Relationships and attraction (6)

Interpersonal relationships

a relationship w someone else cuz of association to your friends/ family

• difficult to study because we choose our relationships

Harlows monkeys

• monkeys had access either to a cloth monkey mo w no food (simulates a real mom) or a wire monkey (clearly fake) with a milk bottle

• monkeys tended to stick to the cloth monkey

• challenges the thought that babies love their moms just cuz they feed them, shows that we also need social connection and contact

Elephant experiement

• natural observation

• Elephants raised without proper socialization

• tended to be more aggressive cuz no mom elephant to teach them

• shows the significant of socialization

feral children

• feral children are those that grew with limited social contact

• cant speak well, walk late, struggle w relationships

• again shows the importance of socialization

importance of relationships

• stress reduction

  • particularly affiliate w those facing a similar threat

• cognitive clarity

  • gain info

  • others are a good source of what were gonna face

  • can claify our own thinking

chronic shyness

risk for lonliness, a feeling of isolation, and social deprivation

criteria for basic needs

• evolutionary basis

• universal

• guides social cognition

• satiable

• severe consequences if unfulfilled

consequences of social rejection

• some animals who are socially rejected have a shorter lifespan

• in humans higher social isolation reported higher pain

• feelings of shame and distress

• social rejection can reduce ability to regulate behaivior

social exchange theory

we evaluate relationships based on costs and benefits

• comparison level: our standard for wht we expect in a relationship

• comparison level for alternatives: Whether we think we could find better elsewhere

equity theory

relationships feel best when the rwards and costs are balanced

• exchange relationships: Short term; keeping track

• Communal relationships: More long term/ close relationships; give without immediate expectation of return, simply caring for the partners needs atm.

john bowlby

• attachment theory

  • early bonds w our caregivers shape how we approach relationships later in life

  • evolution wired us to attach to caregivers for survival

• stages of attachements

  • preattachement (0-6w): no particular attachment

  • indiscriminate (6w-7mo): prefrance shown to primary caregives (parents)

  • discriminate(7+mo): strong attachment to one caregiver

  • mutiple (10+mo): bonds w other caregivers

strange situation experiment

infants reaction is observed after the mother leaves the child in a room w stranger then returns

secure attachment

• feels secure in relationships

• comftrable with intimacy

• wants to be close w others in times of stress

anxious insecure attachment

• insecure in relationships

• compulsively seeking closeness but always worrying about the relationship

• during stress, excessivly try to get close to others

• more likely to have substance use problems and eds

avoidant insecure attachment

• insecure in relationships

• needs to be fully self reliant

• prefers distance from others

• becomes detached and dismissive during stress

disorganized attachement

• incosistent and unpredictable behaviour in regards to relationships

• fearful/confused responses to closeness\

• difficulty trusting others

• follow approach avoidance behavior

  • seeking closeness then withdrawing

• difficulty trusting others

• often linked to trauma or neglect in early life

attachment effects

• most to least likely to have a breakup

  • avoidant-anxious-secure

• secure least likely to have marital problems

• anxious has more fear and sadness during temporary seperations

• avoidant attachment seeks less physical contact from partners

• avoidant and anxious BAD pair

proximity effects

more likely to like people were geographically closer to (duh??)

mere exposure

repeated exposure without negative consequence makes the stimulus more pleasant

• signlas that the stimulus is safe and non-threatening

  • rats raised on music1 prefered it over rats raised on music2

• easier to process info abt familiar stimuli, easier processing=pleasant

similarity

• tend to be more similar/ have similar beliefs to ur partner

• finding somone similar to u who agrees w ur takes gives u validation

• interacting w people more alike is less conflict, easier, again easy=pleasant

• dissimilarity can increase dislike

false consensus bias

assuming most people see things the way we do, dissimilarity (or disagreement, simply) violates this assumtion and can make us unconftrable

complimentarity

traits that complememht each other can be opposites

• ex sub/dom

• ex status exchange hypothesis (rich man being w attractive woman), each has smth to give (but in different areas)

pratfall effect

• highly perfect person making (small) mistakes makes them more likeable

  • a mistake as an average person hurts u tho

• we like competent people until their competence surpasses mine in MY field, then ill feel inadequate by comparison and thus their attractiveness will be diminished

reciprocal liking

we like ppl who like us,

• self esteem plays a role tho

• ex low self esteem will underestimate how much people like them

physical attractiveness

pretty privilage

• immediacy

  • ie looks is the first thing we notice when meeting people

  • affects our “gut reaction”

