Only $2.99/month
Key Concepts:

Terms in this set (78)

I3 model suggests:
Instigating triggers: irritants, frustrations, stressors that cause one or both partners to be on edge. Particularly: cursing, hitting by partner
Impelling influences:
Distal influences: background factors such as cultural norms, economic conditions, family experiences,
Dispositional: including personality traits (the big 5 - neuroticism vs agreeableness/conscientiousness) and long-standing beliefs
Relational: involving the current state of the couple's relationship
Situational: reflecting the current circumstances. exhaustion, heat, noise, intoxication
X Inhibiting influences: gender equality, high levels of conscientiousness, good problem solving skills, high levels of commitment to the partner
= high or low risk of SCV
Instigating triggers: irritants, frustrations, stressors that cause one or both partners to be on edge. Particularly: cursing, hitting by partner
Distal influences: background factors such as cultural norms, economic conditions, family experiences,
Dispositional, including personality traits (the big 5 - neuroticism vs agreeableness/conscientiousness) and long-standing beliefs Relational, involving the current state of the couple's relationship Situational, reflecting the current circumstances.
Situational: exhaustion, heat, noise, intoxication
When inhibiting factors are weak, there is a high potential for SCV. Once violence happens in the relationship it is very likely to occur again - 76% of men who were violent during engagement were violent again during the first 30 months of marriage - most episodes increased in severity...
Seligman and Maier 1968
Dogs shocked randomly and without the capacity to escape or end the shock were later unable to utilize escape routes when they were later presented with them.
So how does this relate to humans?
One of the first was an experiment by Seligman & Maier. In Part 1 of this study, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogs were simply put in the harnesses for a period of time and later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs." Dogs in Group 2 were given electric shocks at random times, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. Each dog in Group 3 was paired with a Group 2 dog; whenever a Group 2 dog got a shock, its paired dog in Group 3 got a shock of the same intensity and duration, but its lever did not stop the shock. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. Thus, for Group 3 dogs, the shock was "inescapable."
In Part 2 of the experiment the same three groups of dogs were tested in a shuttle-box apparatus. All the dogs could escape shocks on one side of the box by jumping over a low partition to the other side. The dogs in Groups 1 and 2 quickly learned this task and escaped the shock. Most of the Group 3 dogs, which had previously learned that nothing they did had any effect on shocks, simply lay down passively and whined when they were shocked. This is a dramatic example of the retardation of learning that typifies learned helplessness, as defined above.[4]
1) Focus on supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief/behavior
Ex: people who believe that only 'bad' people cheat on lovers may experience feelings of dissonance if they cheat on a partner. In order to reduce this dissonance, they might seek out new information that disputes this belief (some of my best friends have cheated on their partners). This new information might serve to reduce the discomfort and dissonance that the person experiences.
2) Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief
EX: "I am usually a very faithful person, I cheated because my partner has not been treating me the way I want them to - sometimes cheating is justified."
3) Change the conflicting belief to create consonance with other beliefs/behaviors
I am someone who can cheat on a partner, under certain circumstances. That is not their fault. No matter what is happening in the relationship, I am responsible for my choices.
Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.For example, people who learn that greenhouse emissions result in global warming might experience feelings of dissonance if they drive a gas-guzzling vehicle. In order to reduce this dissonance, they might seek out new information that disputes the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming. This new information might serve to reduce the discomfort and dissonance that the person experiences.
Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.For example, a man who cares about his health might be disturbed to learn that sitting for long periods of time during the day are linked to a shortened lifespan. Since he has to work all day in an office and spends a great deal of time sitting, it is difficult to change his behavior in order to reduce his feelings of dissonance. In order to deal with the feelings of discomfort, he might instead find someway to justify his behavior by believing that his other healthy behaviors make up for his largely sedentary lifestyle.
Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.Changing the conflicting cognition is one of the most effective ways of dealing with dissonance, but it is also one of the most difficult. Particularly in the case of deeply held values and beliefs, change can be exceedingly difficult.
Early Infatuation:
Increases in:
PEA - "love molecule" which triggers release of:
Dopamine: associated with: risk taking behavior, obsessive thinking, euphoria
Dopamine then triggers an increase in testosterone production, elevating sex drive
Norepinephrine: the adrenal rush associated with elevated mood and arousal
Decreases:
Serotonin (levels may drop by 50%): serotonin is a natural mood stabilizer. People early in love are VERY up and down
So which brain areas are active during love? FMRI works by measuring blood flow in the brain. As with muscle, brain cells need more blood when they work and less when they're inactive. Putting someone in an fMRI machine, a giant clanking cylinder, tells scientists which parts of the brain are working and which aren't, but it gives no direct evidence of which neurotransmitters are coursing about. Still, certain brain areas are thought to have particular functions, and researchers can see which ones are working and which are shut down. One active region is a reward center (dopamine production) that also lights up after the subject makes money or wins a videogame. (Pac-Man, Lotto and love all seem to switch on the same brain system.) Another area lights up in response to any pretty face. Also lit--brightly--are areas that produce two brain chemicals called vasopressin and oxytocin, which are known to be involved in forming attachments. When small mammals called prairie voles are injected with these chemicals, they become more social and more likely to have sex. Equally interesting is what's turned off. Three regions generally used in moral judgment go dim. "It struck me as quite a coincidence to say people are blind when they're in love," says Bartels. Also turned down are areas thought to be used in producing serotonin, the chemical increased by antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. Fisher, the anthropologist from Rutgers, whose results have not been published in a scientific journal but are described in her book Why We Love, worries that these drugs may actually keep people from falling in love. That, however, seems a big leap from the available data. But what is certain is that the field is beginning to heat up now that data are available. Scientists may even be able to figure out which genes are involved in the process. For love and science, this could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
When shy people have an excuse for an interaction to go badly, they remain relatively relaxed and do not act shy.
