Ebook for check point assignment | Psychology homework help

EBook for Check Point assignment Rika30As humans, we are fundamentally social beings whose connections to others are vital to our health and happiness. As we have noted in many places throughout this book, the evidence connecting well-being to relationships is overwhelming (see Chapters 3 and 5). David Myers referred to the contribution of relationships to health and happiness as a “deep truth” (1992, p. 154). The “truth” of the well-being/relationship connection appears to be universal. Of the many factors that contribute to well-being, only social relationships

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Defining Close Relationships Characteristics Exchange and Communal Relationships On the Lighter Side Teasing and Humor Focus on Research: Sharing What Goes Right in Life Friendship and Romantic Love Clarity of Rules Complexity of Feelings Expectations Varieties of Love Passionate versus Companionate Love Triangular Theory of Love Cultural Context of Love, Marriage, and Divorce Why Don’t Marriages Last? Increased Freedom and Decreased Constraints Getting Married and Staying Married: Is Love the Answer? Realism or Idealism? Satisfaction and Conflict What People Bring to Romantic Relationships Attachment Style Conflict and Communication Skills Focus on Research: The Power of the “Bad” Attributions Implicit Theories and Expectations Food for Thought: Contours of a Happy Marriage What Can Happy Couples Tell Us? Humor and Compatibility Close Relationships and Well-Being 239

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. 240 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being consistently predict happiness across widely differing cultures (Diener & Diener, 1995). Relationships are responsible for our greatest joys and our most painful sorrows. Our physical and emotional well-being is enhanced as much by supporting and caring connections with others as it is jeopardized by social isolation and bad relationships. For physical health and longevity, the magnitude of these effects rival those of well-established health risks such as smoking, obesity, diet, and lack of exercise (see Chapter 3). The quality of our relationships has equally powerful effects on mental health and happiness. Healthy people have strong, supportive connections to others and happy people have rich social lives, satisfying friendships, and happy marriages (see Chapters 3 and 5). The importance of positive relationships is widely recognized by psychologists and nonpsychologists alike. People typically list close relationships as one of their most important life goals and a primary source of meaning in life (Emmons, 1999b). In one study, 73% of college students said they would sacrifice another important life goal (e.g., good education, career) before they would give up a satisfying romantic relationship (Hammersla & Frease-McMahan, 1990). In answer to the “deathbed test” most people point to relationships as a major factor that contributes to a satisfying and meaningful life (Reis & Gable, 2003; Sears,

1977). A full appreciation of the value of close relationships

is one of life’s more important lessons, often learned in the face of life-threatening events (see Chapter 4 on Posttraumatic Growth). We have also discussed the multiple ways that relationships contribute to well-being. Relationships provide an important coping resource through social support, fulfill needs for intimacy and sharing of life’s burdens through self-disclosure, and represent an ongoing source of enjoyment and positive emotions through interactions with others. Many psychologists believe these positive effects are built on a biological foundation reflecting our evolutionary heritage. Humans are not particularly imposing figures compared to the other animals they confronted in pre-historic times, and human infants remain relatively defenseless for many years. Evolution may have selected for a geneticallyorganized bonding process. Going it alone likely meant the end of a person’s genetic lineage. In short, humans probably would not have survived if they did not have a built-in biological motive to form cooperative bonds with others and nurturing connections with their own offspring. As we noted in Chapter 5, the evolutionary basis of human connections, together with the extensive literature showing the importance of human bonds, led Baumeister and Leary (1995) to conclude that belongingness is a fundamental human need which they described as, “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Food and water are essential supplies for a healthy life. Similarly, caring relationships with others also appear to be essential to well-being. Recent studies have begun to explore some of the biological underpinnings of our need for belonging. For example, oxytocin is a pituitary hormone that has physiological effects that counter the flight-or-fight stress response. That is, this hormone reduces fearfulness and the physiological arousal associated with stress by producing relaxation and calmness (Carter, 1998; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, et al., 2000; Uvnas-Moberg, 1998). Oxytocin is sometimes referred to as the “cuddle hormone” because close physical contacts such as touching, hugging, and kissing stimulate its release (Hazan, Campa, & Gur- Yaish, 2006). Oxytocin is responsible for the release of milk in nursing mothers. The calm emotional state and feelings of safety produced by the hormone are thought to contribute to infant–maternal bonds. For both men and women, oxytocin levels are at their highest during sexual orgasm (Uvnas- Moberg, 1997). These findings suggest that our desire for intimate connections with others and the comfort these connections provide are at least partially mediated by biological responses. Obviously, there’s more to a hug than just biology, but that hug might not feel quite as good if it weren’t for biology. The connection of satisfying relationships to well-being is clear. What is not so clear is how people develop and maintain good relationships. In this chapter, we will explore what psychologists have learned about close, intimate relationships that addresses the following sorts of questions: What is the difference between close relationships and more casual acquaintances? How does an intimate connection develop between two people? What does it mean to be someone’s friend? To be in love? What characterizes good and bad relationships? Given the widely shared belief in the importance of close relationships, why do half of all marriages end in divorce? Why is it so difficult to sustain a satisfying

