Families and Couples (UCLA)

Lecture 7

Course Home

Thomas Bradbury: I'd like to begin with a couple of announcements, uh, you know that you have an exam on May 1st, so you have an exam coming up. Uh, and, uh, you also know that you have a paper due in class on May 20th, so, uh, you might want to get, keep an eye on those and, uh, check in with Lisa especially if you need any, uh, help with the, uh, paper or getting started on that. Also I know in the reader that there are some figures missing, uh, if you want to send an e-mail to Lisa about the missing figures, we will, uh, post those on the course website at our earliest convenience. Uh, some have been posted, but I understand that others are still missing and we will take care of those. Um, also the, uh, slides for this lecture were posted as, uh, .pdf's, um, but they will also be posted as PowerPoints, as will also be the case on, uh, with Friday's lecture. Um, and, uh, in the past, people have said, please don't post PowerPoint's because I don't have PowerPoint, so, um, most everybody has .pdf so I did that, but now we will do both. Uh, so, that's it. Um, today, we're going to talk about individuals in intimate relationships and we come to this point in the course because we have, in previous lectures, talked about some basic dimensions that are evident in all close relationships, which is the say, that the participants in those relationships have a biological sex, being male or female or both, within a relationship. Uh, and they have, uh, an orientation toward being in a relationship that is the, uh, being in a relationship with another individual who has, uh, the same sex as they do or, uh, the other sex. Uh, and so those are sort of basic parameters of what happens in a relationship and we, as you saw, we really cannot ignore those key elements of relationships. Um, and as, uh, at that point we left that lecture, and I alluded to the idea that within the categories of, uh, men and women, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, within those basic categories we also have to think about individual differences, we have to think about the individuals in the categories. Now we're going to really focus on that today. Uh, but the transition from the gender and orientation election, lecture to the, uh, to the attraction lecture was that, um, we want to think about how these people get connected up. We spent a lot of time talking about that, who gets attracted to whom, and how does that, uh, how do those processes unfold, how do we pick partners and mates. And at the end of our, um, previous lecture I mentioned that one of, what, as best we can tell, uh, one of the key conditions for a relationship to move forward is that partners have the feeling that they can create a, uh, conversational platform, a shared platform for understanding one another, for talking to one another, and that they have a really strong, positive affective reaction to those conversations, and I mentioned that two people who meet, who then seem to think that they like one another, um, don't just talk more, they don't have more volume of speech, but they do have more interactional, uh, turn-taking, right, there's more, uh, turns that are taken, there's a higher rate of back and forth conversation and, uh, we have to assume, higher levels of, uh, positive emotion. People, uh, connect with one another, and they, uh, they, uh, share a certain amount of excitement with one another, and that seems to be one important precondition to the, uh, relationship moving forward. So what is it that people eventually come to share? What is it that people eventually come to know about one another as their relationship, uh, deepens? Today, we're going to answer that question, we're going to talk about what are the characteristics of individuals, uh, that, uh, people who study relationships have gotten excited about, how do we think about the variety of human, uh, human individuals, uh, in general, but more particularly, how do we think about that in a way that foreshadows where a relationship is going to go? How do we think about all of the infinite variety of humanity, uh, in a way that allows us to systematize it, uh, and then how can we take that system, and link it up to the development and course of relationships, okay? So that's what I want to try to accomplish today. Uh, and I will do so, in really four different ways. Um, first I'm going to talk about, uh, how we think about individuals, uh, and how that then tells us about their relationships. And here, I'm going to focus on two things. One, are personality traits, the individual traits that people have, uh, and then I'm going to contrast that approach with a personality-dynamics model, dynamics of personality, and there's going to be some familiar concepts that you'll hear, uh, at this point. But, separate from personality, I'm going to talk about early experiences that we have, within relationships, that then affect who we are as individuals, okay? So in the first case, I'm going to be talking about two perspectives that help us to say, how do we differentiate among people and, once we've done that, what are the implications of those differentiations for the relationships that then ensue. And I'll contrast that in the second part with, uh, what are the, how does our personality develop within the context of our families, of our care-giving relationships that we have when we're young, and how does that then, uh, influence who we are as individuals and, therefore, in relationships. I think the volume is just a little bit high, going to turn that down. So, personality traits, I want to start there, with a guy named Lewis Terman, in, uh, the late 1930's. He's a professor at Stanford. Uh, he’s very well known for doing a longitudinal study of really, really, really smart people. It's called the termite study. Um, and there, you know, these were the study of, uh, genius, that's what Terman did, and he was the one who really brought intelligence testing from, uh, Germany to, uh, the United States it turns out. But he also studied genius of another kind, and that is, what are the characteristics that people have to have in order to, uh, be good mates? So the very earliest thinking about what makes a relationship, uh, thrive or falter was that some people are good at it and some people aren't by virtue of their personality, okay. So 1938, here's what Terman said, "A large proportion of incompatible marriages are so because of a predisposition to unhappiness in one or both of the spouses. Whether by nature or by nurture, there are persons so lacking in the qualities which make for compatibility that they would be incapable of finding happiness in any marriage." Wow, I don't know what his marriage was like but it sounds like he's complaining a little bit there, I don't know. I actually don't know what his marriage was like. Um, a classic study was conducted around this same time, with the same perspective, that, really, why your relationship is going to thrive or falter is because of your personality, who you are as an individual. There's some truth to this perspective. Kelly and Conley, um, in 1987 published a paper that actually began in the 1930's, uh, and what they did is they got 300 couples who were engaged, uh, 278 of them eventually got married. And then they followed them up 30 years later, and then 30 years or so after that. So this is basically a five decade long study to examine how personality characteristics affect the development of our relationships. Or, maybe I should say, the outcome of our relationships. So, what's interesting about this study is that, um, Kelly, it was, uh, Lowa Kelly who did this study, he, uh, asked not the individuals themselves to report on their, uh, personalities, and not even their partners to report on their personalities. But people who knew them, their acquaintances, and they, uh, five people made these judgments. So if you were in this study, five of your acquaintances, people who knew you, would rate your personality, and then they would form an aggregate index of your personality, around a, a few key dimensions that people thought were important. Neuroticism, extroversion, impulse control, and agreeableness, okay? They're pretty much what you think. Neuroticism is negative emotionality, negative affectivity. A propensity to experience and express negative emotion. People vary in their propensity to be positive, and their propensity to be negative. Neuroticism, negative affectivity is a propensity to experience and express a lot of negative emotion, okay? And then you can see a couple of other dimensions. Uh, extroversion, how outgoing you are. Impulse control, how, uh, sort of mindful you are before you make decisions versus, uh, impulsive, you just jump into situations and possibly make bad decisions. And agreeableness is sort of a interpersonal pleasantness. Okay, so these five acquaintances for each one of these spouses, 278, 278 couples, were making judgments on these dimensions and then, as time passed, people would report on how their relationships were going at these different times, and 50 of the people, uh, 50 of the couples ended in divorce. 