Motivations for promotion and prevention and the role of trust and commitment in interpersonal forgiveness

Granting forgiveness demands self-regulation. Distinct modes of self-regulation might therefore produce distinct routes to forgiveness. Self-regulation focused on advancement (or promotion) could motivate forgiveness through the perceived benefits to be attained by repairing a relationship, i.e., one’s trust that a partner will provide such benefits rather than further betrayal. In contrast, self-regulation focused on security (or prevention) could motivate forgiveness through the perceived costs of further relationship deterioration, i.e., one’s commitment to maintain a relationship upon which one depends and protect against the loss of this relationship. These hypotheses were supported across two studies that: (a) measured and manipulated promotion-focused versus prevention-focused self-regulation, (b) included real and imagined offenses in casual and close relationships, and (c) assessed forgiveness immediately following an offense and after a two-week delay. Trust in a relationship partner more strongly predicted forgiveness among promotion-focused individuals, whereas commitment to this partner more strongly predicted forgiveness among prevention-focused individuals.     

How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations

Evidence from two experiments indicates that task-related communication promotes cooperation in mixed-motive situations by activating interpersonal norms related to fairness and trust. In Experiment 1, task-related communication increased cooperation between individuals in a three-choice prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG-Alt) but task-unrelated communication did not. In Experiment 2, cooperation was increased both by sending a task-related message to one’s counterpart and receiving a cooperative task-related message from one’s counterpart. Mediation analyses revealed that task-related communication increased cooperation by activating fairness and trust norms (Experiments 1 and 2). Specifically, whereas sending (relative to receiving) a task-related message increased cooperation by activating fairness norms, receiving (relative to sending) a task-related message increased cooperation by activating trust norms (Experiment 2).     

Interpersonal rigidity and complementarity

The relations among behavioral complementarity, interpersonal rigidity, as indicated by the Interpersonal Adjective Checklist (IAS, Wiggins, 1995) vector score, and interpersonal distress, as indicated by the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP, Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988), were examined in two studies. In Study 1, 214 undergraduates viewed videotapes depicting different interactions and then provided their responses. In Study 2, 122 undergraduates interacted in randomly paired dyads on a mutual task. These interactions were videotaped and the interchanges were rated using the Interpersonal Communication Ratings Scale (ICRS, Strong, Hills, & Nelson, 1988). The extent to which each participant demonstrated complementary behavior was determined. Results of the studies demonstrated support for interpersonal rigidity as related to complementarity and as a moderator of the adaptability of behavior. Further complementarity was a mediator in the behavioral rigidity–interpersonal distress relation.     

Healing Intergenerational Wounds: An Integrative Relational–Neurobiological Approach

Old resentments and unfinished business from the family of origin can constrain adults in current relationships with parents or siblings and negatively affect relationships with partners or children. This article explores how old wounds get reactivated in current relationships and contribute to the intergenerational transmission of painful legacies and trauma. Building on intergenerational family theory and interpersonal neurobiology, the dynamics of reactivity and pathways for growth are explored. While much of the time the human brain is on autopilot, driven by habits and emotional reactivity, we are capable of bringing prefrontal thoughtfulness and choice to close relationships. Rather than being victims of parents or our past, we can become authors of our own relational life. Interventions are offered to help adult clients “wake from the spell of childhood,” heal intergenerational wounds, and “grow up” relationships with family of origin. The damage caused by parent‐blaming in therapy is explored and contrasted with Ivan Boszormenyi‐Nagy's emphasis on rejunctive action and cultivating resources of trustworthiness in intergenerational relationships. The family is considered both in its cultural context—including stressors and resources for resilience—and in its life cycle context. Aging in the intergenerational family is discussed, focusing on ways adult children and their parents can grow and flourish with the challenges at this time of life. Throughout, the theme of relational ethics—how we can live according to our values and “reach for our best self” in intergenerational relationships—informs the discussion.     

人际交往的不确定性减少理论(URT)述评

"不确定性减少理论"(URT)的产生受到信息论、认知失调理论等理论的直接影响.URT认为,人际关系中常常充满了不确定性,个体将通过交往来减少这种不确定性;减少不确定性是人际交往的核心动力.以此为基础,提出了7项公设和21条定理.自诞生以来,URT得到了一定的支持,也受到了某些挑战.URT对人际交往研究作出了重要贡献,它使"不确定性"成为交际研究的主要范畴,同时它也存在某种局限性.     

The relationship between short-term mentoring benefits and long-term mentor outcomes

Little is known about the short- and long-term benefits mentors gain from their mentoring relationships. This study examined the extent to which short-term proximal benefits reported by mentors (improved job performance, recognition by others, rewarding experience, and loyal base of support) predicted the long-term distal outcomes of mentor career success, work attitudes and behavioral intentions to mentor in the future. Mentors’ reports of short-term mentoring benefits significantly predicted their work attitudes and their intentions to mentor again in the future, but were unrelated to their career success. Upon closer inspection, short-term instrumental mentor benefits (improved job performance, recognition by others) were more important in predicting mentor work attitudes, whereas short-term relational mentor benefits (rewarding experience, loyal base of support) were more important in predicting intentions to mentor in the future. Implications for mentoring theory, future research, and practice are discussed.     

A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement

Group members experience mutual enhancement when they evaluate one another’s task capabilities more positively because they are discussing shared as compared to unshared information. Two experiments investigated a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. In Experiment 1, members of dyads read and discussed either shared or unshared information and collectively recalled this information under conditions where accuracy was important or not. Mutual enhancement occurred when need for accuracy was higher, but not when it was lower. In Experiment 2, members of dyads read validating or non-validating information from an outsider after they collectively recalled shared or unshared information. Members who discussed unshared information and received no validating communication from the outsider gave one another the lowest task capability ratings compared to members who discussed shared information and/or received validating communication from the outsider. All of these results are consistent with a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement.     

Between a rock and a hard place: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Individuals are frequently forced to make decisions from among undesirable choice-sets. Raise taxes or cut social services? Lay off workers or go bankrupt? Go deep in debt or forgo a college education? The research presented here suggests that in such situations, decision-makers are often evaluated negatively regardless of the choice they make. In Experiment 1, participants read about a judge deciding which of two seemingly unfit parents to award sole custody in a real-life divorce case. In Experiment 2, participants were led to believe that their partner in the experiment was forced to pick one of two unpleasant tasks for the participant to perform. In both cases, the decision and decision-maker were evaluated negatively regardless of the alternative chosen–and regardless of the fact that they were the only options in the choice-set. Discussion focuses on the source, scope, and consequences of this phenomenon.     

A diary study of implicit self-esteem, interpersonal interactions and alcohol consumption in college students

A 30-day daily diary study examined the relations among implicit self-esteem, interpersonal interactions, and alcohol consumption in college students. Multilevel analyses revealed that students with low implicit self-esteem drank more on days when they experienced more negative interpersonal interactions. In contrast, students with high implicit self-esteem drank more on days when they experienced more positive interpersonal interactions. Spending time with people who were drinking mediated both the low implicit self-esteem by negative interpersonal events interaction and the high implicit self-esteem by positive interpersonal events interaction. These findings suggest that people with low implicit self-esteem may unintentionally drink as a way to regulate unfulfilled needs for acceptance. On the other hand, people with high implicit self-esteem may drink as a way to enhance positive interpersonal experiences.