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 241 long-term marriage? Can “happy” couples tell us something about the ingredients of a successful marriage?

DEFINING CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

Characteristics We encounter many people each day as we shop, talk on the phone, keep appointments, visit, work, go to school, go to church, and relax with family members, friends, or spouses at the end of the day. While all the relationships involved in these encounters are potentially significant, researchers have spent most of their time studying our closest relationships—specifically friendship, romantic love, and marriage. Our best friends, lovers, and spouses are the most important people in our lives and have the most impact on our overall well-being across the life span. Close relationships can be distinguished from more casual acquaintances in a number of ways, but the degree of intimacy seems most central to the distinction. In everyday language, intimacy often implies a sexual and romantic relationship. We may be more likely to describe a good friend as a best friend or a close friend, rather than an intimate friend. However, relationship researchers use the term “intimacy” to capture mutual understanding, depth of connection, and degree of involvement, whether or not the relationship is sexual. The term “intimacy” can apply both to friends and to lovers. It is in this sense that our closest relationships, sexual or not, are the most intimate ones. Although some researchers believe that close relationships and intimate relationships are distinct and independent types (see Berscheid & Reis, 1998), we will use the term “intimate” to describe our closest relationships. Based on an extensive review of the literature, Miller, Perlman, and Brehm (2007) suggest that both lay-persons and psychologists seem to agree on six core characteristics that set intimate relationships apart from more casual relationships: knowledge, trust, caring, interdependence, mutuality, and commitment (see also Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Harvey & Weber, 2002). Brief descriptions of these six characteristics are given in Table 11.1. KNOWLEDGE Our closest friends and intimate partners know more about us than anyone else. They have extensive knowledge of our personal history, deepest feelings, strengths, and faults. Intimate knowledge in close relations develops through the mutual self-disclosure of personal information and feelings. Self-disclosure means revealing intimate details of the self to others (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). These details have to do with our “true self” and the actual state of affairs in our lives, which is likely different than the public self presented to less intimate others in everyday interactions. That is, we share things with intimate others that we typically keep private when we are in the company of strangers or casual acquaintances. Sharing of personal information, in turn, provides the basis for developing a deeper connection than is typical in casual associations. To have someone accept, like or love you, when they know you as you know yourself, is powerful affirmation of the essence and totality of self. This is one reason why rejection by a good friend or romantic partner may be so painful. The relatively complete self-knowledge shared with another may make rejection by that person feel profound. In contrast, the rejection of someone who has minimal and partial knowledge of us is likely to be less upsetting, TABLE 11.1 Characteristics of intimate relationships Knowledge—mutual understanding based on reciprocal self-disclosure. Trust—assumption of no harm will be done by the other. Keeping confidences. Caring—genuine concern for the other and ongoing monitoring and maintenance of relationship Interdependence—intertwining of lives and mutual influence. Mutuality—sense of “we-ness” and overlapping of lives. Commitment—intention to stay in the relationship through its ups and downs.