110 of them were not terribly bad and were probably better than average. And 17 of them were pretty bad, that's kind of a small number. I would not do the study in this exact way, uh, because it sort of underrepresents some misery there. I probably would have taken the divorced ones out and split the rest in half or something. Um, but anyway, we'll get a, a flavor of different kinds of couples over five decades. And we'll see if, uh, Terman was right. So in the upper left here, we have the results from the women's personality, in relation to their, the three marital outcomes that I just outlined, okay? So you can see up there for women, and then on the bottom right hand corner, the men. The, uh, the 110 happy people, the 17 chronically unhappy people, unhappy for 50 years, right? And then divorced people the 50 couples that got divorced. And you can see pretty clearly with these white bars, that's negative affectivity, okay, that's what we call neuroticism, negative affectivity, and you can see that the people who ended up being happy, whether they were men or women had, uh, relatively low levels of negative affectivity and then, for people who got divorced, they had relatively high levels of negative affectivity, you see that? But there's an interesting difference between men and women, uh huh? So you see that among the men, uh, the unhappy and divorced, uh, men were about the same in their levels of negative affectivity, whereas here there is more of a linear progression from the happy, to the unhappy, to the divorced folks. So, in order for men to be unhappy, uh, it seems like they would have to have higher levels of negative affectivity. Now, impulsivity didn't matter at all for women, but it mattered a lot for men. So if you have high levels of impulse control, so that you sort of think through your decisions, you, maybe you check in with other people, you don't just sort of go off, go off, half-cocked, and do whatever you want to do, um, you are more likely to be happy. And if you are low in impulse control, if you can't sort of, uh, choose to not drink alcohol, or do things that are bad for you, then you end up, uh, to the extent that your impulsivity is higher, the likelihood of your being divorced, to the extent that your impulse control is lower, the likelihood that you end up divorced is greater, okay? Now, why might it have been, circa 1930 and 40, why might it have been that impulse control mattered more for men than for women? Any guesses about that? Women generally weren't in the workforce, in the 1940's. Right, so these are probably men who are not only creating difficulties within their relationships, but creating difficulties within the workforce for themselves. Right, so it's not as though they turn off their impulse control, uh, when they get to work. It's the same problem. Women, uh, not outside the home quite as much, 1940's, uh, probably not as big, probably did not bring a lot of, uh, problems into the home in the same way a man would. I suspect the same issue holds for, uh, negative affectivity. So, pretty clear that over the span of five decades, high levels of negative emotionality would be detrimental for your relationship. And here's a cartoon from the 'New Yorker,' "You're both miserable, miserable wretches," that's what the therapist is saying, "But I suppose that's beside the point." It's not beside the point, it's the whole point, right? Social learning theory, you remember, said that relationships succeed and fail because of the rewards and costs that we exchange in our conversations. They reject the idea that negative affectivity would matter because they say, what really matters is the exchange of positive and negative behaviors. That's an incomplete view, we can now see that that's an incomplete view. If fact, uh, I have done some research with some colleagues showing that negative affectivity pushes down your, uh, your levels of relationship quality. It doesn't increase the rate at which you deteriorate, but when you start a relationship, and throughout the course of your relationship you have, uh, lower levels of satisfaction, compared to someone who's high in negative, who's low in negative affectivity, okay? So, that is not beside the point. Um, psychologists since that time have gotten really interested in figuring out what are the core dimensions of human personality. And if you've taken a course in social psychology or personality psychology, you know there is a psychometric tradition by which people make judgments about themselves. Then those judgments are crunched down, uh, and, uh, used to generate five factors of personality. If you adopt a trait-based view of personality, people now say that there are five dimensions to your personality. Here they are. Extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, which I mentioned and openness. Three of these are consistently related to relationship quality, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness in just the way you would expect. We've already talked about neuroticism. People who are agreeable, who are generally more agreeable and who would be rated by others as more agreeable have better relationships, slightly. They're, uh, nicer to talk to. Uh, people who are more open also have a little more energy and bring that to their relationship. So we now know that those three aspects, uh, of the, what are called the big five personality traits, uh, do help us to understand personality. If, uh, if you want to take this questionnaire, you can go to that website right there, it's called outofservice.com. There's a whole bunch of questionnaire measures there from psychology and if you go on the, uh, the link that says big five, you'll be able to take the big, one of the standard big five personality measures. And you will see where you fit on these dimensions. Or even better, have your partner do it, huh? Or a, uh, prospective partner. Um, okay. So neuroticism matters, negative emotionality matters, and it matters a lot. But we have to ask the question, why. Uh, a person named Sandra Murray, uh, has created something called the dependency-regulation model, which, uh, you'll be reading about in the individual chapter. The dependency-regulation model doesn't start with neuroticism, it starts with self-esteem, which is, uh, usually linked to, um, to neuroticism. It's a relatively stable personality trait, uh, low self-esteem is, and we measure it with things like, items like, 'I'm inclined to feel that I'm a failure.' 'I feel I do not have much to be proud of.' 'I wish I could have more respect for myself.' And, uh, you can see that this is my orientation toward myself, I either value or do not value myself. And this, according to the dependency-regulation model, has a really, really important characteristic. The really important characteristic is that, among individuals who have really low self-esteem, they tend to assume that other people believe the exact same thing as they do, okay? So, I'm a low self-esteem person and I'm looking in the mirror and I'm looking at myself and I don't feel very good about myself, right? I'm saying things like, I am not, 'I'm a failure,' right, this is, 'I am not a good person.' 'I don't feel good about who I am as an individual.’ The unfortunate, uh, subsequent step in this chain is that, um, whenever, uh, somebody else looks at them, their partner, their intimate partner, they assume that their partner has the exact same reaction, and it's not true, okay? So they have a negative bias in how others perceive them, right? They assume that others perceive them, in the same way, the same biased, negative way that they perceive themselves, okay? This, as you might imagine, is kind of costly. And here's how that goes. According to the dependency-regulation model, there's a pretty good, uh, pretty good amount of support for this. So, low self-esteem, I have poor self-regard, that's how you would define that. You assume that other people agree with you and you then, uh, approach your relationships saying, "Why don't you care more for me?" Right, you start with the assumption that you believe the same thing about me that I believe about me. And so I say, "What are you doing in this relationship with me? Why don't you love me more? Why can't you support me more? Why aren't you more in love with me?" Right, now, and that's the expression of the discontent. You could imagine it's hard to be in a relationship with that person. The partner is saying, "What, I don't understand. I care for you. Everything that I have said indicates that I care about you. I love you, I think you're great. I really want to be in this relationship with you. But stop asking me to tell you how much I love you all the time, that's starting to get annoying." Right? "Me having to reassure you, constantly reassure you, that you're a good person and I love you. Now, you know, now that I think about it, maybe I don't love you so much. This is getting taxing. This is starting to be costly. I'm constantly having to prop you up." Okay, and the relationship then falters. Okay, so there's this, there's this funny thing that happens among individuals who have low self-esteem they say, "You must not like me, to the same extent that I don't like me." And we know that that's not true. We know that the correlation between my, uh, my perceptions of myself, and, uh, how much I think I'm a good person, and our partner's perception of us are not that closely related. So, we know it's an erroneous reading of the social situation. And that sort of sets the, you know, there's a reason why this graph goes downhill. Yes, question.

