories are not immune to the lure of extramarital relationships, for example, and may get involved in them to generate excitement, even if they still highly value their primary relationship. In getting involved in other relationships, however, they are putting the primary relationship at rise Another potential disadvantage is that of smothering--that the attention becomes too much. Just as one can overwater a flower, one can overattend a relationship. Sometimes it's best to let things be and allow nature to take its course.
What is your Love Story? STORY #8 1. I believe that close relationships are partnerships. 2. I believe that in a romantic relationship, just as in a job, both partners should perform their duties and responsibilities according to their "job description." 3. Whenever I consider having a relationship with someone, I always consider the financial implications of the relation ship as well. Score: A business story has several potential advantages, not the least of which is that the bills are more likely to get paid than in other types of relationships. That's because someone is always minding the store. Another potential advantage is that the roles tend to be more dearly defined than in other relationships. The partners are also in a good position to "get ahead" in terms of whatever it is that they want. One potential disadvantage occurs if only one of the two partners sees their relationship as a business story. The other partner may quickly become bored and look for interest and excitement outside the marriage. The story can also turn sour if the distribution of authority does not satisfy one or both partners. If the partners cannot work out mutually compatible roles, they may find themselves spending a lot of time fighting for position. It is important to maintain the option of flexibility.
What is your Love Story? STORY #9 1. I think fairy tales about relationships can come true. 2. I do believe that there is someone out there for me who is my perfect match. 3. I like my relationships to be ones in which I view my partner as something like a prince or princess in days of yore. Score: The fantasy story can be a powerful one. The individual may feel swept up in the emotion of the search for the perfect partner or of developing the perfect relationship with an existing partner. It is probably no coincidence that in literature most fantasy stories take place before or outside of marriage: Fantasies are hard to maintain when one has to pay the bills, pack the children off to school and resolve marital fights. To maintain the happy feeling of the fantasy, therefore, one has to ignore, to some extent, the mundane aspects of life. The potential disadvantages of the fantasy relationship are quite plain. The greatest is the possibility for disillusionment when one partner discovers that no one could fulfill the fantastic expectations that have been created. This can lead partners to feel dissatisfied with relationships that most others would view as quite successful If a couple can create a fantasy story based on realistic rather than idealistic ideals, they have the potential for success; if they want to be characters in a myth, chances are that's exactly what they'll get: a myth.
What is your Love Story? STORY #10 1. I think it is more interesting to argue than to compromise. 2. I think frequent arguments help bring conflictive issues into the open and keep the relationship healthy. 3. I actually like to fight with my partner. Score: The war story is advantageous in a relationship only when both partners clearly share it and want the same thing. In these cases, threats of divorce and worse may be common, but neither partner would seriously dream of leaving: They're both having too much fun, in their own way. The major disadvantage, of course, is that the story often isn't shared, leading to intense and sustained conflict that can leave the partner without the war story feeling devastated much of the time. People can find themselves in a warring relationship without either of them having war as a preferred story. In such cases, the constant fighting may make both partners miserable. If the war continues in such a context, there is no joy in it for either partner.
What is your Love Story? STORY #11 Audience: 1. I like a partner who is willing to think about the funny side of our conflicts. 2. I think taking a relationship too seriously can spoil it; that's why I like partners who have a sense of humor. 3. I like a partner who makes me laugh whenever we are facing a tense situation in our relationship. Score: Comedian: 1. I admit that I sometimes try to use humor to avoid facing a problem in my relationship. 2. I like to use humor when I have a conflict with my partner because I believe there is a humorous side to any conflict. 3. When I disagree with my partner, I often try to make a joke out of it. Score: The humor story can have one enormous advantage: Most situations do have a lighter side, and people with this story are likely to see it. When things in a relationship become tense, sometimes nothing works better than a little humor, especially if it comes from within the relationship. Humor stories also allow relationships to be creative and dynamic. But the humor story also has some potential disadvantages. Probably the greatest one is the risk of using humor to deflect important issues: A serious conversation that needs to take place keeps getting put off with jokes. Humor can also be used to be cruel in a passive- aggressive way. When humor is used as a means of demeaning a person to protect the comedian from responsibility ("I was only joking"), a relationship is bound to be imperiled. Thus, moderate amounts are good for a relationship, but excessive amounts can be deleterious.
What is your Love Story? STORY #12 1. I think it is okay to have multiple partners who fulfill my different needs. 2. I sometimes like to think about how many people I could potentially date all at the same time. 3. I tend and like to have multiple intimate partners at once, each fulfilling somewhat different roles. Score: There are a few advantages to a collection story. For one thing, the collector generally cares about the collectible's physical well-being, as appearance is much of what makes a collection shine. The collector also finds a way of meeting multiple needs. Usually those needs will be met in parallel--by having several intimate relationships at the same time--but a collector may also enter into serial monogamous relationships, where each successive relationship meets needs that the last relationship did not meet. In a society that values monogamy, collection stories work best if they do not become serious or if individuals in the collection are each viewed in different lights, such as friendship or intellectual stimulation. The disadvantages of this story become most obvious when people are trying to form serious relationships. The collector may find it difficult to establish intimacy, or anything approaching a complete relationship and commitment toward a single individual. Collections can also become expensive, time-consuming, and in some cases illegal (as when an individual enters into multiple marriages simultaneously).
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love What makes loving relationships last? The Michelangelo Phenomenon A pattern of relationship interdependence in which close partners influence each other's dispositions, values, and behavioural patterns in such a manner as to bring both people closer to their ideal selves.ideal selves Sculpture: as a process of bringing out figures already hidden in stone by chipping away the excess “You make me a better person... You bring out the best in me”
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love What makes loving relationships last? Branden Important behaviors that characterize “happy” couples with long- lasting relationships Express love verbally Physical affection Appreciation and admiration Share thoughts, feelings, dreams etc. Hurts Emotional support for each other Put up with the shortcomings (“virtues outweigh the shortcomings”) Enjoy the positives and not dwell on the negatives
Interpersonal Attraction: Understanding the Psychology of Love What makes loving relationships last? Clarke and Grote Promote each other’s well-being (good physical and mental health & achieve personal/mutual goals) Trust each other Feel secure with each other Understand, validate, care for each other etc. ” the relationship is a safe haven”
Aggression: Understanding Why We Hurt Others Is aggression part of human nature? Frustration & Aggression Frustration-aggression hypothesis When a person is blocked from attaining an expectation/outcome frustration primes them for aggression expression of aggression results in catharsis Findings: Frustration does not always lead to aggression. There are other factors. Social norms Threat of punishment Learning other ways to respond Etc. Research shows the opposite effect Catharsis (thru aggression) doesn’t lead to less aggression, but to more. Person becomes “deserving of aggression.
Aggression: Understanding Why We Hurt Others The Learning of Aggression Social learning: acquisition of responses through observation and maintenance of behavior through reinforcement. Watching violence Early exposure to TV violence is a predictor of later life aggression Men: 3x more likely of being convicted of a crime Women: more likely later in life: thrown something at a spouse; shoving, punching, choking others Aggression cues “Guns not only stimulate violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger”
Aggression: Understanding Why We Hurt Others Reducing Aggression & Violence Parents as role models for children Show disapproval of violence Show how to control anger and rechannel Reduce viewing of violent TV Help develop empathy for others Society Strengthen norms/values and structural mechanisms (police/justice system) against violence Gun control Redirection of media away from violence The powerful as role models The economy