Psychology of Human Relationships: Personal Relationships & Formation

Biology and Interpersonal Relationships

  • Behavior can be explained through:
    • Evolutionary psychology
    • Biological processes (hormones, genes)
  • Evolutionary theories suggest behaviors beneficial for passing on genes are carried through generations.
    • Central to this is mate selection and relationship formation.
    • Both sexes are attracted to traits signaling health, youth, and reproductive capacity.
      • Examples: smooth skin, good muscle tone, lustrous hair, full lips (Buss, 1989).
      • Evolutionary arguments should apply universally to all humans, beyond culture.

Gender and Mate Selection

  • Gender influences desirable characteristics in a mate (Buss, 1989).
  • Buss (1989) study:
    • Tested gender differences in mate selection.
    • 37 samples, 10,000 participants, 6 continents, 33 countries.
    • Questionnaire sections:
      • Biological information (age, religion, gender, etc.)
      • Desired age of marriage and age differences between spouses
      • Rating of 18 characteristics for mate selection importance
  • Limitations:
    • Relied on self-reported data, which may not reflect real-life outcomes.
    • To check credibility, Buss compared age preferences with marriage statistics.
      • Found stated preferred age differences reflected actual age differences at marriage.
      • Preferred age of marriage corresponded closely to actual ages of grooms and brides.
  • Findings:
    • Significant gender differences in responses.
    • Females valued financial capacity of mates more than males did.
    • Women preferred older males.
    • Males valued physical attractiveness and youth more than females.
  • Evolutionary theory support:
    • Males valuing youth and attractiveness prefer females with high reproductive capacity.
    • Females valuing financial capacity and age prefer males successful in raising children.
    • Age and success may indicate good genes.
  • Support from other studies:
    • Portuguese and Brazilian university students (Neto & Shackford et al, 2005):
      • Men rated physical attractiveness more important than women.
      • Women valued personality, resources, and abilities more.
    • Cross-cultural study (Neto & Shackford et al, 2005):
      • Women valued social status more than men; men valued physical attractiveness more.
    • Boxer, Nonan, and Vilen (2015):
      • Both sexes increasingly value mate's financial prospects, home, and children.
      • Qualitative data identified humor, trust, and loyalty as emergent themes.
    • Buss et al (2001):
      • Men and women are becoming more similar in mate selection preferences.
      • Chastity and domestic skill decreased in importance.
      • Mutual attraction and love increased in importance for both sexes.
      • Changes are too rapid for biological change, point to changing gender and social roles.
      • Samples taken from The USA reflect change in that culture, not globally.

Attraction as Addiction

  • Dr. Helen Fisher argues romantic love is a neurobiological process akin to drug addiction.
  • Fisher's study:
    • Sampled 10 women, 7 men reporting deep love.
    • Participants completed questionnaires, underwent fMRI scanning.
    • Shown photos of loved one, performed distraction task, shown photo of acquaintance.
    • Repeated six times.
  • Results:
    • fMRI showed the mesolimbic dopamine reward pathway (active in substance abuse) activated when thinking about romantic partner.
    • Fisher et al (2016) argued early intense love shares symptoms with substance abuse (euphoria, craving, tolerance, dependence, withdrawal).
    • Passionate love gives way to long-term attachment.
    • Fisher argues research should explore the connection between relationships and drug addiction for treating substance abuse.

Physical and Social Pain

  • fMRI research shows physical pain and social exclusion activate the same brain area: anterior cingulate cortex.
  • Eisenberg, Limberman, and Williams (2003):
    • Participants scanned during simulated ball-tossing game with exclusion.
    • fMRI scans correlated with self-reported distress.
    • Suggests neurocognition of physical and social pain is comparable.
    • Pain alerts to potential injury; similarly alerted to social injuries and loss.
    • Science supports the idea that loss of love can hurt.

