A social relations perspective on attachment orientations and judgments of relationship quality in friendships

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Zoe Dunnum , William J. Chopik
{"title":"A social relations perspective on attachment orientations and judgments of relationship quality in friendships","authors":"Zoe Dunnum ,&nbsp;William J. Chopik","doi":"10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How well friendships are going likely depends on perceptions people have about their friends, such as how they approach relationships in general. Adopting a social relations model perspective, we examined sources of variation in relationship quality (across 10 indicators) and attachment judgments in a sample of 377 quads of friends (<em>N</em> = 1,508 individuals). Relationship quality largely stemmed from the shared interactions between two people, although some perceiver variance was found. Judgments of avoidance largely stemmed from consensus; judgments of anxiety came from a mix of consensus and perceiver variance (i.e., tending to see everyone as anxious or not). Bivariate analyses found that people seen as anxious were seen as ambivalent friends — providing both positive and negative experiences for friends.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Personality","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 104637"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656625000698","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How well friendships are going likely depends on perceptions people have about their friends, such as how they approach relationships in general. Adopting a social relations model perspective, we examined sources of variation in relationship quality (across 10 indicators) and attachment judgments in a sample of 377 quads of friends (N = 1,508 individuals). Relationship quality largely stemmed from the shared interactions between two people, although some perceiver variance was found. Judgments of avoidance largely stemmed from consensus; judgments of anxiety came from a mix of consensus and perceiver variance (i.e., tending to see everyone as anxious or not). Bivariate analyses found that people seen as anxious were seen as ambivalent friends — providing both positive and negative experiences for friends.
依恋取向与友谊关系质量判断的社会关系视角
友谊的发展有多好可能取决于人们对朋友的看法,比如他们如何处理一般的关系。采用社会关系模型的观点,我们在377个四分之一的朋友(N = 1,508个人)的样本中检查了关系质量(跨越10个指标)和依恋判断的变化来源。关系质量很大程度上源于两个人之间的共同互动,尽管也发现了一些感知差异。回避的判断很大程度上源于共识;对焦虑的判断来自于共识和感知差异的混合(即倾向于认为每个人都焦虑或不焦虑)。双变量分析发现,被视为焦虑的人被视为矛盾的朋友——为朋友提供积极和消极的体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
102
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Emphasizing experimental and descriptive research, the Journal of Research in Personality presents articles that examine important issues in the field of personality and in related fields basic to the understanding of personality. The subject matter includes treatments of genetic, physiological, motivational, learning, perceptual, cognitive, and social processes of both normal and abnormal kinds in human and animal subjects. Features: • Papers that present integrated sets of studies that address significant theoretical issues relating to personality. • Theoretical papers and critical reviews of current experimental and methodological interest. • Single, well-designed studies of an innovative nature. • Brief reports, including replication or null result studies of previously reported findings, or a well-designed studies addressing questions of limited scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信