Council for International Exchange of Scholars : Fulbright Scholars Discipline Review Committee

Foundation for Personality and Social Psychology : Board member

Does support need to be seen? Daily invisible support promotes next day relationship well-being.

Perceived partner responsiveness promotes intellectual humility

Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS)

Men and Women Are From Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender

Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science

Naturalistic methods provide a research strategy that is phenomenon-centered and tends to place minimal restrictions on the behavior of subjects, so that freely-chosen, spontaneous acts are the substance of the data obtained. Controls are built in, but only to the extent that is necessary to produce standardized procedures and meaningful order in the observations. The time is ripe for the development and dissemination of naturalistic methods for studying social interaction. The editor and authors intend this volume of New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science to serve such a function. Our tactic will be to acquaint readers both with technique and with a sense of the richness of knowledge than can be acquired. Each chapter describes a naturalistic method that has already borne theoretical fruit for the researcher and gives examples of these results.

Naturalistic Approaches to Studying Social Interaction (New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science)

This indispensible sourcebook covers conceptual and practical issues in research design in the field of social and personality psychology. Key experts address specific methods and areas of research, contributing to a comprehensive overview of contemporary practice. This updated and expanded second edition offers current commentary on social and personality psychology, reflecting the rapid development of this dynamic area of research over the past decade. With the help of this up-to-date text, both seasoned and beginning social psychologists will be able to explore the various tools and methods available to them in their research as they craft experiments and imagine new methodological possibilities.

Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology

This volume presents cutting edge research and theory on stability and change in personal relationships. The first section includes chapters that describe the "scaffolding " of stability and change. It focuses on various qualities that partners bring to their relationships. The second section emphasizes ongoing processes that characterize relationships. Chapters focus on issues such as arguing and sacrificing. The final section of the volume describes the influences of social environments on stability and change in relationships. Historical and cross-cultural contexts are examined, as are social networks and the effect of technology.

Stability and Change in Relationships (Advances in Personal Relationships)

Each of the chapters in this reader is written by leading scholars in the area of relationships, reflecting the diversity of the field and including both contemporary and key historical papers for comprehensive coverage of research.

Close Relationships: Key Readings (Key Readings in Social Psychology)

Library Journal Best Reference 2009"An excellent gateway to further examination of any of the subdisciplines of relationship science, or as a research tool in its own right." ―Library JournalRelationships are fundamental to nearly all domains of human activity, from birth to death. When people participate in healthy, satisfying relationships, they live, work, and learn more effectively. When relationships are distressed or dysfunctional, people are less happy, less healthy, and less productive. Few aspects of human experience have as broad or as deep effects on our lives.The Encyclopedia of Human Relationships offers an interdisciplinary view of all types of human associations―friends, lovers, spouses, roommates, coworkers, teammates, parents and children, cousins, siblings, acquaintances, neighbors, business associates, and so forth. Although each of these connections is unique in some respect, they share a common core of principles and processes. These three volumes provide a state-of-the-art review of the extensive theories, concepts, and empirical findings about human relationships.Key FeaturesCompiles leading-edge information about how people think, feel, and act toward each otherPresents the best in the field―authors who have contributed significant scientific knowledge about personal relationships over the past several decades.Offers a diverse approach to relationship science with contributions from psychology, sociology, communication, family studies, anthropology, physiology, neuroscience, history, economics, and legal studiesKey Themes:Cognitive Processes in RelationshipsCommunication ProcessesCreating and Maintaining ClosenessDating, Courtship, and MarriageThe Dark Side of RelationshipsEmotion Processes in RelationshipsFamilyFriendship and Caregiving in AdulthoodHealth and the Biology of RelationshipsMethods for Studying RelationshipsPersonality and Individual DifferencesPrevention and Repair of Relationship ProblemsPsychological ProcessesSexualitySocial Context of RelationshipsSocial Relations in Childhood and AdolescenceTheoretical Approaches to Studying RelationshipsTypes of RelationshipsOur relationships influence virtually all aspects of our everyday existence and are of deep interest to students, researchers, academics, and laypeople alike. This Encyclopedia is an invaluable addition to any academic or public library.

