Web Lecture 5 – Blog 4
In Web Lecture 5, Professor Cyborg discusses the attachment styles listed in Ch. 15 of our text. The attachment style we naturally possess is based on how our primary caregivers raised us in our early childhood. This same attachment style that developed in the early stages of our lives can be prevalent in our later relationships. However, as Professor Cyborg states, “these early attachments are important, but not deterministic in that your relationships with your parents or other primary caregivers will change as you age.” I really appreciate how it is stressed that communication and how we relate to others can be a conscious, mindful effort. Although we all have natural tendencies to communicate and behave in certain ways based on our personalities and how we were raised, we still have a mind that enables us to reconsider our tendencies. If we naturally have an ambivalent or avoidant attachment style, we can learn to develop a secure attachment style. Despite our upbringing, we can always adjust our ways of thinking and being in order to improve our interpersonal relationships and satisfaction.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Week 5 - Blog 3
Ch. 15 Family and Life Span Issues – Blog 3
Hazan and Shaver’s Model of attachment styles are described on p. 470, and Bartholomew’s Model is described on p. 472. I appreciate how Bartholomew elaborates on Hazan and Shaver’s avoidant attachment style by splitting it into two groups: dismissive and fearful. In earlier chapters, it is mentioned that there seems to be an increase in narcissistic personalities. With that in mind, it makes sense for there to be a dismissive attachment style which reflects a positive self-outlook but a negative view of others.
The section following the attachment styles discusses different turning points in parent-child relationships. One turning point mentioned is jealousy, which occurs when a child feels one or both parents show favoritism toward a sibling. Although this is not a common turning point, it caught my attention because I recently read an article in Psychology Today that talked about mothers having a favorite child. In one particular study discussed in the article, researches found that 80% of mothers over the age of 65 admitted to having a favorite child. Some of the women interviewed in the article used a nom de plum due to their shame and embarrassment for disclosing this taboo-like information. I think you can see favoritism among siblings, too, where certain siblings get along better with one of the other. Familial relationships are unique in that you can’t choose them. You don’t have a choice in whether or not your personalities will mesh well with your siblings, parents, etc.
Hazan and Shaver’s Model of attachment styles are described on p. 470, and Bartholomew’s Model is described on p. 472. I appreciate how Bartholomew elaborates on Hazan and Shaver’s avoidant attachment style by splitting it into two groups: dismissive and fearful. In earlier chapters, it is mentioned that there seems to be an increase in narcissistic personalities. With that in mind, it makes sense for there to be a dismissive attachment style which reflects a positive self-outlook but a negative view of others.
The section following the attachment styles discusses different turning points in parent-child relationships. One turning point mentioned is jealousy, which occurs when a child feels one or both parents show favoritism toward a sibling. Although this is not a common turning point, it caught my attention because I recently read an article in Psychology Today that talked about mothers having a favorite child. In one particular study discussed in the article, researches found that 80% of mothers over the age of 65 admitted to having a favorite child. Some of the women interviewed in the article used a nom de plum due to their shame and embarrassment for disclosing this taboo-like information. I think you can see favoritism among siblings, too, where certain siblings get along better with one of the other. Familial relationships are unique in that you can’t choose them. You don’t have a choice in whether or not your personalities will mesh well with your siblings, parents, etc.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Week 5 - Blog 2
Ch. 13 Managing Interpersonal Conflict – Blog 2
Conflict patterns are discussed on pages 414 through 417. “Everything in moderation” is a rather common saying that people use to promote balance. Dealing with conflict is no different. The authors of our text state on p. 414 that moderation in each of these conflict patterns is key to managing conflict effectively. Something that was repetitive in a couple of the conflict styles was the idea that couples can start to compete with each other rather than cooperate. The consensus seems to be that competition between couples is not a healthy way to communicate or resolve conflict. Couples should be on each others’ side and realize they’re on the same team.
Something else I found intriguing about this section is that it suggests people should validate one another before offering a counterproposal. This concept is vital to healthy interpersonal relationships. Validation shows the other party that you were not only listening but are legitimizing what they’ve said. It’s much easier to deal with conflict rationally when both members validate each others views.
Conflict patterns are discussed on pages 414 through 417. “Everything in moderation” is a rather common saying that people use to promote balance. Dealing with conflict is no different. The authors of our text state on p. 414 that moderation in each of these conflict patterns is key to managing conflict effectively. Something that was repetitive in a couple of the conflict styles was the idea that couples can start to compete with each other rather than cooperate. The consensus seems to be that competition between couples is not a healthy way to communicate or resolve conflict. Couples should be on each others’ side and realize they’re on the same team.