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. 242 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being because only the more superficial aspects of the self are invested. Research suggests that self-disclosure both signifies and enhances mutual liking and affection. A major review by Collins and Miller (1994) found strong empirical support for three disclosure-liking effects. (1) We disclose to people we like. (2) We like people who disclose intimate self-information more than those whose disclosures are less intimate. (3) We like people to whom we have disclosed. Research has also identified a strong tendency for disclosure to beget disclosure, an effect called disclosure reciprocity (Derlega et al., 1993; Miller, 1990; Reis & Shaver, 1988). People tend to both reciprocate a disclosure and match its level of intimacy. The process often begins with non-intimate information and then moves on to more intimate factual and emotional disclosures over time. If initial conversations are rewarding, then over time both the breadth (diversity of topics) and the depth (personal significance and sensitivity) of topics that are discussed increases (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This movement of communication from small talk to the exchange of more sensitive personal information is considered central to the development of relationships. Reciprocal self-disclosure captures the process of how we get to know someone. The knowledge that results from disclosure describes what it means to know and be known by someone. The power of self-disclosure to produce feelings of closeness is dramatically shown by a study that manipulated the intimacy of two conversation partners (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator,

1997). Participants began their exchange as complete

strangers. They were first instructed to talk for 15 minutes about personal topics that were relatively low in intimacy such as, “When did you last sing to yourself?” During the second 15-minute interval, topic intimacy increased to include things like, “What is your most treasured memory?” During the final 15 minutes, conversation partners were instructed to talk about very personal topics invoked by questions such as, “When did you last cry in front

of another person? By yourself?” “Complete this sentence:

‘I wish I had someone with whom I could share . . .’ ” Compared to a group of non-disclosing participants who engaged in 45 minutes of small talk (e.g., “What’s is your favorite holiday?”), participants in the disclosure condition reported feeling very close to their conversational partners by the

conclusion of the experience. The researchers

compared closeness ratings for the group that engaged in self-disclosure and the group that made small-talk. Surprisingly, the experimental subjects reported feeling closer to their experimental partners, than one-third of the small-talk subjects reported feeling to the person with whom they shared the closest real-life relationship! This is strong evidence for the importance of self-disclosure to the development of intimacy. Reciprocal disclosure is most evident at the beginning of relationships and less so once relationships are well established (Altman, 1973; Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). In a new friendship, we are likely to feel an obligation to reciprocate when a person opens up to us with personal information. In a budding romance, the disclosure may be quite rapid and emotionally arousing, which may add to the passion we feel. Telling a romantic partner your deepest secrets and your innermost feelings is exciting, especially when it is reciprocated. One of the ironies of romance is that the better we know our partners, the less we may experience the excitement of disclosure. Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) argue that passion and deepening intimacy are strongly linked. They believe one reason passion fades in long-term marriages is that spouses already know most everything about each other. In well-established relationships, intimacy is sustained more by responsiveness than by reciprocity (Reis & Patrick, 1996). That is, in our interactions with best friends, family members, and marital partners, it is less important to reciprocate and more important to respond in a supporting, caring, and affectionate manner (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). If you tell your spouse all your angry feelings about your boss after a bad day at work, you aren’t looking for reciprocation. You don’t really want to hear about her or his bad day at that moment. What you want is a sounding board, a sympathetic ear, and expressions of care and empathy for your feelings. TRUST Mutual trust is another vital ingredient of intimate and close relationships. To trust someone means that you expect they will do you no harm. Chief among the harms we are concerned about is the breaking of confidences. When we open up to other people we make ourselves vulnerable. It is a bit like taking your clothes off and feeling selfconscious about the less than perfect shape of your body. In a network of friends or co-workers,

