Friendships and Romantic Relations Flashcards
Victor - example of lack of human contact
- Look at examples of people who have lacked human contact
- E.g. Feral children
- Wild boy, found aged 12
- Never learned to talk, so never learned to stick to social conventions
- Lack of social interactions and thus lack of social communication
Feral children & lack of human contact
- Feral children suffer from social deficits - could suggest that lack of HC leads to ill-adjustment
- However hard to draw conclusions from this
- We cannot know what other influences could have caused the ill-adjustment
Human contact and functioning - Harlow’s Monkey Study
Harlow’s studies on rhesus monkeys (1958)
- Infant monkeys who have been removed from their mothers
- Infants isolated from other monkeys
- Baby has two surrogate mothers - one wire cloth mother and a wire food mother
- Some monkey’s only had the choice of a food giving mother
Findings of Harlow’s (1958) monkey study
- Infant monkey’s generally preferred the cloth wire surrogate mother
- Repeatedly choose cloth mother over food mother suggests
- Those monkeys that chose the cloth mother were reported to be more physically and mentally adjusted at the end of the study than the monkeys who only had the food mother
Conclusions of Harlow’s (1958) monkey study
- Harlow concluded that comfort was important for the developing monkey and that it is not food alone that connects mother and infant
- This research provided a foundation for attachment theory
Human contact example Admiral Byrd
- Admiral Byrd kept a journal
- Lived in isolation out of choice
- 4 weeks: Reported being lonely, lost and bewildered
- 9th week: Preoccupied with religious questions and dwelling excessively on the meaning of life
- 3 months: Severely depressed, apathetic (showing/feeling no interest and enthusiasm) and attacked by hallucinations and bizarre ideas
Conclusion of Admiral Byrd
- Lack of social contact can have quite striking effects, even when the person was brought up in a loving family environment and chooses isolation
Prevalence of Loneliness
- Between 10-45% of Americans report they regularly feel lonely (Beutal et al. 2017)
- Adolescents and young adults report being loneliest (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006)
- No direct relationship between contact time with people and feelings of loneliness have been found
- Even when we spend time with others, it doesn’t stop people from feeling lonely - especially when interactions are not always positive
Isolated vs Loneliness
- We can be isolated but feel fine with ourselves and not lonely
- Yet we can be with others and still feel lonely
- Lonely therefore is a subjective feeling
Lack of social support and Loneliness have been associated with multiple negative effects:
- Bloom et al (1978)
- Griffiths et al (2005)
- James et al (2011)
- Cacioppo et al (2006)
- Bloom et al (1978) - hospital admissions for psychiatric problems were higher for divorced than married people
- Griffiths et al (2005) - Suicide rates are higher for single and divorced people
- James et al (2011) - Loneliness puts individuals at risk of cognitive decline
- Cacioppo et al (2006) - Loneliness has been associated with higher risks of depression
Lack of social support and Loneliness: Mortality
- Lynch (1979)
- Holt-Lunstad (2015)
- Lynch (1979) - Mortality rates are higher for divorced, unmarried and widowed individuals
- Those who fit these criteria have a higher chance of sooner death
✓ Supported by Holt-Lunstad (2015) - loneliness was associated with an increase in mortality by 26%
Lack of social support and Loneliness: Physical effects
- Holt-Lunstad et al (2010)
- Valtorta (2016)
- Holt-Lunstad et al (2010) - Loneliness has been linked with higher rates of obesity and smoking habits
- Valtorta (2016) - Loneliness is associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke
Gender differences after divorce
- (Robards et al., 2012)
- Divorce is associated with worse physical and mental health more strongly for men than for women (Robards et al., 2012)
- Men are more likely to develop suicidality than women after separation (Kolves et al., 2010)
- Women may experience benefits after separations (e.g., Dittami et al., 2007)
- Stronger mental health issues and physical symptoms after divorce than women
Why are there gender differences after divorce
> > Possibly because women have a more secure social support network
Women are more encouraged to seek help for their emotions
Possibly this social support acts as a buffer for the negative consequences after a break up
Gender differences in friendships - men more emotionally dependent
- Men may be more emotionally dependent on their romantic partners and have fewer alternative sources of support.
