Relationships

Social Psychology Relationships 2008 Lecturer: James Neill

Readings Bauemeister & Bushman (2008): Part 1 : Ch10 Attraction and Exclusion Part 2 : Ch11 Close Relationships: Passion, Intimacy, and Sexuality

Overview: Pt 1 (Attraction & Exclusion) The need to belong Interpersonal attraction Rejection / social exclusion

The Need to Belong (Affiliation) Desire to form & maintain close, lasting relationships with other individuals.

The need to belong Homo sapiens: Appear to need contact with other members of their species. Experience a powerful drive to form & maintain close lasting relationships. Usually form relationships easily. Are reluctant to end relationships. Seek an optimal balance between social contacts & solitude.

The need to belong Basic need to belong is not unique to humans People can be similar on more dimensions People spend much time & energy to secure their place in the social group

The need to belong Belongingness consists of: Regular social contact with others Close, stable, mutually intimate contact One without the other  partial satisfaction

The need to belong People do not continue to form relationships: Typically seek ~4 to 6 close relationships. Even in people-rich environments, most people form social circles of about 6 people.

Marriage People who marry live longer, healthier lives People who stay married live longer and better than those who divorce Happy marriage is an important consideration

Attraction Forces which draw 2 or more people together. Interpersonal Repulsion Forces which drive 2 or more people apart.

Ingratiation What people actively do to try to make others like them.

Similarity Common, significant cause of attraction Tend to like others who are similar to us Otherwise we experience cognitive dissonance.

Similarity Do opposites attract? i.e., do we need complementarity? little supporting evidence Spouses are similar in many respects: IQ physical attractiveness Education SES Couples more similar in attractiveness more likely to progress to committed relationship.

Matching Hypothesis People are attracted to & form relationships with others who are similar to them in physical attractiveness.

Self-monitoring People change to become more similar to those with whom they interact: High self-monitoring (field dependent) – maximise each social situation Low self-monitoring (field independent) – interested in permanent connections and feelings

Similarity As cultures progress & form large, complex groups, there is more need for complementarity, e.g.,: Risks in joining a new group People tend to look for similarity

Reinforcement theory Behaviors reinforced tend to be repeated People tend to be attracted to those who are rewarding to them

Reinforcement theory Reinforcement-affect model - based on principles of classical conditioning Associate ‘attractive’ person with rewards & positive affect

Interpersonal rewards Do favors for someone Praise someone

Reciprocity Liking begets liking; We like those who like us Mimicking increases liking. If someone likes you: Initially it is very favorable, but If that liking is not returned, it can be a burden We tend to prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced .

The gain-loss hypothesis We like people most if they initially dislike us & then later like us e.g., (Aronson & Linder, 1965) Order of feedback Degree of liking Neg-Pos Pos-Pos Neg-Neg Pos-Neg 0 2 4 6 8 10    

Playing hard to get Prefer those who are ‘moderately’ selective (turned off by those too readily available & those who reject us). Attractiveness  s towards bar closing time for those not in a relationship (Madey et al., 1996) . Reactance – if freedom of choice threatened, desire  s for difficult to attain goal.

Costs e.g., effort, conflict, compromise, sacrifice, risk Social Exchange Theory People are motivated to  benefits &  costs in their relationships with others. Rewards e.g., love, companionship, sex

Social Exchange Theory Comparison level (CL) average, expected outcome in relationships Comparison level for alternatives (C alt ) expectations of rewards in alternative situation (what could I get elsewhere?) (Sunk) Investment things put into relationship that can’t be recovered.

Equity Theory (Balance Theory) People are most satisfied with a relationship when the ratio between benefits & contributions is similar for both partners Your benefits = Partner’s benefits Your contributions = Partner’s contributions

Equity Theory (Balance Theory) Prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced. Motivated to restore balance in relationships

Equity theory applied to two equitable and two inequitable relationships Outputs Inputs Outputs Inputs PETER OLIVIA Equity perceived Equity not perceived PETER OLIVIA   =     =       = =     Inputs or ouputs are:  Few  Average  Many

Balance Theory Agreement is an affirming experience, lead to positive affect. If we disagree, we seek to find agreement. Attracted to similar others We strive to like our friend’s friends.

