HUMAN BONDING FINAL

human

What are the symptoms of romantic infatuation?

Symptoms:

1. acute onset: remembering the exact moment when the infatuation with a particular person started

2. Physiological arousal: more energy, increased heart rate as a result of physiological arousal associated with romantic infatuation

3. mental preoccupation: the person you are infatuated with is foremost in your brain—thinking about them all the time

4. mood dependency: how you feel at any given point in time depends in large part on whether you feel your feelings are reciprocated

5. idealization: the most dangerous aspect of romantic infatuation, where a person only focuses on the positive possibilities of a relationship, overlooking all the shortcomings

6. single target: romantic infatuation tends to be focused on a single person

What is the average duration and time course of infatuation?


Explain the role of uncertainty with romantic infatuation.

Time course:

• Sudden onset

• Peaks around ~6 months

• Gradually declines until ~2 years

• After ~2 years:

  • Either the relationship ends OR

  • Mutual attachment develops

Uncertainty increases infatuation

Evidence FOR romantic infatuation just being sexual desire.

 Time courses are essentially the same

 Primary targets are the same

Time course: Both can arise very quickly, sometimes almost immediately after meeting someone, and tend to feel especially intense in the early stages. This rapid onset and strong initial intensity can make them feel very similar at first.

• Targets: Both are typically directed toward specific individuals rather than being general feelings. They are usually triggered by people you find physically or personally appealing, which is why the same person can become the focus of both types of attraction.

Evidence AGAINST romantic infatuation just being sexual desire.

Evidence AGAINST

• Different subjective experience

  • Sexual desire = “I want this person sexually”

  • Infatuation = “I want this person to feel the same way about me”
    → includes emotional reciprocity, attachment, validation

• Pre-pubertal infatuation exists

  • Children (before puberty) experience:

    • crushes

    • obsession

    • emotional focus on one person

  • But they lack sexual maturity
    → shows infatuation does not require sexual desire

The terms we use to describe our feelings for the people we love tend to fall into three categories/types. What are the types, what are the associated social-behavioral systems and adaptive challenges, and what is the time course of each in the development of a human pair bond?

What are the features and behaviors that ethologists use to determine whether a species is monogamous or promiscuous? And how is our species categorized on each of these features and behaviors? Based on the evidence, what can be concluded about our species?

• Os penis (penis bone): Humans do not have a penile bone

  • Os penis present → promiscuous

    • Quick penetration

    • Little arousal/interaction needed

    • Less bonding

  • No os penis (humans) → monogamous-leaning

    • Requires arousal before sex

    • More interaction → oxytocin release

    • Promotes bonding

• Proportional Size of testes: Humans are ambiguously medium-sized

  • Large testes → promiscuous

    • More sperm production

    • Needed for sperm competition (multiple males)

  • Small testes → monogamous

    • Less sperm needed

    • No competition

  • Humans:

    • Medium-sized testes → ambiguous

    • Suggests mixed mating strategy

• Overt ovulation: Humans have Covert ovulation → bonding → monogamous-leaning / ambigogus

  • Overt ovulation → promiscuous

    • Ovulation is obvious (signals when fertile)

    • Males mate at the “right time” → less need to stay

  • Covert ovulation → monogamous-leaning

    • Ovulation is hidden

    • Males must stay longer / mate repeatedly

    • Promotes bonding

  • Humans:

    • Covert ovulation → bonding → monogamous-leaning

• Sex for fun: Humans have sex for fun

  • Humans have sex when pregnancy is impossible
    - humans have sex in private
    - monogamous

• Sexual dimorphism: Ambiguous

  • Refers to physical differences between males and females of a species

  • In humans:

    • Males are on average larger/heavier and have more muscle mass

    • Females tend to have more fat distribution in hips/chest and different body shape

  • However, the overall difference is moderate (not extreme) compared to highly dimorphic species

  What that means:

  • Large dimorphism → often promiscuous/polygynous systems (high male competition)

  • Very little dimorphism → often monogamous systems

  • Humans fall in between

• Parental Care: paternal care of offspring associated with monogamy
  

• Sep Distress separation distress indicates monogamy

We are a socially monogamous specifiens (pirbdoning)

