Psy 102 Relationships & Attraction

challenges of studying relationships

not truly random: no random assignment because of self-selection (people choose their relationships) so researchers use longitudinal methods

the need to belong is…

universal: all cultures have similar types of social relationships and dynamics

• parental caregiving, sibling play, flirtation among romantic partners, grieving loss

evidence for the need to belong

Harlow monkey experiments: they prefer cloth mother

developmental delays in children raised in Romanian orphanages

being isolated from others is bad for mental/physical health, having support contributes to good health/improved cardiovascular and immune systems

communal relationships

relationships in which the individuals feel a special responsibility for one another and give and receive according to the principle of need; such relationships are often long term

exchange relationships

relationships in which individuals feel little responsibility toward one another; giving and receiving are governed by concerns about equity and reciprocity; such relationships are usually short term

interpersonal relationships are governed based on…

rewards

social exchange theory

how people feel about a relationship depends on their assessments of its costs and rewards, and people rely on two main standards to evaluate rewards and costs: comparison level and comparison level for alternatives

comparison level

expectations about what people think they deserve or expect to get out of a relationship

comparison level for alternatives

expectations about what people think they can get out of alternative relationships

equity theory

people are motivated to pursue fairness, or equity, in their relationships; a relationship is considered equitable when the benefits are proportionate to the effort both people put into it

attachment theory

the idea that early attachments with parents and other caregivers shape relationships for a person’s entire life

initial work done by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth

Ainsworth: Strange Situation

the child is exposed to several different episodes, including two separations and reunions with the caregiver and interactions with a stranger when alone and when the caregiver is in the room

four types of attachment

secure, ambivalent (resistant), avoidant, disorganized-disoriented

secure attachment

a pattern of attachment in which an infant or child has a high-quality, relatively unambivalent relationship with their attachment figure

• Strange Situation: child is upset when the caregiver leaves but is happy when they return, recovering quickly from any distress; use caregivers as a secure base for exploration

• ~60-65% of American middle class children are securely attached

ambivalent (resistant) attachment

infants or young children are clingy and stay close to their caregiver rather than explore environment

• Strange Situation: infants become very upset when caregiver leaves, not readily comforted by strangers, when the caregiver returns, they are not easily comforted and both seek and resist efforts by the caregiver to comfort them

• ~10-15% of American middle class children

avoidant attachment

infants or young children seem somewhat indifferent toward their caregiver and may even avoid the caregiver

• Strange Situation: children seem indifferent toward their caregiver before the caregiver leaves the room and are indifferent or avoidant when the caregiver returns; if they become upset when left alone, they are just as easily comforted by a stranger as by the caregiver

• ~15-20% of American middle class children

disorganized-disoriented attachment

a small percentage of children did not fit into the other three categories

infants in this category have no consistent way of coping with the stress of the Strange Situation

• their behavior is confused or even contradictory, and they often appear dazed or disoriented

adult attachment relationships have _____, not styles/categories

dimensions

anxiety dimension

a facet of attachment that captures the degree to which a person is worried about rejection and abandonment by relationship partners

avoidance dimension

a facet of attachment that captures the degree to which a person is comfortable with intimacy and dependence on relationship partners

proximity

the physical closeness between two individuals

closer proximity is associated with more friendships and romantic relationships

effects on proximity are based more on _________ than physical distance

functional distance

functional distance

the influence of a layout of a physical space that encourages or inhibits contact between people

how people encounter and interact with each other is more important than just living near another person

functional distance: student housing

residents near stairwells formed twice as many friendships with upstairs neighbors as those living in the middle apartments

people who lived next door to one another were four times more likely to become friends than people at opposite ends of the hallway

mere exposure effect

repeated exposure to a stimulus, such as an object or a person, leads to greater liking of the stimulus

• found for foreign words, foreign symbols, yearbook photos, letters of the alphabet

• we prefer the mirror images of our faces, but our friends prefer the true image

• true for paintings, photographs, geometric shapes, words, etc.

caveats to the mere exposure effect

exposure, up to a point, leads to increased liking

up to 35 presentations of the stimulus tended to increase liking, after continued presentations, liking starts to decrease

doesn’t work with stimuli we initially dislike, or auditory stimuli (in humans)

similarity

we tend to like other people who are similar to ourselves

some characteristics, like core political values, have more of an impact than food/music

why does similarity matter

validation (affirming each individual’s values and attitudes), feel more certain about being liked, enables more rewarding interactions

do opposites attract?