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 243 sensitive information can have damaging consequences if someone tells others how you “really” feel about someone—your boss, for example. Violation of trust is damaging to relationships and will likely lead the betrayed person to be less open and more guarded in revealing personally sensitive information in the future (Jones, Crouch, & Scott, 1997). Trust is an essential ingredient in close relationships, partly because it is a necessary precondition for self-disclosure. We don’t disclose to people we don’t trust. CARING Caring means concern for and attention to the feelings of others. We feel more affection and appreciation for our close partners than for most people. When we ask a casual acquaintance, “how are you doing?” we most often expect and receive an obligatory and cliché response: “Fine,” “Hanging in there,” “Not bad,” and so forth. Neither person expects a deep revelation about personal feelings. At one level, in those passing greetings, we aren’t actually asking for information about how the person is really doing. We’re just following polite social rules for greeting and acknowledging people as we encounter them. In our intimate relationships, the same question carries different expectations. We expect and want a more detailed and genuine response, especially if things are not going well. And the other person is expected to be more honest in describing how they really feel, and not to pass off the question with a stock answer used in low-intimacy exchanges. Caring also involves all the little things we do to express our appreciation and valuing of a relationship: providing support in times of need; recognizing special occasions like birthdays, holidays, and anniversaries; inviting people for dinner and other shared activities; and keeping in touch with a phone call or an invitation to get together over coffee or lunch. All these things reflect the simple fact that more intimate relationships take high priority in our lives. We have more invested, so we take care to maintain the quality of our close relationships. INTERDEPENDENCE The lives of people in intimate relationships are deeply intertwined. The mutual influence of each person on the actions, feelings, and thinking of the other is, for some researchers, a defining characteristic of close relationships (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). We typically care more and give greater weight to the advice and judgments our family members, friends, and spouses than we do to people we know less well. This is particularly true regarding self-relevant personal issues and actions. We may consult an expert when our computer malfunctions, but we are likely to seek the support and advice of spouses and friends in times of personal challenge, such as interpersonal conflicts at work or caring for aging parents. Our feelings and actions are also intertwined. The emotional ups and downs of our intimate partners affect our own emotional states and actions. Intimate partners share in each other’s emotional experiences. Compared to casual relationships, the mutual influences characterizing close relationships are more frequent and involve more areas of our lives. And they are long-term. For example, most parents find that they never stop being parents, in terms of showing concern, giving advice, and offering help and support to their children. Children would likely agree that the influence of parents does not end when they leave their parents’ home and begin their own lives. MUTUALITY Mutuality is another distinctive feature of our closest relationships. Mutuality refers to feelings of overlap between two lives—that is, the extent to which people feel like separate individuals or more like a couple. These feelings are revealed in the language we use to describe our connection to others. Plural pronouns (we and us) have been found to both express and contribute to close relationships (e.g., Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). People use “we” to signify closeness. In a developing relationship, shifting from singular pronouns (e.g., “she and I”) to plural (“we” or “us”) contributes to feelings of closeness and mutuality. Another way of capturing mutuality and feelings of closeness is to ask people to pick among pairs of circles that overlap to varying degrees (see Figure 11.1). Called the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale, this measure has been found effective in assessing interpersonal closeness (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Sample items from this scale are shown in Figure 11.1. People simply pick the circle pair that best describes a relationship partner specified by the researcher (e.g., closest relationship, best friend, spouse, etc.). The pictorial representation of mutuality seems to be a direct and meaningful way for people to express their feelings of closeness for another person.