Definition of intimacy

Intimacy - to make the inner most known - it's an interpersonal process - takes time to develop and requires at least two people

Verbal self-disclosure

• Sharing personal information

• Follows a pattern:

  • Reciprocal (both people share)

  • Gradual

  • Increasingly “risky” (more personal over time)

• Violations (TMI/TLI) can disrupt intimacy

• Requires acceptance and validation

• Bidirectional:

  • Helps build intimacy

  • Also signals intimacy already exists

Kinesics (body language)

Kinesics (body language)

• Posture: open vs. closed/defensive

• Flirting behaviors (fairly universal patterns)

• Easily observable

• Bidirectional (reveals + builds intimacy)

Proxemics (use of space)

Proxemics (use of space)

• Physical distance between people

• Touch:

  • Where, how, how long

• Gender differences may exist

• Includes flirting through closeness

• Bidirectional

Paralinguistics (how something is said)

Paralinguistics (how something is said)

• Tone, pitch, intonation, whispering

• Can signal intimacy even without understanding words

• Example: people can detect intimacy just from tone

• Bidirectional

Settings

• Private > public for intimacy

• Alone > group settings

• Fewer interruptions = more intimacy

• Unspecified ending (no set time limit) = more intimate

• Activities like:

  • Eating, sleeping, being in close space

• Dim lighting increases intimacy

Within relationship science, how is commitment defined? What are the three basic types of commitment, plus additional features of and factors related to relationship commitment?

Commitment: the intention to continue a relationship

Three reasons to continue: three types of commitment

1. I want to (personal commitment)

   • The relationship is positive and rewarding.

2. I ought to (moral commitment)

   • I promised; I have an obligation. It doesn’t seem right to leave

3. I have to (structural commitment)

   • I can’t leave even if I want to, due to legal or societal processes

plus additional features of and factors related to relationship commitment?

Commitment Factors

• Going public with a relationship

• Investing / making sacrifices for the person

• Identifying with the relationship (e.g., using “we” language, sharing gains and losses)

• Making future plans with the person

---

Additional Features / Factors Related to Commitment

• Investment (time, effort, emotional energy, shared resources)

• Comparison level for alternatives (CLAlt):

  • Are there other alternative partners that are more appealing?

• Low CLAlt → stronger commitment

• High investment → stronger commitment

• Willingness to sacrifice → indicator of commitment

• Persistence over time (maintaining the relationship despite challenges)

What are the ABC's of each adult attachment style? In theory, what explains the lasting effects of early bonding experiences?

Three Adult Attachment Styles

• Avoidant

• Ambivalent

• Secure

---

Affect (how does this make me feel?)

• Based on partner’s availability

• You feel anxious and rejected if your partner is not always readily available

---

Behavior (what should I do then?)

• Ambivalent:

  • will be clingy

  • display greater signals of distress

• Avoidant:

  • will distance yourself from your partner in times of stress

  • because you don’t think they’ll be there for you

---

Cognition (can I expect others to be there for me?)

• Can I count on other people?

• No for avoidant and ambivalent

---

Development

• If you had insensitive or inconsistent caregiving, you are more likely to have insecure adult relationships

---

Core Process

• Experiences → expectations → behaviors

• All orchestrated by ANS and HPA conditioning

---

How Expectations Become Problematic

• Expecting rejection:

  • you can behave in a way that will almost ensure another experience of rejection

• Expecting people to be unreliable and unpredictable:

  • you can behave in a way that is unreliable and unpredictable

• You might choose someone to fulfill your expectations

  • choosing someone familiar, but someone who will disappoint

Be familiar with the different theoretical models of mate "choice" (Sexual Strategies Theory, Likes-Attract Hypothesis, Adventitious Model, and the speed-dating studies that compared stated preterences with actual attractions) in terms of their predictions, methods and findings who's around? who's appealing? who's interested? who's the one?

differ primarily in terms of who is judged "most appealing"

Theoretical Models of Mate “Choice”

Focus on:

who’s around? who’s appealing? who’s interested? who’s the one?
They differ primarily in terms of who is judged “most appealing.”

