How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Consider My Options Cognition,Verbal Strategies,and the Escalation of Intimacy

Previous research has revealed that individuals have expectations for the development of romance based on personal experience and cultural images. A series of research questions and hypotheses was generated and a sequence of hierarchical log-linear analysis models axis developed to test (a) the effect of gender and knowledge of relational stage and relationship type on prediction of next-occurring actions in the development of a romance, (b) the use of compliance-gaining strategies intended to advance a relationship to the next stage, and (c) justification of secondary goals in which participants reported why they chose the strategies they did as opposed to other alternatives. The data revealed effects for relational stage progression on prediction of ensuing actions. Ingratiation, explanation, and direct requests were popular strategies for developing intimacy. Gender differences in terms of secondary goals were reported. Results are discussed in terms of relational memory structures for the development of intimacy.     

Picking a maintenance service: A user’s view

A guide is provided for selecting small computer maintenance services. Types of available services are described, and a series of questions is answered concerning selection.     

The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.