Article 1. Close Relationships and Complementary Interpersonal Styles Among Men and Women.
According to Leary and Sullivan, close relationships are characterized by complementary personality styles. Sullivan presented a conceptual framework for interpersonal theory, suggesting that individuals are driven to interact with others, in large part, to reduce anxiety and affirm one another’s self-concept. (Yaughn, 1999)
The article stated that researchers have provided backing for the corresponding theory, a large amount of studies have focused on the early stages of a relationship between strangers rather than on the deepening stages of a long-term, close relationship. This focus did not take into account the effects of corresponding interpersonal styles that can most obviously be seen after a relationship has progressed past the initial stages in which the social rules of interfacing are a smaller amount are likely to dictate connections. They later went on to examine the same-sex, close relationships that have had some time to develop. They theorized that close relationships would be characterized by corresponding interpersonal styles; the contrary would remain true in relationships that were not close.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
They also found a little support for the corresponding theory in women who had close relationships. Women had described their close, same-sex friends as being alike to themselves in association, especially when comparing to their not so close friends. In comparison to their male counterparts, the amount of self and other association or status did not appear to be connected to whether they considered the relationship to be close or not close.
There was a difference in how the men and women expressed close friendships. “Although the women reported higher overall ratings of closeness for their close friendships than the men, the higher overall closeness rating came primarily from the fact that the women reported a higher frequency and diversity of activities with their close friends than the men did.” (Yaughn & Nowicki, Jr., 1999)
The article concluded that their findings must be viewed as speculative until they can be repeated by using participants of other ages and cultural backgrounds.
Article II. – Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an Attributional Perspective.
This article covers a vast amount of information dealing with the two related attribution theories of motivation. Intrapersonal theory includes self-directed thoughts and self-directed emotions.
The author of the article believed that achievement and failure in achievement settings do not occur in a vacuum. They deduce that social environment included peers, teacher and parents who experience delight and sadness given the performance of others, who articulated anger and sympathy and who reward, punish, help, or neglect. The response to the performance of others was concluded within the interpersonal theory of motivation.
An attributional approach to classroom behavior can address expectancy of success and affects including pride, guilt, shame, and self-esteem. It also allows for predictions about reactions to success and failure. Attributional analyses provide a window for the understanding of evaluation, reactions to the stigmatized, help and aggression. (Weiner, 2000)
Article III. Cultural Differences in Asymmetric Beliefs of Interpersonal Knowledge in Vertical and Horizontal Relationships.
This article found that in previous studies contained reports that interpersonal knowledge shows an lop-sidedness, we tend to accept as true that we know and comprehend other people’s thoughts and feelings better than other people know and comprehend our own thoughts and feelings. “In the present study, the authors compared American (114 men, 192 women) and Korean (99 men and 98 women) students to examine whether the asymmetry is greater in collectivistic than in individualistic culture in two types of relationships: horizontal (with best friends) and vertical (with parents).” (YOHAN, 2010) It was found that —Know, Understand, and Visibility—asymmetry was found for both horizontal and vertical relationships.
The results in this article was summarized that: (1) the asymmetry exists between close friends, between roommates, between strangers who are just acquainted; (2) the asymmetry occurs with both inter- and intrapersonal knowledge; (3) the asymmetry is greater for negative personal characteristics than for positive or neutral characteristics; (4) the asymmetry is reduced as the relationship between persons becomes closer; (5) the asymmetry occurs because we think our private thoughts and feelings are more revealing of ourselves than our public behaviors; (6) the asymmetry is created during the initial encounter with strangers and grows stronger as the interaction continues; (7) the asymmetry occurs because we tend to think that overt responses are more diagnostic of our peers than of ourselves; and (8) these effects are not based on self-serving or self-enhancement bias. (Yohan, 2010)
Asymmetry in thinking of interpersonal information may have significant implications
for how we connect with others. The article concluded with the thoughts that the study of asymmetry of interpersonal knowledge was there in both horizontal and vertical relationships and in both separate and collective cultures. The study found that Korean students showed larger asymmetry than American students. The Korean students also showed that they understood their parents better than their friends, while American students indicated that they understood their friends better than their parents.