-
General Social survey - Gender and depression (1972-2012)
- 71% of men said if they were depressed they would turn to their wife
- 39% of women said they would turn to their husband
Gender differences in friendships
- (Rubin, 1985) - Men are more likely to have ‘casual’ friendships with other men
- Women more likely to have ‘close’ relationships with other women
- (Grambs, 1989) - Married women have wider networks of social support
Cohen and Hoberman (1983) - Lack of social support
Cohen and Hoberman (1983)
- When you have social support from others, it acts as a buffer on physical symptoms of stress
- Those with high stress showed considerable severe physical symptoms when no support
- Those with support, even in high stress situations showed considerably lower physical symptoms
- Suggests social support does seem to be a buffer
Social support and anxiety - Schachter (1959)
- Participants were told they would be administered shocks
- Half were told the shocks would be strong (high anxiety condition)
- Half were told the shocks would be weak (low anxiety condition)
- They were given the option of waiting alone or with others
Social support and anxiety - Schachter (1959) - findings
- 63% of the HIGH anxiety condition wanted to remain together (wait with someone and remain with them)
- 33% of the LOW anxiety condition wanted to remain together - 67% were happy to wait alone
Types of social support (Stroebe) EEII
- Emotional support (e.g. feeling loved)
- Evaluation (e.g. help make up mind about things)
- Information (e.g. about financial things)
- Instrumental (e.g. concrete help)
Reasons for affiliating (Hill, 1987)
- Receive emotional support
- Reduce uncertainty through comparing with others
- Be positively stimulated
- Obtain confirmation and recognition
Theory of relationships - A fundamental human need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
> > For something to be considered a basic need it has to fit the following criteria:
- An evolutionary basis for seeking relationships
- The need to belong is universal
- The need to belong guides social cognition
- The need to belong is satiable (able to be met)
- There will be profound negative consequences if the need is not met
Theory of relationships - A fundamental human need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
- Just like we need food/water, we need social relationships to survive
- Several arguments for the theory
An evolutionary basis for seeking relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
- We develop relationships to help us survive through evolution
- Romantic relationships mean we can provide for our children > increasing likelihood of passing on genes
Evolutionary basis for relationships
- Diamond (2003)
- Bowlby (1992)
- Trivers (1971)
- Diamond (2003) - LT romantic bonds evolved to facilitate reproduction, and raise offspring
- Bowlby (1992) - Parent-offspring attachments help protect offspring until they become independent
- Trivers (1971) - friendship evolved as means for non-kin cooporation, increasing survival chances through cooperation
Baumeister & Leary (1995) - the need to belong is UNIVERSAL
- We see the same type of behaviours and rituals in different types of relationships e.g. siblings
Baumeister & Leary (1995) - The need to belong guides SOCIAL COGNITION
> When we are in a relationship with someone, our self concept of ourself changes to include the other person
Baumeister & Leary (1995) - The need to belong is satiable
- (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977) -The majority of the average student’s meaningful interactions are with the same six people
- Satiable: when we feel we have enough contact and friends, we don’t need to look for further social support
- Usually around 6 friends - we stop actively seeking new friendships
- Negative consequences if this isn’t met
Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1982)
- Early attachments with caregivers shape our relationships for the rest of our lives
- If caregivers are responsive, children will develop confidence to assume that caregivers are a secure base
- Early attachment with caregivers is important
- Lack of these early attachments can have detrimental effects later on in life
Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1982) - Working Models
- Children develop ‘working models’ of themselves (beliefs about their lovability and competence)
- Children develop these models relationships as well (beliefs about other people’s availability, warmth and ability to provide security).
Bowlby - Monotropy
- Bowlby believed that an infant has an INNATE need to form an attachment with one person
- Bowlby argued this caregiver attachment tends to be the mother - but can be any role
Maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Lack of attachment, or broken attachment leads to problems for the child in forming relationships during later life (e.g. delinquency & affection-less psychopathy)
- Bowlby believed these problems due to MD, in adulthood are irreversible
Safe haven & secure base
- Attachment provides a safe haven for a child when they are afraid
- Attachment also provides a secure base from which to explore the world
Bowlby & Lorenz
- Bowlby drew knowledge from the work of Lorenz and his findings on imprinting to suggest that attachment has an evolutionary advantage
SST (Mary Ainsworth)
Strange Situation Test
- Ainsworth developed tje SST to study individual differences in attachment types
- It involves a structured observation of parent-child interaction through a one-way mirror, following a sequence of 3 minute episodes
- Children aged 12-18 months
Attachment Styles (Mary Ainsworth)
- The SST focused on:
- Child’s response to stranger
- Separation from mother
- Reunion of child and mother
SST (Mary Ainsworth)
Procedure:
- Mother and child are in room
- Stranger enters, talks with mother and interacts with the child
- Mother leaves > leaving child and stranger alone
- After a short period (determined by the child’s distress) mother returns
- Mother consoles child & stranger leaves
- Mother leaves child alone
- Stranger enters and comforted the child in the mother’s absence
- Mother returns to console child and stranger leaves
Findings of SST
Ainsworth reported finding 3 distinct types of attachment:
1) Secure Attachment (Type B)
2) Avoidant attachment (Type A)
3) Anxious Attachment (Type C)
Secure Attachment B - in adulthood
- Finds it easier to get close to others
- Doesn’t worry about being abandoned
- Belief that one is worthy and liked
- This style has a more positive life outcome
Avoidant Attachment A - in adulthood
Uncomfortable being close, difficult to trust, doesn’t like to depend on others
Anxious Attachment C - in adulthood
- Feels others are reluctant to get as close as one would like.
