love and attraction

what is love

requires the red factors:

a cultural determinant (has to be accepted in culture), an appropriate love object, emotional arousal labelled as love

sternbergs triangular theory of love

1. intimacy (closeness)

2. passion (physical attraction, desire/sexual)

3. commitment (loyal, decision to stay in relationship)

if you don’t have these components then u lack love in relationship

sternbergs types of love

1. liking

2. companionate love

3. empty love

4. fatuous love

5. infatuation

6. romantic love l

7. consummate love

NOT STATIC developed

liking

intimacy, no deep commitment or passion eg classmate

infatuation

just passion no commitment or liking, just physical eg hookups

empty love

only commitment but no liking or passion eg lost feelings in long term relationship and just stay for commitment or an arranged marriage

romantic love

passion + intimacy, no commitment yet eg talking stage

companionate love

intimacy + commitment but no passion eg old couples, no more physical attraction or friends and family

fatuous love

passion and commitment but no liking eg they get married quickly but don’t know if they really know or love each other

consummate love

intimacy + passion + commitment, perfect love eg me and henry 🫣

evolutionary approaches

adaptive and successful reproductive outcomes

fundamental needs for love

love satisfies need to belong

instrumental learning

love is pleasurable, rewarding and reinforcing

evaluative learning love

love is psychologically associated with positive emotions and experiences

self expansion theory of love

humans have a fundamental need to expand and grow and love can satisfy this. OVERLAP WITH PARTNER (circle graph)

• psychological expansion eg new identity

• social expansion eg friends

• material growth eg money

• experiment growth eg experiences

attraction

1. propinquity- we like people close to us, more exposure (mere exposure?) what about online relationships??? eg me and henry met at school

2. similarity - we think they are similar to us increases attraction. IF we seek differences they have to be complimentary differences eg henry likes pickles i don’t

3. reciprocity - attracted to people who we learn are attracted to us. what about liking someone playing hard to get? (is easy less reciprocity but selective then more)

assertive mating

non random coupling of individuals based on resemblance to each other on a range of henry and social dimensions

unrequited love and why?

one expresses love for someone who doesn’t reciprocate

• incompatible - no similarity

• unattracive

physical attractiveness

tend to be attracted to people who are more physically attractive than us eg HALO Effect

physical attractiveness and love at first sight STUDY Zsok

Ps exposed to potential dates - photos or real people

live at first sight Ps associated with greater intimacy, commitment and passion perceived.

MOST strongly predicted by physical attractiveness

the matching hypothesis

people most likely to form relationships with those who are around equally attractive to themself

what makes someone physically attractive?

• symmetry (genetic quality)

• hourglass (fertility)

• V shaped men (dominance and health)

this is not all and this doesn’t account for variations

evolutionary perspective men and women

women:

• reproduction is costly, restricted number of offspring, maternal certainty

• care about personality and resources, more selective

men:

• reproduction is easy, little consequence and maximise offspring, paternal uncertainty

• care about attractiveness and youth, no pressure to be choose, desire many

the sexual offers study (evolutionary)

• men and women approached by attractive confederate

• asked either

1. would you go out with me tonight?

2. would you come over to my apartment tonight?

3. would you go to bed with me tonight it?

• women said yes to date but not much to apartment and bed

• men said yes to all

explanation for sexual offers study

• danger for women

• when request for sex is made in safer environment then difference disappears

• sexual pleasure - women orgasm gap

• sex stigma - negatively judged (men praised for sex women aren’t)

• jealousy and infidelity

infidelity

emotional infidelity - deep emotional connection to someone outside relationship

sexual infidelity- sex with someone outside relationship

jealousy and infidelity women and men

women: more jealous over emotional infidelity (men who emotionally cheat less likely to stay in relationship) threatens sense of self

men: experience more jealousy over sexual infidelity (women may give birth to another man’s baby) less masculine?

partner ideals three dimensions

1. warmth trustworthiness

2. vitality attractiveness

3. status resources

may prioritise one over other but all important

social exchange theory and relationships

relationships can be rewarding or costly and weight up the pros and cons to stay or leave.

minimax strategy

we motivated to maximise benefits and minuses costs in relationships

comparison level social exchange theory

a standard that develops over time which represents the minimum profits we feel should be in relationship

equity theory

fairness of relationship based on what partner and me put in + what we get out of it

equitable relationships

both partners get as much out relationships as they put in - relationship satisfaction

inequitable relationships

either partner perceives mismatch in what they put in and get out - dissatisfaction

you out too much - anger and resentment

you get too much - shame and guilt

commitment factors

personal dedication, moral commitment, constraint commitment

personal dedication

personal dedication: commitment due to attraction or attachment to partner

moral commitment

moral commitment: sense of obligation, religious duty or social responsibility

constraint commitment

commitment due to high cost of leaving eg children

self expansion theory

relationships can dissolve if people feel their individual growth has stifled - new relationship to grow

self expansion theory activities

couples who participant in self expanding activities have better relationships.

• mundane task vs novel eg learning to dance or ski compared to doing dishes

domestic partners for success

equitable division of labor improves relationships

companions and friends for success

need to be friends - intimacy and commitment is important, trivial self disclosure

social penetration theory

relationships from trivial → intimate → self disclosures

social support network success

relationship partners need to be backed by a social support network eg showing off to friends and family

• greater perceived support better relationships

lovers relationship success

relationship partners need to be lovers

• sexual satisfactions predicts relationship satisfaction/commitment

• frequent sex

• sexual communication

sex and relationship is it always important?

no isn’t only way to show affection eg kissing and cuddling and asexual couples

relationship dissolution 4 responses

four responses:

1. loyalty - passive + constructive

2. neglect - passive + destructive

3. voice behaviour - constructive +active

4. exit behaviour - active + destructive

relationship dissolution model stages

1. intrapsychic phase - negative thoughts, alone

2. dyadic phase - engagement to discuss relationship issues, negation with partner CAN REPAIR

3. social phase - negotiate post break up arrangements and tell others

4. grave dressing phase - end and psychologically move on

rainbow relationships

very similar than different it cis relationships. BUT face additional minority stress eg stigma that can affect relationships

stigma and gay relationships

internalise stigma and have trouble accepting identity - want to conceal relationship

bouncing back from stigma gay relationships

• identity affirmation- embrace LGBTQ identity

• reframe stress

benefits of gay relationships

• more emotional intimacy

• better communication

• greater egalitarianism