Cognitions of relationship quality: A prototype analysis of their structure and consequences

Abstract

Laypersons’conceptions of a good heterosexual relationship were examined in four studies. In study 1, a total of 120 German college students listed all aspects of a good intimate relationship. The resulting 1,010 items represented 352 distinct features, of which the 64 most frequently mentioned were selected for further analyses. In study 2, a total of 107 German college students rated the degree of centrality of the 64 items and reliably distinguished central from peripheral features. These data are consistent with a prototype analysis of the concept “good relationship.” In study 3, central features were round to be more salient in memory than were peripheral features, and in study 4, central features were associated with shorter response latencies than were peripheral ones. The specific features identified by laypersons as central to a good relationship were compared to those identified by experts, and the similarities and differences between the lay concepts of love and good relationships were also examined.

Odyssey's end: Lay conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original homeric meaning.

“…Following prior prototype research (Gregg et al, 2008;Hassebrauck, 1997;Kearns & Fincham, 2004), we conducted a median split based on the ratings and labeled the highest 18…”

“…We asked an independent sample to rate the centrality of each feature to nostalgia. Prototype researchers have used this method to define the representativeness of exemplars (Gregg et al, 2008;Hassebrauck, 1997;Rosch, 1975 Materials and procedure. Participants completed identical materials on paper or online.…”

“…Studies 1 and 2 served to generate features of nostalgia by surveying laypeople's conceptions and soliciting centrality ratings, which were used to classify features as central or peripheral for operationalization purposes (Gregg et al, 2008;Hassebrauck, 1997 …”

“…Consistent with the construct of nostalgia having a Nostalgia 15 prototype structure, judgments of feature centrality showed many similarities with generation of features in Study 1. Although some features were emphasized more in Study 1 (e.g., sadness) and others ranked higher in Study 2 (e.g., personal meaning), there was notable consistency.Following prior prototype research (Gregg et al, 2008;Hassebrauck, 1997;Kearns & Fincham, 2004), we conducted a median split based on the ratings and labeled the highest 18features as central and the lowest 17 features as peripheral to nostalgia. However, we use this convention to aid design and analysis of experimental studies, and note that prototypicality of features is likely a continuum.…”

Zeroing in on heroes: A prototype analysis of hero features.

“…Prototype researchers have uses this method to define the representative of features (Gregg et al, 2008;Hassebrauck, 1997;Rosch, 1975). It was hypothesized that some features would be consistently rated higher (central) than other features (peripheral).…”