• prestige

  • pretty is socially valued ie higher social status

• halo effect

halo effect

people who are more physically attractive are often assumed to have other poritive traits

matching phenomenon

tendency to choose a good match in attractiveness and other traits

potential partener desiarability = pretty X partner prob of accepting u

evolutionary look on beauty

less abnormal looking is more attractive (more average)

choice

too much choive can make ppl less happy w what they do choose

also decision paralysis

praise

if we think the praise is genuine well like them more

if we think its not, we like them less

gain loss theory

Changing opinions affect us more:

• Someone growing to like us is more rewarding than someone who liked us from the start.

• Losing someone's affection hurts more than being disliked all along.

reward theory of attraction

The idea that we are attracted to others who reward us, who we find rewarding, and who we associate with reward

misattribution of arousal

The process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do

love

A combination of emotions, cognitions, and behaviours that often plays a critical role in intimate relationships

• companionate:friends and family

• compassionate: parents and spouses

• romantic: duh

like vs love

intertwined w time

sternbergs triamgular model of love

three components:

• intimacy

• passion

• commitment

like a three way venn diagra, types of love by the overlap.

leads to 7 types of love

• Liking

  • Intimacy without passion or commitment

• Infatuation

  • Passion as the only element

• Empty Love

  • Commitment without intimacy or passion

• Romantic Love

  • Intimacy and passion

• Companionate Love

  • Intimacy and commitment

• Fatuous Love

  • Passion and commitment without intimacy

• Consummate Love

  • Intimacy, passion, and commitment

theory of social penetration

• Relationships deepen through self-disclosure.

• Gradual sharing of personal information increases intimacy

porcupines dilemma

We crave intimacy but fear vulnerability and rejection.

• we want to be intimate without revealing our secrets so i cant get hurt

authenticity

The freedom to share your true feelings and beliefs (even negative ones) with your partner

men and love

• fall in love more quickly

• more likely to endorse romantic beliefs

• less minimal parental investment therefore less selective

• select mates in part based on fertility

women and love

• companionate love more important than romantic passionate kinds of love

• exponentially greater minimal parental investment

• select mates in part based in their ability to provide resources to potential offspring

developing intimacy

• Knowledge: Deep understanding of each other. (self disclosure)

• Caring: Support and affection.

• Mutuality: "Us" mentality.

• Trust: Faith in partner's care.

• Interdependence: Needing and influencing each other.

• Commitment: Intention to stay.

Four horsemen of divorce

• criticism: overly critical of partner

• defensiveness: Refusing to accept responsibility

• stonewalling: withdrawal, refusing to emotionally interact

• contempt: especially predictiv ewhe the contempt is from women at men

baxter 1982

four ways to break up essentially

• Withdrawal/avoidance

  • Pulling away from the partner gradually.Hoping the partner will get the hint and initiate the breakup themselves.

• Positive tone

  • Ending the relationship while trying to spare the partner's feelings.

• Manipulative strategies

  • Ending the relationship indirectly, often involving a third party or trickery.

• Open confrontation

  • Being direct, honest, and upfront about wanting to end the relationship.

Rusbult 1986/7

two sub dimesions: constructive/destructive and passive/active

4 ways of coping

• loyalty (P,C): Waiting and hoping the situation will improve without taking direct action.

• neglect (P,D): Ignoring the partner or relationship; letting it deteriorate.

• voice (A,C): Actively trying to improve the relationship by discussing problems and seeking solutions.

• exit (A,D): Ending the relationship; leaving the partner.

Adaptive communication

• straight talk and benefit of the doubt (situational/dispositional attributions)

• immediate feedback

• feeling vs judgement

  • express feelings rather than judgments.