---

Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) Prediction

• If sex differences in parental investment, then sex differences in mating strategies and preferences

Optimal strategies

• Optimal male strategy:

  • many partners

  • focus on fertility criterion

• Optimal female strategy:

  • one (or a few) partners

  • focus on status/resource criterion

Key idea

• Mate choice is based on evolved sex differences

---

“Likes-Attract” Hypothesis (Buston & Emlen, 2003) Prediction

• Adaptive strategy for stable relationships

• People:

  • accurately assess own mate quality

  • decide realistically their own mate quality

  • form a mate preference based on this self-perception

  • choose a mate of similar and equal mate quality

Key idea

• Matching, not trading

• Individuals who strongly possess a trait will want that same trait in a partner

Method

• Participants:

  • rate a potential long-term partner

  • rate themselves on same characteristics

Findings

• People are attracted to others who are high on traits they see in themselves

• Example:

  • female with great looks → wants high-status male

• Leads to stable pairbond if well-matched

---

“Adventitious” Model Prediction

• If mate choice is “lawful choice,” then:

  • it should be based on something about you

• You and your hypothetical clone:

  • would be attracted to the same people

  • would end up with similar mates

Key idea

• Mate choice is shaped by who you are

• Similar individuals → similar choices and outcomes

---

Speed-Dating Studies (important comparison) Prediction

• What people say they want should match who they are attracted to

Method

• Participants state preferences

• Then engage in actual interactions (speed dating)

Findings

• Stated preferences ≠ actual attraction

• Attraction is influenced more by:

  • who’s around

  • who’s interested

• Weak support for strict “preference-based” models

What are the three common characteristics of breakups? What are the common stages in the process?

Three Common Characteristics of Uncoupling

i. a process that unfolds over time (rarely sudden)
ii. typically unilateral (“initiator” vs. “partner”)
iii. potential alternative attachment figure (often already identified)

---

The Process of Uncoupling Stage 1: Private Doubts

• normal fluctuations in personal commitment

• anxiety provoking

• doubts solely in the mind of the “initiator”

---

Stage 2: Indirect Expressions

• doubts are still private

• unhappiness expressed indirectly

Partner’s perspective:

• initiator complaints are about trivial matters

• ignores (no longer monitoring as closely)

Initiator’s perspective:

• partner just doesn’t get it!

---

Stage 3: Turning Outward

• seeking satisfaction externally (e.g., new friends, new hobby, new activity)

• making new friends and engaging in activities that exclude the partner

Note: self-improvement is always good, but…

• reduces couple similarity

• increases propinquity with potential new partners

---

Stage 4: Rewriting History

• the opposite of romantic idealization

• they start to rethink the relationship

---

Stage 5: Public Expression

• usually starts with telling another person

• disrespecting the partner in public

• making a public display of dissatisfaction

• once public, people follow up → you commit to the change

• often the turning point of no return

---

Stage 6: Exploring Single Life

• spending more time with single friends

• heightened interest in breakup accounts

• excuses for not wearing the ring

• reluctance to make future plans

---

Stage 7: Taking Action

• not direct, but somewhat suspicious

• aimed at provoking partner to break up

• plans for partner’s care post-breakup

• partner is finally aware

---

Stage 8: “Trying”

• Partner’s goal: repair the relationship

• Initiator’s goal: convince partner the relationship cannot be repaired

---

Stage 9: Separating

• initiator is determined to end the relationship

• but gives partner false hopes

  • “I just need a break”

  • “I just need some space”

  • “I just need a little time to think”

Know Gottman's so-called "four horsemen of the apocalypse," why they are so important, effective ways of avoiding them, and the method and findings from Markman's intervention program.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” – Conflict Resolution 1. Global Criticism

• e.g., partner comes back late without food

• you say: “this is just like you”

• comes to the conclusion that partner is selfish and wasn’t thinking about them

• you impugn their character

---

2. Defensiveness

• if you impugn a person’s character, they will defend themselves

• e.g., “wait, I’m the selfish one?”

• partner then comments about your own selfish behavior

---

3. Contempt

• a tipping point

• conflict escalates to disrespect and disgust

• expressed through:

  • body language

  • facial expressions

  • verbal comments

---

4. Stonewalling (Gender differences)

• one person gets so upset that their face becomes like a stonewall

• in hetero couples:

  • typically the male becomes more negatively aroused

  • wants to stop engaging in the conflict

• partner may persist in discussing, which increases separation

---

Why are these four important?