no

physical attractiveness

important role in interpersonal attraction

certain features are deemed attractive by most people, but there is considerable variability in what individuals find attractive and in how cultures define physical beauty

happy couples tend to perceive each other as physically attractive even if other people don’t see them that way

benefits of physical attractiveness

attractive individuals are much more popular as friends and potential romantic partners, they have higher salaries, are rated more favorably in their writing, and receive lighter sentences from judges when convicted of crimes

halo effect

the common belief (accurate or not) that attractive individuals possess a host of positive qualities beyond their physical appearance

they are assumed to be more successful, likeable, intelligent, happier, etc. (traits that are not associated with attractiveness — like intelligence)

love is organized into three categories

compassionate, companionate, romantic (passionate)

compassionate love

characterized by bonds that focus on monitoring and responding to another person’s needs (parent looking out for their child’s well-being, spouse putting partner’s need above their own)

companionate love

the love we typically experience with friends and family members — the people we trust, share activities and interests with, and like to be around

romantic (passionate) love

when we say we’re “in love” with someone, often associated with intense emotion and sexual desire

intimacy

feeling close and connected

romantic love timeline

early: partners often experience powerful, at times all-consuming feelings of passion/sexual arousal for each other

time spent together increases: early passion fades and a sense of intimacy becomes more prominent

couples derive increased comfort and security from the sense of being close and knowing each other better

with deepening intimacy, romantic partners increasingly include their partner’s perspectives, experiences, and characteristics into their own self-concept

including partner into own self-concept research study

married couples rated 90 trait adjectives twice, once for how well it describes themselves and once for how well it describes their spouse

participants then viewed each trait on a computer screen and indicated as quickly as possible whether the trait was “like me” or “not like me”

participants were faster to identify traits on which they were similar to their spouse and slower to ascribe traits to themselves that their partner didn’t also possess

trends in romantic relationships

~40-50% of first marriages in the US end in separation or divorce (this percentage has been declining in the last few decades)

• marriages are less satisfying today than they were 30 years ago

happy marriages increase well-being to a greater extent than before; the link between unhappy marriages and poorer psychological well-being is also becoming stronger

certain personality characteristics associated with less happy romantic relationships and higher likelihoods of divorce

people with neurotic personality traits (anxious, tense, emotionally volatile), people with low self-esteem, and people who are highly sensitive to rejection

certain demographic factors associated with more difficulties in romantic relationships

marrying at a younger age, undergoing financial stress, lower socioeconomic status (SES) — could be due to prioritizing self-protection (withholding trust)

attributional tendencies are also related to relationship satisfaction

dissatisfied couples make attributions that cast their partner in a negative light

four horsemen of the apocalypse

termed by John Gottman

criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, contempt

criticism (4 horsemen)

being overly critical toward partner

defensiveness (4 horsemen)

refusing to accept responsibility for conflicts

stonewalling (4 horsemen)

withdrawal from partner, refused to interact emotionally

contempt (4 horsemen)

looking down on one’s partner; especially predictive of the relationship ending when contempt from women is directed at men

Gottman’s study of conflict in relationships

researchers filmed couples engaging in a 15-minute “conflict discussion” conversation in the lab about a topic that they both agreed was a source of conflict in their relationship, and tried to reach a resolution

Gottman and colleagues coded the interactions for emotions and communication patterns such as anger, sadness, fear, enthusiasm, and the 4 horsemen

findings indicated that contempt was particularly toxic to maintaining romantic bonds — couples who eventually divorced expressed twice as much contempt as couples who stayed together

magic ratio

John Gottman

in happy couples, 5 to 1 ratio: 5 positive interactions to offset each negative interaction

some positive interactions: being interested in why they are upset (ask questions), express affection, demonstrate they matter — do small things often to show your emotion

capitalization (capitalizing on the good)

Shelly Gable

it’s important to share what’s good in your life with your partner and to engage with the other’s good news

individuals reported greater relationship satisfaction if they tended to receive active, constructive capitalization from their significant others

capitalization: when partners respond to good news with engaged enthusiasm —asking questions about an important event, etc. (yes and)

relationship-promoting behaviors

being playful: courtship and early phases often involve unusual levels of fun, but later stages (especially when children get involved) are focused on inherently less enjoyable activities; playful feelings can transfer to the relationship and can lead to shared laughter → foster perceptions of similarity

finding the good in partners: people who idealized their partners (rated the partners as higher on positive traits than themselves) reported higher satisfaction with the relationship, often more likely to find virtue in what our partners see as their faults

how to create healthy, long-lasting romantic relationships

minimize four horsemen, view partner’s positive behaviors as being due to enduring characteristics and their negative actions as temporary, be aware of how various personality and demographic variables might affect the relationship