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. 244 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other FIGURE 11.1 Sample Items—Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale COMMITMENT Commitment is a final component of intimate relationships. Commitment is a desire or intention to continue a relationship into the future. Research suggests that people associate commitment with loyalty, faithfulness, living up to your word, hard work, and giving your best effort (Fehr, 1988, 1996). In short, commitment means persevering “through thick and thin.” This can be contrasted with the lack of commitment shown by a “fair weather friend,” who is there when things are going well, but not when a supportive friend is needed most. Successful friendships and marriages require some amount of work. This means spending time and energy maintaining closeness and working through the inevitable conflicts and problems that arise in long-term relationships. Close relationships also require some degree of personal sacrifice and compromise of individual self-interests for the good of the relationship. Mutual commitment helps ensure that relationship partners will do the work and make the sacrifices and compromises necessary to sustain an intimate connection. Our most satisfying relationships will likely involve all six characteristics: knowledge, trust, caring, interdependence, mutuality, and commitment (Miller et al., 2007). Both research and everyday personal experience suggest that these characteristics do, indeed, capture the essential elements of what it means to be a close friend or intimate partner. If we view these six features as ideal standards, then degree of intimacy and closeness might be evaluated according to the relative prominence of each characteristic. Fehr (1996) argues that the difference between a friend, a good friend, and a best friend is largely a matter of degree. With our best friends, we know more, trust more, care more, are more deeply committed, and so forth. It is important to recognize the diversity of relationships. That is, close relationships are a bit too complex to be captured by six ideal characteristics. Deep affection and caring can exist without passing the six-feature test. For example, the movie Grumpy Old Men portrayed two elderly men (played by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon) who competed for a woman’s affection, constantly criticized and insulted each other, and spent considerable time planning and carrying out acts of revenge that stopped just short of mayhem. Yet their relationship was utterly endearing, caring, affectionate and, despite its peculiar nature, loving. Fitting this longterm friendship to the six characteristics would be a challenge! In a similar vein, marriages come in all shapes and sizes, reflecting the unique needs and personalities of spouses. A marriage may “work” despite a lack of fit to the ideal. Both of your textbook authors, for instance, know of a successful marriage based on high independence rather than interdependence. That is, a couple that takes pride in not exerting much influence on each other in terms of careers, vacation travel, mutual friends, or even shared activities at home. This may not seem to many of us like a recipe for a satisfying relationship, but they are both very happy with their marriage and wouldn’t have it any other way. It is worth keeping in mind that none of these characteristics, in and of itself, guarantees an intimate relationship. Self-disclosure, for instance, does not guarantee intimacy or deep affection. Sometimes when you really get to know a person, you find that you really dislike them! Perhaps this has happened with a relative or a co-worker with whom you’ve had frequent and long-term contact. In a similar vein, commitment might not signify a desire to work on or enhance a relationship. A married couple in

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 245 an unhappy marriage might make a mutual commitment to stay together because they believe it is best for their kids. In short, relationships are complex. The six features of intimate relationships should be considered general guidelines rather than hard-andfast criteria. Exchange and Communal Relationships In addition to the six characteristics that define intimate relationships, such relationships also differ in how we think about and evaluate them. According to Clark and Mills, relationships come in two basic forms, exchange relationships and communal relationships (Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993). The two forms are related to different patterns of thinking, evaluating and behaving in a relationship, and to different levels of intimacy and closeness. Clark and Mills provide evidence showing that, as intimacy increases, people’s relationships shift from an exchange form to a communal form. Exchange relationships are typically more formal, less personal, and in the beginning stages of development. They are built on fairness and mutual reciprocity. That is, in an exchange relationship each party is expected to return favors in a mutual fashion. I do something nice for you and you return the favor. Exchange relationships are evaluated by keeping mental track of what we have done for others in comparison to what they have done for us. We may feel satisfied if our exchange ratio is fairly equal; conversely, resentment may build if we feel we are putting ourselves out, but getting nothing back. A sense of indebtedness might result from believing we are “falling behind” in doing nice things for another person. Communal relationships are more typical with our closer friends, romantic partners, and family members. In these relationships, the tit-for-tat reciprocation of exchange relationships would probably feel a bit funny and might even be damaging. What would you think if your best friend reciprocated every one of your favors, like an accountant who keeps track of assets and liabilities on a ledger sheet? Clark and Mills (1979, 1993) found that while tit-for-tat reciprocation of favors increased liking among low-intimacy and formal relationships, the same favor reciprocation decreased liking among friends and in more intimate relationships. With our long-term friends, family members, and spouses we are in it for the long haul. We tend to pay more attention to keeping track of others’ needs, rather than logging all the specific things we have done for them and they have done for us. We are highly responsive to others’ emotional states and respond appropriately. In communal relationships, we share an ongoing mutual concern focused on the overall quality of a relationship and the needs and welfare of the other. We do not expect to be repaid for each positive act. The distinction between exchange and communal relationships is not hard-and-fast. All relationships probably involve some kind of exchange and a close relationship does not necessarily mean that each person takes a communal view (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 2001). Some married couples undoubtedly do focus on what they put in versus what they get out of their marriage, although this probably signifies a less healthy and less mature relationship. And, thinking about costs and benefits seems entirely appropriate when close relationships become hurtful, conflicted, or dominated by one person’s self-centered needs.

