PSY 7645: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS RICH
SLATCHER – Winter 2015
DETAILS
Meeting time and place: Tuesdays 1:25PM - 04:10PM, 5057 Woodward Ave., Room 8302
EXCEPT when noted below under Seminar Topic Schedule (There will be two Fridays from
9:30-12:30 that we will be meeting in place of two Tuesday meeting times)
Office hours: By appointment, 5057 Woodward Ave., 8405.2
Contact: slatcher@wayne.edu
GOALS
The primary goal of this course is to serve as a graduate-level introduction to social
psychological theory and research on close relationships, with a particular emphasis on romantic
relationships. A second goal is to allow you to acquire the theoretical and methodological skills
necessary to become influential relationship scientists should the inclination strike you. A third
goal is to provide opportunities to practice skills (e.g., a 15-minute presentation, a written
research proposal) that will promote academic success in all areas of research.
OVERVIEW
Toward the beginning of the course, we will briefly discuss the history of the field (Week 1) and
learn about the dominant theoretical orientations in close relationships research: attachment
theory (Week 2), and evolutionary theory (Week 4), the interpersonal process model of intimacy
(Week 5), self-expansion theory (Week 6) and interdependence theory (Week 8). The
progression of Weeks 2 through 12 will mirror the progression of the life course of close
relationships: from the early stages of attraction through the dissolution (or rather sometimes
dissolution) of close relationships. Finally, for the remaining sessions (Weeks 13 – 15), we will
discuss central topics in close relationships research: the self (Week 13), and personality (week
14). Through active involvement with readings, discussions, and presentations, we will
critically examine this exciting and rapidly growing area of social psychological research. The
value of a seminar is a function of the quality of individual contributions to each meeting. I’ll
provide a basic structure for our meetings, but beyond that, the seminar will succeed on the
strengths of our joint individual efforts. We’re all responsible for the quality of this seminar
experience. Accordingly, active participation by everyone is essential.
STUDENT EVALUATION
Performance in the course will be evaluated in five areas:
1. Weekly writing assignments and hypothesis testing…..30 points
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
Discussion involvement………………………………...…20 points
Discussion leader…………………………………….……..10 points
Article presentation…………………………………..…….10 points
Research Proposal (Due April 28th)…………………..……30 points
Weekly Writing Assignments: To encourage thoughtful reading of the assigned material prior
to class, seminar participants are required to submit a 2 page commentary each week at the
beginning of class (make a second copy for yourself so you can refer to it during class). Reflect
on the readings: What did you learn? What surprised you? What confused you? How do these
readings relate to prior readings in the course? How did these readings expand your
understanding of social psychology? How can you relate these readings to your own research
interests? My intent is to encourage higher-order thinking about the readings prior to class.
You do not have to address all of the questions noted above; they are merely provided as
examples. You also do not need to discuss every aspect of the readings in your assignment,
however, there must be sufficient detail to demonstrate that you did the reading. If for any
reason you must miss class, I must receive this assignment by email before class begins for you
to receive credit (this is true for all assignments). Presuming that you do all that was asked, you
will earn full credit. Papers that are too short, only provide summaries of the material (no
critical thinking), only provide personal reflection (no evidence you read the material), or fail to
meet the criteria described above in any other way will lose points. Only include brief quotes
from sources (if any).
Hypothesis Testing: Empirical testing of both established and new ideas advances our
understanding of close relationships. Because all seminar topics are active areas of research,
each is amenable to hypothesis testing. To that end, each seminar participant will bring a
hypothesis to each class meeting (only one hypothesis; typed; keep it brief, no more than a few
sentences – one sentence is fine), inspired by the week’s readings. We will then clarify and work
out ways to test your hypotheses together at our meetings. Bring two copies of your hypothesis
to class. You will keep the first copy, noting any ideas generated by the group for referral in
considering possible research proposal topics (described below). The second copy is the one you
will hand in at the conclusion of each class. One of your hypotheses can serve as the subject of
your research proposal and proposal presentation (described below).
Discussion Involvement: All seminar participants are expected to participate actively in
discussion each week. The students in this seminar are capable of developing novel ideas and
methodologies of value to relationship science, and seminar discussions will allow us to work
toward that goal. In addition, given the nature of our topic, please observe the romantic life of
the people in the day-to-day social environment or have seen in the media (e.g., TV, movies,
celebrities) and apply social psychological theory where appropriate. Evaluation for this part of
the course will be based on both quantity and quality of involvement, with “quality” referring
to making comments that link different readings together (perhaps across weeks) to make a
novel point, providing an insightful example, raising a topic that inspires the class to pursue an
exciting direction, and so forth.
Discussion Leader: Seminar participants will be responsible for leading our discussion of the
assigned readings each week. To aid in this process, discussant leaders are to prepare, in
advance, 8 to 10 discussion questions. These questions (typed, with copies provided to all
2
seminar participants) will be used to direct our group discussion. Lead discussants are free to
structure their questions as they wish (perhaps questioning theories, hypotheses, methods,
results, broader meanings of the readings, etc.). Seminar enrollment will determine the number
of times each student will serve as lead discussant. Assignment to topics will be determined
during our first meeting. Note: This semester we have a large class (17 students). The last four
people to sign up for discussion slots will simply do two conference-style article
presentations (see below).
Conference-Style Article Presentation: Using appropriate media (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote),
each seminar participant will prepare and present an empirical article with relevance to close
relationships. Article presentation options appear in the reading list below for each class topic.
These presentations serve two functions. First, they are a means of exposing the class to
research beyond the articles that all of us read. Second, they are a means of learning an
important skill: how to present an empirical paper in a limited amount of time. In 15 minutes,
you will summarize the (a) theory and hypotheses, (b) method, (c) results, and (d) broader
relevance of an article. The timing on these presentations is inflexible. Going even one minute over
time will adversely affect the evaluation of the talk, as it does when people go over time in a
conference setting. Of course, it is difficult to imagine that a student could give an optimal
presentation that would take substantially less time than 15 minutes, either. Practice your talk
until it’s in the 12-15 minute range. (Giving a clean, tight, 15-minute presentation is an
important skill—such presentations at conferences provide opportunities to showcase
individuals’ work and make impressions on people who might be making hiring decisions
down the road.)
Research Proposal: To strengthen your ability to link research hypotheses with specific
operational definitions, empirical procedures, and analyses, you will prepare a research
proposal based upon one of your hypotheses (described above). Proposals should include: (a) a
title page; (b) an abstract page; (c) an introduction, including a discussion of relevant theory and
research and development/justification of one or more testable hypotheses; (d) a method
section that thoroughly describes how you plan to test your hypotheses (a description of your
sample, data collection procedure, possible scale items, etc.). Procedures must involve at least
one experimental manipulation (except in rare cases in which the procedure has been approved
by me); (e) a discussion of how your data will be analyzed (e.g., establishing the reliability and
validity of your measures, conducting any necessary manipulation checks; specification of what
sort of statistical analyses would be employed to test each of your hypotheses); (f) consideration
of potential limitations; and (g) references. The proposal should be written in APA style (6th
edition), and it should not exceed 15 double-spaced pages (excluding title page, abstract page, and
reference pages). Papers are due to me via email by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, April 28th.
Grading Scale: 93 – 100 = A 90 – 92 = A- 87 - 89 = B+ 83 – 86 = B 80 – 82 = B79 and below = C
TYPICAL SEMINAR FORMAT
Introductory remarks  10 minutes
Discussion of assigned readings  1 hour and 20 minutes
3
Break  10 minutes
Article presentation  20 minutes (including questions)
Hypothesis testing  50 minutes
4
SEMINAR TOPIC SCHEDULE
Date
January 13
January 20
January 27
February 3
February 10
*February 13
February 24
March 3
March 10
March 24
March 31
*April 3
April 14
April 21
Topic
Introductions/Assignments/Overview
Attachment
Attraction
Evolutionary Theories
Intimacy and Self-Disclosure
Self-Expansion
Love and Passion
Interdependence and Commitment
Trust and Forgiveness
Social Support
Conflict
Dissolution
How the Self Affects Relationships and Vice Versa
Personality and Relationships
*NOTE that February 13th and April 3rd are Fridays and we will be meeting in our usual
classroom at 9:30 on those days. These will be instead of class meetings on February 17th
and April 7th
READINGS
January 13: Welcome to Relationship Science
Assigned Reading:
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260-266.
Reis, H.T. (2012). A history of relationship research in social psychology, In A.W. Kruglanski &
W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology.
January 20: Attachment
Assigned Reading:
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Attachment theory and research: Core concepts, basic
principles, conceptual bridges. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 650-677). New York: Guilford.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences later
5
views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 307-320. doi:10.1111/j.14756811.2007.00156.x
Potential Presentations:
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Winterheld, H. A. (2010). Attachment working models twist
memories of relationship events. Psychological Science, 21, 252-259.
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Transference of attachment patterns: How important
relationships influence feelings toward novel people. Personal Relationships, 14, 513-530.
January 27: Attraction
Assigned Reading:
Graziano, W. G., & Bruce, J. W. (2008). Attraction and the initiation of relationships: A review of
the empirical literature. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds), Handbook of relationship
initiation, pp. 269-295. New York: Psychology Press.
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions
of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510-517.
Pennebaker, J. W., Dyer, M. A., Caulkins, R. S., Litowitz, D. L., Ackreman, P. L., Anderson,
D. B., & McGraw, K. M. (1979). Don’t the girls get prettier at closing time: A country and
western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 122-125.
Ireland, M.E., Slatcher, R.B., Eastwick, P.W., Scissors, L.E., Finkel, E.J., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2010).
Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science
Online. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392928
Potential Presentations:
Eastwick, P. W. & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know
what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
245-264
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does
indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(3),
557.
Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2011). He loves me, he loves me not: The
effects of uncertainty on romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 22, 172-175.
February 3: Evolutionary Theories
Assigned Reading:
Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (2000). An evolutionary perspective on human relationships. In W.
6
Ickes & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 9-35). NewYork:
Wiley.
Clark, R. D., III & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal
of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in
women's mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 151-163.
Potential Presentations:
Karremans, J. C., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip
ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 182-186. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kendrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental
investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 63-76.
Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s choice of dress across
the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1451-1460.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off of you:
Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389401.
February 10: Intimacy and Self-Disclosure
Assigned Reading:
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of
personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Laurenceau, J-P., Barrett, L. F., Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process:
Importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in
interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238-1251
Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words: The
social effects of expressive writing. Psychological Science, 17, 660-664.
Slatcher, R. B., Selcuk, E., & Ong, A. D. (2014). Perceived partner responsiveness predicts
diurnal cortisol profiles 10 years later. Manuscript under review.
7
Potential Presentations:
Lemay, Jr., E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal
responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
647-671.
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship
quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78-106.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
February 13: Self-Expansion
Assigned Reading:
Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do “You” end and “I” begin? Pre-emptive selfother inclusion as a motivated process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,11371151.
Aron, A., Lewandowski Jr, G. W., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of
motivation and cognition in close relationships. The Oxford handbook of close relationships, 90105.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples' shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273-284.
Potential Presentations:
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial
encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61-78
Mashek, D., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 382-392.
Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.
February 24: Love and Passion
Assigned Reading:
Welker, K. M., Baker, L., Padilla, A., Holmes, H., Aron, A., & Slatcher, R. B. (2014). Effects of
self‐ disclosure and responsiveness between couples on passionate love within couples.
Personal Relationships, 21(4), 692-708.
8
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D, Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. (2005). Reward, motivation and
emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 93, 327-337.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
Potential Presentations:
Acevedo, B. P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Review of
General Psychology, 13, 59-65.
Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 80-86.
Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment
problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
247-262
Diamond, L. M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and
sexual desire. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 116-119.
March 3: Interdependence and Commitment
Assigned Reading:
Rusbult, C. E., Arriage, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Interdependence in close relationships. In
G. J. O. Fletcher, & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook in Social Psychology, Vol. 2:
Interpersonal Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
Lydon, J. E., Menzies-Toman, D., Burton, K., & Bell, C. (2008). If-then contingencies and the
differential effects of the availability of an attractive alternative on relationship maintenance
for men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 50-65.
Potential Presentations:
Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A. M., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000).
Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 521-545.
Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). Prorelationship maintenance behaviors: The joint roles of
attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 685-698.
9
doi:10.1037/a0016418
March 10: Trust and Forgiveness
Assigned Reading:
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Foundations of interpersonal trust. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp 587-607). New York:
Guilford.
Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. M. (2008). Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its
malleability and powerful consequences. European Review of Social Psychology, 19202-241.
doi:10.1080/10463280802402609
Finkel, E.J., Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P.A., (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close
relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 956-974.
Potential Presentations:
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., McNulty, J. K., & Kumashiro, M. (2010). The doormat effect: When
forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(5), 734-749. doi:10.1037/a0017838
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic
accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629-641.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (2000). Commitment, prorelationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 77. 942-966.
March 24: Social Support
Assigned Reading:
Sullivan, I. T., Pasch, L. A., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010) Social support, problem
solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 631-644.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 953-961.
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist,
63, 518-526.
10
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go
right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.
Potential Presentations:
Master, S. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Taylor, S. E., Naliboff, B. D., Shirinyan, D., & Lieberman, M. D.
(2009). A picture’s worth: Partner photographs reduce experimentally induced pain.
Psychological Science, 20, 1316-1318.
Reis, H.T., Smith, S.M., Carmichael, C.L., Caprariello, P.A., Tsai, F.F., Rodrigues, A., & Maniaci,
M.R. (2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal
and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 311-329.
March 31: Conflict and Intimate Partner Violence
Assigned Reading:
Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E., Rogge, R. D., Karney, B. R., et al. (2005).
Problem-Solving Skills and Affective Expressions as Predictors of Change in Marital
Satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(1), 15-27.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment
model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6),
558-571. doi:10.1177/0146167295216002
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Potential Presentations:
Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., & Ross, L. (1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role
of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(2), 167-195.
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent Dating Violence: Do Adolescents Follow in
Their Friends', or Their Parents', Footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 162-184.
doi:10.1177/0886260503260247
Carstensen, L.L., Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term
marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140-149.
April 3: Relationship Dissolution
Assigned Readings:
11
Lewandowski, G. W., Aron, A., Bassis, S. & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding
relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317-331.
Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: An integrative
analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and
recovery. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 141-167.
Kross, E., Berman, M., Mischel, W., Smith, E.E., & Wager, T. (2011). Social rejection shares
somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108, 6270-6275.
Potential Presentations:
DeWall, C., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C. L., Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., Combs, D.,
Schurtz, D. R., Stillman, T. F., Tice, D. M., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces
social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science, 21, 931-937.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Mispredicting distress
following romantic breakup: Revealing the time course of the affective forecasting error.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 800-807.
April 14: How the Self Affects Relationships and How Relationships Affect the Self
Assigned Reading:
Swann, W. B., de la Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in
marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 857-869.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.857
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The Suffocation of Marriage:
Climbing Mount Maslow Without Enough Oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 1-41.
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305-309.
Potential Presentations:
Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing compliments
from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 232-248.
Herbst, K. C., Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2003). My head says yes but my heart says no:
Cognitive and affective attraction as a function of similarity to the ideal self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1206-1219.
12
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory
failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 483-499.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive
illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180.
April 21: Personality and Relationships
Assigned Reading:
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of
marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 2740.
Slatcher, R. B., & Vazire, S. (2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality on
relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 624-633.
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative Mating and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A
Couple-Centered Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
Potential Presentations:
Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a Feather or Strange
Birds? Ties Among Personality Dimensions, Similarity, and Marital Quality. Journal of Family
Psychology, 18(4), 564-574. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564
Zenter, M. R. (2005). Ideal Mate Personality Concepts and Compatibility in Close Relationships:
A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2), 242-256.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.242
Final Papers due by 5:00PM on Tuesday, April 28th
13