Antwoorden
Review Questions Interpersonal Relations Lecture 1 including answers
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
Review questions lecture 1 with elaborate answers.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 11 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 11 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
1 beoordeling
Door: josiadler • 5 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Lecture 1 (Review Questins based in lecture nites and essental reading)1. Can you describe and explain the characteristcs that, according to Miller (2015), defne the nature of a close
relatonship.
1. Knowledge partners have knowledge about each other.
2. Interdependence extent to which partners infuence and need each other.
3. Trust partners expect each other to be treated fairly and honorably.
4. Care partners feel more afecton for one another than for most other ones.
5. Responsiveness partners recognize, understand and support our needs.
6. Mutuality partners recognize their close connecton and think of themselves as us instead of me and her/him.
7. Commitment partners expect their partnerships to contnue indefnitely, and they invest the tme, efort and resources that are
needed to realize that goal.
2. Do all the characteristcs have to be present in a close relatonship? If not, explain what consequences this could have
for the relatonship?
No, they don’t have to. But if they’re all present, this would be the most satsfying and meaningful intmate relatonship. Stll, intmacy can
exist to lesser degree when only some of them are in place. Intmacy can also vary enormously over the course of long relatonship. None of 7
components is absolutely required for intmacy. ach characteristc may exist when the others are absent. For instance, spouses in unhappy
marriage may be interdependent, but living without much afecton or responsiveness they are more intmate than mere acquaintances,
but feel less close to one another than they used to, when more of the components were present.
3. What is meant by the term : “need to belong” ? How would an individual best satsfy the need to belong?
Need ti beling = we need frequent, pleasant interactons with intmate partners in lastng, caring relatonships if we’re to functon normally.
Best satsfy the need to belong by establish and maintain close relatonships with other people; require interacton and communion with those
who know and care for us.
4. xplain the need to belong from an evolutonary perspectve.
Need to belong evolved over eons (=eeuwigheid), gradually becoming a natural tendency in human beings. Because early humans lived in
small tribal groups surrounded by difcult environment full of saber-toothed tgers, people who were loners were less likely than gregarious
people to have children who would grow to maturity and reproduce. In such as setng, a tendency to form stable, afectonate connectons to
others would have been evolutonarily adaptve, making it more likely that one’s children would survive and thrive. As a result, our species
slowly came to be characterized by people who cared deeply about what others thought of them and who sought acceptance and closeness
from others. We needed to form bonds with others in order to reproduce ourselves.
5. According to Miller (2015) what is the evidence to support the need to belong?
ase with which we form relatonships with others and tenacity with which we then resist the dissoluton of our existng social tes.
When valued relatonship is in peril, we fnd it hard to think about anything else. Potency of need to belong may also be why being
entrely alone for long period of tme is so stressful; anything that threatens our sense of connecton to other people can be hard to
take.
Studies of biological benefts we accrue from close tes to others. People live happier, healthier, longer lives when they’re closely
connected to others than they do when they’re on their own. Holding lover’s hand reduces brain’s alarm response. Pain seems less
potent when looking at photograph of loving partner. Wound heels faster when others accept and support us. People with
insufcient intmacy at risk for wide variety of health problems. Young and lonely adults weaker immune responses. Across life span:
few friends/lovers higher mortality rates. Married people in US less likely to die from any of 10 leading causes of cancer-related
death than unmarried people. lderly widows/widowers much more likely to die in frst few months afer loss of their spouses than
they would have been had their marriages contnued. Mental and physical health also afected by quality of our connectons to
others. People with pleasant interactons with others who care for them are more satsfed with their lives than those who lack such
social contact (true around the world). Psychiatric problems, anxiety disorders and substance abuse afict those with troubled tes to
others. Lack of intmacy can cause such problems and make them worse. Well-being seems to depend on how well we satsfy the
need to belong.
6. What, according to Miller are the changes that have taken place in close/intmate relatonships in the United States.
Why are cultural infuences on marriage/close relatonships important?
• Fewer people are marrying than ever before. Presently married: 51% adults in US.
• People are waitng longer to marry (ages at which people marry have been increasing). Women 26.5. Men 29. 46% doesn’t marry
before mid-30s.
Singlism = prejudice and discriminaton against those who choose to remain single and opt not to devote themselves to a primary
romantc relatonship.
• People routnely live together even when they’re not married. 2/3 young adults will at some tme live with lover before they every
marry.
, • People ofen have babies even when they’re not married. 41% babies born in US had unmarried mothers. American mother has frst
child at age 25.3 before she gets married (26.6).
• Almost one-half of all marriages end in divorce, a failure rate that’s 2 tmes higher than it was when your grandparents married.
• Most preschool children have mothers who work outside the home, only 40% stays at home all day now versus more than ¾ in 1960.