Hormones and Bonding

  • Oxytocin plays an important role in human and animal bonding.
    • Appears to involve similar mechanisms for various types of love and attachment.
    • Neuroendocrinology studies hormones and the brain.
    • Oxytocin in mother-pup bonding in rats.
      • Blocking oxytocin leads to neglect of infant pup (Strathrin, 2001).
  • Human research supports oxytocin's role:
    • Schneiderman et al (2012):
      • Sampled 60 couples in new relationships, control group of 43 single individuals.
      • Interviews and blood samples measured plasma oxytocin levels.
      • Higher oxytocin correlated with affectionate touching, preoccupation with partner, interpersonal focus, and dyadic states.
      • Findings echo parent-infant bonding research.
    • Feldman (2013):
      • Oxytocin supports: parental, pair, and filial bonds.
      • Bonding throughout life, not just parenting and romantic bonding.
  • Vasopressin:
    • Role in stable long-term pair bonding in prairie voles.
    • Prairie voles: select mates, monogamous, share parenting, long-term pair bonds.
    • Winslow et al (1993) research:
      • Vasopressin necessary and sufficient for aggression towards non-mates and mate preference formation.

Major Histocompatibility Genes (MHC)

  • MHC genes (immune system) and body odor may contribute to human relationships.
  • Parents with different MHC genes may pass stronger immune systems to children.
  • Evolutionary psychologists suggest evolved ways to detect MHC similarity.
    • Scent preference for those with more different MHC genes.
  • Research support in animal and human studies.
  • Extent to which humans identify MHC dissimilarity through scent is controversial.
    • "Dirty shirt study" (Wedekind et al, 1995):
      • Correlation between attractiveness of men's scent to women and MHC dissimilarity.
      • Women rated scent of MHC dissimilar men as more pleasant.
      • Scent of MHC dissimilar men was twice as likely to remind women of their mate's scent.
      • Women using oral contraceptives reversed findings, preferring MHC similar men.
      • Hypothesis: Contraceptives mimic pregnancy, seeking kin support rather than a mate.
    • Wedekind and Fury (1997):
      • Men as likely to prefer a man's scent.
  • Mixed findings on MHC genes and mate selection:
    • Bias towards similarity in one study, dissimilarity in two studies, random distribution in others.
    • Facial attractiveness research indicates preference for MHC similar individuals (Hullwicke & Roberts, 2009).
  • Winternitz and Abate (2015):
    • Inconsistency in findings due to too much inconsistency in context (long vs. short term relationships, hormonal variations).
    • Future studies need better understanding of these variables.

Cognition and Interpersonal Relationships

  • Social psychologists study cognitive determinants of attraction.
  • Reciprocity:
    • Based on social exchange within a relationship.
    • We like those who like us.
    • Related to self-esteem, self-enhancement, self-verification.
    • Validates choices in constructing self-image, likely to be pleased to interact, help.
    • Supported by empirical research.
      • Classic study (Ditis, 1959): People feel welcomed, accepted in a group more attracted to that group.
      • Magnified with people who show less self-esteem.
      • Reciprocity increases over time.
  • Familiarity:
    • Familiarity hypothesis: We like things we see repetitively.
    • Mere exposure effect: Simply being exposed to something increases liking of it.
    • True for strangers' faces and acquaintances.
    • Implications for advertising, political messages, interpersonal relations.
      • Facebook advertisement study (Alabash et al, 2016): exposed to online adverts for beer more likely to select a bar gift card.
  • Attraction-Similarity Model:
    • We are attracted to those we perceive to be similar to ourselves.
    • Similarity in ethnicity, age, culture, social class, etc.
    • Perception is important as actual similarity is not measured in most studies.
    • Similarity extends to physical traits, personality, attitudes, and beliefs.
    • Doctor Marianne Moray (2005) study:
      • The more attracted we are to another person the more we believe they are similar to us.
    • Friends not of the same sex perceived each other as more similar, satisfaction in friendship predicted similarity (Mori, 2005).
    • Dutch study of university undergraduates (Selfhout et al, 2009):
      • Perceived similarity correlated with stronger liking scores.
      • Perceived similarity was more important than actual similarity in liking the other person.
      • Stresses the cognitive nature of this relationship.
  • Matching Hypothesis:
    • Individuals assess their own attractiveness or social desirability and select partners who match their levels in these areas.
    • Bershed et al (1971) support:
      • Matching hypothesis may predict the level of another person that someone is likely to approach more than how much another will be liked and pursued as a romantic partner.
      • People attempt interactions with others of similar physical attractiveness.
    • Taylor et al (2011):
      • Online experimental setting and online dating scenario.
      • Participants likely to contact more attractive participants regardless of self worth.
      • May be due to misappraisal of attractiveness or willingness to face rejection.
      • These findings challenge matching hypothesis.