• Global Criticism = opposite of idealization

  • focus on negative qualities instead of positive

• Defensiveness = opposite of intimacy

  • instead of coming close, you defend yourself

• Contempt = opposite of attraction

  • leads to turning away and distancing

• Stonewalling = opposite of commitment

  • “I am out of this”

  • partner feels like they can’t be heard

---

Avoiding the Four Horsemen

• Validation: acknowledging partner has the right to be upset

• Affection: showing you don’t want to argue, diffusing anger

• Humor: interrupt conflict with a humorous memory

---

Markman’s Intervention Program

• Method:

  • one group = control (info like mortgage, prenup)

  • one group = training on avoiding the four horsemen

• Findings:

  • divorce reduced by 50%

What was the method and results that led to Fincham's conclusions about the "magical" ratio of positive to negative interpersonal interactions?

Fincham’s Research: “Magical” Ratio Method

• Emphasis on positive (vs. negative) interactions

• After each interaction, participants asked:

  “after this interaction with partner, did I feel better or worse?”

• Every time you have an interaction, you make a note of whether you feel good or bad after the interaction

---

Results / Findings

• It is not enough for positive and negative interactions to be equal

• It takes many more positive interactions than negative ones to maintain a good relationship

• “Magical” 5:1 ratio:

  • for every 1 negative interaction, you need 5 positive interactions

• 10:1 is preferable

  • one negative interaction balanced by 10 positive interactions

• Positive interactions (e.g., sex if it is good) help restore relationship satisfaction

---

Key Conclusion

• Relationships require a strong positive imbalance (more good than bad)

• Equal balance is not sufficient

---

Take-away

With mates, continue to be nice

• If you want the relationship to continue, make sure partners feel good much more often than bad

When are relationships most likely to end, and for what reasons?

The “When” of Breakups ~2 years (+/– 6 months)

• Infatuation-related

• When infatuation wanes

• Partners have gotten used to each other

• No longer excited to be around the partner

• Begin to see partner more realistically

• May feel they are no longer “in love”

---

~4 years

• Divorce peak at 4 years (most likely point)

• Modal divorce (reproductive cycle-related?)

• Uncoupling takes time → by ~4 years:

  • may have produced one viable offspring

---

~7 years

• Median divorce

  • half of all marriages that will end in divorce do so by this point

• Significant number of couples divorced by 7 years

• “Early divorcers”

  • break up earlier

  • negative cycle of conflict resolution

  • relationship becomes so negative they have to leave

---

~14 years

• Often offspring-related

• “Late divorcers”

  • break up later

  • due to imbalance of positive to negative interactions

---

Seasonal Pattern

• Breakups more likely in:

  • May

  • September

  • December

• Academic-term-related

What are the correlates of infidelity? What are two common types of infidelity that are not due to relationship dissatisfaction?

Correlates of Infidelity Social norms

• more likely if family or friends do it

• societal variation in morality (is it wrong?)

  • but not in whether or how much it hurts

• rules stricter and punishment harsher for women

---

Evolutionary perspective (Sexual Strategies Theory)

• men more likely overall (and they are)

• when women do:

  • more likely in follicular phase of menstrual cycle (when more likely to become pregnant)

• more likely if partner has similar MHC

• tend to “cheat up”

  • higher status/resources

  • better gene/sperm quality

---

Individual differences

• narcissism

• insecure attachment

• got away with it before

• more previous sex partners

• high sociosexuality
  → all increase probability

---

Relationship factors

• mate similarity (especially important values), intimacy, and commitment
  → decrease probability

---

Two Common Types of Infidelity NOT due to relationship dissatisfaction 1. Initiator unhappiness

• e.g., personal loss

• recall “cocaine phase” of infatuation

• may be a preceding factor and real cause of divorce

---

2. Unexpected, tempting opportunity

• recall contextual attraction factors

• occurs when a person is in a situation where they are tempted

13. Be familiar with the current perspective on jealousy, and how "autonomy-limiting" behaviors by a partner could be a warning sign of potential violence.

