What makes a healthy relationship? What basic fundamentals are needed for a healthy relationship? How do you know if someone is a potential match before it is too late? If you are ready to reinvent yourself to stand out more in search of finding love again or for the first time then this book i strongly recommend you should take a look into
2. 2
Readings
Bauemeister & Bushman (2008):
Part 1: Ch10 Attraction and Exclusion
Part 2: Ch11 Close Relationships:
Passion, Intimacy, and Sexuality
3. Overview: Pt 1
(Attraction & Exclusion)
The need to belong
Interpersonal attraction
Rejection / social exclusion
4. 4
The Need to Belong
(Affiliation)
Desire to form & maintain close, lasting
relationships with other individuals.
5. 5
The need to belong
Homo sapiens:
Appear to need contact with
other members of their species.
Experience a powerful drive to
form & maintain close lasting
relationships.
Usually form relationships
easily.
Are reluctant to end
relationships.
Seek an optimal balance
between social contacts &
solitude.
7. 7
The need to belong
Basic need to belong is not unique
to humans
People can be similar on more
dimensions
People spend much time & energy to
secure their place in the social group
8. 8
The need to belong
Belongingness consists of:
– Regular social contact with others
– Close, stable, mutually intimate
contact
One without the other partial
satisfaction
9. 9
The need to belong
People do not continue to form
relationships:
Typically seek ~4 to 6 close relationships.
Even in people-rich environments, most
people form social circles of about 6 people.
10. 10
Marriage
People who marry live
longer, healthier lives
People who stay married
live longer and better
than those who divorce
Happy marriage is an
important consideration
13. 13
Similarity
Common, significant cause of attraction
Tend to like others who are similar to us
Otherwise we experience cognitive
dissonance.
14. 14
Similarity
Do opposites attract?
i.e., do we need complementarity?
– little supporting evidence
Spouses are similar in many respects:
– IQ
– physical attractiveness
– Education
– SES
Couples more similar in attractiveness more
likely to progress to committed relationship.
17. 17
Self-monitoring
People change to become more
similar to those with whom they
interact:
High self-monitoring
(field dependent)
– maximise each social situation
Low self-monitoring
(field independent)
– interested in permanent connections and
feelings
18. 18
Similarity
As cultures progress & form large,
complex groups, there is more
need for complementarity, e.g.,:
Risks in joining a new group
People tend to look for similarity
23. 23
Reciprocity
Liking begets liking; We like those who
like us
Mimicking increases liking.
If someone likes you:
– Initially it is very favorable, but
– If that liking is not returned, it can be a
burden
We tend to prefer relationships that
are psychologically balanced.
24. 24
The gain-loss hypothesis
Order of feedback
Degree
of
liking
Neg-Pos Pos-Pos Neg-Neg Pos-Neg
0
2
4
6
8
10
We like people most if
they initially dislike us
& then later like us e.g.,
(Aronson & Linder, 1965)
25. 25
Playing hard to get
Prefer those who are
‘moderately’ selective (turned
off by those too readily available
& those who reject us).
Attractiveness s towards
bar closing time for those
not in a relationship (Madey
et al., 1996).
Reactance – if freedom of
choice threatened, desire s
for difficult to attain goal.
27. 27
Social Exchange Theory
Comparison level (CL)
– average, expected outcome in
relationships
Comparison level for alternatives (Calt)
– expectations of rewards in alternative
situation (what could I get
elsewhere?)
(Sunk) Investment
– things put into relationship that can’t
be recovered.
28. 28
Equity Theory
(Balance Theory)
People are most satisfied with a
relationship when the ratio between
benefits & contributions is similar for both
partners
Your benefits = Partner’s benefits
Your contributions = Partner’s
contributions
30. 30
Equity theory applied to two equitable and
two inequitable relationships
Outputs
Inputs
Outputs
Inputs
PETER OLIVIA
Equity
perceived
Equity not
perceived
PETER OLIVIA
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
=
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
=
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
=
=
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
Inputs or ouputs are: ◆ Few ◆
◆ Average ◆
◆
◆ Many
31. 31
Balance Theory
Agreement is an affirming experience,
lead to positive affect. If we disagree,
we seek to find agreement.
Attracted to similar others
– We strive to like our friend’s friends.
32. 32
Commitment to one’s relationship is
weaker when many high-quality
alternative partners are available.
33. 33
Propinquity
(Exposure or Psychological Proximity)
Best predictor of a relationship is proximity
or nearness.
Mere-exposure effect
– The more we’re exposed to something,
the more we like it.