Student 1: Just going back a moment to the topic of neuroticism. What types of items would fit on those scales?

Thomas Bradbury: What types of items would there be on a neuroticism scale, that's a great question. Um, my, uh, let's see, I haven't looked at one of these. Uh, 'I tend to be anxious.' 'I tend to be kind of pessimistic.' 'When people say,' um, 'When people, um, make comments about me, I tend to think about it for a long time.' Right, so there's sort of a, uh, I link to think of negative emotionality as like a radiator, you know. On the East coast they have radiators in houses which generate heat. Uh, and, they just sort of push out more and more heat when they're turned on. Uh, people who are higher in negative affectivity, sort of radiate that sort of pessimism and that brooding. And, it's not that they're unpleasant people to be with, but there is that sort of a, uh, negative tinge to the way that they view the world, okay? So it's got anxiety in there, it's got a pessimism, it's got a, sort of a reactivity and a, a heightened social sensitivity. Yes, question.

Student 2: What causes the neuroticism?

Thomas Bradbury: Good question. Uh, to a significant degree, it's heritable. It's a genetic, uh, the evidence indicates it's genetic, uh, a genetic phenomenon. So, not entirely, right? So that's, there's the rub is that you have to sort of, part of what's important to do in a relationship is to take the capacities that you have and use them to reach out and try to understand your partner. Most of us do that naturally, we do that, that we recognize that that's part of the deal in a relationship. I've got, I've got some baggage and my partner needs to respond to that. And, uh, my partner has baggage and I need to respond to that. And part of what you have to do when you're in relationship with an individual who tends to be a little more neurotic is just say, "That's just the deal that they were handed in life." That's just, that is probably, uh, it's not purely genetic. You know, there's, uh, probably a third of, maybe a third or even more of the variability in negative affectivity in the population is, um, environmental. And certainly, if you're in a relationship with an individual who, who's high in negative affectivity and who has a really crappy job where they're exposed to bosses who are telling them how bad they are, wow, that's a hard partner to hang around with, right? As opposed to a person who's high in negative affectivity, who's living on a trust fund, right, on a boat, somewhere in the Atlantic. I mean, that's a good partner. Right, the exact same level of negative emotionality sort of gets, uh, gets cranked up depending on the, the environment. Um, but, so there is, short answer is, there is, a big part of it is genetic. Question.

Student 3: For this model, what's the difference between...(unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: Uh, those two go together pretty closely. Those, uh, one might be in your head, sort of like, you know, it's always sort of banging around in your head is why, why does, why don't people in general, why do people in general think so little of me, and then the expression of that within your relationship. There is some evidence, there is some evidence, uh, by John Holmes, published recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, it, it says that, if you can take a person who is low in self-esteem and have them listen, actually listen to the, the compliments that their partner pays to them, and get them to remind them of that without sort of undercutting it, like, "Oh, they're just saying that to be nice." Right, no you say, no they really mean it. It's sincere, it's genuine. And to really sort of, uh, reinforce that message within the context of their relationships, that this can offset a lot of the effects of negative affectivity. Which, in effect, is saying, instead of having costs associated with me telling you that you're a good person, me having to, you know, asking me for reassurance all the time, if that can be generated internally, and really people can start to recognize that this is, uh, sort of a, a trick that their mind is playing on them, that can offset a lot of these effects, right? But it does require a certain amount of generative capacity on that individual's part, which is a bit like swimming upstream, it's a little bit hard. Yeah.

Student 4: I wonder, like, if people dislike themselves for specific reasons, like, why would they question, like why other people don't like them. Like, shouldn't, wouldn't they assume that, well, I don't like myself, but that doesn't mean that he must not like me too. I don't understand why they would say, like why don't you care.

