User:Lebkm/sandbox
Attitude alignment in relationships
[edit]Attitude alignment in relationships refers to a process where individuals in relationships adjust their attitudes to match with each other over time in order to achieve greater attitudinal congruence [1]. Individuals often experience psychological discomfort when their attitudes are inconsistent with their close partners. This discomfort motivates them to alter their attitudes therefore reducing conflict and enhancing relational satisfaction[1]. Alignment increases harmony, reduces conflict and strengthens bonds between individuals. This process is relevant across various familial, friendships, professional, and romantic relationships.
Psychological theories explain why attitude alignment occurs. For instance, Social exchange theory suggests attitude alignment is a reciprocal process where one person's attitudes encourage another's to alter and align. On the other hand, cognitive dissonance theory suggests that dissonance in attitudes between individuals in relationship causes psychological discomfort. Mechanisms explain how attitude alignment occurs within relationships. This understanding is enhanced by factors such as, individual differences which play an important role in determining the extent to which individuals will align. Attitude alignment in relationships brings both advantages and disadvantages. While alignment can improve relationship satisfaction and reduce conflict, it may additionally suppress necessary conflict, increase groupthink and encourage loss of individuality.
Theoretical foundation:
[edit]Social Exchange theory
[edit]According to Social Exchange theory, reciprocity, maximising rewards and minimising costs all play an important role in explaining why attitude alignment occurs and how it is maintained throughout relationships. Research has suggested that behaviour is influenced by the rewards and costs associated with relationships, with individuals striving to maximise rewards and minimise costs [2][3]. Rewards consist of emotional support, intimacy, and companionship while costs include effort, conflict, and time commitments[4]. Relationships are seen as continuous interactions where individuals regularly receive and give rewards including support, intimacy and companionship. This balance of reciprocal contributions maintains the relationship. One partner's attitudes towards a phenomenon encourages the others to alter and align their views. This process maintains relational harmony by reducing conflict that would arise from discrepancies [5].
Cognitive Dissonance
[edit]Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory is key for understanding and reducing dissonance. The theory suggests that dissonance occurs when there are discrepancies between two cognitions for examples, beliefs and attitudes. The existence of dissonance between cognitions is psychologically uncomfortable and therefore individuals are motivated to reduce the dissonance[6]. Dissonance can be reduced by trivialisation[7], removing dissonant cognitions, adding new consonant cognitions or increasing the importance of consonant cognitions[8]. Individuals in relationships experience psychological discomfort when their attitudes and beliefs do not align. Therefore they align their attitudes to reduce the dissonance caused by disagreements. For example, partners in a relationship may hold the same political views to maintain relational harmony and avoid disagreements.
Balance Theory
[edit]Balance theory developed by Fritz Heider (1946) is a social psychological theory of attitude change[9]. Individuals are drawn to cognitive consistency meaning they want alignment in their thoughts, beliefs and attitudes[9]. This drive is referred to as the cognitive consistency motive. Heider proposed that when there is an imbalance, for example, conflicting values between coworkers in a work environment, psychological discomfort arises. Individuals in closer relationships tend to have a stronger motivation to align attitudes, this is because they have increased emotional investment, and conflicting cognitions increase conflict which causes psychological discomfort[10].
Mechanisms:
[edit]Communication
[edit]Partners and individuals in relationships frequently discuss values, beliefs and opinions. This open and regular communication helps to resolve disagreements and encourages attitudes to progressively align overtime. Gottman (1994) highlights the importance of communication for resolving conflict. Conflict resolution involves open communication often resulting in aligning attitudes[11]. By adjusting their perspectives and making compromises, conflict is resolved and harmony is sustained in the relationship. Furthermore, Gottman (1994) proposes that a successful relationship sustains a high positive-to-negativity ratio of 5:1[11]. Attitude alignment through frequent and open communication facilitates this by limiting the number of negative interactions as individuals are likely to agree on the majority of topics, leading to positive interactions.
Empathy
[edit]Empathy refers to the ability to attribute mental states to another person and respond accordingly to the other person's mental state[12]. Empathy, particularly emotional empathy, plays an important role in attitude alignment by enhancing emotional attunement. Individuals are more likely to be understanding and sympathise with people close to them whom they have strong connections with. Research has suggested that highly emphatic individuals are more likely to adjust their attitudes to align than those who have low levels of emotional empathy [13]. Therefore increasing relational harmony and reducing the frequency of conflict experienced within the relationship. Unlike cognitive empathy, which involves mental perspective-taking without emotional investment [14], emotional empathy creates a stronger motivational drive to engage in behaviour that is beneficial to the relationship's stability. Emotional empathy encourages individuals to align attitudes because they share common feelings and value mutual understanding. Therefore, emotionally empathetic individuals are more likely to make compromises and align their attitudes for the benefit of the relationship.