Culture in Interpersonal Relationships

  • Relationship formation is a social phenomenon.
  • Proximity leads to frequency of meeting which leads to mere exposure effect, then familiarity.
  • Internet and online dating sites unrestricted by proximity may be diminishing the social determinant of human relationships.
  • Individualism and Collectivism (Dion and Dion, 1993):
    • Influence of individualism/collectivism and romantic love/intimacy in marriage.
    • Compared individualistic (USA, Canada) and collectivistic (India, China, Japan) cultures.
    • Romantic love is more likely the basis for marriage in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic.
    • Intimacy in marriage more about satisfaction with marriage and personal wellness in individualistic cultures.
    • Individualism values independence rather than connection with others.
    • Acculturation is changing cultural norms related to romantic love.
    • Cultural norms in collectivistic cultures and among immigrants are evident.
    • Growing acculturation means not acceptable to assume all members of Japanese or Japanese American sample will tend toward a collectivistic mindset.
  • Cultural differences in interracial dating:
    • Chinese Canadian youths supported parents' objections to interracial dating more than European youths (Uzkulnis et al, 2007).
    • European Canadian males were far more favorable to interracial dating than Chinese Canadian males
    • Acculturation with mainstream Canadian norms was associated with greater support for young adult in scenario.
    • Greater identication with mainstream canadian culture was also reflected more favorable attitudes and openness to interracial dating.
    • South Asian Canadians (2011):
      • Younger generations more favorable to interracial dating and supported the young adult in the scenario.
      • Canadian identity was again associated with more favorable views on interracial dating.
  • Culture and marriage:
    • Love is a universal emotion but manifests differently based on culture (Corandhesive, 2015).
    • It is important to assess it's emic expression in a variety of cultures, Jankovic and Fischer, 1992.
    • Western cultures easily express love verbally while Filipino families express it indirectly (Nadal, 2015).
    • Social norms vary on marrying outside group, same sex marriage, and arranged marriage.
    • Culture is a key determinant of marriage and interpersonal relationships today.
    • Most psych research focuses on Western Educated Industrial Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies (Henrich, Heine, Norenzayan, 2010), skewing conclusions.
    • Arranged marriages are still the most common worldwide.
      • 2013 IPSOS survey: 75% of Indians preferred arranged marriages.
      • Generally, collectivistic cultures consider arranged marriage more acceptable than individualistic.
      • Arranged marriages should not be confused with forced marriage.
  • Studies on happiness in arranged vs. love marriages:
    • Regan, Lakhanpal, and and you and and do we know and do we know (2011):
      • 58 Indian couples in The USA: 28 arranged, 30 love marriages.
      • No differences in marital satisfaction, commitment, compassionate love, and passionate love.
    • Similar findings in multiple studies (Gupta & Singh, 1982; Madhathil & Tingle, 2005).
    • 1990 study even found that arranged marriages resulted in happier marriages.
  • Limitations of self-reporting questionnaires:
    • Happiness and satisfaction are subjective.
    • Members of collectivistic cultures may be less likely to share feelings regarding, fearing upsetting social harmony.
    • For simplicity, study of human relationships split into arbitrary categories.
    • Categorical thinking is artificial, explaining human behavior in simplified terms is difficult.
    • Human social interactions result from complex processes.
    • Millions of years of evolution, neurochemical interactions, interplay between individuals with genetic history and neurochemical balances.

