Felt Understanding as a Bridge between Close Relationships and Subjective Well-Being: Antecedents and Consequences Across Individuals and Cultures

Oishi, Shigehiro; Krochik, Margarita; Akimoto, Sharon A.

doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00264.x

Cited by 57 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both theory and empirical evidence indicate that actual understanding should contribute to perceived understanding. For example, feedback from others that is consistent with self-understanding promotes feeling understood and positive affect [36,37], as is predicted by self-verification theory [38]. Active listening, a communication technique that requires listeners to paraphrase the speaker's message so as to ensure that the speaker's intent was accurately received, is effective in part because it enhances the speaker's sense of being understood [39].…”

Section: A Model Of Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 88%

Responsiveness

Reis

Gable

2015

Current Opinion in Psychology

216

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current research has honed in on responsiveness as the active ingredient that underlies many of the important qualities that define satisfying, healthy relationships. This article describes a dynamic interpersonal model of responsiveness in close relationships that is suggested by recent findings. In particular, we review evidence regarding three key questions of contemporary research interest. First, does responsiveness, in and of itself, promote relationship and personal well-being? Second, to what extent does perceived responsiveness depend on accurate understanding of the self by partners? Third, is perceived responsiveness grounded in the partner's actions, the perceiver's motivated interpretations, or both? Answers to these questions contribute to the development of an integrated model of responsiveness for future work to build upon. AddressesWhen people are asked what they want from their close relationship partners, they usually mention qualities like having someone to confide in, share in life's joys, be an empathic listener, and provide appropriate support when needed. Consistent with lay impressions, research demonstrates that these qualities are associated with the health of relationships. Researchers have recognized that these processes may share a common foundation, and the active ingredient that binds them to relationship quality has been termed responsiveness [1]. Responsiveness describes how partners attend to and support each other's needs and goals; it is a deliberately broad and inclusive construct that touches on many familiar concepts and processes in relationship science. The advantage of focusing on this common element is that it suggests a theoretical model that can help organize seemingly diverse phenomena into a coherent whole.Responsiveness is rooted in the personalities, goals, and relationship history of interacting persons, grounded in the elements of their interaction, and revealed in their perceptions of those interactions. It contributes to the growth and well-being of relationships, or, in its absence, to their decline and dissolution; likewise, responsiveness fosters the growth and well-being of individuals, or, in its absence, their stagnation and discontent. Because it is a fundamentally interpersonal process with intrapersonal origins and consequences, responsiveness highlights the centrality of relationships for understanding individuals.In this article, we build on theoretical models that we and others have reported previously to discuss recent advances in theorizing about responsiveness [2,3]. We begin by describing the central concepts of this model in general terms. Subsequently we address three key questions suggested by the model that have been the focus of recent research. Throughout this review, for the sake of currency, we emphasize research that has appeared in the past few years, but this is done with full awareness that these studies stand on the shoulders of prior work. A fuller review can be found in [4 ]. A model of responsivenessOur working model of responsi...

show abstract

Section: A Model Of Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 88%

Responsiveness

Reis

Gable

2015

Current Opinion in Psychology

216

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Feeling understood promotes closeness and intimacy among unacquainted strangers (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000) and romantic partners (Laurenceau, Feldman-Barrett, & Rovine, 2005). Moreover, it facilitates psychological and physical well-being in one’s daily social interactions (Lun, Kesebir, & Oishi, 2008; Oishi et al, 2010). For example, over the course of a 2-week diary study, White and Asian Americans reported greater life satisfaction and fewer daily physical health problems (e.g., headaches, stomachaches) on days when they felt more understood by others during social interactions (Lun et al, 2008).…”

Section: Felt Understanding and Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling (Mis)Understood and Intergroup Friendships in Interracial Interactions

Shelton

Douglass

Garcia

et al. 2014

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigated whether having out-group friends serves as a buffer for feeling misunderstood in interracial interactions. Across three experience sampling studies, we found that among ethnic minorities who have few White friends or are not interacting with White friends, daily interracial interactions are associated with feeling less understood. By contrast, we found that among ethnic minorities who have more White friends or are interacting with White friends, the relationship between daily interracial interactions and feeling understood is not significant. We did not find similar results for Whites; that is, having ethnic minority friends did not play a role in the relationship between daily interracial interactions and feeling understood. Together, these studies demonstrate the beneficial effects of intergroup friendships for ethnic minorities.

show abstract

“…Mutuality manifests as a genuine interest in fostering growth in one’s relational partner, an interest that is perceived to be reciprocal (Miller & Stiver, 1997). The key to this construct is its emphasis on authentic mutual interest coupled with perceived success in mutually felt understanding (cf., Oishi, Krochik, & Akimoto, 2010). Originally developed as part of “Self-in-Relation Theory” (Surrey, 1985), mutuality empowers relationships by bringing clarity, directness, and predictability to the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of the individuals who inhabit them.…”

Section: Mutuality and Responsiveness In Attachment Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutuality and the social regulation of neural threat responding

Coan

Kasle

Jackson

et al. 2013

Attachment & Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that the presence of a caring relational partner can attenuate neural responses to threat. Here we report reanalyzed data from Coan, Schaefer, and Davidson (2006), investigating the role of relational mutuality in the neural response to threat. Mutuality reflects the degree to which couple members show mutual interest in the sharing of internal feelings, thoughts, aspirations, and joys – a vital form of responsiveness in attachment relationships. We predicted that wives who were high (versus low) in perceived mutuality, and who attended the study session with their husbands, would show reduced neural threat reactivity in response to mild electric shocks. We also explored whether this effect would depend on physical contact (handholding). As predicted, we observed that higher mutuality scores corresponded with decreased neural threat responding in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and supplementary motor cortex. These effects were independent of hand-holding condition. These findings suggest that higher perceived mutuality corresponds with decreased self-regulatory effort and attenuated preparatory motor activity in response to threat cues, even in the absence of direct physical contact with social resources.

show abstract

Felt Understanding as a Bridge between Close Relationships and Subjective Well-Being: Antecedents and Consequences Across Individuals and Cultures

Cited by 57 publications

References 63 publications

Responsiveness

Responsiveness

Feeling (Mis)Understood and Intergroup Friendships in Interracial Interactions

Mutuality and the social regulation of neural threat responding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About