Term
| ainsworth’s strange situation questioned: |
|
Definition
| o How does the infant interact when the caregiver is there vs if a stranger is there. |
|
|
Term
| ainsworth strange situation task looks at: |
|
Definition
| infants behavior when caregiver leaves- do they get upset or not care? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• 1-2 yr infant
• distinguishes “secure” from 3 types of “insecure” attch |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| cats emotional commitment to owner based on ainsworth’s experiment. Cats dont have secure attachment relationship. Cat views owner as provider of resources vs provider of comfort |
|
|
Term
what is love?
physiological
cognitive
emotional
behavioral |
|
Definition
| Physiological (oxytocin, dopamine), emotional (feelings, support), cognitive (share ideas, planning) Behavioral |
|
|
Term
| • Is love different than liking someone? |
|
Definition
o Quantitatively different? (matter of intensity)
o Qualitatively different?
• Liking: instance of conditioned reinforcement?
More behavioral?
• Loving: instance of expected and imagined reinforcement?
More cognitive? Future goals |
|
|
Term
| • Are the core aspects of the parent-infant bond the same as the romantic love bond? |
|
Definition
o Motivation to feel emotionally safe, secure, accepted
o Inter-dependence |
|
|
Term
| • Some research suggests childhood attachment determines |
|
Definition
| adults schema of adult attachment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Love as interaction btw 3 motivation components |
|
|
Term
| • Love as interaction btw 3 motivation components which are: |
|
Definition
o 1. Passion (physiological) feeling good
o 2. Intimacy (emotional) safety
o 3. Commitment (cognitive) |
|
|
Term
| sanberg says best kind of love/relationship has what components ? |
|
Definition
| • Best kind of love/relationship has all 3. Relationships don’t need to have all 3. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
initial motivation to pursue relationship
o Romance, attraction, sexuality |
|
|
Term
| passion in opponent-process theory |
|
Definition
• 1st initial A-state of relationship you are high and on top of the world
• Then, B-state starts to develop- reduces A-state and initial passion dies down, you can do other things in your life. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Matching Hypothesis (dating gradient) |
|
|
Term
| Matching Hypothesis (dating gradient) |
|
Definition
• People of similar attraction date each other
• Matching represents “highest expected utility”
Value and probability (best looking partner, but also the probability that you will be able to get that) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| feelings of conectedness, mutual understanding and support. Trust, emotional |
|
|
Term
| intimacy may be related to |
|
Definition
| discrepancy hypothesis- your relationship would be boring if you never fought |
|
|
Term
| discrepancy hypothesis says |
|
Definition
• Stagnation bad; lack of predictability worse
• Squabbling not necessarily bad if expected
Couples who fight all the time, why is that useful? |
|
|
Term
| • Commitment in short term |
|
Definition
| deciding you love someone |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| deciding to make a commitment |
|
|
Term
| long term commitment influenced by |
|
Definition
| by decision theory: weigh pros and cons of committing to someone. Pros= consistency, emotional stability. Cons= cant be promiscuous, focus on other things, boring, |
|
|
Term
| what does sternberg's model explain about why ppl stay in bad relationshops? |
|
Definition
| o Maximizing, satisficing, bettering? |
|
|
Term
| • Cognitive dissonance of staying in bad relationship |
|
Definition
| breaking up is breaking a promise of committment? |
|
|
Term
| • Cogntive availability of staying in bad relationship |
|
Definition
| option of breaking up doesn’t occur to you. |
|
|