- Fear of being abandoned
- Worries that partner doesn’t love them, extreme desire to merge with other which might put the other off
Social Exchange Theory - Eric Fromm
Eric Fromm - “love is often nothing but a favourable exchange between two people”
Social Exchange Theory
- How people feel about their relationship depends on their assessments of its costs and rewards
- We like relationships when we can have more rewards than costs
- We seek relationships where the rewards exceed the costs and thus make us happy
SET - Comparison Level
- Outcomes people think they deserve to get out of their relationship
- e.g. People with a high comparison level expect a lot from their relationships
- We seek more rewards than costs but is moderated by how much people expect to get out of the relationship
SET - Equity theory
- However, people are also motivated to pursue fairness, or equity in their relationships - such that the rewards/costs ratio is similar for both partners
- We tend not to like too many rewards that out weigh costs as we also like fairness
Types of relationships (Fiske, 1992)
Communal sharing
Individual needs, e.g. family
Justice assessed according to an individual’s needs, moral judgment based
on caring and compassion
• Authority ranking
Hierarchy, e.g. army
Moral judgments guided by principles of obedience and respect
• Equality matching
Reciprocity, e.g. roommates
Work governed by principles of sameness. Justice governed by equality
• Market pricing
Input = output, e.g. at work
Morality is governed by concerns over efficiency and utility.
Types of relationships (Clark & Mills, 1993) - Communal relationship
- Communal relationship: People in long term relationships feel a degree of responsibility with each other
- Long-term bonds in which people feel responsible for each other. Interactions are governed by the needs principle.
e. g. child-parent
Types of relationships (Clark & Mills, 1993) - Exchange relationship
- Exchange relationship: In short-term relationships we don’t feel responsible for the other person
- Don’t expect emotional support and therefore more concerned with reciprocity
- Short-term relationships, in which individuals feel no responsibility towards one another. Giving and receiving are governed by concerns about equity and reciprocity.
e. g. interactions between strangers, interactions at work
Factors fostering interpersonal attraction
> > Some factors to explain why we are more attracted to some than others
Proximity/ Exposure
- Physical proximity influences whether people develop
relationships - We feel attracted to people we see a lot of and have a close proximity too
Mere exposure effect:
- the notion that the more we are exposed to something, the more we tend to like it (Zajonc, 1968)
✓ (Moreland & Beach, 1992) - Students rated another new student as more attractive the more they saw her
Proximity/ Exposure - Housing Project
- This aimed to see whether location would impact the friendships created
- The layout of the building helped explain how some people became friends
- Residents near stairwells were more likely to make friends on other levels
Similarity
- People tend to like other people who are similar to
themselves - People are more likely to form relationships with people with similar interests
- Research tends to suggest we like people that are similar to us
Similarity - (Burgess & Wallin, 1953)
- Couples who intend to marry are quite similar to each other on a wide range of characteristics
Similarity - (Griffitt & Veitch, 1974)
- Over the course of the 15-week study, as students got to know one another better, their mutual liking was predictable from how similar they were
Don’t opposites attract?
- Only regarding certain personality characteristics (e.g. dependent and nurturing), but not most features (e.g. honest/dishonest, attractive/unattractive)
Reciprocal Liking
We like those we think like us
Physical attractiveness
- We want to be close to people who are attractive.
- There is evidence that the primary cue in initially determining our evaluation of others is how they look.
Benefits of being attractive
- More popular as friends and romantic partners (Berscheid et al., , 1971)
- Judged to produce better work (e.g., Anderson & Nida, 1978 essay study)
- Earned more money (Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991)
- Lighter sentences in court (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010)
- Attractive children received better grades (Langlois et al. 2000)
- Babies prefer to look at attractive faces (Langlois et al., 1987)
The Halo effect
- The common belief (accurate or not) that attractive individuals possess a host of positive qualities beyond their physical appearance. Attractive people are judged to be: happier - more intelligent - more popular - have more desirable personalities - higher incomes - more professional success
What is perceived as physically attractive?