Something else I found intriguing about this section is that it suggests people should validate one another before offering a counterproposal. This concept is vital to healthy interpersonal relationships. Validation shows the other party that you were not only listening but are legitimizing what they’ve said. It’s much easier to deal with conflict rationally when both members validate each others views.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Week 5 - Blog 1
Ch. 12 Seeking Compliance in Interpersonal Relationships – Blog 1
The beginning of chapter 12 discusses compliance gaining goals, plans, and actions (p. 365). The text states that we tend to seek compliance in our interpersonal relations by first developing a goal. After a goal has been established, we begin making plans that will enable us to achieve that goal. Finally, we put into action the plan we’ve created to achieve the goal.
I’ve witnessed this sequence of compliance gaining not only among close interpersonal relationships, but also among strangers. My husband and I like to frequent Crissy Field in San Francisco. It’s our favorite spot in the city, because it’s clean, fresh, and you get great views of the downtown, the bay, and Golden Gate Bridge. People often bring their pets to the park, and “courtesy stations,” if you will, with plastic bags and garbage cans have been placed throughout the park in an effort to encourage pet owners to pick-up after their animals. One afternoon, as my husband and I were strolling through the park, we saw someone’s dog drop a load in the middle of a walkway. My husband instantly went into “compliance seeking mode.” The goal was to get the dog’s owner to recognize that it was his responsibility to pick up after his animal and thus contribute to keeping the walkway clean. The plan was to get the owner’s attention and inform him that it was his dog who left the mess. The action steps involved first informing the owner that his dog did “the deed” and then providing the owner with a solution. The owner of the culprit first looked at the pile as if he didn’t know what to do with it. It was then that my husband pointed to a trash can and said, “…there are plastic bags there that you can use to pick it up and throw it away.” My husband followed the goal-planning-action sequence in order to attain his goal of keeping a clean Crissy Field.
The beginning of chapter 12 discusses compliance gaining goals, plans, and actions (p. 365). The text states that we tend to seek compliance in our interpersonal relations by first developing a goal. After a goal has been established, we begin making plans that will enable us to achieve that goal. Finally, we put into action the plan we’ve created to achieve the goal.
I’ve witnessed this sequence of compliance gaining not only among close interpersonal relationships, but also among strangers. My husband and I like to frequent Crissy Field in San Francisco. It’s our favorite spot in the city, because it’s clean, fresh, and you get great views of the downtown, the bay, and Golden Gate Bridge. People often bring their pets to the park, and “courtesy stations,” if you will, with plastic bags and garbage cans have been placed throughout the park in an effort to encourage pet owners to pick-up after their animals. One afternoon, as my husband and I were strolling through the park, we saw someone’s dog drop a load in the middle of a walkway. My husband instantly went into “compliance seeking mode.” The goal was to get the dog’s owner to recognize that it was his responsibility to pick up after his animal and thus contribute to keeping the walkway clean. The plan was to get the owner’s attention and inform him that it was his dog who left the mess. The action steps involved first informing the owner that his dog did “the deed” and then providing the owner with a solution. The owner of the culprit first looked at the pile as if he didn’t know what to do with it. It was then that my husband pointed to a trash can and said, “…there are plastic bags there that you can use to pick it up and throw it away.” My husband followed the goal-planning-action sequence in order to attain his goal of keeping a clean Crissy Field.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 4
Web Lecture 4 – Blog 4
On Web Lecture 4, interpersonal attraction is discussed. A cognitive approach to interpersonal attraction is probably rather prominent in today’s online dating world. My sister-in-law met her husband through an inter-organizational work relationship in which they communicated mostly via email and phone. As the web lecture states, cognitive approaches look at how beliefs, values, and attitudes influence interpersonal attraction. My sister-in-law and her husband were highly attracted to each others’ personalities, work ethic, values, etc. From this initial cognitive level of interpersonal attraction grew a friendship that resulted in a life-long partnership. The anthropological perspective was completely out of the equation for my sister-in-law and her husband. In fact, they both admitted that had physical beauty been part of their assessment in the beginning stages of their friendship, neither one would have been attracted to the other.