Shared goals
[edit]Shared goals play an important role in attitude alignment by providing a common purpose to work towards. Shared goals encourage members of the relationship to align their attitudes and make compromises for the benefit of achieving the common goal. Social exchange theory proposes that when individuals perceive mutual benefit from achieving a common goal, they are considerably more likely to adjust their attitudes[4]. The reward of achieving the shared goal outweighs the costs, such as compromise. For example, a couple may align attitudes on spending when saving for a house to maximise savings and achieve their goal more efficiently.
Factors:
[edit]Individual differences
[edit]
Individual differences such as personality traits, play a significant role in attitude alignment. Agreeableness, as outlined in the Big Five personality traits, refers to individuals who are likeable, pleasant, and harmonious in relations with others [15]. Agreeableness is associated with positive social interactions and a higher chance of compromise in relationships[16][17]. Therefore, individuals who are high in this trait are more likely to engage in attitude alignment in relationships than those who are low in agreeableness.
Furthermore, attachment types significantly influence how individuals engage in attitude alignment. Individuals with secure attachment are more likely to engage in attitude alignment as they place significant value on relational harmony. In contrast, individuals with avoidant attachment are likely to exhibit reduced attitude alignment. This is due to their prioritisation of independence leading them to avoid alignment and maintain autonomy.
There are a number of other individual differences that have been shown to create variation in the extent to which alignment occurs. For example, more empathetic people are more likely to engage in attitude alignment than those who lack empathy[13].
External factors
[edit]External factors play an important role in attitude alignment, whilst they can encourage attitude alignment, they can also lead to increased conflict. External factors are factors outside of the relationship that influence attitudes and therefore attitude alignment in relationships. Examples of external stressors include rejection, and cultural norms.
Individuals align differently after experiencing social rejection from an outsider. Third-party rejection (being excluded or criticised by someone outside the relationship) increases attitude alignment in a relationship[18]. Balance theory proposes that individuals reduce the psychological discomfort from external rejection by aligning attitudes to create harmony. Therefore attitude alignment is used as a coping mechanism. External stressors such as rejection can also disrupt the cost-reward balance proposed by Social Exchange Theory. This means that further alignment is required to restore stability and balance in the relationship [4].
Varying cultural norms across different countries influences relational attitudes, particularly between collectivist and individualist cultures. Collectivist cultures emphasise harmony and the collective self, therefore individuals in collectivist societies are more likely to align their attitudes in relationships to maintain group cohesion. On the other hand, individualist cultures place emphasis on self-interest [19]. Therefore they are likely to engage in less attitude alignment in relationships.
Benefits of attitude alignment in relationships
[edit]Relationship satisfaction
[edit]Attitude alignment in relationships plays an important role in enhancing relationship satisfaction by reducing conflict and enhancing emotional connections. Aligning attitudes with others in a relationship leads to happier, longer-lasting relationships. Studies have suggested that alignment in areas such as communication, emotional expression and shared goals is significantly related to relationship longevity [11]. For instance, couples who align attitudes on key details e.g. parenting styles experience higher satisfaction and lower stress [1]. This alignment helps create a cohesive relationship with minimised conflict and increased harmony therefore improving relationship satisfaction.
Reduced conflict
[edit]Aligning attitudes on key issues such as financial decisions, reduces conflict and tension. Dissonance between beliefs in relationships causes discomfort, aligning attitudes reduces this psychological discomfort and helps to reduce conflict within relationships[6]. For example, parents agreeing on discipline methods for their children increases household harmony and provided a united front for their children. Reducing conflict not only minimises immediate tension but also increases long-term harmony in the relationships due to increased trust and emotional connection. This is particularly significant in romantic relationships where unresolved conflict can lead to discontent. Research has suggested that couples who communicate experience less conflict and greater relationship satisfaction[11].
Limitations of attitude alignment in relationships
[edit]Loss of individuality
[edit]Excessive alignment is likely to result in a loss of individuality. Individuals may feel pressure to adopt others views over their own to maintain relational harmony. This is particularly likely for people with low self-esteem, individuals with low self-esteem lack confidence and therefore require acceptance from others to feel fulfilled[20]. This often means they engage in more attitude alignment than those with high self-esteem. Additionally, individuals who are highly agreeable are likely to excessively align their attitudes, potentially losing their sense of identity and individuality[17].
