front 1 Family | back 1 a system of elements that operate together producing communication patterns that enable its members to either adapt to or resist outside influences and typical crises within the family system |
front 2 relationship | back 2 how two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected |
front 3 family structure | back 3 various working orders developed by the entire family |
front 4 family functions | back 4 services a family provides for its members and the society at large |
front 5 power-authority structure | back 5 the way a family assigns the authority to wield discipline within the family |
front 6 positional structure | back 6 a family authority structure in which lines of authority are hierarchically arranged, based on status and social position |
front 7 person-oriented structures | back 7 families allowing individuals members to determine how much influence they want to exert |
front 8 consensus | back 8 general agreement among various groups on fundamental matters; broad agreement on public questions |
front 9 accomodation | back 9 less articulate or dominating family members give in |
front 10 Defacto | back 10 single family member acts alone or the matter is decided by events |
front 11 interaction structures | back 11 communication channels most frequently used |
front 12 centralized | back 12 a single member who interacts a great deal with all of the members and may or may not pass information along to the family` |
front 13 decentralized | back 13 frequent interaction is likely to occur with all or most family members |
front 14 family systems theory | back 14 views the family as a system of interacting parts whose interactions exhibit consistent patterns and unstated rules |
front 15 open family | back 15 encourages its members to interact with the outside world and to share those interactions |
front 16 closed family | back 16 discourages its members from interacting outside the home and emphasizes that family comes first |
front 17 random family | back 17 a family in which boundaries are not very clearly drawn and may be frequent source of misunderstanding and dispute |
front 18 enmeshed system | back 18 one that sacrifices the autonomy of its members in order to experience a great deal of cohesion |
front 19 disengaged family | back 19 promotes independence but little family loyalty |
front 20 family evolution | back 20 how the family adapts to the developmental changes and personal needs of its members as well as to the changing social and economic needs of the culture |
front 21 family crisis | back 21 a situation in which the usual behavior patterns are ineffective and new ones are called for immediately |
front 22 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis | back 22 language creates way of thinking and perceiving |
front 23 crisis in stages: DIVORCE | back 23 Stage 1: shock resulting in numbness or disbelief, denial Stage 2: recoil stage resulting in anger, confusion, blaming, guilt, and bargaining Stage 3: depression Stage 4: reorganization resulting in acceptance and recovery |
front 24 accommodation decision making style | back 24 a style of decision making in which less articulate or less dominating members of the family give in to those who hold the power or are more persistent |
front 25 centralized network | back 25 a communication structure in which team members communicate through a single individual to solve problems or make decisions |
front 26 comforting | back 26 a response style in which a listener reassures, supports, or distracts the person seeking help |
front 27 companionate family | back 27 type of family build on mutual affection, sexual attraction, compatibility, and personal happiness between husband and wife |
front 28 constitutive rules | back 28 communication rules that specify how certain communicative acts are to be counted |
front 29 control messages | back 29 power assertion, love withdrawal, induction |
front 30 democratic family | back 30 family in which adolescents participate in decisions affecting their lives |
front 31 family themes | back 31 recurring attitudes, beliefs, or outlooks on life shared by the entire family |
front 32 independent couples | back 32 married partners who exhibit sharing and companionship and are psychologically interdependent but allow each other individual space |
front 33 love withdrawal discipline | back 33 relies on child's fear they will lose parent's support, affection, and approval |
front 34 separate couples | back 34 live together but view their relationship more as a matter of convenience than a result of their mutual love or closeness |
front 35 intimacy | back 35 relational closeness |
front 36 characteristics of relationships | back 36 constantly changing, affected by culture, require maintenance, require commitment |
front 37 factors that influence intimacy | back 37 1. perspectives 2. created prototype 3. environmental conditions |
front 38 environmental conditions of intimacy | back 38 physical proximity, shared episodes, romantic feelings |
front 39 physical proximity | back 39 increased likelihood that 2 people will communicate more frequently with each other |
front 40 shared episodes | back 40 an episode is shared when 2 people engage in an activity that neither could do alone |
front 41 romantic feelings | back 41 emotional state leading to intimacy that occurs when an event brings two people together, an individual convinces himself the other is attractive, and some form of arousal |