Familiarity
– greater liking for a familiar stimulus.
Overexposure can reduce liking.
People also weigh:
– Availability - interaction is easy & low cost
– Expectation of continued interaction
34. 34
4 different women (confederates)
attended a lecture over a semester.
Four conditions: each attended 0, 5, 10,
or 15 times.
Participants (students in the lectures)
then viewed pictures of the 4 women
They liked/ were most attracted to the
woman they had been exposed to most.
Moreland & Beach (1992)
37. 37
Familiarity & exposure
Social allergy effect
–Annoying habits become more
annoying over time
Familiarity & repeated
exposure can
–make bad things worse
–encourage liking someone
38. 38
Neighbors make friends
– and enemies
Festinger et al. (1950)
– Strongest predictor of friendships was
propinquity
Ebbesen et al. (1976)
– Strongest predictor of enemies was
propinquity
Regular contact amplifies or multiplies
power of other factors
39. 39
Rate this woman’s:
Intelligence
Happiness
Success
1 = Well below average
2 = Below average
3 = Average
4 = Above average
5 = Well above average
40. 40
John:
25 years old
Car salesman
Rents a small apartment
Lives on his own.
Does not have a girlfriend.
Allergies limit time he can
spend outdoors.
Matt:
26 years old
Business executive
Owns two houses
Happily married
Enjoys travelling, yacht
racing, and nightclubbing.
John or
Matt?
43. 43
Attractiveness
Most people show preference for
attractive over unattractive
“What is beautiful is good” effect
– Attractiveness = superiority on other
traits
Attractive children are more popular
with peers and teachers
Babies prefer attractive faces
44. 44
Attractiveness
For men, clothing represent
wealth and status
–High wealth & status men are more
attractive
Body shape influences
attractiveness
–Cultural variation in ideal body
weight
45. 45
Beauty
People agree who is beautiful but not why
Evolutionary psychology
– beauty in women ~ Health, youth,
fertility
Symmetry is attractive
Typicality is attractive
– Average or composite faces are more
attractive than individual faces
46. 46
Beauty
Babies show a preference for faces
considered attractive by adults.
Some cultural & historical differences in
perception of beauty
Despite cultural & historical differences
there is a considerable degree of
agreement as to what is thought of as
beautiful.
47. 47
Beauty
Bias towards beauty - why?
Aesthetic rewards
Reflected ‘glory’
“What-is-beautiful-is-good” stereotype -
associate beauty with other ‘good’ things
Beautiful judged to be - intelligent,
successful, happy, well-adjusted, socially
skilled, confident, assertive (& vain)
48. 48
Beauty
In reality, beauty not related to
intelligence, personality adjustment or
SES
Costs of beauty
– hard to interpret positive feedback
– pressure to maintain appearance
– little relationship between beauty in
youth & satisfaction/adjustment in
middle-age (Berscheid et al., 1972)
49. 49
Evolutionary Perspectives on
Attraction / Mate Selection
Gender differences in mate selection &
sexual behaviour
Males tend to have
– more sexual partners &
– partners that are young & attractive
(more fertile).
Women tend to have
– fewer sexual partners &
– partners who are older & financially secure
(better providers for offspring).
50. 50
Evolutionary Perspectives on
Attraction / Mate Selection
Triver (1972) - parental investment
theory
Buss (1994) - evolutionary
perspective
Gender differences in jealously
BUT - differences between sexes
small compared to similarities
51. 51
Acceptance
People like you &
include you in
their groups.
Social
Rejection
People exclude
you from their
groups.
(Social Exclusion;
Ostracism)
52. 52
Not belonging is bad for you
Failure to satisfy a “need to belong”
leads to detrimental effects, e.g.,:
Death rates among
people without social
connections.
People without a good
social network have
physical & mental
health problems.
56. 56
Rejection
Extent of hurt feelings is based on:
–Importance of relationship
–Clearness of rejection signal
Initial reaction to rejection –
“emotional numbness”
–Interferes with psychological and
cognitive functioning
57. 57
Behavioral Effects of Rejection
Show s in intelligent thought
Approach new interactions with
skepticism
Typically less generous, less
cooperative, less helpful
More willing to cheat or break rules
Act shortsighted, impulsive, self-
destructive
59. 59
Loneliness
Desired > actual social
contact
Painful feeling of wanting
more human contact
Lacking in quantity and/or
quality of relationships
Occurs during times of
transition & disruption (e.g.,
moving, divorce)
60. 60
Loneliness
Unattached lonelier than attached
Widowed, divorced lonelier than never
married
18-30 year olds - loneliest group
Little difference between lonely & unlonely
– Lonely have more difficulty understanding
emotional states of others
Loneliness tends to be bad for physical
health
62. 62
Bowling Alone
(Putnam, 2000)
Declining Social Capital:
Trends over the last 25 years
Attending club meetings
Family dinners
Having friends over
10 minutes of commuting
s social capital by 10%.