- Averageness - we prefer average faces than those that have unusual features
- Bilateral symmetry - prefer symmetrical faces as a sign of good health
- Evolutionary basis: we’ve evolved to prefer people whose physical features signify health
or, more generally, reproductive fitness—the capacity to pass one’s genes to subsequent generations
Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998
- T-shirts of facially symmetrical men were judged to have a better aroma than those
less symmetrical - but only by those women who were close to the ovulation phase
What other features are considers attractive?
- Waist-to-hip ration
- Colour red
- Strong jaw in males
Sigall & Landy, 1973
- Subjects judged a confederate as more likeable, friendly and confident if they knew his girlfriend was attractive
Factors fostering interpersonal attraction - Physical arousal (Dutton & Aron, 1974)
- Sexual attraction occurs more frequently when emotional arousal was higher (happy or sad)
- Men who expected severe rather than light shocks thought the women was more attractive
- Misattribution of emotions: any strong emotions, even negative emotions might be confused withe feelings of attraction
Factors fostering interpersonal attraction - Ambient Factors (Griffitt and Veitch, 1971)
- Stressful background (ambient features e.g. feeling hot or crowded) reduced the attractiveness of the stranger
Types of Love (Aronson) - Passionate
- Intense longing
- Physiological arousal
- Feelings of great fulfilment and ecstasy when reciprocated (New romantic relationships)
Types of Love (Aronson) - Companionate
- Intimacy and affection
- Deep care for the other
- Not necessarily passion or arousal in their presence
(Mature romantic relationships)
Romantic relationships - Sternberg’s Triangle of Love (1988)
- Commitment
- Passion
- Intimacy
- These are crucial in characterising different experiences of love
- When all three are present we can speak of consummate love
When only have one or two, we have love in a different way
Romantic relationships - Sternberg’s Triangle of Love (1988)
- Romantic Love = passion + intimacy
- Companionate love = commitment + intimacy
Investment model of commitment (Rusbult, 1980, 1983)
- Part of this theory is based on the social exchange theory
- These components dictate whether we will remain committed
- Satisfaction
- Rewards
- Alternatives (how appealing are other people to you other than your partner?)
- Investment (how much time, effort and money have you invested and how much would you loose if you split?)
Love and Marriage
- The progress of marriage following from romantic love tends to be Westernised
- Romantic love has generally not been regarded as a prerequisite to marriage (arranged marriages).
- Marriage by love is relatively new (past 500 years or so).
Love and Marriage (Gupta & Singh, 1982).
- Study in India
- Mutual love was rated lower by arranged couples than by ‘love couples’ – at first.
- Over time, this trend reversed
Predictors of Dissatisfaction and Divorce
- Neuroticism
- Sensitivity to rejection / hostility
- Lower socioeconomic status
- Financial and work-related problems
- Marrying at young age
- Negative attribution patterns (blaming)
- Lack of conflict-management styles
The interaction dynamics approach (Gottman & Levenson, 1992)
- The way couples interact in a conflict discussion task can be a powerful predictor of dissatisfaction and divorce
- Harmful behaviours (the 4 horseman of the apocalypse) - Criticism
- Contempt
- Defensiveness
- Stonewalling (refusal to deal with problems)
- 93% predictive accuracy over 14 years based on a 15 minute conversation (Gottman & Levenson, 2000)
Other factors for relationship dissatisfaction - Idealisation & Playfulness
- Idealisation:
- (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996) - Participants who rated their partner higher on several traits than the partner did himself or herself, were more satisfied with their relationships (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996).
- Playfulness
- Marital satisfaction tends to return to pre-kid levels only when kids leave home, mainly due to lack of novel joint activities.
Other factors for relationship dissatisfaction - divorce, unequal division of household labour, RomComs, Women being slimmer than man
- Divorce is contagious (McDermontt, Fowler & Christakis, 2013)
- Unequal division of household labour leads to dissatisfaction (e.g., Oshio, Nozaki & Kobayashi, 2013)
- Watching romantic comedies is bad for relationship satisfaction (Johnson & Holmes, unpublished)
- Woman being slimmer than the man is related to relationship satisfaction (Meltzer et al., 2011)
Robles et al (2014)
- Meta-analysis
- Greater marital quality was related to better heath and lower risk of mortality
» Health and marital quality - quite likely that better health can improve marriage AND better marriage can improve better health
» Abusive marriages could cause negative effects