front 42 Duck's Filtering Theory of Attraction | back 42 1. Sociological cues 2. Pre-interaction cues 3. Interaction cues 4. Cognitive Cues |
front 43 sociological cues | back 43 proximity, frequency of interaction |
front 44 pre-interaction cues | back 44 physical cues (height, weight, artifacts, and beauty) that serve a basis for attraction and perceptions of similarity and difference |
front 45 interaction cues | back 45 make assessments about whether they want to get to know someone better |
front 46 cognitive cues | back 46 attraction is ultimately based on shared values and opinions |
front 47 matching hypothesis | back 47 the tendency to develop relationships with people who are approximately as attractive as we are |
front 48 reciprocal liking | back 48 we are attached to them because they express liking toward us |
front 49 complementary needs | back 49 people are more likely to be attracted to someone who complements their needs and vice versa |
front 50 exchange theory | back 50 the ratio of cost to rewards derived by each person is a goal predictor of how attracted each person will be to the relationship |
front 51 relationship development | back 51 initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, bonding |
front 52 grave-dressing phase | back 52 this is the time when each gives an account of why the relationship failed (final phase) |
front 53 covenant talk (in bonding: knapp stage model) | back 53 discussions in which people work out what they want, what they believe, and what they hope for each other |
front 54 Social Penetration theory | back 54 proposes relationships develop through increases in self-disclosure |
front 55 self-disclosure | back 55 voluntary sharing of information about the self that another person is not likely to know |
front 56 breadth | back 56 number of topics we are willing to discuss |
front 57 depth | back 57 depth with which we are willing to discuss any given topic |
front 58 4 stages of relationship development | back 58 1. Orientation (non-deep areas, cautious) 2. Exploratory affective exchange (friends vs acquaintances) 3. Affective exchange (open with some resistance, barriers are broken) 4. Stable exchange (very, very open, extensive communication, highly intimate) |
front 59 orientation | back 59 involves superficial disclosure that allows people to get to know each other in a non-threatening way |
front 60 exploratory affective exchange | back 60 broadening the range of topics allows them to determine what they have in common and whether they want to continue the relationship |
front 61 affective exchange | back 61 when people start to disclose about more personal topics or emotions/become more vulnerable |
front 62 stable exchange | back 62 people feel free to disclose almost all of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences |
front 63 social penetration | back 63 self disclosure becomes less personal and less frequent |
front 64 turning point model | back 64 couples move forward from commitment over the course of their relationship |
front 65 dialectics model | back 65 dialectical tensions like independence or interdependence are always negotiated moving relationship forwards |
front 66 love styles | back 66 eros, storge, ludus, mania, agape, pragma - Lee (1973) |
front 67 eros | back 67 "romantic and passionate love" strong emotional highs and lows, characterized by attraction & affection, sexual desire: in love, sense of intimacy quickly, high levels of self-disclosure - to intensify, increase conflict and tokens of behavior |
front 68 storge | back 68 "friendship love" compassion = 1st priority, high levels of commitment and intimacy + low levels of passion, security & companionship important, love = partnership 3 things: affection, shared values and goals, compatibility - might become bored + predictable |
front 69 ludus | back 69 view relationship as fun and casual, avoid commitment (play the field), gather information from 3rd parties, share little with partner, slow to develop intimacy - use negative strategy to maintain relationship like making partner jealous + being unfaithful |
front 70 mania | back 70 ERO + LUDUS more demanding + dependent, possessive and jealous, high levels of physical attraction and passion, emotional highs and lows - negative behaviors to control partners |
front 71 agape | back 71 EROS + STORGE revolves around caring, concern and tenderness, focused on giving (deep abiding and passionate love), willing to make sacrifices for the other, high levels of unconditional level, lack of secret tasks |
front 72 pragma | back 72 STORGE + LUDUS avoid emotional risk-taking, commit only after considerable time and thought, search for person who fits particular image, "common sense" approach for problem solving approach to life and love, use direct communication and practical strategies |
front 73 KNAPP | back 73 stage model of relationship development and intimacy (staircase) coming together (CT) + coming apart (CA) - not every couple faces coming apart |
front 74 CT: initiating | back 74 meeting, introductions - formalized, fellowship social scripts, culturally appropriate messages |
front 75 CT: experimenting | back 75 small talk, flirtatious |
front 76 CT: intensifying | back 76 dating, spending intentional time (talking) |
front 77 CT: integrating | back 77 order lives around one another, exclusive; expectation of invitation (as a couple), seeing family, rhythm |