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

Love and friendship are built on the same foundation. Knowledge, trust, caring, interdependence, mutuality, and commitment are the basic building blocks of all close relationships. As these basic ingredients develop, our thinking shifts from an exchange perspective to a more communal perspective. One reason relationships are so strongly connected to health and happiness is that they represent a sort of safety net to catch us when life knocks us off balance. The depth of knowledge, care, concern, and trust that characterize close relationships provide confidence that we don’t have to go it alone. Support from friends, family members, and intimate partners in times of trouble has been consistently documented as one of our strongest coping resources (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Ryff & Singer, 2000; Salovey, Rothman, Detweiler, & Steward, 2000; Salovey, Rothman, & Rodin, 1998; Taylor et al., 2000). However, relationships also enhance our well-being when things are going well. Most of the “good times” we have in life involve shared activities and fun with our families and friends. These good times translate into more frequent positive emotional experiences that, in turn, allow us to reap the benefits of positive emotions shown in research and described by

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. 246 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Chapter 3). Teasing and Humor Aside from sex, which is arguably more intense, but far less frequent (at least when you’re older), laughter is one of our most commonly experienced sources of positive emotion. From childhood to old age, laughter is a universal experience and it’s almost always social (Lefcourt, 2002). We may, on occasion, laugh when we’re alone, but we have the most fun with others. We both enjoy and seek out people who make us laugh. Large-scale surveys find that a sense of humor is one of the most valued qualities that people seek in choosing opposite- and same-sex friends, dating partners, and marriage partners (Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Certainly, humor can be used for negative purposes, such as the humiliating teasing of a schoolyard bully. However, in satisfying relationships, humor is typically prosocial and serves positive functions (Keltner, Young, Heerey, & Oemig, 1998). Teasing, playful banter, exchanging jokes, and contagious laughter are typical features of close relationships and one of the primary reasons we enjoy them. Even serious occasions are often marked by humor. For example, it is not uncommon for people to tell humorous stories about the deceased at a funeral reception, especially if the person was elderly and lived a long, full life. Humor is a positive coping strategy in the face of loss (Bonanno & Keltner, 1997). Humor helps lighten up serious situations by replacing negative emotions with more positive ones. Humor is widely regarded as an effective way to release stress-related tension, deal with sensitive issues, and help confront and resolve interpersonal conflicts (Argyle, 2001; Lefcourt, 2002; Martin, 2007). Laughter helps put both the mind and body at ease. Humor is important in forming and maintaining social bonds. We like and feel closer to people who make us laugh (e.g., Fraley & Aron, 2004), including teachers and professors. Studies show that students believe a sense of humor is one of the most desirable teacher characteristics that contributes to more classroom enjoyment, engagement, and learning (see Chapter 11 in Martin, 2007). Research also consistently finds that humor contributes to satisfying long-term relationships (see Martin, 2007, for a review). The more married individuals value their partner’s sense of humor, the more satisfied they tend to be with their marriages. In short, high levels of reciprocated humor are one mark of a happy marriage. In fact, humor may well be a key ingredient for a successful long-term marriage, in part because it outlasts the pleasures of sex. When couples who had been married for over 50 years were asked why their marriage had lasted so long, “laughing together frequently” was one of the top reasons (Lauer, Lauer, & Kerr, 1990). They didn’t say, “fantastic sex!” As the frequency and importance of sexual pleasure decline with age, humor may become a more significant source of enjoyment. In our later years of life, we may not want, or be able, to have sex on a regular basis, but there is no indication that we lose our ability to enjoy laughter, or our affection for people with whom we laugh. One of the more prominent humor-related features of close and developing relationships is playful prosocial teasing. Flirtatious teasing is common in dating couples (Keltner et al., 1998) and playful teasing is regarded by people across different cultures as a basic “rule of friendship” (Argyle & Henderson, 1984, 1985). In a large-scale survey of four different cultures, Argyle and Henderson found that teasing and joking were expected features of friendships. This is true despite the fact that teasing is something of a paradox. As Keltner and his colleagues have noted, “Teasing criticizes, yet it compliments, attacks yet makes people closer, humiliates yet expresses affection” (Keltner et al., 1998, p. 1231). Despite its surface negativity, teasing says, “I like you well enough to tease you” and “I enjoy our good-natured fun together.” It signifies closeness, trust, caring, and mutual understanding. In contrast, teasing a casual acquaintance risks misinterpretation, because a good tease and a stinging putdown are just a step apart. Interestingly, the absence of teasing and taking teasing literally are probably signs that a relationship is in trouble. If our best friend stopped teasing us, or took offense at our own wellintentioned teasing, we would clearly take notice and wonder what was wrong. And it goes without saying that if teasing turns aggressive or hurtful, this is also damaging to relationships (Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001). Focus on Research: Sharing What Goes Right in Life Because caring relations increase our experience of positive emotions, they enhance our well-being on an ongoing basis. Consistent with the direct effects