Thomas Bradbury: Yeah, why don't they, why don't they assume that other people are sort of neutral or positive in their relationship. Like, if I have an explanation for why I'm an unlovable person, uh, that doesn't necessary follow that another person has that same explanation, right? So why would that be a shared perspective? I think that's a, that's a lot more rational than the process actually unfolds. I don't think people necessarily say, "Oh my, uh, you know, I have this genetic predisposition, and my brother hates me and my parents argue a lot, and they got divorced. And now my mom is living with this other guy who hates me. Um, you know, uh, therefore, I have reasons to believe that I'm unlovable, because my mother was telling me that all the time. But you, honey, you see me in an unbiased and loving way." I don't, I don't think it has that rational component to it. But, through therapy, you could say, "Oh, let's figure this out." You know, a lot of what good therapy is about is saying, "You know, other people don't see it that way." And they say, "No, they really do." And "No, other people really don't." And you, you help to see a person say, "Well, that's your stuff. That's not, you're sort of throwing that on to somebody else and that's not fair." Uh, in fact you'll learn in the treatment chapter that we call that object-relations therapy, you start to say, "Oh, I get it. The way that, the way that I perceive myself is not the same as the way other people perceive me and I have to give them a chance to tell me how they perceive me. And once I do that, that can sort of clear up that sort of misunderstanding that I have about my partner's perceptions." But it, the point is, it takes some work. It's a bias, you sort of go into the game with one foot behind you. Okay, here is a cartoon from Candorville, uh, that shows this phenomenon. Here's, uh, Lamont, I think that's his name, Lamont says "Susan's going to tell me the story I wrote is bad. Susan's going to tell me the story I wrote's awful." "Lamont, I have to tell you, this might be just the best story I've ever read." And he says, he thinks, "It's worse than I thought, she's trying to spare my feelings." Right, so even the most positive statement sort of gets discounted. And you can imagine how difficult this relationship would be for her, right? So the, the phenomenon, to a significant degree, exists within the partner. And this partner says, "Well, how can I share my positive feelings for you if you constantly shoot it down?" Right? "Why do I have to do all this work?" And it become very difficult on that partner's, uh, from that partner's perspective to, sort of keep puffing up your, your partner's esteem. So that is the dependency-regulation model. And, uh, I think in the textbook, we call that, uh, making mountains out of molehills, right? So it's good to check our perceptions of, that our partners have. That's, by the way, one of the reasons why communication matters in relationships. Communication matters in relationships because we cannot necessarily assume that two people see the exact same thing, the exact same way. People who communicate say, "You know, are you seeing this the same way I am? We just, we just need to talk about that." And we'll, you'll get into that pretty intently, uh, when we talk, when you talk about, uh, cognitive processes in relationships. Well that's, uh, that's one way of thinking about how individuals vary. And the ways in which those individual differences feed forward to affect the quality of your relationship, okay? Question here, yes.

Student 5: (unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: Uh, the more, the more you endorse, the worse it is. So, uh, but there is in, uh, contemporary Western society a certain amount of negative affectivity that we all have. Uh, in fact, uh, I give a 20-item version of this questionnaire, probably not unlike the one you'll see if you go to the, that website I indicated. And the average number of symptoms, not symptoms, but the average number of items endorsed is like five or six for men. Women tend to be a little higher, they're more like nine or ten. So it's not like, you know, we all start from zero and anything after zero gets you into trouble. We all start from, you know, it's kind of good to be a little crazy, right? It's kind of good to be a little, to, to worry a little bit about some things. Like if your, if your boss criticizes you, well maybe you should take that seriously, right? There's sort of a, a normative basis for some neuroses. Uh, so it's not that you have to have a clean slate, and that if you don't have a clean slate you get into trouble. It's, I should have clarified that. Okay, so personality dynamics. There's another group of psychologists that say personality traits are hogwash. That's crazy, that's total bullshit, it's got nothing to do with how human beings work and it's just you guys getting people to fill out questionnaires and run data analyses. What really matter are not traits, but personality dynamics. Traits are like nouns, it's just a descriptor. But give me a verb, give me something that motivates you. Give me something that tells me why you want to do something, right? So motives that drive our behavior, traits can be understood largely without any reference to context, right? So sometimes it's good to be neurotic. Sometimes it's not good to be agreeable, right? There are times when it's not good to be agreeable. There's times when you might not even want to be all that conscientious, right? So we, there are, so we don't understand the traits in relation to any kind of context. We need a context. And, uh, the, uh, when we assess dynamics, we, uh, can get at those, those contexts and a little more of a rich manner. But there, there's a problem. I can pretty much fill out a questionnaire about my own personality, you can do it as well, your partners can do it, people can do it. I could do it for you if I got to know you well enough. But it's really hard to know what your dynamics are. Like, what is it that motivates you? I remember I was doing couple's therapy with one guy and I was, um, with one couple, and the guy was, uh, I asked him to fill out an empathy measure. And he was the least empathic guy, in the world, I had ever met up to that point in my life. And he's filling out this questionnaire, and he's saying, "Oh, I always do that, I'm the most, I listen to everybody, their point of view." So we don't always read ourselves the right way, right? And I read this guys questionnaire, I was like, "Oh my God, he has no insight whatsoever into what is driving his behavior." Not uncommon for people who are really struggling in their relationships. Uh, and, so this creates a problem. How do you measure personality dynamics, right? Now, this, what I'm about to tell you, drives the psychometric trait people crazy, absolutely crazy. So these two groups, uh, kind of fight with one another which makes it interesting. Um, and they say, here's what you have to do. It's a little bit like the Rorschach if any of you have taken the Rorschach, you know, the inkblot test which you've probably learned about in abnormal psychology, right? Here's a blot, tell me what this might be, and show me where that is in the blot, right? This is called the thematic-apperception test, and it is a, uh, it's a kind of a projective test, just like the Rorschach. But here now, there's pictures, right, pictures that we all recognize, they're not just inkblots. Uh, but they're real pictures, and up in the upper-left, you see someone you, uh, there's twelve cards, I believe. Lisa, have you ever given a, a, a TAT?

Lisa Liu: (unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: You've, so Lisa, you've done this? So, aren't there twelve cards?

Lisa Liu: (unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: Yeah, the instructor chooses, you know, the administrator chooses how many and which ones. The TAT, the thematic-apperception test. Apperception, one of those old, funky words, that we no longer use. It's kind of like neuroticism, maybe. So, um, the person up in the left shows an individual these images and says, "Tell me a story. I'd like you to take a few minutes to tell me a story about each of the pictures I'm about to show you. There's about ten pictures I'm going to show you. Uh, and I'd like that story to have a beginning, and a middle, and an end." Okay, and the person then tells a story, and the administrator writes down the, uh, exactly what the person has said. And then later, they code those, uh, those responses for the extent to which they display power and agency, and intimacy and communication, intimacy and communion, sorry, okay? Uh, and power and agency we define as concern, concern about having an impact, a control, or influence on another person, or a group, or the world at large. Like power, sometimes when people tell stories, there's power, there's somebody influencing somebody else, somebody hurting somebody else, somebody telling somebody else what to do. But sometimes, there's intimacy and communion, there's connection, there's bonding, there's joining, right? And what's interesting is the same picture can elicit different sorts of responses, obviously. Now, um, if you were, or I were to ask these questions of you, just say, tell me a story, about this image, right here. Alright, here's an image. There a guy right there, I don't know if you can see him. There's a women here, with her hand on her face, holding the doorknob. And she might be saying, "That was the best night of sex I've had in my life! Oh, my goodness, that was great." Communion, connection, and he's like just recovering, right? Or, she could say, the person could be telling the story saying, "Why did I just kill that man?" Right, I've heard people tell these stories. "Why did I just kill that man? I was upset at him, he said some things that I didn't like, it got out of hand. I happened to have a weapon, and I killed him." First one, intimacy and communion. Second one, power and agency, right? So you would give these stories, and you can see how this would drive a psychometrically-oriented person crazy. Uh, to say, "Oh the stories reveal so much about you." Well, maybe they do, maybe they don't, that becomes what we would say is an empirical question. It remains to be demonstrated with real data. So then, uh, you look at all of these responses across all ten or twelve pictures that you've, that you've shown. And then you look at those responses in relation.... So, here's what we find when people do this. Most of this is cross-sectional, so, most of this, all of the data were collected at one point in time. So, we can't be too confident that there's a causal effect here. But we can't rule it out either. Some of this is longitudinal. So people who show a lot of need for power, like they're always talking about, uh, hierarchal relationships, and influence and one person having more resources than another person. They tend to be less satisfied in their dating, dating relationships, they tend to be more likely to end their dating relationships. They have more dating relationships as a result. And they tend to report engaging in more physical abuse within their relationships. People who are high in need for intimacy, show more, report more positive emotion in their relationships. They report more satisfying relationships. They also say that their relationships at work are better. And this should sound familiar to you. What's that sound like to you? It's, say what?