front 78 CA: differentiating | back 78 independent interests to separate oneself (begin to come apart); can be giving space |
front 79 CA: circumscribing | back 79 conflict, miscommunicating, arguing (expectations so rejecting communication); trust violations |
front 80 CA: stagnating | back 80 little left to be said, void of communication |
front 81 CA: avoiding | back 81 choose to be apart from SO; moving out, etc. |
front 82 CA: terminating | back 82 formally ending relationship (grave dressing) |
front 83 secrete tests within the intensifying stage | back 83 endurance, separation, triangle, indirect suggestion |
front 84 endurance test | back 84 want to know if they are committed to us; increase costs to see if person will remain |
front 85 separation test | back 85 see if they will miss us and commit more |
front 86 triangle test | back 86 flirting with someone else to make jealous; seeing if the other person is interested in somebody else (unfaithful to test for jealousy) |
front 87 indirect suggestion | back 87 testing to see what you stand indirectly |
front 88 uncertainty reduction theory | back 88 WE WANT TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY |
front 89 culture | back 89 the set of virtues and beliefs, norms and customs, rules, and codes that socially define groups of people, binding them to one another and giving them a sense of community |
front 90 culture's worldview | back 90 its orientation toward such things as God, humans, nature, the universe, and the other philosophical issues that are concerned with the concept of being |
front 91 5 dimensions of cultural difference | back 91 1. locus of control 2. action oriented 3. attitudes toward time 4. connection to others 5. communication styles |
front 92 locus of control | back 92 how much control we have over our lives 1. control cultures 2. constraint culture |
front 93 control culture (locus of control) | back 93 have a belief in one's own ability to control destiny (internal locus of control) |
front 94 constraint culture (locus of control) | back 94 believe people have very little control over their lives and there is little one can do to change his/her fate (external locus of control)` |
front 95 action-oriented | back 95 how time is spent and valued |
front 96 doing cultures (action oriented) | back 96 members worry about washing time and judge their own worth by their accomplishments - judged on how well they do not relate to others |
front 97 being cultures (action oriented) | back 97 personal compatibility is more important than job competence, not as driven- (relaxing is not wasting time) |
front 98 attitudes toward time | back 98 perception of how time is structured |
front 99 M-time cultures (attitudes toward time) | back 99 "time is money," should be scheduled and organized (monochronic); expect things to start on time (we schedule unscheduled time) |
front 100 P-time cultures (attitudes toward time) | back 100 pre-set schedules are seldom followed, several tasks may be undertaken at the same time (polychronic), not multitasking |
front 101 connection to others | back 101 individualistic cultures & collectivistic cultures |
front 102 individualistic cultures (connection to others) | back 102 basic unit: individual; expected to make their own decisions, take personal responsibility for their actions and look out for their own best interests (loyalty to self) |
front 103 collectivistic cultures (connection to others) | back 103 basic unit: group; believe individual must be subordinate to the group and in return the group protects its members, conformity and consensus are sought (loyalty to others) |
front 104 communication styles | back 104 what are they looking at to determine meaning |
front 105 low-context (communication styles) | back 105 meaning is explicitly stated in words; people are expected to say what they mean and mean what they say (accuracy and clarity = important), meaning clearly laid out by speaker |
front 106 high-context (communication styles) | back 106 meaning is implicit and unstated; receivers are expected to look at context to understand the speaker's meaning (people are expected to read between the lines), being too direct is seen as offensive |
front 107 barriers to intercultural understanding (THINGS TO NOT DO) | back 107 prejudice, discounting, fundamental attribution error, totalizing, ethnocentrism, assumed similarity |
front 108 predjuice | back 108 negative social attitude held by members of one group towards members of another, biases perception and leads to discrimination |
front 109 discounting | back 109 dismiss information that does not fit the preconceived schemata |
front 110 fundamental attribution error | back 110 overestimating internal cause and underestimate external cause for our success, overestimate internal for failure |
front 111 totalizing | back 111 characterizing someone solely by one dimension of a person, limiting character |
front 112 ethnocentrism | back 112 assuming your culture is better than another |
front 113 assumed similarity | back 113 ignore differences and assume all of one group are the same |
front 114 increasing our co cultural understanding (THINGS TO DO) | back 114 1. open yourself up to new contacts 2. learn about the history and experiences of different subcultures 3. test your stereotypes 4. develop empathy 5. work on becoming more self-confident |
front 115 social role expectations | back 115 lay the foundations for professional interactions - enacting roles and scripts |