ISBN 1-256-51557-4

Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 247 hypothesis of social support, close relationships contribute to health and happiness even when we are not facing stressful life events (see Chapter 3). The basic idea here is that positive emotions have beneficial effects that are both independent of, and beyond those of negative emotions. That is, in addition to offsetting the ill-effects of negative affect, positive emotions independently enhance the quality of our lives. In line with the direct effects hypothesis, Shelly Gable and her colleagues have recently shown that it is just as important to receive supportive responses to our positive life experiences, as it is to receive support when we’re having trouble (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). When people share or celebrate a positive life event with others, they derive additional benefits beyond the effect of the event itself. Drawing from earlier work, Gable and colleagues refer to this process as capitalization (i.e., capitalizing on a positive event to receive additional benefits). The benefits of capitalization may occur because sharing a positive event with others causes us to relive its emotional effects. A partner’s enthusiastic response, indicating genuine pleasure at our good fortune, also enhances our positive feelings. In four separate studies, Gable and her colleagues examined the individual and interpersonal well-being benefits of sharing positive events. In the first study, participants kept a daily diary in which they recorded their positive and negative emotions and their life satisfaction over an average period of 5 days. For each day, participants also recorded their most important positive event and whether they had shared that event with someone else. Results showed that on 70% of the days, people had shared their most positive event. Analysis of daily positive affect and daily life satisfaction ratings revealed that well-being was enhanced on “sharing” compared to “non-sharing” days. In the second and third studies, dating and married couples were recruited to examine whether a partner’s perceived responsiveness to positive sharing enhanced the quality of relationships. Various measures of relationship quality were completed independently by each partner (e.g., commitment, satisfaction, trust, and intimacy). An important feature of these studies was the development and use of a newly developed Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts scale. This scale measured the degree and nature of a partner’s responsiveness to a positive event by asking people to answer the following question: “Please take a moment to consider how your partner responds when you tell him or her about something good that has happened to you” (Gable et al., 2004, p. 233, emphasis in original). Examples of positive events were given, such as a promotion at work, a positive conversation with a family member, winning a prize or doing well at school. Each participant rated his or her partner’s response using rating items describing four types of reactions to sharing a positive event: (1) activeconstructive (e.g., “I sometimes get the sense that my partner is even more happy and excited than I am”); (2) passive-constructive (e.g., “My partner tries not to make a big deal out of it, but is happy for me”); (3) active-destructive (e.g., “He/she points out the potential downside of the good event”); (4) and passive-destructive (e.g., “My partner doesn’t pay much attention to me”) (Gable et al., 2004, p. 233). Both studies found that only active-constructive responses to the sharing of positive life events were related to enhanced relationship quality. The three other response types were associated with decreased relationship quality, making it clear that capitalization is dependent on an active, enthusiastic, and supporting reaction from one’s partner. In a final 10-day diary study, Gable and her colleagues examined the individual benefits of capitalization. Would sharing a positive event and receiving an active-constructive response also increase the subjective well-being (SWB) of the person who shared? Answer: yes. On days when people told others about a positive event, both life satisfaction and positive affect increased. The more people they told, the more their well-being increased, especially if the responses received were supportive and enthusiastic. Altogether, these four studies provide strong support for the value of capitalizing on the good things that happen to us by sharing them with others. They also suggest another basis for the connection between relationships and well-being. The well-being enhancing effects of positive emotions can be relived and extended through our connections with car

[TRUNCATED]