Current Perspective on Jealousy

• Jealousy is neither gender- nor age- nor mating-specific

• Rather, it is a psychological mechanism related to human bonding more generally

Key points:

1. A normal counterpart to human bonding

2. Jealousy is an indication of care for the other

3. A tendency to think the relationship is in danger if a partner/AF is giving attention to someone else

4. There are expressions of jealousy that are problematic

5. Can become a problematic extreme of human bonding

---

Jealousy and Potential Violence (Autonomy-Limiting Behaviors)

These behaviors are warning signs and are associated with a higher percentage of serious violence:

1. “He’s jealous and doesn’t want you to talk to men”

2. Limits contact with family

3. Insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times

4. Calls you names to put you down or make you feel bad

5. Prevents access to family income, even if you ask

---

Key Idea

Jealousy can reflect care and bonding, but when it becomes controlling or autonomy-limiting, it becomes problematic and may signal risk for serious violence

What are three empirically-established ways to prevent or at least reduce normative decline in relationship satisfaction?

Three Ways to Prevent/Reduce Decline in Relationship Satisfaction 1. Pursue physiologically arousing activities together (Aron et al., 2000)

• Engage in exciting, novel, or arousing activities together

• Helps maintain excitement and attraction in the relationship

---

2. Idealize the real vs. realizing the ideal (Murray et al., 2011)

• Appreciate the reality and the qualities your partner brings

• Rather than comparing them to an “ideal” partner

• Focus on what is good about your actual partner

---

3. Take a (well-wishing) outsider’s perspective on conflicts (Finkel et al., 2013)

• View conflicts from a third-person, well-wishing perspective

• Helps reduce hostility and escalation

• Promotes more constructive conflict resolution

In general, how is loneliness defined? And what are its correlates?

Definition of Loneliness

• A feeling of social pain due to lack of social connections

• A natural signal, like hunger (“cradle to grave”)

• A fundamental need

• Signals that you are missing a person who knows, understands, and accepts you

---

How Loneliness is Measured (and NOT measured)

• Based on the quality of social connections, NOT the number

---

Types of Loneliness

• Acute:

  • do not have current access to people who fulfill your social needs

• Chronic:

  • over an extended period of time, do not have anyone you feel knows and supports you

---

Correlates of Loneliness Stress

• Loneliness itself is stressful

• Both psychologically and physiologically

• Same events feel more stressful to lonely individuals (e.g., job loss, personal loss)

---

Social Support

• Lonely people less often seek support

• When they do seek support, they feel less comfort

---

Health Outcomes

• Impairs the immune system (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2010)

• Increased risk for:

  • cardiovascular disease

  • dementia

  • anxiety

  • sleep disorders

  • premature death (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010)

Be familiar with the similarities between social and physical pain (e.g., viewing photos of exes, taking acetaminophen), the connections between physical health and social loss (i.e., tako-tsubo), and the effect size of interpersonal connection compared to diet, exercise or smoking.

Similarities Between Social and Physical Pain

• Kross et al. (2011):

  • Pain from a hot pad and from viewing photos of an ex activates similar brain regions

• “A picture’s worth” (Master et al., 2009):

  • Based on hand-holding studies (Coan et al., 2013, 2017)

  • Holding a partner’s hand during pain attenuates pain

  • Even a photograph of the partner reduces pain perception

• Pain of hurt feelings (DeWall et al., 2010):

  • Method: acetaminophen vs. placebo + diary reports of hurt feelings

  • Finding: pain medication reduces social pain

---

Physical Health and Social Loss

• Tako-tsubo (broken heart syndrome):

  • Intense feelings can cause the left ventricle to change shape

  • Resembles a Japanese octopus trap (tako-tsubo)

  • Can lead to a potentially fatal condition

---

Effect Size of Interpersonal Connection

• The effect of interpersonal connection on health is:

  equal to or greater than diet, exercise, or smoking

---

Key Metaphor (“Cut Man”)

• A “cut man” = someone who:

  • wipes your brow

  • treats wounds

  • gives encouragement

• Represents attachment

• The world can beat you down, but if you have someone like this, they soothe and repair you