Student 6: (unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: Sounds like gender, doesn't it? Sounds like masculinity and femininity. So part, part of what's interesting about this perspective is that it might be, in a sense, an independent corroboration of sex roles. And the importance of sex roles. But some of the need for power is, uh, a little bit exploitative, right? Remember that when I talked about gender, in the, in the sex, gender and orientation lecture, I talked about how, um, higher levels of both of these, at least accessed, um, traditionally, through something called the Bem Sex Role inventory, which appears in,in the gender chapter. When people have high levels of, uh, masculinity, and it's combined with high levels of femininity, that tends to be a pretty effective individual. This, uh, allows for the possibility that sometimes that gets to such a high point that it becomes destructive, okay? But these is a lot of, uh, similarity between the two perspectives. Yes, question.

Student 7: Is agency and power, are they synonymous?

Thomas Bradbury: Agency and power, I don't think they differentiate between them so much in this perspective. You know, agency means uh, a belief capacity that you can do things. Power, power has a very murky history in the, in the social sciences, but it generally means that, uh, somebody, uh, has control over the outcomes that effect them. Power is a remarkable, power is one of those things that we all know is important, but it's really hard to measure. Uh, so anyway, that's the personality-dynamics model. And, um, those are the two perspectives that help us to understand, uh, variability amongst individuals, that have been used at least, to understand how variability among individuals can be used to, uh, help us to predict characteristics of our relationship functioning, right? So in both cases, I outlined, uh, dimensions of, uh, individual personality, assessed through different means. One through personality, questionnaire, traits, the other one through the semi-projective method called the TAT. And it helps us to understand characteristics of relationships that are likely to be good or bad. They're a little different, but they, there's some, uh, there's some messages here that sound familiar. And I don't think there's anything terribly shocking, though the salience of negative emotionality is very powerful and it shows up, uh, in countless times in countless studies. So, now we come to the second part of, uh, how to think about individuals in relationships. And, here I'm going to be talking about intergenerational transmission effects. That is to say, characteristics of who we are, emotionally, cognitively, interpersonally, that get linked back to the families that we grew up in, okay? We're talking about intergenerational transmission. Something gets transmitted across generations. And, uh, we're going to talk about this in a broad sense, first talking about families, and things that happen within families, but then focusing specifically on the caregiver relationship within those families. Okay, so, our first, our first pass at this is going to be a little more coarse, but then we're going to hone in, we're going to focus in on the transactions between you, say, and the person, or people who raised you. So, how do individuals vary? Well, sure, traits and motives matter, but we find deep roots in our interpersonal histories, the families that we grew up in, and what we call our attachment histories or those caregiver relationships. And, uh, we know the reason people think about families is, uh, not hard to understand is that we grow up in families, we, we are reared and socialized within families. And families provide for the, the well-being of their members, right? They provide, uh, nutrition, they provide comfort and security and, uh, an environment in which to be raised in a healthy and safe and protected way. Economically, so that we have resources to, uh, purchase the things we need. And, uh, so, uh, families matter, they do a lot for people. Uh, and so we ask the question, how, it seems inevitable that the nature of our family relationship would feed forward to affect our relationships. How, is that the case? And how does that happen? And, as I said, we'll be talking about this from the family-origin perspective and the attachment perspective, and we can ask the question, what happens when the family breaks down? And we can ask, uh, what the lasting effects are that families have. And what exactly gets transmitted? So here are the three key transmission questions, by the way, all of the pictures from, uh, today's lecture are from a Belgian sculptor named Jean Phelan, who passed away about two years ago. And I love this picture, it's, uh, somebody's head, but it looks like a luggage, it looks like a suitcase. If that's not a depiction of the baggage that we all bring into our relationships, I don't know what is. Uh, so what are our three transmission questions? What are the, what are the questions that I want to use to orient us, at least in this first part? First, we want to know, what's the association between G1, that is, generation one, that is, our parents, G1 relationships, and G2. well-being in childhood, okay? What is the, what is the effect of our parent's relationship on how we develop as children, okay? This is a huge, huge literature and I'm only going to scratch the surface of it, but I am going to hit the highlights. Uh, and then we can ask, what's the association between our parent's relationships and the relationships that you will now form at this stage and subsequent stages of your life, okay? And then, well, we're going to ask the question, but is there an association and, to the extent that there is, uh, how, what's the, what's that built upon? What is exactly transmitted? If, if it is the case, that the relationships that you have and are about to have in the next 10 or 20 years of your lives are built, in some small way, on your parents’ relationship, how does that happen? What is it that gets transmitted, okay? Those are the three questions I want us to contemplate here. This is a popular topic. You can see there a cover of 'Time magazine, "What divorce does to kids." And at the bottom there, I don't know if you can see it, it says, "New research says the long-term damage is worse than you thought. Should unhappy parents stay hitched?" Well, that's the big question, huh? This person, up here on the top, Judith Wallerstein, uh, says yes. Yes, uh, unhappy people should get, uh, hitched because divorce is horrendous. The title of her book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-year Landmark study." This women, uh, Mavis Hetherington, uh, by the way, um, Judith Wallerstein is a practitioner up in the Bay area. Uh, I think she's still an active practitioner. Lovely, lovely person. Uh, Mavis Hetherington, equally lovely person, retired professor at the, uh, University of Virginia. She says, "No, no, no, wait. Not so fast. You do not have the data in that book to support that conclusion, and I think it's a little more complicated than that." So there's big debate in the field over the effects of divorce on kids, and whether parents should get divorced. And, um, uh, it has really important implications for what unhappy people should do, right? So, Judith Wallerstein says that the glass is really half empty. Divorce is terrible for children. Parents should do everything humanly possible to stay together. She says, for example, that when people do get divorced, uh, when families end, um, the level of poverty, uh, increases. And I think in this class I've mentioned that, uh, the best predictor of poverty in this country is not race, it's not education, at least on a short-term basis, it's whether or not your parents have divorced. Because now, the resources the existed within your family, that were going to support one home, now support two homes. And housing is expensive, right? So that is going to just suck out a lot of your money. And so somebody's going to have to pay a price for that, okay? So she, Judith Wallerstein said, so all of a sudden, you're trying to raise a child, not only in two different places, but with less resources to do so, okay? Divorce creates emotional difficulties in parents and children. Divorce leads to short-tempered and coercive parenting. Uh, and of course it's really, usually a single-parent situation now. Uh, one of the, one of the benefits of being in a dual-partnered relationship is that if, it just creates a lot of flexibilities for you. That if you're stressed out, or if, stressed out or have other responsibilities, that someone else can jump in and handle the situation with your children, or if you're frustrated with your child, you have somebody who can come in and say, "You know, I, let me take over, I'll take over now. I see you're getting frustrated." So you got, uh, sort of a tag-team approach to parenting which is, uh, not so, not quite as available to you usually, uh, if you're in a single-parent family, right? That makes it hard, it just makes it hard. And this is what Judith Wallerstein has, uh, has observed, and mostly interview-based assessments of individuals who, uh, she's studied. Uh, and she says and, uh, the evidence tends to support the view that divorce doubles the risk of adverse outcomes among children, okay? Which is to say that if we have, um, two groups of children, uh, one of whom's parents divorced, the other of whom's parents remain intact, the parents whose children, the, the children whose parents have divorced have twice as much a likelihood of having some sort of emotional, or educational, or interpersonal difficulty, uh, than the, uh, the children whose parents remain intact. So, there's a doubling of the risk, right? That sounds huge, that sounds horrendous, it sounds terrible. But it's important to remember that what gets doubled. If you have a dollar in your pocket, and I say, "I will double the money you have," I've only given you another dollar, right? That's not a lot of money. So that's sort of the trick we have to pay attention to. So Mavis Hetherington did, uh, a long-term study. Uh, studied people who were intact, um, intact marriages, as well as those who, uh, ended their, uh, whose parents ended their relationships in divorce, which wasn't the case in the Wallerstein study. This is pretty well pointed out in a special-focus box in the, in the reader. And she says, "Well, yeah, there is a doubling. You're absolutely, 100% correct. But the doubling goes from about 15%, which is to say, about 15% of the kids, broadly speaking, uh, of the parents who are in intact marriages are going to have some problems. And the doubling goes to about 30% when you are talking about the kids of parents who divorced. That's a lot, that's a lot. We shouldn't dismiss that. But we also," and Mavis, Mavis Hetherington is quick to point out, "We also shouldn't ignore the fact that 70% of the kids whose parents divorced do just fine." Okay, so is the glass half empty or is the glass half full, it depends on your point of view. It really depends on your point of view. This doubling is a real phenomenon. But the doubling goes from 15% to 30%, leaving the vast majority of children, even those whose parents get divorced, as ending up pretty okay, and pretty much undistinguishable from the people whose parents didn't divorce. Yeah.

