Gul Gunaydin’s research while affiliated with Istanbul University and other places

Decision making is a fundamental aspect of relationships, as romantic partners often evaluate costs and benefits of their relationship and contemplate whether to maintain it. A key factor that has repeatedly been shown to influence decision-making processes is need for closure, that is, the desire to quickly obtain a definitive answer or solution. Individuals who strongly desire closure prefer the status quo, seek familiarity, and dislike uncertainty, which might strengthen their intention to maintain an enduring relationship. Across five studies recruiting university students and community samples, we explored, for the first time, the role of need for closure in relationship commitment. In Study 1, individuals with a higher need for closure reported greater commitment to their romantic relationships. Studies 2a and 2b replicated these findings and showed that relationship satisfaction and investment, but not alternative quality, may explain the link between need for closure and commitment. Study 3 revealed that need for closure was linked with willingness to sacrifice-a downstream consequence of commitment. Using a three-wave longitudinal design, Study 4 found that within-person variation in need for closure was small, and need for closure explained mainly between-(but not within-) person differences in commitment. This study failed to replicate the mediating role of relationship satisfaction and investment observed in Studies 2a and 2b, thereby indicating caution in interpreting mechanisms suggested by our prior studies. Overall, the findings demonstrated a consistent between-person association of need for closure with relationship commitment, and revealed important research avenues to further understand how individual differences in decision making predict commitment.

Ideal partner preferences(i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence)are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching (i.e., do people positively evaluate partners who match versus mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N=10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β=.19and an effect of β=.11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small(averageβ=.04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences(i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed.

Affective reactivity, defined as within-person increases in negative affect triggered by daily stressors, has well-established links to personal well-being. Prior work conceptualized affective reactivity as an intrapersonal phenomenon, reflecting reactions to one’s own stressors. Here, we conceptualized reactivity interpersonally, examining one’s responses to a romantic partner’s daily stressors. Across four longitudinal dyadic studies, we investigated how reactivity to partner stress predicts relationship quality appraisals. In fledgling couples, reactivity to a partner’s stressors, assessed via weekly (Study 1; N = 152) and daily (Study 2; N = 144) diaries, positively predicted partner relationship quality. In both studies, the associations were mediated by the partner’s perceptions of responsiveness. Furthermore, reactivity to partner stress buffered against declines in partner relationship quality over 8 weeks in Study 1 and 13 months in Study 2. The relevance of reactivity to partner stress for relationship quality diminished in the later stages of relationships. Among samples of established couples (Studies 3 and 4, Ns = 164 and 208, respectively), reactivity to partner stress did not directly predict partner relationship quality or moderate its trajectory over time. Overall, the predominant pattern across four studies painted a portrait of relational well-being benefits specific to fledgling relationships. Through its novel framework of situating affective reactivity interpersonally between partners, the present research contributes to both affective science and relationship science.

Biases in favor of culturally prevalent social ingroups are ubiquitous, but random assignment to arbitrary experimentally created social groups is also sufficient to create ingroup biases (i.e., the minimal group effect; MGE). The extent to which ingroup bias arises from specific social contexts versus more general psychological tendencies remains unclear. This registered report focuses on three questions. First, how culturally prevalent is the MGE? Second, how do critical cultural and individual factors moderate its strength? Third, does the MGE meaningfully relate to culturally salient real-world ingroup biases? We compare the MGE to bias in favor of a family member (first cousin) and a national ingroup member. We propose to recruit a sample of > 200 participants in each of > 50 nations to examine these questions and advance our understanding of the psychological foundations and cultural prevalence of ingroup bias.

Biases in favor of culturally prevalent social ingroups are ubiquitous, but random assignment to arbitrary experimentally created social groups is also sufficient to create ingroup biases (i.e., the minimal group effect; MGE). The extent to which ingroup bias arises from specific social contexts versus more general psychological tendencies remains unclear. This registered report focuses on three questions. First, how culturally prevalent is the MGE? Second, how do critical cultural and individual factors moderate its strength? Third, does the MGE meaningfully relate to culturally salient real-world ingroup biases? We compare the MGE to bias in favor of a family member (first cousin) and a national ingroup member. We propose to recruit a sample of > 200 participants in each of > 50 nations to examine these questions and advance our understanding of the psychological foundations and cultural prevalence of ingroup bias.

According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants (N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance.

Recent studies have highlighted the subjective well-being benefits of minimal social interactions (i.e., interactions with weak ties and strangers). However, the empirical work to date has primarily focused on minimal social interactions that involve conversations and relied on Western samples. In this research, we examined not only conversations but also momentary interactions (i.e., greeting and thanking) in a large, nationally representative, non-WEIRD sample from Turkey ( N = 3,266). We used an instrumental variable approach to provide evidence for the direction of the association between minimal social interactions and life satisfaction. We also investigated the robustness of this approach by replicating one of our key findings in a very large, English-speaking, convenience sample ( N = 60,141). Across the two samples, we found that having conversations with strangers and weak ties, as well as simply greeting and thanking weak ties, predicted greater life satisfaction.

Theoretical and empirical research on responsiveness focused mostly on cultural ecologies of independence. Emerging studies suggest that the responsiveness process may unfold differently in cultural ecologies of interdependence. We organize these studies into a working conceptual model. The model argues that two mechanisms-expectations of culturally normative relationship behaviors and relative centrality of relationships-carry the influence of cultural ecology on responsiveness. Together, these mechanisms explain variation in (a) self-expressive behaviors thought to elicit responsiveness, (b) associations between partner behaviors and perceived responsiveness, and (c) associations between perceived responsiveness and well-being.

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching (i.e., do people positively evaluate partners who match versus mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. For one, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Furthermore, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. The current project—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—can bring clarity to this literature. This registered report uses a highly powered design across multiple world regions to calculate preference-matching effect sizes and variability estimates for all relevant analytic tests. It also examines effects in different relationship contexts and subsamples (e.g., attraction, established relationships, recently formed relationships).