For Monday

1. The Lohmann et al article explains (pg 438) their reasons for not seeking "to identify the exact causal direction between object placement and relationship qualities. Instead, [they] adopted a correlational approach..." We have often discussed the inherent problems of studying close relationships in the lab in terms of producing results applicable to the real world, with its many intricacies and complications. What is gained, in this study and in the material so far discussed in our class, from this type of realist forfeit/embrace of a correlational study? What criteria should guide us in our construction of studies and choice of experimental and/or correlational?

2. Near the end of the Lohmann paper, the authors speculate on whether the act of “placemaking” is a conscious or unconscious process. In other words, do couples consciously place objects so that they will reflect their relationship identity, or do they place objects just for aesthetics? Is there any way to test this?

3. What do you think of Strachman and Schimel's conclusion through terror management theory that people use intimate/close relationships to "serve as protection from awareness of one's finitude"? (pg 969) Do you feel that TMT could be used as a thorough theory of relationship endeavors and actions? How does this expansion of TMT relate to evolutionary and interdependence theories regarding why people enter and stay in relationships? How does TMT weave with attachment theory regarding anxiety?

4. “From the perspective of TMT, people pursue close relationships because they offer protection from existential anxiety through a basic emotional attachment mechanism and also by providing self-esteem and validation of one’s cultural beliefs” (Strachman & Schimel 968). How valid is TMT for the study of close relationships? Do you “buy” this approach as another way of looking at relationships?

5. Using the instigating and catalytic effects framework presented by Morse & Neuberg for Valentine’s Day, what other holidays/times of the year may affect relationship processes, and why?

6. Morse and Neuberg suggest that holidays are a determinant of the outcome of a relationship, because holidays magnify already existing relationship processes. In their study, Morse and Neuberg examine college students in relationships and study the effects of holidays on relationship dynamics and outcomes. Unlike dating relationships, marriages rarely break up over the stress of a holiday season, but there is no doubt that holiday stress affects a marriage in a similar way that holiday stress affects a dating relationship. How might Morse and Neuberg’s data be reflected in married couples that participate in the same experiment?

7. We've looked at environmental (Lohmann), personal (Strachman), and societal (Morse) contexts that have effects on close relationships. What other contexts or circumstances come to mind and how can conscious individuals/couples avoid or embrace the consequences of such contexts?

For Wednesday

1. Do you think that Gable et al's findings indicate that positive emotional exchanges are, in and of themselves, important for healthy and content relationships, or is reciprocal capitalization a natural occurrence for couples in which individuals are naturally caring and supportive and thus have good close relationships to begin with? In other words, to what extent is consequentially beneficial capitalization a product of the personalities of the individuals in a couple?

2. Of the explanations offered by Bolger et al. as to why perceived support actually increases stress, which are the most plausible? Are there any other possible explanations? (see their offered explanations in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction)

3. Are there individual differences in how people respond to support from others? For example, might traits such as high self-esteem and openness to experience make people more receptive to support from a loved one? Should Bolger et al. have accounted for this in the study?

4. How does the perception of opportunities affect people in relationships as we've looked at it this week and in past weeks? How could one argue that, for the outcome of close relationships, the perception of opportunities/alternatives are more important than the actual opportunities or alternatives?