_____Noise Level_____
Participants' Shyness "Soft" "Loud"
Low 5.3 4.7
High 15.8 4.5
The values reflect arousal in the form of increases in heart rate
as the interaction begins.
(Leary, 1986)
48% of older teen girls visit a site multiple time per day as compared to 36% of teen boys.
26% of 12-13 year olds visit multiple times per day as compared to 47% of older teens
Socially anxious or shy teens are using social media to reach out and connect with peers to create friendships and relationships in a way that feels safe for them
But thanks to text messaging and the Internet, socially anxious teens who might have been left out now have a voice. In a 2010 study with 626 children and teens, researchers at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia found that lonely adolescents reported using the Internet to make new friends, and that they communicated online significantly more frequently about personal and intimate topics than those who did not report loneliness. These teens also indicated that they communicated online more frequently because they did not feel as shy, were able to talk more comfortably and dared to say more (Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010).
For example, a 2010 study with 99 undergraduates led by Holly Schiffrin, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington, found that those who spent more time on the Internet reported decreased well-being. Most of the students also reported that the Internet was less useful than face-to-face communication for building relationships and increasing emotional closeness with others (Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010).
Loneliness: the feelings that occur in the space between the kind of social relations we want and the kind we have
Social vs Emotional isolation
More than one in four teens say that using their social networking site makes them feel less shy (29%) and more outgoing (28%); one in five says it makes them feel more confident (20%), more popular (19%), and more sympathetic to others (19%); and 15% say it makes them feel better about themselves. By comparison, only 5% say social networking makes them feel less outgoing; 4% feel worse about themselves, less confident, and less popular after using their social networking site; and 3% feel shyer.
Very few teens think that using their social network site makes them more depressed. Among all teen social network users, only 5% say using their social networking site makes them feel more depressed, compared to 10% who say it makes them feel less depressed. Even among the least happy teens in this study (the 10% of all teens who say they are often sad or depressed and aren't very happy with their lives), 18% say using their social networking site makes them feel more depressed, while 13% say it lessens their depression.
In particular, teens think that using social media has helped their relationships. Half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can't see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%).
Sheldon, et.al., (2011)
restriction from facebook decreased college students perception of connectedness with others,
but did not change their perception of loneliness
College freshman underestimate their peers experience with difficult and/or negative life events (by 17%) and overestimate their peers positive life events/affect (by 6%)
The Internet—and particularly online social networking websites—may also exacerbate the problems identified in a 2011 study in Personality and Psychology Bulletin. It found that people think their peers are happier than they really are, and this distortion of reality makes people lonely and dissatisfied with life. In the study, Dartmouth College business professor Alexander Jordan, PhD (a student in Stanford's graduate psychology department at the time) asked 80 college freshmen about how often they thought other students had negative experiences, such as getting dumped, receiving a bad grade or feeling overloaded with work.
Students were also asked to estimate how often their peers had positive experiences, such as going out with friends or acing tests.
Overall, the researchers found that students underestimated their peers' negative feelings (by 17 percent) and overestimated their positive emotions (by 6 percent).
"Online social networks are a great example of the type of public venue where people play up the positive and hide the negative, which can lead to the sense that one is alone in one's own struggles," Jordan says.
These findings also suggest that even though we all know we hide our own sad or lonely feelings from others, we don't realize how often others are doing the same.
"This anxiety around always 'performing' for others via social networking sites may lead to teenagers whose identities are shaped not by self-exploration and time alone to process their thoughts, but by how they are perceived by the online collective," Turkle says.
WHAT PURPOSE IS IT SERVING?
length and type of use are different depending on both individual and interpersonal factors
Shy and/or socially anxious/rejected teens use social media to initiate relationships and connect with friends and peers -
Some teens think there is a trade-off between social media use and face-to-face communication. A third of teens (34%) agree either strongly or somewhat that using social media takes away from time they could be spending with people face-to-face, and 44% agree at least "somewhat" that using social media often distracts them from the people they're with when they do get together in person. 50% prefer face to face communication - with texting following 33% social network 7% phone is 4% and phone is 1%! Which previous generations may really struggle to understand as we spent hours on the phone after school.
For example, a 2010 study with 99 undergraduates led by Holly Schiffrin, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington, found that those who spent more time on the Internet reported decreased well-being. Most of the students also reported that the Internet was less useful than face-to-face communication for building relationships and increasing emotional closeness with others (Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010).