Groupthink
[edit]Excessive attitude alignment in relationships can lead to groupthink. According to Janis (1972), groupthink occurs when individuals prioritise harmony over critical thinking[21]. This leads to poor decision-making and a lack of diversity in thought as individuals fail to critically evaluate ideas. For example, in a professional environment, groupthink may occur when team members align their attitude towards a leader's decision, even when they disagree. This can lead to poor outcomes as critical feedback is not provided. Decisions made may lack depth as various perspectives are not considered.
Suppression of conflict
[edit]Attitude alignment in relationships reduces conflict, while this is beneficial for relational harmony, it can also result in suppression of necessary disagreements. Addressing underlying relational issues is important for healthy relationships. According to Gottman (1993), resolving conflict is crucial for maintaining long-term relationships[11]. Avoiding these discussions can cause underlying issues to fester eventually resulting in resentment. For example, overspending by one parent in a household can cause financial strain for the entire family. Despite noticing the problem, the other parent avoids discussing it in order to reduce conflict and maintain peace in the household. In the short term, it may reduce conflict, but suppressing a necessary conversation eventually leads to resentment and stress in the long run.
- ^ a b c Davis, J. L.; Rusbult, C. E. (2001). "Attitude alignment in close relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (1): 65–84. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.65. ISSN 0022-3514. PMID 11474727.
- ^ Ahmad, Rehan; Nawaz, Muhammad Rafay; Ishaq, Muhammad Ishtiaq; Khan, Mumtaz Muhammad; Ashraf, Hafiz Ahmad (2023-01-12). "Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions". Frontiers in Psychology. 13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921. ISSN 1664-1078.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Kallen, David J. (1960). "Review of The Social Psychology of Groups". Social Research. 27 (2): 252–254. ISSN 0037-783X.
- ^ a b c "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
- ^ Gouldner, Alvin W. (1960). "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement". American Sociological Review. 25 (2): 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623. ISSN 0003-1224.
- ^ a b Harmon-Jones, Eddie; Mills, Judson (2019), "An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory.", Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed.)., Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 3–24, doi:10.1037/0000135-001, ISBN 1-4338-3010-8, archived from the original on 2024-07-20, retrieved 2024-12-12
- ^ "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-12-12.
- ^ McGrath, April (2017). "Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 11 (12): e12362. doi:10.1111/spc3.12362. ISSN 1751-9004.
- ^ a b Heider, Fritz (1946-01-01). "Attitude and Cognitive Organisation". The Journal of Psychology: 107–112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. ISSN 0022-3980.
- ^ Davis, Jody L.; Rusbult, Caryl E. (2001). "Attitude alignment in close relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (1): 65–84. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.65. ISSN 1939-1315.
- ^ a b c d e Gottman, John M. (1993). "A theory of marital dissolution and stability". Journal of Family Psychology. 7 (1): 57–75. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57. ISSN 1939-1293.
- ^ Baron-Cohen, Simon; Wheelwright, Sally (2004-04-01). "The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 34 (2): 163–175. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00. ISSN 1573-3432.
- ^ a b Davis, Mark H. (1983). "The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach". Journal of Personality. 51 (2): 167–184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x. ISSN 1467-6494.
- ^ Smith, Adam (2006-01-01). "Cognitive Empathy and Emotional Empathy in Human Behavior and Evolution". The Psychological Record. 56 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF03395534. ISSN 2163-3452.
- ^ "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Archived from the original on 2023-04-08. Retrieved 2024-12-13.
- ^ John, Oliver P.; Robins, Richard W.; Pervin, Lawrence A. (2010-11-24). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-60918-059-1.
- ^ a b "(PDF) A five-factor theory of personality". ResearchGate. Archived from the original on 2023-08-12. Retrieved 2024-12-14.
- ^ Reid, Chelsea A.; Davis, Jody L.; Green, Jeffrey D. (2019). "Whatever it takes: Attitude alignment in close relationships following third-party rejection". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (4): 853–868. doi:10.1111/bjso.12322. ISSN 2044-8309.
- ^ Fatehi, Kamal; Priestley, Jennifer L; Taasoobshirazi, Gita (2020-04-01). "The expanded view of individualism and collectivism: One, two, or four dimensions?". International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 20 (1): 7–24. doi:10.1177/1470595820913077. ISSN 1470-5958.
- ^ Murray, Sandra L.; Griffin, Dale W.; Rose, Paul; Bellavia, Gina M. (2003). "Calibrating the sociometer: The relational contingencies of self-esteem". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (1): 63–84. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.63. ISSN 1939-1315.
- ^ Hart, Paul't (1991). "Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink". Political Psychology. 12 (2): 247–278. doi:10.2307/3791464. ISSN 0162-895X.