Encyclopedia of Human Relationships (Sage Reference Publication)

The University of Rochester is one of the country's top-tier research universities. Our campuses are home to 200 academic majors, more than 2,000 faculty and instructional staff, and some 10,000 students.The University gives students exceptional opportunities for interdisciplinary study and close collaboration with faculty through its unique cluster-based curriculum. Its College, School of Arts and Sciences, and Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences are complemented by its Eastman School of Music, Simon School of Business, Warner School of Education, Laboratory for Laser Energetics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Nursing, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, and the Memorial Art Gallery. 





University of Rochester

Professor Reis' research interests involve social interaction and close relationships. He studies the factors that influence the quantity and closeness of social interaction, and the consequences of different patterns of socializing for health and psychological well-being. In his research, subjects keep detailed records on their on-going social interaction. These are tabulated by computer and related to various factors such as sex role, health, and emotional well-being.

Professor Reis also looks at the psychological processes that affect the course and conduct of close relationships. He is particularly interested in intimacy, attachment, and emotion regulation.

Marriage and Close Relationships

Health and Psychological Well Being

Social interaction

Intimacy

Emotion Regulation

Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology Faculty Page

Wikipedia Page

Google Scholar Page

Social Psychology Network Page

ResearchGate Profile

This Science-Backed Trick Could Help Prevent Infidelity In A Relationship

5 Habits That Have Been Wiped Out By The Internet

Opinion | What Is Fun? Can I Have It? Will We Ever Have It Again?

Millennial men are more accepting than ever, but they still won't do laundry

People Lie When Sex Is on the Brain – This Study Reveals How Much

Study suggests bizarre connection between lying and having sex

Do Women Really Talk More Than Men?

Scott Cummings podcast debate shows gap between men and women

The emotional lives of caregivers

Bring Parenting Happiness Back: 9 Ways Parents Can Rediscover Joy

How to be better at online dating, according to psychology

How To Protect Your Well-Being From The Dangers Of Stress

There's more evidence to suggest playing it cool is the worst idea if you really like someone

Knowing someone is attracted to you really DOES make them more desirable, researchers find

Are you really into me? Uncertainty dampens sexual attractiveness of a possible partner

Random Acts of Kindness Make Marriages Happier

'Tis better to give, to your spouse

Eclipsing Mars and Venus: Implications of a dimensional view of sex differences

The science of interpersonal relationships

The science of friendship and marriage

Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science

Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships

Psychologist Harry Reis puts human relationships under the microscope.

intimate-relationships-demand-real-understanding

Professor of Psychology and Dean's Professor in Arts, Sciences, and Engineering

University of Rochester psychology professor Harry Reis says it's important for us to have "real understanding" in our closest relationships so that others know who we are and will, in turn, be caring, validating, and accepting.

And as Reis puts it, "With all the stresses and tensions that we're experiencing today, there's an even greater need to connect with people."

In his research, Reis investigates some of the psychological processes that affect the course and conduct of close relationships, with a particular focus on intimacy, attachment, and emotion regulation.

In any close relationship, Reis says it's important to put aside presumptions of what the other is thinking or feeling, and, instead, listen to what that person is actually saying.

Reis points out that understanding has value beyond intimate relationships. For example, he says medical care works better when patients feel doctors are truly listening. "It's also important in the classroom. Students are more likely to succeed when they feel their teachers understand them and their priorities."


