Interpersonal attraction and relationships Flashcards
Intro from Rubin and McNeil
The popular belief is: Love makes the world go round, but according to Rubin and McNeil (1983), liking is what keeps the world spinning.
How is loving and liking similar and how are they different. What determines our choice of friends, partners, lovers, and spouses? Why do relationships go wrong and what cause them to break down?
Exchange theory
The main overall theoretical approach to attraction is Exchange Theory (Thibaut and Kelly,1959; Blau,1964; Homans,(1974).
There are two dimensions to all human relationships: positive and negative, desirable and undesirable
They are rewarding, they provide support, security, happiness, contentment, fun, etc.
They can be complex, demanding, even painful
The First Law of Interpersonal Attraction- Exchange Theory
Relationships must be rewarding
According to Homans (1974), we view our feelings for others in terms of profits, ie the amount of rewards obtained from the relationship minus the cost – the greater the reward and lower the cost, the greater the profit and greater the attraction. Blau (1964) argues that our interactions are ‘expensive’; they take time, energy, commitment and may involve unpleasant emotions and experiences and so, what we get in return must outweigh what we put in. Berscheid and Walster (1978) argue that in any social interaction, people exchange rewards (eg. Information, affection, status, money, skills and attention) and the degree of attraction or liking will reflect how each person evaluates the rewards they have received relative to those they have given.
More on exchange theory
Exchange Theory sees humans as fundamentally selfish and human relationships as based primarily on self-interest. According to Rubin in Liking and Loving, (1973), although we like to believe that the joy of giving is as important as the desire to receive: we must face up to the fact that our attitudes towards other people are determined to a large extent by our assessments of the rewards they hold for us.According to Rubin, Exchange Theory is not an adequate and complete account: Human beings are sometimes altruistic in the fullest sense of the word. They make sacrifices for the sake of others without any consideration of the rewards they will obtain from them in return. Altruism is most often and most clearly seen in close interpersonal relationships. Erich Fromm, in The Art of Loving (1956), defined true love as giving, as opposed to the false love of the ‘marketing character’ which depends upon expecting to have favours returned. Mills and Clark (1980) identified two kinds of intimate relationships: (1) the communal couple, in which each partner gives out of concern for the other. (2) the exchange couple, in which each keeps mental records of who is ‘ahead’ and who is ‘behind’. Such a scorekeeping mentality in a close relationship guarantees dissatisfaction for both parties. Murstein (1978), designed the Exchange Orientation Scale, intended to identify individuals who are preoccupied with ‘getting their fair share’. These exchange types are suspicious, fearful, paranoid and insecure compared with the giving and trusting types.
The Matching Hypothesis (Getting the best deal we can)
According to Roger Brown (1986), Exchange Theory clearly predicts that individuals who are willing to become romantically involved with each other will be fairly closely matched in their ability to reward each other. That is the Matching Hypothesis or the Similarity Hypothesis.
Ideally, we would all have the most beautiful/handsome, charming, generous, and in other ways, desirable partners because we are all perfectly selfish (according to Exchange Theory). This is impossible so we have to find a compromise solution. The best bargain we can strike is a value-match, ie, a subjective belief that our partner is the most rewarding we can realistically hope to find. The Matching Hypothesis has been empirically investigated through the ‘computer dance’. It turned out that the single most important factor that determined the likelihood of an interpersonal relationship was, physical attractiveness. Roger Brown disagrees with the conclusion that we would be satisfied with a partner who we feel will not reject us, rather than one we positively desire.
Compatibility
There is more than a matching phenomenon involved in physical attractiveness, according to the matching hypothesis, genuine couples are more alike than random couples on any dimension which enters into a calculation of social value. Matching is an important ingredient of compatibility (Brown,1986). Hatfield et al (1978) concluded that couples tend to be similar with respect to IQ, education and other characteristics. Hill et al (1976) studied 231 steadily dating couples over a two year period. At the end, 45% had broken up. The surviving couples tended to be more alike in terms of age, intelligence, educational and career plans, as well as physical attractiveness. Those that split up mentioned differences in interests, background, sexual attitudes and ideas about marriage.
According to Murstein and MacDonald (1983), although the principles of exchange and equity play a significant role in intimate relationships, a great conscious concern with ‘getting a fair deal’, especially in the short term, makes compatibility very hard to achieve, both in friendship and, especially in marriage
Compatibility experiment
Hatfield et al (1978) interviewed 537 college men and women who were dating either casually or seriously about their expectation of being together in one and five years time. Those who felt the relationship was equitable were more likely than either the under-or over-benefited, to believe that they would still be together, as predicted by Exchange Theory. A follow-up, 3 months later confirmed the expectations. Those in equitable relationships were the most happy and contented, the under-benefited felt angry and over-benefited felt guilty.Hatfield et al (1979) asked a random sample of newly-weds about their marital happiness and to rate how far they felt they were receiving too much or too little in relation to what they were putting into the marriage. Those who thought they were under-benefiting were the least happy but not far behind were the over-benefiting.