64. 64
Social rejection
Adults are most often
rejected for being
different from the rest
of the group
Groups reject insiders more
than outsiders for the same
degree of deviance
Deviance within the group
threatens the group’s unity
65. 65
Social rejection
Bad apple effect
–One person who breaks the rules
may inspire others to do the same
Threat of rejection influences
good behavior
66. 66
Romantic rejection &
unrequited love
Attribution theory & women
refusing dates
Privately held reasons were internal to
the man, stable, & global
Reasons told the man were external,
unstable, and specific
– These reasons encourage asking again
67. 67
Romantic rejection &
unrequited love
Unrequited Love
–Men are more often
rejected lover;
women do the
rejecting more often
Stalking
–Women are more
often stalked
68. 68
Summary of Topics
The need to belong
– Not belonging is bad for you
Attraction
– Ingratiation
– Social rewards
– Reciprocity
– Self-monitoring
– Similarity
– Propinquity
– Matching hypothesis
– Beauty
Rejection
– Loneliness
– Social capital
– What leads to social rejection?
– Romantic rejection & unrequited love
69. 69
Overview: Pt 2
(Close Relationships, Passion,
Intimacy, and Sexuality)
What Is love?
Types of relationships
Maintaining relationships
Sexuality
70. 70
Love relationships
Liking versus loving
Passionate love
– intense, involves physiological arousal
Companionate love - caring & affection
– Characterised by high levels of self-
disclosure
71. 71
What is love?
“I love my grandmother”
“I’m in love with my boyfriend”
“I love psychology”
72. 72
Two types of love
Passionate
Companionate
Physiological difference
– Presence of PEA
74. 74
Passionate Love
Most cultures have
passionate (romantic)
love, although forms
& expressions vary
Not always viewed
positively
Paradox of marrying
for passionate love:
– Long-term commitment
based on temporary
state
75. 75
Companionate Love
Affection for those with
whom our lives are
deeply intertwined:
Mutual understanding
Caring
Commitment
Calm, serene emotions
Important for successful
marriages
76. 76
Passionate love as a social
construction
Romantic love is
found in most
cultures
Forms & expression
vary by culture
Attitude varies by
culture & era
77. 77
Love across time
Passionate love is important
for starting a relationships
Companionate love is important
for making it succeed & survive
81. 81
Motivational:
physiological arousal,
longing, sexual attraction
Cognitive:
conscious decision, willing
to define as love, long term
Emotional:
closeness, sharing,
support, understanding,
concern
PASSION
INTIMACY
COMMITMENT
Sternberg’s (1988)
Triangular Model of Love
86. 86
2 years
PASSION
INTIMACY
1 year 5 years 10 years
Does love last?
Passionate love is temporary
Successful relationships shift from
passionate to companionate love
87. 87
Exchange vs. Communal
Exchange relationships
– Based on reciprocity & fairness
– More frequent in broader society
– Increases societal progress & wealth
Communal relationships
– Based on love & concern without
expectation of repayment
– More frequent in close intimate
relationships
– More desirable, healthier, & mature
88. 88
Exchange vs. Communal
Exchange relationships encourage
progress and wealth in larger groups
We don’t like calculating equity in our
serious relationships
– If people keep track of every little thing,
it doesn’t feel like love
Communal relationships are more
desirable in intimate relationships
91. 91
Attachment styles
People can classify themselves reliably.
Choose the description that best fits your
relationships:
1. I find it relatively easy to get
close to others and am comfortable
depending on them and having them depend on
me. I don’t often worry about being abandoned
or about someone getting close to me.
92. 92
Attachment styles
2. I find that others are reluctant
to get as close as I would like. I
often worry that my partner doesn’t really
love me or won’t want to stay with me. I
want to merge completely with another
person, and this desire sometimes scares
people away.
93. 93
Attachment styles
3. I am somewhat uncomfortable
being close to others. I find it
difficult to trust them completely, difficult to
allow myself to depend on them. I am
nervous when anyone gets too close, and,
often love partners want me to be more
intimate than I feel comfortable being.
94. 94
Attachments marked by
trust / other will
continue to provide
love & support.