Commitment to one’s relationship is weaker when many high-quality alternative partners are available.

Propinquity (Exposure or Psychological Proximity) Best predictor of a relationship is proximity or nearness. Mere-exposure effect The more we’re exposed to something, the more we like it. Familiarity greater liking for a familiar stimulus. Overexposure can reduce liking. People also weigh: Availability - interaction is easy & low cost Expectation of continued interaction

4 different women (confederates) attended a lecture over a semester. Four conditions: each attended 0, 5, 10, or 15 times. Participants (students in the lectures) then viewed pictures of the 4 women They liked/ were most attracted to the woman they had been exposed to most . Moreland & Beach (1992)

Moreland & Beach (1992) Ratings of attraction.

Attraction Propinquity Availability interaction is easy & low cost Expectation of continued interaction

Familiarity & exposure Social allergy effect Annoying habits become more annoying over time Familiarity & repeated exposure can make bad things worse encourage liking someone

Neighbors make friends – and enemies Festinger et al. (1950) Strongest predictor of friendships was propinquity Ebbesen et al. (1976) Strongest predictor of enemies was propinquity Regular contact amplifies or multiplies power of other factors

Rate this woman’s: Intelligence Happiness Success 1 = Well below average 2 = Below average 3 = Average 4 = Above average 5 = Well above average

John: 25 years old Car salesman Rents a small apartment Lives on his own. Does not have a girlfriend. Allergies limit time he can spend outdoors. Matt: 26 years old Business executive Owns two houses Happily married Enjoys travelling, yacht racing, and nightclubbing. John or Matt?

Attractiveness Most people show preference for attractive over unattractive “ What is beautiful is good” effect Attractiveness = superiority on other traits Attractive children are more popular with peers and teachers Babies prefer attractive faces

Attractiveness For men, clothing represent wealth and status High wealth & status men are more attractive Body shape influences attractiveness Cultural variation in ideal body weight

Beauty People agree who is beautiful but not why Evolutionary psychology beauty in women ~ Health, youth, fertility Symmetry is attractive Typicality is attractive Average or composite faces are more attractive than individual faces

Beauty Babies show a preference for faces considered attractive by adults. Some cultural & historical differences in perception of beauty Despite cultural & historical differences there is a considerable degree of agreement as to what is thought of as beautiful.

Beauty Bias towards beauty - why? Aesthetic rewards Reflected ‘glory’ “ What-is-beautiful-is-good” stereotype - associate beauty with other ‘good’ things Beautiful judged to be - intelligent, successful, happy, well-adjusted, socially skilled, confident, assertive (& vain)

Beauty In reality, beauty not related to intelligence, personality adjustment or SES Costs of beauty hard to interpret positive feedback pressure to maintain appearance little relationship between beauty in youth & satisfaction/adjustment in middle-age (Berscheid et al., 1972)

Evolutionary Perspectives on Attraction / Mate Selection Gender differences in mate selection & sexual behaviour Males tend to have more sexual partners & partners that are young & attractive (more fertile). Women tend to have fewer sexual partners & partners who are older & financially secure (better providers for offspring).

Evolutionary Perspectives on Attraction / Mate Selection Triver (1972) - parental investment theory Buss (1994) - evolutionary perspective Gender differences in jealously BUT - differences between sexes small compared to similarities

Acceptance People like you & include you in their groups. Social Rejection People exclude you from their groups. (Social Exclusion; Ostracism)

Not belonging is bad for you Failure to satisfy a “need to belong” leads to detrimental effects, e.g.,: Death rates  among people without social connections. People without a good social network have  physical & mental health problems.