These changes suggest that our shared assumptons about the role that marriage and parenthood will play in our lives have changed
substantally in recent years. Recent years have seen enormous change in the cultural norms that used to encourage people to get, and stay,
married. These changes mater. Cultural standards provide a foundaton for our relatonships; they shape our expectatons and defne the
paterns we think to be normal.
7. xplain the relatonship between casual cohabitaton and marriage.
Cohabitatng before marriage seems reasonable for a couple so that they can spend more tme together, share expenses, test their
compatbility. But when people don’t have frm plans to marry, cohabitaton doesn’t make it more likely that subsequent marriage will be
successful but increases a couple’s risk that they will later divorce. Why? Couples who choose to cohabit are less commited, so encounter
more problems and uncertaintes than married people. They experience more confict, jealousy, infdelity, and physical aggression. The longer
people cohabit, the less enthusiastc about marriage and the more acceptng of divorce they become. As tme passes, cohabitatng couples
become less likely to ever marry but not less likely to split up. Afer 5 years, cohabitatng couples are just as likely to break up as they were
when they moved in together. (The longer couple is married, the less likely they are to divorce). Casual cohabitaton that is intended to test the
partners’ compatbility seems to undermine the positve attudes toward marriage, and the determinaton to make a marriage work, that
support marital success. Couples who are engaged to marry when they move in together typically do not sufer the same ill efects, partcularly
when they agree that they’ll be married within 1 year. But casual cohabitaton is corrosive (harmful), so widespread acceptance of cohabitaton
as a “trial run” is one reason why, compared to 1960, fewer people get married and fewer marriages last.
8. Describe and explain what Miller (2015) proposes are the sources of cultural change with regard close/intmate
relatonships.
• conomics/educaton.
• Individualism = support of self-expression and emphasis on personal fulflment. Characterizes Western cultures and has become
more pronounced; astern cultures promote a more collectve sense of self in which people feel more closely ted to their families
and social groups, and the divorce rates in such cultures (such as Japan) are much lower than in US.
• New technology (reproductve technology, fertlity control, contracepton, birth control pills, modern communicatng technologies
like mobile phones, Facebook, online datng sites)
Sextng = sending explicit images of themselves to others with a cell phone (20% of young adults).
• Relatve numbers of young men and young women in a given culture. Societes and regions of the world in which men are more
numerous than women (high sex rato) tend to have very diferent standards than those in which women outnumber men (low sex
rato). Today: fairly equal numbers of marriageable men and women. Cultures with high sex ratos (too few women) support
traditonal, old-fashioned roles for men and women and are sexually conservatve. Cultures with low sex ratos (too few men) are less
traditonal and more permissive. Sex rato = simple count of the number of men for every 100 women in a specifc populaton high
sex rato means more men than women; low sex rato means fewer men than women. High sex-rato: more conservatve. Low sex-
rato: more permissive. Thus, remarkable changes in norms for US relatonships since 1960 may be due, in part, to dramatc
fuctuatons in US sex ratos. xample: China, where limitatons on family size and preference for male children have produced
dramatc scarcity of young women. Rough but real link between a culture’s proportons of men and women and its relatonal norms
serves as a compelling example of the manner in which culture can afect our relatonships. To a substantal degree, what we expect
and what we accept in our dealings with others can spring from the standards of the tme and place in which we live.
• Cross-cultural diferences in love and marriage. Love more important to marriage in western natons, individualistc cultures, higher
economic standards.
9. Describe and explain the 3 atachment styles originally proposed by Bowlby (1967).
1. Secure style = happily bond with others and rely on them comfortably; readily develop relatonships characterized by relaxed trust.
2. Anxiius-ambivalent style = fretful, mixed feelings about others; being uncertain of when (or if) departng caregiver would return, such
children become nervous and clingy, and are needy in their relatonships with others.
3. Aviidant style = withdrawal from others; suspicious of and angry at others, they don’t easily form trustng, close relatonships.
10. What was the key fnding of Hazan & Shaver (1987) in terms of extending Atachment theory?
Similar orientatons toward close relatonships could also be observed among adults. Most people said that they were relaxed and comfortable
depending on others. They sounded secure in their intmate relatonships. But, a substantal minority (40%) said they were insecure; they
either found it difcult to trust and to depend on their partners (avoidant) or they nervously worried that their relatonships wouldn’t last
(anxious-ambivalent). The respondents reported childhood memories and current attudes that ft their styles of atachment. Secure people
held positve images of themselves and others, and remembered their parents as loving and supportve. In contrast, insecure people viewed
others with uncertainty or distrust, and remembered their parents as inconsistent or cold.
11. Describe and explain the atachment styles proposed by Bartholemew (1990). xplain how this model difers from the
original proposed by Bowlby.
1. Secure (same as secure style Bowbly) comfortable with intmacy and interdependence; optmistc and sociable.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper BrittHippert. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53022 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen