Foundations of Psychology I Lecture 7 – Interpersonal relationships 

OBEJCTIVES: 

  • Understand what affiliation means 

  • Think about different types of interpersonal relationships  

  • Have an overview of different theories of relationships  

  • Learn more about cultural differences in relationships and relationship types. 

Understanding Relationships 

  • Definition: A relationship is integral to the human condition; encapsulating our existence from birth to death. 

  • Impact of Relationships: Absence of meaningful relationships can lead to feelings of loneliness, worthlessness, hopelessness, helplessness, and alienation. 

  • Ellen Berscheid (1999): Emphasized that relationships influence the fabric of human life: we are born, live, and die within interpersonal contexts, which echoes in the lives of those we leave behind. 

Types of Relationships 

  • Various Relationship Types Exist 

  • Example: Marriage: Found universally; can be: 

  • Voluntary or Arranged 

  • Monogamous or Polygamous 

  • Same-sex, Opposite-sex, Non-binary marriages recognized across cultures (Fletcher, 2002) 

Affiliation- The need for others  

  • Definition: basic human need for companionship. 

  • Conditioning: More pronounced under specific conditions (Schachter, 1959) - affiliation anxiety experiments highlighted this need. 

  • Role of Companionship: Companionship is critical for emotional and psychological well-being. 

How do we learn to love – attachments 

  • The Concept of Love: Represents attachment; requires early attachments from caregivers that shape individual expectations in later relationships. 

  • Attachment Styles: The expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationship they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hartup & Laursen, 1999; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; 2005). 

Internal Working Model (Bowlby, 1969) 

  • Definition: The particular attachment style we learn as infants and young children becomes our working model or schema for what relationships are like. 

  • Details: Comprises cognitive structures that influence perceptions of self, others, and relationships overall. 

Adult Attachment Interview 

  • Purpose: interview people on the recollections of their own childhood using 20 open-ended questions 

  • Sample Questions Include: 

  • Describe your relationship with your parents. 

  • List 5 adjectives that reflect your relationship with your mother. 

  • What's the first time you remember being separated from your parents?  

  • Did you ever feel rejected?  

  • Did you experience the loss of someone close to you?  

  • How do you think your experience affected your adult personality? 

Limitations of Attachment Theory  

*Attachment theory does not mean that if people had unhappy relationships with their parents, they are doomed to repeat this same kind of unhappy relationship with everyone they ever meet 

Stages of Adult Attachment (Zeifman & Hazan, 2000) 

  • Stages: 

  • Preattachment Phase: Birth - 6 weeks 

  • Indiscriminate Attachment Phase: 2 - 6 months 

  • Discriminate Attachment Phase: starting from 7 or 8 months 

  • Reciprocal Relationship Formation: 18 months onwards 

Adult equivalents: attraction → flirting → falling in love → loving/long-term. 

MCQ tip: 

  • Hazan & Shaver = adult attachment 

  • Bowlby = IWM 

  • Zeifman & Hazan = developmental stages linking infant & adult attachment. 

HOW DO RELATIONSHIPS START? 

Attraction is an important starting point 

  1. Proximity (Propinquity) 

  1. Exposure/Familiarity 

  1. Similarity 

  1. Physical Attractiveness 

 

1. Proximity (Propinquity) 

  • Propinquity effect – the finding that the more we see and interact with people, the mor eikely they are to become our friends 

Classic study: Festinger, Schachter & Back (1950) 

  • MIT housing study. 

  • 65% of friendships lived in same building. 

  • Next-door neighbours: 41% close friends. 

  • Two doors apart: 22% 

  • Opposite ends of hall: 10% 

MCQ tip: 

Propinquity = physical closeness increases liking. 

 

Digital propinquity 

Chan & Cheng (2004) 

  • Online friendships initially lower quality than offline. 

  • After >1 year, online = offline. 

 

2. Exposure & Familiarity 

Exposure effect: 
 The more exposure we have to something, the more we like it. 

MCQ tip: 

Exposure → increased liking, even without interaction. 

 

3. Similarity 

People tend to like those similar to themselves. 

  • The More Similar opinions are to yours, the more you like the person (Newcomb, 1961) 

  • Similar interpersonal style and communication skills (Burleson & Samter, 1996) 

  • Similar interests/experiences 

Why is similarity so important in attraction? 

  1. We tend to think that people who are similar to us will also like us, so we are likely to initiate a relationship. 

  1. People similar to us Validates our characteristics and beliefs 

  1. We make negative inferences about someone who disagrees with us on important issues. 

self-fulfilling prophecy and reciprocal liking: When we expect people to like us, we elicit more favorable behavior from them and show more to them. 

 

4. Physical Attractiveness 

“What is beautiful is good” stereotype 

(Dion et al., 1972; Moore et al., 1987) 

Attractive people are assumed to be: 

  • Kinder 

  • Warmer 

  • More sociable 

  • More sexually responsive 

This stereotype appears as early as 6 years old (Dion & Dion, 1995). 

