Social Psychology Exam 2 pt 6

anxious/ambivalent attachment (in infants)

-anxious about exploring new environment even when parent is there (reluctant to leave parent) -strong separation anxiety but pissed when parent returns

longitudinal studies on Rusbult's Investment Model

-assessing whether or not a couple breaks up over the course of the school yr -3 kinds of ppl: --stayers- ppl who stayed in the relationship --leavers- ppl who initiated the breakup --abandonees- ppl who got dumped -stayers reported greater increase in rewards, satisfaction, investments & commitment over time & decrease in CLalt over time -leavers reported decreased investments, commitment, etc and increased CLalt over time -abandonees are somewhere in btwn-- not particularly satisfied and kinda stuck -this applies only to the specific relationship, not to life & outlook as a whole

Shaver's Attachment Theory

-attachment theory of adult romantic love -based on work of Bowlby & Ainsworth on infant attachment to caregiver --secure, insecure (anxious/ambivalent & avoidant) --argued that all infants were attached but the quality of the attachment is what differed --all children would experience grief if parent died, but the attachments are still diff

Bartholomew (1990)

-based on her model on the idea of mental models (schemas) --over the course of our relationships, we form schemas about ourselves & about other ppl -4 styles of attachment: secure vs insecure (preoccupied, fearful avoidant, dismissive avoidant) -50% of ppl are secure, the rest are divided up about equally -Shaver model is used more by psychologists

fearful vs dissmissive avoidant attachment

-both distance themselves from others -difference is in their self views

attachment styles research issues

-controversy as to whether they should be called "styles" bc they depend on the other ppls' behaviors as well -seem to apply more to a relationship specifically than to a person's style of attachment overall -psychologists now try not to categorize (instead they use dimensions & spectrums and test correlation) -most research doesn't have a "no relationship" control group

Why childhood attachment doesnt directly correlate to romantic attachment

-evidence supporting the idea that attachment is unstable (changes in child's rearing environment can lead to changes in attachment) -as the child ages, they become attached to more ppl than just caregivers (siblings, friends, teachers, etc) which have some influence

extrinsic investments

-extraneous resources that are inextricably tied to the relationship -ex: shared possessions, mutual friends, shared memories, activities that are uniquely associated with this relationship

Romantic love as attachment

-has a lot of support -ppl securely attached in relationships tend to take more risks in other aspects of life (their relationship is their secure base) as opposed to insecure relationships -again tho, this hasnt been tested against ppl who arent in a relationship

Hazan & Shaver (1987)

-identified similar styles of attachment in adulthood (described them as relating to romantic love) -secure vs insecure (anxious/ambivalent vs avoidant) lovers -adult attachment styles are related to childhood attachments via learning (ex: if a child forms secure attachment, they learn that others can be trustworthy and loving, but if they form an anxious/ambivalent attachment, they learn that others can be rejecting & mean) -we're set on a trajectory for adulthood by these childhood attachments (we expect certain behaviors from ppl, so then we act in a way that draws out behavior in others that confirms it)

Social Exchange Theories

-interpersonal relationships are based on an exchange of resources to the extent that we both find the exchange rewarding and will continue with that relationship

Entrapment in a low-satisfaction relationship

-low CLalt & high investment can entrap you in a low-satisfaction relationship -good if going through a rough patch in a relationship that could be very good again -bad in the case of abusive relationships, etc

fearful avoidant attachment

-negative self & other schema -don't feel worthy & expect others to be untrustworthy & rejecting -they desire intimacy but experience a lot of distress in relationships -one foot out the door in order to protect themselves from inevitable rejection -corresponds most closely to Shaver's avoidant attachment

preoccupied attachment

-negative self schema, positive other schema -strive for self-acceptance by looking for others' support, but there's always the concern that you'll be unworthy -closest to Shaver's anxious/ambivalent attachment

secure attachment (in infants)

-parent= secure base for exploration -experience moderate separation anxiety but have happy reunion when caregiver returns

avoidant attachment (in infants)

-passive, avoid contact w/other ppl, even parent -not much separation anxiety but stiff with parent upon reunion

Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

-perceived quality of alternatives -can be for an identified other or a general other or for being alone

positive vs negative self schema

-positive self schema= I am worthy of love & support -negative self schema= I am unworthy & dont deserve love & support

dissmissive avoidant attachment

-positive self, negative other schema -they are worthy but others are untrustworthy -deny their attachment needs -denial defends their own self images about rejection (maintain sense of independence & invulnerability)

positive vs negative schema about others

-positive= other ppl are trustworthy & available -negative= other ppl are unreliable & rejecting

intrinsic investments

-resources that are put directly into relationship -ex: time, emotional effort, self-disclosure, etc.

satisfaction with relationship

-satisfaction= outcomes- comparison level -if outcomes dont meet expectations, you'll be increasingly dissatisfied -logically, greater satisfaction should lead to greater commitment to the relationship, however we are greedy and we continue to look for ways we could be more satisfied

comparison level (CL)

-standard that reflects what you think you deserve in this relationship -your general expectations about the kinds of outcomes you should get -based on what you've received in the past & what you see others getting

Rusbult's investment model

-we evaluate outcomes of a relationship first (not necessarily consciously tho) -outcome=rewards - costs -satisfaction w/ relationship = outcome - comparison level -commitment= satisfaction - comparison level for alternatives + Investment -commitment is the best predictor of whether someone stays in a relationship or leaves -incredibly well-supported theory (studies done college students vs not college students, hetero vs homosexual, women in abusive relationships, etc)

commitment

-willingness to stay in the relationship -commitment = satisfaction - CLalt + Investment

outcome

outcome= rewards - costs -evaluate net gain -evaluated against a standard, known as the comparison level

Investment

resources we've put into the relationship that would lose value if we left the relationship -intrinsic investments & extrinsic investments -Rusbult argued that children were extrinsic investments but most would argue that they were both (she didnt have children so she had a diff viewpoint)

Distribution of attachment styles

~1/2 of ppl are securely attached, ~1/2 insecurely ~1/2 (a little more than 1/2) of insecurely attached are anxious/ambivalent, a little less than 1/2 are avoidant -remarkably similar distribution btwn adults & children --some researchers use this as support that childhood attachment= romantic attachment but evidence shows otherwise (attachment seems to be unstable)