The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests.

Hui, Chin Ming; Finkel, Eli J.; Fitzsimons, Gráinne M.; Kumashiro, Masaharu; Hofmann, Wilhelm

doi:10.1037/a0035493

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Just as selfishness can sometimes override concern for close others when these two values conflict, a concern for the total benefit can also override people's concern for a close other in some contexts. In neither case do we deny the existence of a concern for the other, and instead we recognize close relationships routinely involve compromises between doing what is good for the self, the other, and for the total benefit (Hui et al 2014), as well as making tradeoffs between pursuing equality (Messick and Schnell 1992) and relative advantage (Loewenstein, Thompson, and Bazerman 1989;Shaw, DeScioli, and Olson 2012). Future work should investigate how these sometimes contradictory factors interact to influence people's decisions about how to share with others.…”

Section: When Closeness Decreases Versus Increases Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research documents "the friendly taking effect" in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people's preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7).

show abstract

Section: When Closeness Decreases Versus Increases Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the first laboratory session, participants identified their "most important" top six personal goals that they would be actively pursuing during the next 10 days and for which they anticipated receiving support from their partner. Each day during the diary period, they were asked to think about their goals and then report on whether they discussed their goals with their partner and how 1 Portions of this dataset were used in prior publications by Kumashiro and colleagues (Hui, Finkel, Fitzsimons, Kumashiro, & Hofmann, 2014;Kumashiro, Rusbult, & Finkel, 2008;Molden, Lucas, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2009;Righetti & Kumashiro, 2012). However, none of these prior publications examined regulatory mode.…”

Section: Participants and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Portions of this dataset were used in prior publications by Kumashiro and colleagues (Hui, Finkel, Fitzsimons, Kumashiro, & Hofmann, ; Kumashiro, Rusbult, & Finkel, ; Molden, Lucas, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, ; Righetti & Kumashiro, ). However, none of these prior publications examined regulatory mode.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating mechanisms of social support effectiveness: The case of locomotion motivation

Zee¹,

Kumashiro

2019

Personal Relationships

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although social support can entail costs, individuals with a higher locomotion orientation, who are motivated to move and take action, benefit from support. Two dyadic studies tested whether perceived movement toward important goals would mediate the effect of recipients' locomotion motivation on positive outcomes in support contexts. In Study 1, couples completed a 10‐day diary and then recalled support interactions with their partner after the diary period. In Study 2, couples engaged in laboratory support interactions for important goals. Perceived goal movement mediated the effect of higher (vs. lower) locomotion on self‐reported ratings and coder ratings of support outcomes. Higher locomotion recipients may benefit in support contexts because they perceive they can move smoothly toward their goals.

show abstract

“…Indeed, high levels of romantic commitment to a partner are associated with a range of pro-relationship behaviors such as being more likely to forgive a partner's transgressions (Finkel et al 2002), making sacrifices that will benefit a partner (Van Lange et al 1997), and supporting a partner's personal goals (Hui et al 2014). Strong commitment to a partner also decreases the likelihood of destructive relationship behaviors.…”

Section: A Newer Psychological Adaptation: Romantic Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By definition, romantic commitment involves a cognitive adaptation that is relatively new in the evolutionary timeline: future-oriented thinking ( Because romantic commitment entails an investment in a relationship's future, committed partners should be motivated to engage in strategies that will increase the likelihood of maintaining a high quality relationship over time. Indeed, high levels of romantic commitment to a partner are associated with a range of pro-relationship behaviors such as being more likely to forgive a partner's transgressions (Finkel et al 2002), making sacrifices that will benefit a partner (Van Lange et al 1997), and supporting a partner's personal goals (Hui et al 2014). Strong commitment to a partner also decreases the likelihood of destructive relationship behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate Relationships Then and Now: How Old Hormonal Processes are Influenced by Our Modern Psychology

Wardecker

Smith

Edelstein

et al. 2015

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review we argue that relatively recent evolutionary adaptations that are relational or psychological in nature might refocus, dampen, or otherwise shape hormonal processes related to evolutionarily Bolder^behaviors. We focus on the steroid hormones testosterone and estradiol and discuss a) their associations with Bolder relational processes^such as mate competition, dominance and nurturance, and b) the ways in which Bnewer relational processes^such as commitment and attachment relate to these hormones in the context of intimate relationships. We propose that these new relational processes might influence hormones in a manner that enables short-term mating relationships to be transformed into long-term romantic pair-bonds that may be unique to humans.Keywords Mating . Pair-bonds . Testosterone . Estradiol . Evolution . Adaptations Most species, including humans, have evolved some repertoire of behaviors that facilitate short-term mating (i.e., uncommitted sexual relationships that last for a short period of time, Simpson and Gangestad 1991), such as attracting desirable mates, competing for the attention of those mates, and keeping others away from mates once they have been acquired (Gangestad and Simpson 2000). These evolutionarily Boldb ehaviors occur frequently, can be engaged with limited conscious effort (Miller 1998), and are important components of the relationship initiation process.Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2015) 1:150-176 DOI 10.1007/s40750-015-0021-9 Britney M. Wardecker and Leigh K. Smith are co-first authors and contributed equally to this work. Only a few species, however, have evolved behaviors designed to deliberately maintain long-term, sexually exclusive relationships. Fewer than 5 % of mammalian species establish long-term, monogamous pair-bonds with adult mating partners (Kleiman 1977). A pairbond can be defined as an enduring and close relationship between two adult members of a species that generally involves sexual activity, intimacy, the desire to be close to one another, and deep emotional investment (Hawkes 2004; van Anders et al. 2011). Among humans, the formation of these types of pair bonds is a meaningful priority. For example, forming intimate connections is reported as one of the most important human motives, sometimes even more so than is meeting basic physiological needs such as securing food and water (Kenrick et al. 2010). Indeed, there may be several benefits to successfully establishing a long-term pair-bond. Pair-bonded partners benefit from increased paternal investment, which in turn promotes offspring health (Barash 1977;Fisher 1998;Kenrick and Trost 1997). The formation of long-term pair-bonds may also decrease the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (Campbell and Loving, in press), and partners who are married or committed to long-term relationships tend to live longer than their unmarried and single counterparts (Drefahl 2012;Van Poppel and Joung 2001).Yet, transforming short-term mating relationships into long-term pair...

show abstract

The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests.

Cited by 23 publications

References 121 publications

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Investigating mechanisms of social support effectiveness: The case of locomotion motivation

Intimate Relationships Then and Now: How Old Hormonal Processes are Influenced by Our Modern Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About