What might people do if they believe they are not getting a fair deal, in order to restore equity?
One course of action is to have an extra-marital affair. Hatfield et al (1978) found that of 2000 couples studied, those who felt deprived, cheated or under-benefited had extra-marital affairs sooner into their marriage, and had more of them than those who felt either fairly treated or over-benefited.
SPECIFIC FACTORS INFLUENCING ATTRACTION –Proximity Exposure & Familiarity
This represents the minimum requirement for attraction because it represents a minimum requirement for interaction. Clearly, the further apart two people live, the lower the probability that they will ever meet, let alone become friends or marry each other. To some extent, our choices about friends and partners are made for us. Social circumstances reduce the ‘field of availables’ (Kerckhoff, 1974) ie the range of people that are really available for us to meet. In all cultures, there is considerable pre-selection of the types of people we meet and become aware of and tend to regard or treat as realistic possibilities for relationships. They are mostly from our own racial, religious, social class, and educational groups and they also tend to be of a similar intellectual level.These are the types of people we tend to find most attractive initially, since similarity of of this type makes communication easier, we have something immediately in common with them as a group. Within these parameters, we will inevitably come into contact more often with some members of these groups than others – something over which we may have little choice or control.
Proximity, Exposure and Familiarity
Clearly, proximity increases the opportunity for interaction – what Zajonc (1968) calls exposure. The more two people interact, the more polarized their attitudes towards each other become, usually in the direction of greater liking which, in turn, increases the likelihood of further interaction, but only if as equals. It seems that we like what we know and what we are familiar with, perhaps because it is predictable and causes us very little in the way of anxiety. On the other hand, repeated exposure to someone or something may reveal the less acceptable and desirable qualities, so that familiarity will ‘breed contempt’. However, most of the research on familiarity has supported the positive outcome of repeated exposure.
PERSONAL SPACE – Can Proximity Breed Contempt?
So it is not proximity as such which accounts for increased liking but the greater opportunity for interaction with those who are physically accessible to us. In Exchange Theory terms, proximity can bring about rewards at low costs and this interpersonal ‘profit’ is translated into liking. If we do not have to make great effort to find people whom we like, then we can ‘invest’ more of ourselves in those who are available, close at hand.However, it seems that sometimes mere physical closeness, especially if accompanied by bodily contact, can be unpleasant and cause us to dislike the person concerned, even to the point of physically removing ourselves from their vicinity. Particularly if the person is a stranger or is of the opposite sex. We may feel suspicious and uneasy.
Personal Space
We all have had the experience of accidentally making body contact with a stranger which would have produced an immediate apology. Even when forced into very close proximity, eg a crowded bus or maxi, we somehow manage to take ‘diversionary action’, like looking away, ensuring that we do not make eye contact with the stranger. We are very sensitive to others’ – and our own- need for personal space.This term was first used by anthropologist, Edward T. Hall (1959, 1966) to describe the human behaviour which resembled the ‘individual distance’ of zoo animals (Hediger,1951), ie the distance which two individuals of the same species try to keep between each other.
Hall on personal space
Hall argues, we learn proxemic rules which prescribe: 1) the amount of physical distance that is appropriate in daily relationships; and 2) the kinds of situations in which closeness or distance is proper. Our feelings for others may depend on whether these culturally determined rules are followed and these rules are themselves influenced by the nature of the relationship. Relatives and intimate friends are allowed much closer proximity, and bodily contact, than mere acquaintances or strangers.Hall identified four main regions or zones of personal space. There are, however, certain exceptions to these proxemic rules; eg. Interaction with professionals – doctors, dentists, body trainers, etc. 2) Also, children are much less sensitive to the rules of proxemics which are learned over the course of socialization.
Hall’s Four Zones of Personal Space (1959, 1966)
Intimate Distance (0-18”)- This may involve actual bodily contact and is reserved for our most intimate relationships.
Casual personal space (1.5-4ft.)-This is the distance we usually interact with close friends, trusted acquaintances, at parties or with those who we special interests.
Social consultative distance (4-12ft)-The distance commonly found among colleagues at work and used for business and formal contacts.
Public distance (12ft and beyond-Used for large public meeting and lectures and meetings with high-ranking officials.
Lastly on personal space
There are important cultural differences regarding proxemic rules. Each zone allows the use of different cues of touch, smell, hearing and seeing, which are more important in some cultures than others. According to Argyle and Dean (1965), personal and social space is negotiated, non-verbally in each social situation in which we find ourselves – striving for mutually acceptable levels of intimacy (comfort).