Self-fulfilling nature of ‘attractiveness’ (Snyder, Tanke & Berscheid, 1977) 

  • People rated as attractive → treated warmly → behave warmly. 

  • Same effect for men and women. 

 

Evolutionary psychology: facial & body cues 

Facial symmetry 

  • Features Closer to average, arithmetic mean = more attractive. 

  • Babies <1 year prefer attractive faces (Langlois, 1987). 

Waist–hip ratio (WHR) — female attractiveness 

  • Optimal = 0.7 

  • Not universal across cultures. 

  • Singh (1993) → WHR preference. 

Matching hypothesis 

  • People pair with similarly attractive partners. 

 

Same-sex attraction research 

  • Historically heteronormative bias. 

  • Shaver et al. 1996: attachment applies to LGBTQ+ relationships. 

  • Diamond (2006): attraction to the person, not gender. 

  • Golombok (2008): Same-sex parents = equal parenting quality. 

 

5. TYPES OF LOVE 

Berscheid & Walster (1978) 

Passionate love 

  • Intense longing 

  • Thrilling 

  • First experinced in adolescense 

  • Often present in beginning of a romantic relationship 

  • Roller-coaster of emotions 

Companionate love 

  • Calm and stable 

  • Applies to friendships and long term romantic partners 

  • Charcaterised by Shared values & experiences 

  • Deep sense of Trust 

  • Most often present in couples that have been together for a long time 

 

The triangular Theoyr of Love (Sternberg, 1988) 

Love = 3 components: 

  1. Intimacy (closeness) 

  1. Passion (sexual attraction) 

  1. Commitment (decision to stay) 

These create 7 subtypes: 

  • Liking = intimacy only 

  • Infatuation = passion only 

  • Empty love = commitment only 

  • Romantic love = intimacy + passion 

  • Companionate love = intimacy + commitment 

  • Fatuous love = passion + commitment 

  • Consummate love = all three 

MCQ tip: 

Consummate love = intimacy + passion + commitment. 

 

6. LOVE ACROSS CULTURES 

Moghaddam et al. (1993) 

  • Western (minority world): individualistic, voluntary, temporary 

  • Non-Western (majority world): collectivist, involuntary, permanent 

 

Shaver, Wu & Schwartz (1992) 

  • US, Italy, China sorted emotion words. 

  • Chinese sample had a “sad-love” category (sorrow-love, pity-love). 

Karandashev (2015) 

Romantic love is culturally specific, not universal in expression. 

 

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE STAY IN RELATIONSHIPS? 

Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Homans, 1974) 

  • SET: Theory which exmaines how individuals make choices within roles by weighing costs and benefits 

  • Although indivdiualsa re constrained by expectations of social roles, they act within each role to maximize rewards and minimize costs. 

 

Social Exchange Theory in Long-Term Relationships 

Thibaut & Kelley (1959) 

  • Early months = focus on rewards. 

  • Later = costs become more important. 

  • But rewards are still the most improtatn to outcome 

 

Clark & Mills (1979, 1993): Two types of relationships 

  1. Communal — respond to need; don’t expect immediate return 

  1. Exchange — give/receive equally; expect reciprocation 

 

Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983) 

Commitment depends on: 

  1. Satisfaction 

  1. Comparison level for alternatives 

  1. Investment size (what you’d lose by leaving) 

Explains why dissatisfied people stay. 

MCQ tip: 

Investment model = satisfaction + alternatives + investment. 

 

8. RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN – How and why do relationships end? 

Duck (2001): Three reasons relationships end 

  1. Pre-existing doom — incompatible from start 

  1. Mechanical failure — two “good” people can’t make it work (most common) 

  1. Sudden death — betrayal, cheating -> immediate termination of relationship 

 

Duck (1982): Four stages of breakdown 

  1. Intrapsychic phase — “I can’t stand this anymore.” 

  1. Dyadic phase — confrontation; “I’d be justified withdrawing.” 

  1. Social phase — others get involved; “I mean it.” 

  1. Grave-dressing phase — aftermath, rewriting story; “It’s inevitable.” 

 

Breakers vs Breakees (Akert, 1998) 

  • Breakers (people who intitae the breakup) = less distress 

  • Breakees (the person broken up with)= most distress 

  • Mutual = intermediate distress 

 

CONFLICT & Unhealthy Relationships 

  • Conflict is an expected and often healthy part of a relationship 

Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 

  1. Criticism e.g.. You never think about how I feel, you always just do whatever you want to 

  1. Contempt (strongest predictor of divorce) e.g. You’re the laziest person I’ve ever met 

  1. Defensiveness e.g. You know how busy I’ve been. Why didn’t you just call the restaurant yourself instead of expecting me to do it 

  1. Stonewalling (not even opening up a chance to talk) e.g. I’m just too busy to talk about this right now 

MCQ tip: 

Contempt = worst predictor of divorce.