Defensive detachment
from other
Fear of abandonment;
feeling /one’s needs
aren’t being met
SECURE (56%)
ANXIOUS/
AMBIVALENT
(19%)
AVOIDANT
(25%)
3 Original Attachment Styles
95. 95
2 Dimensions of Attachment
Theory developed along two
dimensions:
Anxiety – attitudes toward self
Avoidance – attitudes toward others
98. 98
Attachment
The new model splits avoidant types into
two groups
Dismissing avoidants are independent
– See themselves as worthy, but seek to
prevent intimacy
Fearful avoidants have low opinions of
themselves
– Worry they aren’t lovable
99. 99
Avoidant Attachment Style
They still have the “need to belong”
Inner conflict: want contact but fear
closeness
They have as much social contact as
others. They are NOT loners, isolates
Hence may want to “juggle” relationship
partners. Keep many relationships going
but not let one get too close
100. 100
Attachment Matching
People do not always form relationships
with others with same attachment style
Having one secure person improves
relationship outcome (and two are better
than one)
Rare to have both anxious, or both
avoidant
Avoidant men, anxious women do well;
anxious men with avoidant women, not
so good
101. 101
Attachment & Sex
Secure
– Generally have good sex lives
Preoccupied
– May use sex to pull others close to them
Avoidant
– Have a desire for connection
– May avoid sex, or use it to resist
intimacy
102. 102
Self-esteem & love
Popular belief that you need to love
yourself before you can love others
– Not demonstrated in theory or facts
Self-esteem
– Low self-esteem – may feel unlovable
– High self-esteem – may feel more
worthy than present partner
103. 103
Self-love & loving others
Self-acceptance is good for getting along
with others
Excessive self-love (e.g. narcissism) can
be detrimental to close relationships
Self-acceptance
– More minimal form of self-love
– Linked to positive interactions
104. 104
Maintaining relationships
Good relationships tend to stay
the same over time
Popular myth that they continue to
improve
Key to maintaining a good relationship
is to avoid a downward spiral
105. 105
Is honesty the best policy?
People in love hold idealised versions
of each other
Is it better to be yourself? Yes and no:
– Research supports that we want our
partners to view us as we view
ourselves
– Relationships can thrive when couples
remain on their best behavior
– More idealisation leads to stronger,
longer relationships
108. 108
Maintaining relationships
For relationships to succeed
couples must avoid the
“downward spiral”
– Reciprocity of negative behaviour
Positive interactions must occur
at least 5 x as often as negative
ones
109. 109
Why do people stay with their
relationship partners?
SATISFACTION: quality of the
relationship, good interactions,
“makes me happy”
Kind of obvious
But explains only about 30%
110. 110
Why do people stay with their
relationship partners?
ALTERNATIVES: if you left
this relationship, what would
replace it?
Might leave a good partner in
pursuit of a better one
Some guesswork
111. 111
Why do people stay with their
relationship partners?
INVESTMENT/SUNK COSTS = what
you have put into the relationship that
will be lost if you leave
Examples, long effort to understand
each other, learning to get along
Shared history together (experiences,
memories, children, projects)
112. 112
Attributions
Difference in terms of attribution:
Relationship-enhancing:
–Good acts - internal;
– Bad acts - external factors
Distress-maintaining:
–Good acts - external factors
– Bad acts - internal
113. 113
Attributional processes
“Why didn’t he do the dishes?”
“Typical… he never wants to help out”
Distress-maintaining style of attribution
Unhappy couples attribute negative
events to their partners and positive
events to external factors
114. 114
Attributional processes
“Why didn’t he do the dishes?”
“He must have had a hard day at work.”
Relationship-enhancing style of attribution
Happy couples attribute negative events
to external factors and positive events to
their partners
115. 115
Optimism & devaluing
Optimism in the relationship
– Happy couples have an idealised
version of their relationship
–Exaggerate the success of their
relationships
Devaluing alternatives
– People in lasting relationships do not
find others appealing
116. 116
Investment model
3 factors to explain long-term
relationships
– Satisfaction
– Alternatives
– Investments
Considered together they predict the
likelihood of maintaining the
relationship
117. 117
The Investment Model of
Commitment
Commitment
Level
Quality of
Alternatives
Investment
Size
Satisfaction
Level
Decision to
Remain
118. 118
The Investment Model of
Commitment
Explains why people remain in
relationships with abusive or unsatisfying
partners: if alternatives aren’t good, or
sunk costs are high
3 factors explain ~90% of variance in
relationship outcomes
Also works for keeping versus changing
jobs
119. 119
Sexuality
Humans form relationships based on
two separate systems
– Attachment system
Gender neutral
– Sex drive
Focus on opposite sex (procreation)
Love comes from attachment drive;
independent of gender
120. 120
Theories of sexuality
Social constructionist theories
Evolutionary theory
–Gender differences based in
reproductive strategies
Social exchange theory
121. 121
Sex & gender
Men > women sex drive
Coolidge effect
– sexually arousing power of a new partner
(greater than the appeal of a familiar partner)
Separating sex & love
– Men likely to seek & enjoy sex without
love
– Women likely to enjoy love without sex
122. 122
A woman pays a
higher biological
price than a man for
making a poor
choice of sex
partners, and so it
behooves women to
be more cautious
than men about sex.