Communication in Interpersonal Relationships

  • Every relationship is unique, but there are common patterns when relationships end.
  • Social Penetration Theory:
    • Individuals share inner thoughts carefully.
    • As relationships develop, exchanges move from shallow to intimate.
    • Intimacy involves discussing emotions, feelings, and self-worth.
    • (Altman and Taylor, 1973).
      • Meta-analysis of disclosure shows liking effects (Collins, Miller, and Tingbo-Steenberg, 1994).
      • People who share an intimate level tend to be more like than those who share a more shallow level People share more with those they initially like.
      • People like others as a result of having shared intimately with them.
  • Gender differences in self-disclosure:
    • Women disclosed more than men (Dindia, Allen and Steimberg, 1992).
    • Women tend to share more with other women than with men when the target of sharing was already a friend, a relative, or a spouse.
    • Online study (UTZ, 2015):
      • Feelings of closeness enhanced on through intimate communication and private conversations supporting the Socia Social Persuasion Theory.
  • Responsiveness of communication had no impact on feelings.
  • Self-disclosure benefits individuals as well as strengthens relationship.
    • It has also bee shown to be beneficial for there individuals doing the sharing.
    • Found that self disclosure led to increased social support (Huang, 2016).
    • Communication and self-disclosure may strengthen the bond between partners.
  • Findings of online social penetration studies must be cautioned.
    • Experimental evidence of self disclosure may be skewed (Callaghan, Graf, and Davis, 2013).
    • Interviews had higher self disclosure.
    • Researcher presence may influence the interviewee and what online settings may affect self discourse.

Attribution Style

  • Attribution theory: understanding behavior by attributing causes (situational or dispositional).
  • Affects forgiveness and empathy among spouses.
  • Healthy relationships have positive attributional style.
    • Assume best intent; attribute positive behaviors to personal disposition, negative behaviors to situational factors.
    • Use statements like "always" and "never" in a positive light.
  • Negative attributional style hurts relationship.
    • Statements highlight unsavory personal attributes, leading to end of relationship.
  • Research Support:
    • Fincham and O'Leary (1983):
      • Hypothetical Behavior for 32 marital couples.
      • Asked to rate most likely behavior and how the action would make each. member feel.
      • Nondistressed couples assumed causes to be controllable, dispositional for acts. Distressed couples only looked at more negative acts.
    • Negative behavior is a global attribute (Stratton, 2003).
  • Critics concerned distress affects attributional style.
  • Determines marital satisfaction or enduring trait.
  • Carney and Bradbury (2000):
    • Longitudinal analysis measuring attribution style and marital satisfaction every six months for eight years among 60 couples.
    • Attribution styles dynamic over time.
    • Attributional style predicted changes in marital satisfaction more than vice versa.
    • Causality goes from attributional style to marital satisfaction mostly.

Attribution Retraining

  • Cognitive treatment to change attribution behavior.
  • Successfully applied in bullying, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.
  • Considered as a way to improve negative attribution style in marital and family therapy.
  • Carney and Bradbury's findings suggest it is a dynamic style.

Patterns of Accommodation

  • The willingness of those in a relationship to deal constructively with conflict and communicate OPEN to see whether therapy will be useful or not.
  • How individuals respond to conflict matters, active agents in their lives impact behavior of others.
  • Accommodation is using constructively strategies to maintain a relationship when positive (Rasboldt and Zembrodt,83).
  • 50 students asked to write a time in which they became dissatisfied in a relationship.
    • Discussed their feelings and what would happen with their current unhappiness.
      *Exit.
      *Voice.
      *Loyalty.
      *Neglect.
      Exit voice are active responses.
      Loyalty and neglect are passive strategies..

