有你还是没有你?除了与亲密的人交往外,人们在社会交往中会感到不那么自主。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Elaine Hoan, Geoff MacDonald, Jessie Sun
{"title":"有你还是没有你?除了与亲密的人交往外,人们在社会交往中会感到不那么自主。","authors":"Elaine Hoan, Geoff MacDonald, Jessie Sun","doi":"10.1177/01461672251378784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social interaction bolsters well-being and relatedness. However, less is known about costs of social interaction, such as loss of autonomy. Here, we test a potential autonomy-relatedness tradeoff. College student participants completed experience sampling method self-reports (<i>N</i> = 352, 10,046 observations) of their social interactions, feelings of social connectedness, autonomy, and positive affect in the past hour. Participants reported lower autonomy when socially interacting compared with being alone. This was especially true for people with higher levels of attachment avoidance. Crucially, interaction partner matters: Compared with being alone, people report lower autonomy when interacting with non-close others, similar levels of autonomy when interacting with friends and family, and higher autonomy when interacting with romantic partners. These findings provide ecologically valid evidence for an autonomy-relatedness tradeoff during social interactions with non-close others but show that interactions with romantic partners uniquely fulfill both autonomy and relatedness needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1461672251378784"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"With or Without You? People Feel Less Autonomous During Social Interactions, Except With Close Others.\",\"authors\":\"Elaine Hoan, Geoff MacDonald, Jessie Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672251378784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Social interaction bolsters well-being and relatedness. However, less is known about costs of social interaction, such as loss of autonomy. Here, we test a potential autonomy-relatedness tradeoff. College student participants completed experience sampling method self-reports (<i>N</i> = 352, 10,046 observations) of their social interactions, feelings of social connectedness, autonomy, and positive affect in the past hour. Participants reported lower autonomy when socially interacting compared with being alone. This was especially true for people with higher levels of attachment avoidance. Crucially, interaction partner matters: Compared with being alone, people report lower autonomy when interacting with non-close others, similar levels of autonomy when interacting with friends and family, and higher autonomy when interacting with romantic partners. These findings provide ecologically valid evidence for an autonomy-relatedness tradeoff during social interactions with non-close others but show that interactions with romantic partners uniquely fulfill both autonomy and relatedness needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1461672251378784\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251378784\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251378784","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会互动增强了幸福感和亲缘关系。然而,人们对社会互动的代价知之甚少,比如自主性的丧失。在这里,我们测试一个潜在的自主关系权衡。被试大学生在过去一小时内完成了经验抽样法自我报告(N = 352, 10,046),内容包括他们的社会互动、社会联系感、自主性和积极影响。参与者报告说,与独处相比,社交互动时的自主性较低。对于依恋回避程度较高的人来说尤其如此。至关重要的是,互动伙伴很重要:与独处相比,人们在与非亲密的人互动时自主性较低,在与朋友和家人互动时自主性相似,在与恋人互动时自主性较高。这些发现提供了生态学上有效的证据,证明在与非亲密的人进行社交互动时,自主性和亲缘性之间存在权衡,但也表明,与恋人的互动独特地满足了自主性和亲缘性的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
With or Without You? People Feel Less Autonomous During Social Interactions, Except With Close Others.

Social interaction bolsters well-being and relatedness. However, less is known about costs of social interaction, such as loss of autonomy. Here, we test a potential autonomy-relatedness tradeoff. College student participants completed experience sampling method self-reports (N = 352, 10,046 observations) of their social interactions, feelings of social connectedness, autonomy, and positive affect in the past hour. Participants reported lower autonomy when socially interacting compared with being alone. This was especially true for people with higher levels of attachment avoidance. Crucially, interaction partner matters: Compared with being alone, people report lower autonomy when interacting with non-close others, similar levels of autonomy when interacting with friends and family, and higher autonomy when interacting with romantic partners. These findings provide ecologically valid evidence for an autonomy-relatedness tradeoff during social interactions with non-close others but show that interactions with romantic partners uniquely fulfill both autonomy and relatedness needs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
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