Intimate relationships demand real understanding

valentines-day-thoughtfulness-has-intrinsic-rewards-says-university-of-rochester-professor

We’ve all heard that it’s better to give than to receive. When it comes to Valentines Day, there’s empirical evidence to show that being thoughtful to a spouse is rewarding in and of itself. A 2017 study by University of Rochester Psychology Professor Harry Reis shows that when we show compassion toward our partner—when we put aside personal wishes in order to meet the partner’s needs—it makes us feel better, even if—and this was a surprise—those acts of compassion go unrecognized by the recipient.  Over the course of 14 days, husbands and wives reported giving and receiving an average of .65 and .59 compassionate acts each day—with husbands perceiving more such acts than did their partners. The acts included such things as changing personal plans for the partner’s sake, doing something that showed the partner was valued, and expressing tenderness for the spouse. For Reis, the results suggest that acting compassionately may be its own reward, or in this case, its own Valentines gift. Professor Reis’s research interests involve social interaction and close relationships. He studies the factors that influence the quantity and closeness of social interaction, and the consequences of different patterns of socializing for health and psychological well-being.  

Valentines Day thoughtfulness has intrinsic rewards, says University of Rochester professor

For decades, popular writers have entertained readers with the premise that men and women are so psychologically dissimilar they could hail from entirely different planets. But a new study shows that it's time for the Mars/Venus theories about the sexes to come back to Earth.

From empathy and sexuality to science inclination and extroversion, statistical analysis of 122 different characteristics involving 13,301 individuals shows that men and women, by and large, do not fall into different groups. In other words, no matter how strange and inscrutable your partner may seem, their gender is probably only a small part of the problem.

"People think about the sexes as distinct categories," says Harry Reis, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester and a co-author on the study to be published in the February issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "'Boy or girl?' is the first question parents are asked about their newborn, and sex persists through life as the most pervasive characteristic used to distinguish categories among humans."

But the handy dichotomy often falls apart under statistical scrutiny, says lead author Bobbi Carothers, who completed the study as part of her doctoral dissertation at Rochester and is now a senior data analyst for the Center for Public Health System Science at Washington University in St. Louis. For example, it is not at all unusual for men to be empathic and women to be good at math -- characteristics that some research has associated with the other sex, says Carothers. "Sex is not nearly as confining a category as stereotypes and even some academic studies would have us believe," she adds.

The authors reached that conclusion by reanalyzing data from 13 studies that had shown significant, and often large, sex differences. Reis and Carothers also collected their own data on a range of psychological indicators. They revisited surveys on relationship interdependence, intimacy, and sexuality. They reopened studies of the "big five" personality traits: extroversion, openness, agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness. They even crunched the numbers on such highly charged and seemingly defining gender characteristics as femininity and masculinity. Using three separate statistical procedures, the authors searched for evidence of attributes that could reliably categorize a person as male or female.

The pickings, it turned out, were slim. Statistically, men and women definitely fall into distinct groups, or taxons, based on anthropometric measurements such as height, shoulder breadth, arm circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio. And gender can be a reliable predictor for interest in very stereotypic activities, such as scrapbooking and cosmetics (women) and boxing and watching pornography (men).

But for the vast majority of psychological traits, including the fear of success, mate selection criteria, and empathy, men and women are definitely from the same planet. Instead of scores clustering at either end of the spectrum—the way they do with, say, height or physical strength—psychological indicators fall along a linear gradation for both genders. With very few exceptions, variability within each sex and overlap between the sexes is so extensive that the authors conclude it would be inaccurate to use personality types, attitudes, and psychological indicators as a vehicle for sorting men and women.

"Thus, contrary to the assertions of pop psychology titles like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, it is untrue that men and women think about their relationships in qualitatively different ways," the authors write. "Even leading researchers in gender and stereotyping can fall into the same trap."

That men and women approach their social world similarly does not imply that there are no differences in average scores between the sexes. Average differences do exist, write the authors. "The traditional and easiest way to think of gender differences is in terms of a mean difference," Carothers and Reis write. But such differences "are not consistent or big enough to accurately diagnose group membership" and should not be misconstrued as evidence for consistent and inflexible gender categories, they conclude.

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://amara.org/v/CGy1/

The Mars vs. Venus Theory of the Sexes Comes Back to Earth

Select Inquiry Type