Student 8: Earlier you said people who are neurotic get divorced more, so couldn't that also be the fact that, you know, that 15-30% have neurotic parents and aren't faring well because they wouldn't be good parents regardless

Thomas Bradbury: Right, sometimes divorce is not always bad. Though there is a certain level of, uh, it gets a little tricky, because, uh, the neuroticism might be more damaging for the marital relationship than it is for the parenting relationship possibly. Uh, we do know that, uh, that, uh, not, uh, that divorce is not always a bad thing, right? So, uh, for example, if there is one parent who's really neurotic, or really abusing drugs, or abusing kids, or, you know, engaging in high levels of conflict with, uh, the parent, well that's not going to be advantageous for the child, right? So, uh, are children scarred? 20 years later, they feel they are, they feel they're really, that the divorce had a long-term effect on them, but it's not so obvious. Like sometimes what happens is that, uh, if you, um, if you were to grow up with divorced parents, and then you start to have some problems with, uh, a relationship partner when you're 25 years old, you say, "Oh, it must be because my parents got, had trouble in their relationships." Well, sometimes relationships are just hard, right? Sometimes relationships are just hard. Here's my, uh, equivalent explanation for that. If you've ever had the virtues of having a housekeeper, I have not. If you've ever had the virtues of having a housekeeper, and all of a sudden, something's missing, you say, "Oh, the housekeeper moved it." It just happens to be a convenient explanation that may have nothing to do with the truth. But it's a convenient, obvious explanation, right? I think something similar is happening, is going on with, uh, the kids of divorce. There's a question over here, yeah.

Student 9: When you were talking about the effects of divorce, uh, is that assuming that both parents are still in the child's life although they are separated, so it's not including like absent father situations and stuff like like?

Thomas Bradbury: There's all kinds of divorces. What we're learning and what, uh, point number three here and Mavis, by the way, this book, if you are a child of divorce, you should read either of these two books. I would especially recommend reading, uh, Mavis Hetherington's book. But she says, it depends on the divorce. There's a wide variety, there's all kinds of different ways, and in fact divorce is not an event, it's a process that unfolds over years and years, uh, and sometimes it's rough, and sometimes it's not. But, but divorce is not a singular event, it's not a one-time event, it's, uh, sort of a set of circumstances and events that transpire in an individual's life. And, as a result, it means that they can go in lots of different directions. Another question. Yeah.

Student 10: Uh, how do they know that the negative consequences are a result of divorce and what happens after that or maybe like a prolonged exposure to a toxic environment or something else?