Explanations of Why Relationships End

  • Communication is key for relationships. However, when it comes to relationship breakdown there is communication patterns. Frameworks that deal specifically would change and relationship frameworks.
  • Gottman’s four horsemen focus around communication style (Gottman and Julia).
    • Used the love lab to study 1,000s of relationships to predict relationship outcomes after questions, observations and scientific review of the data.
      1. Criticism- Attacks a person’s character- not simply over a single issue, but dispositional.
      2. Contempt- Treating someone with disrespect and mocking. Primary predictor of divorce. Long-term negative thoughts about a partner.
      3. Defensiveness- Claiming innocent, self-defense mechanism is a form of claimed innocent victimization where the original criticism is claimed to be under attack for no personal reason. Deflective of blame.
      4. Stonewalling- Listener withdraws from conversation by refusing to acknowledge the other person. Tunas them out and engages in obsessive behaviors.

Relationships Frameworks

  • Relationships have identifiable stages, beginning, middle, and ends.
  • Knapp and Vanglesi’s model change show two stages:
    *Growth.
    *Breakdown.
    Simple framework of how relationships grow and break down.
    Each stage has different forms of communication.
  • Movement: is sequential and systematic.
    Couples experience multiple times.
    Never reverts to a previous stage (integration).
    As relationship evolves, same happen so do the individuals within.

Relationship escalation

1.Growth
* Initiation: Very short stage that is first impressions are made that are often inaccurate. Stereotypes are important.
* Experimenting: Exploring the other characteristics. Attraction, similarities and reciprocity come into effect.
Integration: Intimacy grows and relationships take root, friendship begins and self disclosure increases.
*Integrating: intimate close friendships happen.
* Bonding: commitments are made that are are reassured and mutually regarded. Break up requires separation in formal way.
Relationship Deterioration, decline
* Differentiating - Identification an individuals rather than acouples, as individuals.
*External influence.

Communication - problematic and Gotman's horseman.

*Stagnating. Communication becomes limited and serious. External pressure or family keeps relationships together.
*Avoiding - avoidance and contact.
*Terminating - end of relationship- formal or divorce.

Rollie and Duck, 5 stage model, cognitive stage with dissatisfaction that are rarely shared.Cost benefit ratio takes play
Phase.1
* Intrapsychic. Internal unhappiness with relationship, and relationship.Dissatisfaction is not communicated includes of withdrawl.
The dyadic and social enter in the social ream as dissatisfaction shared with others. Social groups start influence.
The two final focus on postrelationship and relation reason for failure
Phase two- Dyadic,Dissastfaction is now expressed to partner/problems
Phase three - social, share problems and support
Grave dressing- character by defending breakup- justified, both parties or one.

* Resurrection, added Later,New person who emerges, from the relationship

Chapter Two Group dynamics

*Significant point that psychologists show interest-Intergroup-processes
*Definition- Perceived recognize same members- individual recogonize their group of family member category
*Brown Definition- group needs 2 or more members recognized people.
*Individual vrs group - how to acknowledge both.

*Gustave Lebon discusses concept group mind to make individuals act out of norm.
*Zimbardo experiments develops upon this- to cruely punish student if anonomys.
In contrats Zimbodra also conducted follow up where the army gave shorter shocks for being used to being the individual. .Choosing Your In A Group.

*Prior experiences - Postiviely is more likely.
Moreland did and experiment to see whether they were anxious.

  • The context of the summer camp provided a reasonable environment to study. (sheriff and summer camp test)
  • The test hypothesis. When do the do it to find out, they get, hierarchical role?
  • If true, two existing outgroup frustrations or competition that is not existing, it must follow in group NORMS

Cooperations Competition-Realistic Group,Conflict Theory (RGCT) realistic also know realist is what aims to explain in a INTERgroup context. RGCT also states that when groups are pursuing a mutual superior and requires cooperation it can help reduce or overcome existing, conflict.