125. 125
Homosexuality
EBE – Exotic becomes erotic (Bem,
1998)
– “Sexual arousal” as a “label” for emotional
nervousness resulting from exposure to
the exotic
Difficult to test and verify this theory
126. 126
Extradyadic sex
Most reliable data suggests infidelity is
rare in modern Western marriages
Tolerance for extramarital sex is fairly
low
Extramarital sex is a risk factor for
break ups
– Cannot demonstrate causality
127. 127
Extradyadic sex
Long-term monogamous mating is
more common among humans.
Culture:
plays a role in monogamy
gives permission for divorce
influences love and sex
129. 129
Reasons for straying
Men desire novelty
–Sometimes engage in extramarital
sex without complaint about their
marriage
Women’s infidelity more
characterised by emotional
attachment to lover
–Usually dissatisfied with current
partner
130. 130
Ending relationships:
4 factors (Levinger, 1980)
1. A new life seems the only
alternative
2. Alternative partners
available
3. Expectation that
relationship will fail
4. Lack of commitment
131. 131
Ending relationships
4 stages once relationship has started to
fail (Rusult & Zembrodt, 1983)
1. Loyalty – wait for improvement
2. Neglect – allow deterioration
3. Voice behaviour – work on improving
4. Exit behaviour - end
132. 132
Relationship Dissolution Model
(Duck, 1988, 1992) - 4 phases
1. Intrapsychic
brooding
2. Dyadic
do something
3. Social
tell friends, seek support
4. Grave-dressing
end relationship, getting
‘over’ it, ‘bury’ &
memorialise.
134. 134
Jealousy & possessiveness
Cultural theory
–Product of social roles & expectations
Biological theory
–Sexual jealousy in every culture
–Forms, expressions, & rules may vary
Society can modify but not eliminate
jealousy
135. 135
Evolutionary theory of jealousy
Men
– To help ensure they
do not support the
upbringing of
another’s child
Women
– If husband becomes
emotionally involved
with another, he may
withhold resources
136. 136
Jealousy & possessiveness
Jealousy can focus on either
sexual or emotional
connections with another
Men tend to focus more
strongly on sexual aspects
than women
137. 137
Causes of jealousy
Jealousy is a function of
person & situation:
Many suspicions are
accurate
Paranoid (false) jealousy is
fairly rare
138. 138
Jealousy & type of interloper
The less of a threat from the other
person, the less jealousy
– Jealousy depends on how their traits
compare to the third party
Both men & women are more jealous
if the 3rd party is a man rather than a
woman
139. 139
Social reality
Social reality
–Public awareness of some event
–Important role in jealousy
High social reality = High jealousy
–The more other people know about
your partner’s infidelity, the greater
your jealousy
140. 140
Culture & female sexuality
All culture regulate sex in
some ways
Cultural regulation is more
directed at women
–Erotic plasticity
–Paternity uncertainty
141. 141
Erotic plasticity
Degree to which social, cultural,
and situational factors influence
sexuality
Female sexuality is more plastic
(cultural), male is more natural
(biological)
Neither is inherently better (no
value judgment)
142. 142
Culture & the double
standard
Supported more by women
than men
Weaker than usually assumed
143. 143
Close Relationships Topic Summary
Love
– Types of love (passionate & companionate)
– Types of relationships (exchange vs. communal)
– Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
– Schacter’s 2-factor theory
– Culture-Arousal-Cognition models (Hatfield)
– Attachment styles
– Self-esteem & love
Maintaining Relationships
– Attributions
– Optimism & devaluing alternatives
– Investment model
Sexuality
– Extradyadic relationships
– Erotic plasticity
Ending relationships
Jealousy
144. 144
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J.
(2008).
Social psychology and human nature (1st
ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.