On Web Lecture 4, interpersonal attraction is discussed. A cognitive approach to interpersonal attraction is probably rather prominent in today’s online dating world. My sister-in-law met her husband through an inter-organizational work relationship in which they communicated mostly via email and phone. As the web lecture states, cognitive approaches look at how beliefs, values, and attitudes influence interpersonal attraction. My sister-in-law and her husband were highly attracted to each others’ personalities, work ethic, values, etc. From this initial cognitive level of interpersonal attraction grew a friendship that resulted in a life-long partnership. The anthropological perspective was completely out of the equation for my sister-in-law and her husband. In fact, they both admitted that had physical beauty been part of their assessment in the beginning stages of their friendship, neither one would have been attracted to the other.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 3
Ch. 11 De-escalating Relationships – Blog 3
On p. 341, our text begins discussing tactics people use when trying to disengage from a relationship. The withdrawal or avoidance tactics and justification tactics are mentioned on p. 344. I’m of the opinion that withdrawal/avoidance is the least effective way to end a relationship where as the justification tactic is one of the most effective means. Avoiding someone creates tensions not only between the disengager and the disengagee but also between any mutual, common relationships each party may have had outside their dyad. Avoiding someone as a means to de-escalate a relationship shows utter disrespect for the other party. Avoidance is pretty much the cowardly way out.
The justification messages, on the other hand, provide clear communication that the relationship is terminated. When a relationship is ending, it is important for both parties to avoid any vague or ambiguous messages; clearly stating that the relationship is over helps eliminate any confusion over the relationship’s status. In the justification approach, a reason is also given for the break-up. I’ve found that people can learn so much about who they are and what they want in a partner by understanding why certain relationships are/were not a good fit. These realizations are only made known through open discussion of the reasons for parting ways.
On p. 341, our text begins discussing tactics people use when trying to disengage from a relationship. The withdrawal or avoidance tactics and justification tactics are mentioned on p. 344. I’m of the opinion that withdrawal/avoidance is the least effective way to end a relationship where as the justification tactic is one of the most effective means. Avoiding someone creates tensions not only between the disengager and the disengagee but also between any mutual, common relationships each party may have had outside their dyad. Avoiding someone as a means to de-escalate a relationship shows utter disrespect for the other party. Avoidance is pretty much the cowardly way out.
The justification messages, on the other hand, provide clear communication that the relationship is terminated. When a relationship is ending, it is important for both parties to avoid any vague or ambiguous messages; clearly stating that the relationship is over helps eliminate any confusion over the relationship’s status. In the justification approach, a reason is also given for the break-up. I’ve found that people can learn so much about who they are and what they want in a partner by understanding why certain relationships are/were not a good fit. These realizations are only made known through open discussion of the reasons for parting ways.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 2
Ch. 10 Maintaining Relationships – Blog 2
On pages 288-291, relational maintenance and equity are discussed. Psychologists and scholars both agree that when a couple views their relationship as equitable, where both parties contribute and benefit an equal amount, they are generally happier and more stable. On p. 291 the text states the following: “A sense of equity in the relationship, the absence of a major conflict, the expression of attraction, and a confrontational conflict management style were related to higher levels of psychological intimacy.” The piece of information that appeals most to me from this statement is the reference to a direct conflict style. As the text states, a confrontational conflict management style involves face-to-face and direct communication. There are many people who are conflict avoiders and/or passive-aggressive. These qualities can be detrimental in both intimate and casual relationships. As uncomfortable as it may be, significant others should address conflicts with straightforward communication. This, of course, doesn’t mean that you disrespect one another or allow the confrontation to be one-sided. Instead, it should be an “open discussion of differences.” Couples are likely rewarded for this openness by realizing clarity at the point of stasis; often times, we don’t even know where the actual disagreement is occurring. Once that is determined, clarification and understanding become prevalent.
On pages 288-291, relational maintenance and equity are discussed. Psychologists and scholars both agree that when a couple views their relationship as equitable, where both parties contribute and benefit an equal amount, they are generally happier and more stable. On p. 291 the text states the following: “A sense of equity in the relationship, the absence of a major conflict, the expression of attraction, and a confrontational conflict management style were related to higher levels of psychological intimacy.” The piece of information that appeals most to me from this statement is the reference to a direct conflict style. As the text states, a confrontational conflict management style involves face-to-face and direct communication. There are many people who are conflict avoiders and/or passive-aggressive. These qualities can be detrimental in both intimate and casual relationships. As uncomfortable as it may be, significant others should address conflicts with straightforward communication. This, of course, doesn’t mean that you disrespect one another or allow the confrontation to be one-sided. Instead, it should be an “open discussion of differences.” Couples are likely rewarded for this openness by realizing clarity at the point of stasis; often times, we don’t even know where the actual disagreement is occurring. Once that is determined, clarification and understanding become prevalent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)