Social Exclusion (video; 5:53 mins)

Rejection Ostracism Excluded, rejected, & ignored Effects of rejection Inner states are usually -ve

Rejection Rejection sensitivity Expect rejection & become hypersensitive to possible rejection “ You hurt my feelings” = “You don’t care about the relationship” Implicit message of rejection

Rejection Extent of hurt feelings is based on: Importance of relationship Clearness of rejection signal Initial reaction to rejection – “ emotional numbness ” Interferes with psychological and cognitive functioning

Behavioral Effects of Rejection Show  s in intelligent thought Approach new interactions with skepticism Typically less generous, less cooperative, less helpful More willing to cheat or break rules Act shortsighted, impulsive, self-destructive

Behavioral Effects of Rejection Repeated rejection can create aggression Aggression can lead to rejection Common theme in school shootings is social exclusion

Loneliness Desired > actual social contact Painful feeling of wanting more human contact Lacking in quantity and/or quality of relationships Occurs during times of transition & disruption (e.g., moving, divorce)

Loneliness Unattached lonelier than attached Widowed, divorced lonelier than never married 18-30 year olds - loneliest group Little difference between lonely & unlonely Lonely have more difficulty understanding emotional states of others Loneliness tends to be bad for physical health

Social capital Collective value of all "social networks“ Inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for one other

Bowling Alone (Putnam, 2000) Declining Social Capital: Trends over the last 25 years Attending club meetings Family dinners Having friends over 10 minutes of commuting  s social capital by 10%.

Social rejection Children are rejected by peers because they: are aggressive withdraw from contact are different in some way

Social rejection Adults are most often rejected for being different from the rest of the group Groups reject insiders more than outsiders for the same degree of deviance Deviance within the group threatens the group’s unity

Social rejection Bad apple effect One person who breaks the rules may inspire others to do the same Threat of rejection influences good behavior

Romantic rejection & unrequited love Attribution theory & women refusing dates Privately held reasons were internal to the man, stable, & global Reasons told the man were external, unstable, and specific These reasons encourage asking again

Romantic rejection & unrequited love Unrequited Love Men are more often rejected lover; women do the rejecting more often Stalking Women are more often stalked

Summary of Topics The need to belong Not belonging is bad for you Attraction Ingratiation Social rewards Reciprocity Self-monitoring Similarity Propinquity Matching hypothesis Beauty Rejection Loneliness Social capital What leads to social rejection? Romantic rejection & unrequited love

Overview: Pt 2 (Close Relationships, Passion, Intimacy, and Sexuality ) What Is love? Types of relationships Maintaining relationships Sexuality

Love relationships Liking versus loving Passionate love intense, involves physiological arousal Companionate love - caring & affection Characterised by high levels of self-disclosure

What is love? “ I love my grandmother” “ I’m in love with my boyfriend” “ I love psychology”

Two types of love Passionate Companionate Physiological difference Presence of PEA

Passionate Love Strong, intense feelings of Longing Desire Excitement toward another person.

Passionate Love Most cultures have passionate (romantic) love, although forms & expressions vary Not always viewed positively Paradox of marrying for passionate love: Long-term commitment based on temporary state

Companionate Love Affection for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined: Mutual understanding Caring Commitment Calm, serene emotions Important for successful marriages

Passionate love as a social construction Romantic love is found in most cultures Forms & expression vary by culture Attitude varies by culture & era

Love across time Passionate love is important for starting a relationships Companionate love is important for making it succeed & survive

Sternberg’s (1988) Triangular Model of Love Motivational : physiological arousal, longing, sexual attraction Cognitive : conscious decision, willing to define as love, long term Emotional : closeness, sharing, support, understanding, concern PASSION INTIMACY COMMITMENT

Triangular Theory of Love Sternberg (1988)

Schacter’s 2-factor theory of emotion 1. Physical arousal 2. Cognitive appraisal (interpret arousal as love)

Hatfield & Walster’s 3-factor Theory of Romantic Love 1. Cultural exposure 2. Physiological arousal 3. Presence of appropriate love object

Hatfield & Walster’s 3-factor Theory of Romantic Love + + Cultural exposure Physiological arousal Appropriate love object Romantic Love

Does love last? Passionate love is temporary Successful relationships shift from passionate to companionate love 2 years PASSION INTIMACY 1 year 5 years 10 years

Exchange vs. Communal Exchange relationships Based on reciprocity & fairness More frequent in broader society Increases societal progress & wealth Communal relationships Based on love & concern without expectation of repayment More frequent in close intimate relationships More desirable, healthier, & mature

Exchange vs. Communal Exchange relationships encourage progress and wealth in larger groups We don’t like calculating equity in our serious relationships If people keep track of every little thing, it doesn’t feel like love Communal relationships are more desirable in intimate relationships

Attachment - Bowlby Influenced by Freudian & learning theory Believed childhood attachment predicted adult relationships

Attachment - Shaver Identified attachment styles to describe adult relationships Anxious/Ambivalent Secure Avoidant

Attachment styles People can classify themselves reliably. Choose the description that best fits your relationships: 1 . I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting close to me.