The field studies were longitudinal, and observations needed, the three stages.
Observations such as baseball and cabin investigations. During the course the observations took place carefully . Parents paid so for the kids to act naturally.
In stage one, the individuals were paired to find who were most likely.The group soon became known rattlers and developed norms and structured with each and rivaled. In the second competition would occur and The losers Would GetNothing and it would now get worse, they would be working in opposition to what occurred.
The boys behavior would become Hostile, Ridiculed, bullies, In groupFavortitism- boys became. at tight knit group and they would focus on with similarities on strength. TheBoys Would Become. stop socializing with Outgroup members is Cruical Out groups.

Outgroup,Discrimination,

*Three the Researchers acted, re reverse and reduce. It was a heavy duty and it was.too heavy. If the Work to The boys worked together Theboys Collaborated.and in the same context ( RGCT) conflict.

  • Blake AND MOTOWN in 9 62 conducted even to test in group solution value from mangers. And they showed that the in the group solution was way higher than the out group result.

  • Group position claims members. that the source claims them and make and privileges. the
    *Bloomer, 1948 that are entitled to or the resource that they have monopoly upon resources and
    *privledges. It may occur when another group is making them take the source, it turns out conflict.

  • Social dominance. This one is not really as important, but, it can often be legitimized disproportionately, the other must fail. (S) and this is not very good when someone is competing resource against the other.

  • Terror management, this will be giving to meaningless .The

  • Unified instrumental, many series, religious and social.

Bruton, Chevell, et all. The parties can see the economic parties so that they are economic.
Some studies have shown that competition has no effect of selection and cooperation. There are series of the designs.

Prejudice and Discrimination

Definitions.

*Prejudice and antipathy is not flexible, and it may direct individuals to group
Psychologist Negative ATTITUDE. Sterotypes in the head when pictured social group.( cogniyive psychologist)
In flexible and incorrect.
Discrimination is unfair behavior,based ON THE GROUP

The Clark and test was not a white person.
*Both SERIFS Robbers cave AND Tajpal HighLighed What we prioritize with others. Ingroup and outgroup favoritism.
*A FROM OF A DIANTAGE.
RACISM- the defined 3 aspects of this. Cultural- Belief the are different in the face OF RACISM- cultural, or ism?
Culture that it is inferred that negative, which is not racism.It might be the negative.Stihilist is not something under control, there is an implicit bias.IATS can make the test.
*Memory judges and Jury when the black is guilty.
Philip test.This test helps, with white faces or amagadlia.
origins of conflict and conflict resolution.
intergroup conflict is a common issue throughout soceity..
The male warrior with a group. In general, outgroup females are less of threat than men.Researchers. Competition helped define 1982.
If an individual group it can lead it the infliction if not. The brain causes some parts to get better and get mad.People sacrifices themselves. to cause issues.

*contact hypothesis is used to reduce by bringing them out of context.
*social and institutional support
*hight acquaintance potential
*equal status and cooperation. this is a way for this the test to succeed ,or can reinforce. it has been supported in multiple tests.
*to help one another, but if, not then it will get in the way of people test
*Jigsaw claasroom - where they were separated and they has to come into cooperation. It can instil a norm.
*Al and Houston, -They must development in the correct. Zone

Social Responsibility (prosocial behavior)
*Behavior generally broken down into, prosocial or antisocial behavior.

  • Antisocial behavior tends to get or will likely cause harm to other.
  • Includes violent behavior, abusive language, graffiti, vandalism, or intimidation.
    *(prosocial behavior) Any behavior that benefits another, considered supportive of social norms.
  • Common place & does not draw media attention, except pronounced example.
    Helping behavior.is any type of social ,ASSISTANCE orinter personal support.
  • More focused, it is an action that is intended to help another, but it is is not motivated Any professional obligation recipient is AN INDIVIDUAL, not AN ORGANIZATION. altruism is the narrowest
  • No benefit or anticipation from the helper ,assumed, debate the in philosophical debate but it does in altruism to that with prosocial primary motivator to.Benefit not Obligation.
  • Hard experiment differentiation prosocial vrs algorithm to determinie egoist or alter.
    social desirability