Lecture 5 Intrapersonal Relationships

Question 1

3 components to consider why we are attracted to some people and not others

Answer 1

– Personality variables
(e.g., Big Five traits)
– Cognitive variables
(e.g. Evaluative strategies)
– Psychosocial factors
(e.g., Similarity, age dynamics etc..)

Question 2

Theories of interpersonal attraction

Answer 2

Similarity Hypothesis
Ideal Partner Hypothesis
Optimal Outbreeding Hypothesis
Optimal Dissimilarity Hypothesis
Repulsion Hypothesis

Question 3

Evidence for the 5 Hypotheses?

Answer 3

• Kreuger & Caspi (1993)
  – Women shown computer generated profiles
  – Men with similar/ dissimilar personality
• Combination of
  – Similarity to own personality
  – Possession of ideal characteristics

Evidence for…
– Similarity, repulsion, ideal partner hypotheses

Evidence lacking for…
– Optimal dissimilarity & optimal outbreeding hypotheses

Question 4

Fatal Attraction (Felmlee, 1995)

Answer 4

Most important characteristics when choosing a partner…May also be those that lead to a break-up
Five common themes
1. Nice -> Passive
2. Strong -> Stubborn
3. Funny -> Flaky
4. Outgoing -> Over the top
5. Caring -> Clinging
Change in interpretation of our partner’s qualities, rather than a change in partner’s personality

Question 5

Love styles - definition

Answer 5

– No agreed definition
– No consensus on whether love is
experienced in the same way
universally…
(Ireland, 1988)

Question 6

Love styles - conceptualisations and theories

Answer 6

Several theoretical conceptualisations
– Multidimensional concept
Two common theories
– Sternberg’s triangular theory
of love (1986a, 1998)
– Lee’s styles (colours) of love
(1973, 1988)

Question 7

Sternberg’s Triangle of Love (1986a; 1998)

Answer 7

Passion

Commitment Intimacy

Useful in explaining individual differences in relationships

Question 8

Seven different “types” of love

Answer 8

infatuation
empty love
liking/friendship
fatuous love
romantic love
companiate love
consummate love

Each fit on the triangle of love

Question 9

Lee’s Colours of Love (1976)

Answer 9

Eros (passionate love) -> Mania (obsessive, jealous love) -> Agape (selfless love)

Ludus (game-playing love) -> Mania -> Pragma (a practical outlook on love)

Storge (trust, respect and friendship) -> Agape -> Pragma

Question 10

Love Attitude Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)

Answer 10

Hendrick & Hendrick (1995)
– Men -> Ludic and Manic lovers
– Women -> Storgic and Pragmatic lovers

Davis (1996)
– Extraversion
Positive association with Ludus/Eros love styles
– Neuroticism
Positive association with Mania
Negative association with Pragma
– Psychoticism
Positive association with Ludus
Negatively associated with Storge and Agape love styles

Question 11

Styles of Attachment

Answer 11

Theory of Attachment (Bowlby, 1969)

Individual differences within attachment
(Ainsworth et al., 1978)
– Secure attachment
– Anxious-resistant
– Anxious-avoidant

Related to adult behaviour
(Hazan and Shaver,1987)
– Similar behavioural patterns with
romantic partners
– Securely attached children…
– Securely attached lovers

Question 12

Secure Attachment

Answer 12

Find it easy to get close to their partners and
are comfortable depending on them
– More trusting
– Tendency for long-term relationships
– High self-esteem/high regard for others
– Generous & supportive when lovers
under stress
– Positive, optimistic & constructive
interaction style

Question 13

Anxious-Resistant

Answer 13

More eager to get close to their partners
than the reverse
Major worry is abandonment
‘Ambivalence’ – love-hate relationship
– High break-up rate despite deep involvement
– Intense grieving after loss
– Unstable self-esteem (self-doubt)
– Emotional, especially under stress
– Jealous and untrusting

Question 14

Anxious-Avoidant

Answer 14

Not comfortable being close to their partners
– Less investment in relationships
– Prefers to be alone
– Withdraws from partner under stress
– Find social interactions boring & irrelevant
– Do not like self-disclosure (self & others)

Question 15

Attachment Style & the ‘Big Five’

Answer 15

Baeckstroem and Holmes (2001); Gallo et al. (2003)
Avoidant types score…
– Higher on neuroticism
– Lower on extraversion/agreeableness/conscientiousness
Resistant types score…
– Higher on neuroticism
– Lower on agreeableness
Secure types score…
– Higher on extraversion/agreeableness
– Lower on neuroticism

Question 16

The Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983)

Answer 16

Commitment
- Central variable determining relationship ‘viability’
- Represents a psychological attachment & motivation
Elements that determine commitment:
– Satisfaction -> costs vs rewards/comparison level
– Quality of alternatives -> comparison level
– Investments

Question 17

Individual Differences in Relationship Dissolution

Answer 17

Response categories for how individuals
initiate the end of a relationship
– Exit strategy
– Voice strategy
– Loyalty strategy
– Neglect strategy

Two main dimensions
– Constructiveness (V/L) vs Destructiveness (E/N)
– Activity (E/V) vs Passivity (L/N)

Question 18

Response Categories & The Investment Model (Rusbult et al., 1982)

Answer 18

*Prior satisfaction
– Voice and loyalty strategies (constructive)
– Exit and neglect (destructive)
*High investment
– Promote use of constructive strategies
*High quality alternative
– Active strategies
*Low quality alternative
– Passive strategies

Question 19

Responses to Relationship Dissolution (Davis, Shaver & Vernon, 2003)

Answer 19

Related to attachment categories
– Resistant attachment
< Preoccupation with dissolution
< Distress, anger & dysfunctional coping strategies; Reluctance to ‘let go’
– Avoidant attachment
> Fewer distress reactions
< More avoidant tactics & self-reliant strategies
– Secure attachment
< Support of friends & family as coping strategy

Question 20

Responses to relationship dissolution 2 (Chung et al., 2002; Furnham & Heaven, 1999;White et al., 2004)

Answer 20

High neuroticism
– Take longer to get over break up
High psychoticism
– Take less time to recover
High extraversion
– Use family and friends for support