Attachment styles 2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

Attachment styles 3. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and, often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Attachments marked by trust / other will continue to provide love & support. 3 Original Attachment Styles Defensive detachment from other Fear of abandonment; feeling /one’s needs aren’t being met SECURE (56%) ANXIOUS/ AMBIVALENT (19%) AVOIDANT (25%)

2 Dimensions of Attachment Theory developed along two dimensions: Anxiety – attitudes toward self Avoidance – attitudes toward others

Attachment styles Secure attachment Dismissing avoidant attachment Fearful avoidant attachment Preoccupied attachment

Attachment The new model splits avoidant types into two groups Dismissing avoidants are independent See themselves as worthy, but seek to prevent intimacy Fearful avoidants have low opinions of themselves Worry they aren’t lovable

Avoidant Attachment Style They still have the “need to belong” Inner conflict: want contact but fear closeness They have as much social contact as others. They are NOT loners, isolates Hence may want to “juggle” relationship partners. Keep many relationships going but not let one get too close

Attachment Matching People do not always form relationships with others with same attachment style Having one secure person improves relationship outcome (and two are better than one) Rare to have both anxious, or both avoidant Avoidant men, anxious women do well; anxious men with avoidant women, not so good

Attachment & Sex Secure Generally have good sex lives Preoccupied May use sex to pull others close to them Avoidant Have a desire for connection May avoid sex, or use it to resist intimacy

Self-esteem & love Popular belief that you need to love yourself before you can love others Not demonstrated in theory or facts Self-esteem Low self-esteem – may feel unlovable High self-esteem – may feel more worthy than present partner

Self-love & loving others Self-acceptance is good for getting along with others Excessive self-love (e.g. narcissism) can be detrimental to close relationships Self-acceptance More minimal form of self-love Linked to positive interactions

Maintaining relationships Good relationships tend to stay the same over time Popular myth that they continue to improve Key to maintaining a good relationship is to avoid a downward spiral

Is honesty the best policy? People in love hold idealised versions of each other Is it better to be yourself? Yes and no: Research supports that we want our partners to view us as we view ourselves Relationships can thrive when couples remain on their best behavior More idealisation leads to stronger, longer relationships

Is honesty the best policy? Fig. 11-6, p. 377

Maintaining relationships People perceive good relationships as getting better & better Research shows that relationships either stay the same or go downhill

Maintaining relationships For relationships to succeed couples must avoid the “downward spiral” Reciprocity of negative behaviour Positive interactions must occur at least 5 x as often as negative ones

Why do people stay with their relationship partners? SATISFACTION: quality of the relationship, good interactions, “makes me happy” Kind of obvious But explains only about 30%

Why do people stay with their relationship partners? ALTERNATIVES: if you left this relationship, what would replace it? Might leave a good partner in pursuit of a better one Some guesswork

Why do people stay with their relationship partners? INVESTMENT/SUNK COSTS = what you have put into the relationship that will be lost if you leave Examples, long effort to understand each other, learning to get along Shared history together (experiences, memories, children, projects)

Attributions Difference in terms of attribution: Relationship-enhancing : Good acts - internal; Bad acts - external factors Distress-maintaining: Good acts - external factors Bad acts - internal

Attributional processes “ Why didn’t he do the dishes?” “ Typical… he never wants to help out” Distress-maintaining style of attribution Unhappy couples attribute negative events to their partners and positive events to external factors

Attributional processes “ Why didn’t he do the dishes?” “ He must have had a hard day at work.” Relationship-enhancing style of attribution Happy couples attribute negative events to external factors and positive events to their partners

Optimism & devaluing Optimism in the relationship Happy couples have an idealised version of their relationship Exaggerate the success of their relationships Devaluing alternatives People in lasting relationships do not find others appealing

Investment model 3 factors to explain long-term relationships Satisfaction Alternatives Investments Considered together they predict the likelihood of maintaining the relationship