Thomas Bradbury: It gets worse when there's a prolonged exposure to a toxic environment. So you can measure the extent to which, uh, within a group of divorced people, you can measure the extent to which the parents set aside their differences and really sort of come together and help to raise the child in a healthy and productive way, which many people can do. Uh, or you can, and they can report on that, and you can observe that, you can see that in people's conversations. Or the opposite, where people are bickering and fighting and constantly, uh, on each other's case, in all kinds of different ways. Those kids don't do so well. And here's an important message, let me jump ahead a little bit. You can see the, the other ideas here. But let me jump ahead, which is that the issue is not the divorce. I see your point, uh, the point about this heterogeneity within the experience of divorce raises the point that the issue isn't the divorce. The issue is the conflict associated with the divorce, okay? Divorce can be good or bad, right? It's hard, it's almost always hard, but it can be good or bad, right? And we know that what, what contributes to the difficulties that parents and their children experience is usually the high levels of negative emotion associated with that, usually, okay? So is divorce just bad, end of story, just don't get divorced? Well, no, divorce is bad, but if you look at the kids prior to the divorce, before the divorce ever happened, you already see the same problems, okay? So Andrew Cherlin, uh, did a study, had some data in, uh, from British kids, 11,500 British kids that were all born in this one month in, all over, all over Britain. And they assessed them really intensively. And they follow them every year. I guess they follow them at birth, age 7, age 11. And between ages 7 and 11, 192 people got divorced within this particular study, okay? And then they said, okay, if we look after the divorce, we actually see the problems that you'd expect. They don't do as well in school, uh, they're having emotional difficulties at a higher level, there's this doubling that I've been telling you about. If you go back prior to the divorce, these kids are already having some problems. It's not just the divorce, it's the quality of the relationship between the parents. The divorce is just a manifestation of a lot of conflict sometimes, okay? So here's this conclusion, this is a very important study in my field, Andrew Cherlin and colleagues said, "At least as much attention needs to be paid to the processes that occur in troubled, intact families, as to the trauma that children suffer after their parents separate, okay? So the negative, what children, children don't respond to whether or not there's a divorce, children respond to, "Gee, this environment feels pretty threatening to me." Right, and they usually take it one step further and they say, "It's probably my fault somehow." okay? That's really detrimental to kids. There are people who are in intact marriages, filled with conflict, filled with conflict, that are certainly as bad as any divorce, all right? So it's not the divorce per se, divorce is a manifestation of a troubled relationship. And that troubled relationship can, to the extent that there are high levels of negative emotion, be detrimental to a child. Okay, question number two. Is there an association between the first, uh, generation one and generation two, their relationships? So now we're not just talking about the development of the child. By the way, if you're really interested in the effects of divorce and conflict on children you should read work by, uh, a guy named Mark Cummings, who's, uh, at the University of Notre Dame. Like, if that's what you want to write a paper about, for example, uh, check out Mark Cummings’ work, really, really fine work. Uh, so is there an association between generation one, our parents, and the relationships that you and I form in adulthood? Okay, the answer is yes. Generation one divorce increases the risk of generation two divorce by about 70% in the first five years of marriage. People whose parents divorced are at an increased risk for getting divorced themselves. People whose, people whose parents were unhappy are increasingly, are at an increased risk of being unhappy themselves. And we also know that divorce tends to be more detrimental on, uh, generation two when it happens earlier and when it is abrupt and unexpected, okay? Sometimes divorce is abrupt and unexpected. Uh, Paul Amato, uh, Penn State University, very distinguished sociologist, uh, was telling me about this one study that really surprised him, data that he had collected, uh, in which he, uh, he actually found instances of people who, um, you know the child would come home from, at the end of the school day, and the mother would say, "Your father has moved out." That's it, our, that marriage is over. That, that's a pretty stunning sort of realization for a 5, 6, 7 year old child to have. Because the world that you thought you were living in all of a sudden you can't trust to anywhere the degree you thought you could. Those feelings of distrust and uncertainty and hesitation carry through into adulthood. Now does that always happen every time? No, this is the social sciences, we're not in chemistry, we're not in physics, these are probabilistic associations. People connect up with other people and they get reassured. People connect up with great partners and everything works out. But probabilistically, there is an increased risk. Is it, is it a death sentence? Does it mean that if your parents got divorced or your parents had a lousy marriage you're destined for a lousy marriage? Absolutely not. But it does increase the risk, and the risk is something we need to know about. Question in the back there. Shout it out!

Student 11: (unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: I, I can’t quite hear you, I heard you say de-sensitize, though.

Student 11: Okay, uh, are they like de-sensitized to like the idea of divorce because they themselves were able to not have a...

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, I see, I see your point which is that, "Oh, uh, divorce is an acceptable thing, I'll do it myself.”

Student 11: (unintelligible)...If they're not experiencing hardship...(unintelligible)

Thomas Bradbury: It's a great point, it's a superb point, in fact, we know from Paul Amato's other work that, second point. Uh, individuals who have a history of divorce in their family, uh, experience more caution toward marriage, so they're a little more cautious about getting into a marriage and they're more accepting of divorce. Uh, there is one study that was done, one of my favorite studies, it showed that, uh, if you have two groups of unhappy people, right? Two groups of, people who are unhappy in their relationship, equally unhappy, and you, uh, you ask them, one of which had divorced parents, and one of which had intact parents, if you ask them, "What's the likelihood that you, yourself would get divorced?" Right, they've got equal levels of misery in their current marriage. The people with a history of divorce said, "You know, I'm a little, I, I'm seriously thinking about it." The people in intact marriages were not nearly as seriously thinking about divorce. So there is a greater acceptance, like, this becomes a solution to the problem, right? This could work. So it's exactly the point that you're making about being slightly de-sensitized to, uh, divorce as an option. But, what are some of the other reasons why, um, why there is this inter-generational transmission effect. Again, let me emphasize that it's not 100% predictive, it's not even close. It's an elevated risk, okay? And it's a risk we all want to know about, just like if you had a genetic risk for diabetes, you'd want to know about it. If your parents had a troubled relationship, that was the model that you were exposed to and you might need a little help figuring out what better models would be. To the extent that you're invested in figuring out what better models might be, and you have a good partner to help you deal with that, the risks can be eliminated. So, what, but to the extent that there is an association, why might that be? We talked about one reason. Another reason is that these people make a faster transition into adulthood, right? They have, they usually leave home earlier, the home environment is not quite as pleasant, they also have less parental monitoring, right? Their parents just aren't around to keep an eye on them as much. Uh, they have fewer economic and interpersonal resources. They, uh, individuals whose parents divorced tend to get, uh, less education than people who, uh, grow up in intact families. They also even, later in life, end up having weaker family relationships because, after all, they may not have a relationship with their father, right? That, that's a lost resource to them. And, again, unless some effort is made to restore that connection. They also, uh, display, when you put them in a laboratory context, they display more negative behaviors and they report more negative cognitions. And, uh, here's, two, two studies, one by, uh, Matt Sanders, one by Lisa Story. And the idea is that you can, uh, videotape people talking about relationship issues, talking about relationship difficulties. You can, uh, evaluate the quality of that communication, and these studies show that individuals who have a history of parental divorce and high levels of conflict in the family, uh, go, are, are observed being more negative, more critical in their conversations. They are also, uh, at least with these, just these two studies, they're not huge studies. But, uh, they point, uh, also to the, uh, higher levels of, uh, physical aggression and verbal aggression in relationships for individuals who have a history of, uh, parental divorce, okay? And, uh, that seems to be, uh, so that the sequence of events seems to be you grow up exposed to models where negative emotion is not well regulated. You, yourself enter relationships, um, in which, uh, that becomes necessary, but difficult. And to the extent that you don't engage in that, that good regulation of, uh, communication and negative emotion, overall, over time, that you will pay a price for that in your relationship. Again, is this 100% predictive? Absolutely not. But there are reliable, statistical tendencies for this to be true. Okay, I want to see what time we have. It is 4:09, I've got about five minutes. Let me try to give you a, uh, quick run through on attachment theory. And whatever I am not able to get through today, I will, uh, cover, uh, when I come in and talk on Friday. Attachment theory, uh, Professor Karney has already given you a brief introduction and now, in the theoretical chapter, you should have read, uh, a little bit about attachment theory. Attachment theory is very, very powerful and very valuable. Uh, when it comes to the study of intimacy and intimate relationships. Uh, it developed, as many of you will know if you took a class on child development, it really developed in the context of child development and only recently, in fact 1987, was this really extended to relationships and adulthood. Attachment theory is important, and when you think about relationships in adulthood, because it answers two really good questions for us. One of them is, why does anyone form a close relationship? What's, what's that about, what do we get out of that? And we think of this as sort of as a nomothetic model, or a universal model of attachment, right? Why, uh, why does anybody have relationships and what sort of functions do they serve for us? Important question and this, this theory, this perspective gives us a nice answer to that question. The second question that this theory, uh, answers for us is, why are there differences between, amongst all of us in how we approach relationships? Why are there individual differences? So, that is to say, how does one's attachment history affect the quality and duration of a given romantic relationship? Not just relationships in general, but the one you're in now. Okay, you see how those are different? That we think of as ideographic, so unique to you and unique to your own experiences, unique to the care-giving bonds that you were exposed to. So an attachment theorist says, how do people differ? Well, we've heard the trait perspective, we've heard a dynamics perspective, we heard the, um, the intergenerational, really sociological perspective, and now we're hearing the attachment perspective. The reasons why individuals differ, and the differences that matter in predicting something about your relationship have to do with the management of the care-giving bond that you were exposed to. So, what is attachment? Attachment is an intimate, emotional bond, in, in childhood now, that one individual forms with another individual, we call that person the attachment figure, who can provide protection, comfort and support. And that individual provides for us a secure base, a place that we can operate from when you're a child. And also a place to return to when you, uh, when you've been threatened, as you go out into the world. Uh, as you probably know, attachment theory is, uh, associated with John Bowlby, a British, uh, psychoanalyst, and he was influenced in part by an ethologist, uh, Konrad Lorenz, who studied imprinting. And he, Konrad Lorenz, you've probably seen this picture up there in the upper-right, he, uh, he, um, discovered that if you were the first person that baby geese saw, that the baby geese would follow you instead of their mother, right? Baby geese imprint on something because they have a program within them that says, you need to latch on something for comfort and support and survival, okay? He won a Nobel prize, uh, Konrad Lorenz did. And so the idea that Bowlby, uh, picked up on was to say, "Well, it's got to be the same way among children, right?" We have to attach to a human being, an adult human being, who can take care of us and provide us with that protection, that comfort and support that we need, and a secure base when we want to check out the world, and a place to come back to when the world is scary, okay? So these bonds persist into adulthood, and so Bowlby, in 1969, wrote, "A child's first relationship is the foundation stone of his personality." So, remember, I said what we're trying to do is draw links between experiences in a relationship and how that affects the individual. And now Bowlby is giving us the answer to just that question. Let me just take you through one more slide and then we'll pick up here tomorrow, uh, on, on Friday. Now, here's the universal system part, right, that is, uh, Mary Ainsworth, and she did a lot of the research that expanded on Bowlby's ideas and she said, "We have something within us called an attachment behavioral system, so she gave this label to the system that existed, uh, that Lorenz had identified. And this orients the infant to the caregiver, and helps to ensure that the, uh, the infant's survival. And this is the system that allows the, the infant to check out three things. Their internal state, how am I feeling? Am I scared, am I upset, am I comfortable, do I need something, or am I okay? Uh, the availability and responsiveness of the caregiver. So is there someone around. Like, kids monitor, kids look in their environment for help and support, even when they're just doing stuff, right? When they're just doing stuff, kids are looking around, kids are checking out who's available as support, and nurturing and comfort, should problems arise. And that's the third thing that we, that we as infants monitor. Are there threats, right? Is something bad going to happen and if so, uh, how do I feel about that, I need to register that inside of me, and I need to know, know where to go should a problem arise. This is the program that we have inherited. The infant experiences felt security which, when they are threatened, results in efforts to restore proximity to the caregiver. So if you're out exploring the world, and something bad happens to you, you rush back to your caregiver and, if that's possible, if there is a caregiver, you, uh, you are, uh, vigilant to threats, and the caregiver availability, right. So, you're sort of checking it out. But if there is no caregiver, you sort of close down. You shut down emotionally and you try to become invisible so that threat cannot attack, okay? Now, last thought, how that caregiver responds is crucial for, for the internal working models, for how you then organize yourself emotionally, and for how you think about yourself as a worthwhile human being, someone who's worthy of the attention and care. And, the other part of that program that we carry around with us is, to what extent, not just am I available and good, but to what extent are other people reliable and trustworthy. That becomes the foundation for the individual-difference perspective and I'll wrap up with that on Friday. So, uh, see you then.