The Investment Model of Commitment Commitment Level Quality of Alternatives Investment Size Satisfaction Level Decision to Remain

The Investment Model of Commitment Explains why people remain in relationships with abusive or unsatisfying partners: if alternatives aren’t good, or sunk costs are high 3 factors explain ~90% of variance in relationship outcomes Also works for keeping versus changing jobs

Sexuality Humans form relationships based on two separate systems Attachment system Gender neutral Sex drive Focus on opposite sex (procreation) Love comes from attachment drive; independent of gender

Theories of sexuality Social constructionist theories Evolutionary theory Gender differences based in reproductive strategies Social exchange theory

Sex & gender Men > women sex drive Coolidge effect sexually arousing power of a new partner (greater than the appeal of a familiar partner) Separating sex & love Men  likely to seek & enjoy sex without love Women  likely to enjoy love without sex

A woman pays a higher biological price than a man for making a poor choice of sex partners, and so it behooves women to be more cautious than men about sex.

Homosexuality Homosexuality challenges theories of sexuality Most cultures condemn it Natural selection does not support it

Homosexuality EBE – Exotic becomes erotic (Bem, 1998) “ Sexual arousal” as a “label” for emotional nervousness resulting from exposure to the exotic Difficult to test and verify this theory

Extradyadic sex Most reliable data suggests infidelity is rare in modern Western marriages Tolerance for extramarital sex is fairly low Extramarital sex is a risk factor for break ups Cannot demonstrate causality

Extradyadic sex Long-term monogamous mating is more common among humans. Culture: plays a role in monogamy gives permission for divorce influences love and sex

Reasons for straying Men desire novelty Sometimes engage in extramarital sex without complaint about their marriage Women’s infidelity more characterised by emotional attachment to lover Usually dissatisfied with current partner

Ending relationships: 4 factors (Levinger, 1980) 1. A new life seems the only alternative 2. Alternative partners available 3. Expectation that relationship will fail 4. Lack of commitment

Ending relationships 4 stages once relationship has started to fail (Rusult & Zembrodt, 1983) 1. Loyalty – wait for improvement 2. Neglect – allow deterioration 3. Voice behaviour – work on improving 4. Exit behaviour - end

Relationship Dissolution Model (Duck, 1988, 1992) - 4 phases Intrapsychic brooding Dyadic do something Social tell friends, seek support Grave-dressing end relationship, getting ‘over’ it, ‘bury’ & memorialise.

Jealousy & possessiveness Cultural theory Product of social roles & expectations Biological theory Sexual jealousy in every culture Forms, expressions, & rules may vary Society can modify but not eliminate jealousy

Evolutionary theory of jealousy Men To help ensure they do not support the upbringing of another’s child Women If husband becomes emotionally involved with another, he may withhold resources

Jealousy & possessiveness Jealousy can focus on either sexual or emotional connections with another Men tend to focus more strongly on sexual aspects than women

Causes of jealousy Jealousy is a function of person & situation: Many suspicions are accurate Paranoid (false) jealousy is fairly rare

Jealousy & type of interloper The less of a threat from the other person, the less jealousy Jealousy depends on how their traits compare to the third party Both men & women are more jealous if the 3rd party is a man rather than a woman

Social reality Social reality Public awareness of some event Important role in jealousy High social reality = High jealousy The more other people know about your partner’s infidelity, the greater your jealousy

Culture & female sexuality All culture regulate sex in some ways Cultural regulation is more directed at women Erotic plasticity Paternity uncertainty

Erotic plasticity Degree to which social, cultural, and situational factors influence sexuality Female sexuality is more plastic (cultural), male is more natural (biological) Neither is inherently better (no value judgment)

Culture & the double standard Supported more by women than men Weaker than usually assumed

Close Relationships Topic Summary Love Types of love (passionate & companionate) Types of relationships (exchange vs. communal) Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Schacter’s 2-factor theory Culture-Arousal-Cognition models (Hatfield) Attachment styles Self-esteem & love Maintaining Relationships Attributions Optimism & devaluing alternatives Investment model Sexuality Extradyadic relationships Erotic plasticity Ending relationships Jealousy

References Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Relationships

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Relationships (20)

More from James Neill (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Relationships

Editor's Notes