Romantic Relationships Flashcards
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love (1988)
3 components
- Intimacy - closeness, connection
- Commitment
- Passion - physical and emotional arousal
The three components combine tgether to form different types of love
- All 3 = consummate love
What factors influence attractiveness?
- Proximity
- Familiarity
- Attitude similarity
- Arousal
- Environmental factors
Proximity
Attractiveness
Festinger et al., 1950
Student housing - Those that live in a closer proximity develop more interpersonal attraction and relationships
* Increased interactions
Familiarity
Attractiveness
Moreland & Beach, 1992
The more familiar we are with someone, the more likely to find them attractive
- evolutionary? see person as more safe and trustworthy
Attitude similarity
attractiveness
Newcomb (1956)
- 17 male participants lived together in a shared dorm
- Initially, proximity predicted attraction
- Over time, students with similar pre-acquaintance attitudes became more interpersonally attracted
Attitude similarity is a bigger factor of attraction
Speed dating: Perceived similarity and attitudes in first instance not actual, predicts attraction
Environmental factors
attractiveness
The more hot and more crowded, the less attractive you find people
Arousal
attractiveness
Fear: Increases physiological arousal (sweaty palms, increased heart rate)
Misattributed arousal to feelings of love
Gottman’s Love Lab
Husband and wife worked together for over 50 years and studied over 40,000 couples
Looked at what makes a relationship work - pioneerd a range of data collection and analysis methods
Four Horsemen of the apocalypse
- Criticism
- Contempt
- Defensiveness
- Stonewalling
All lead to relationship breakdown - 90% accuracy
Criticism
4 horsemen
Verbally attacking personality or character
Contempt
4 horsemen
Treating the other person with disrespect or ridicule. Thinking of them as lesser
“Your’e digusting”
“What’s wrong with you?”
Biggest predictor of divorce
Criticism antidote
Gentle start up: Talk about feelings using ‘I’ statements and express a positive need
Contempt antidote
Build a culture of apprciation: Remind yourself of your partner’s positive qualities and find gratitude for positive actions
Defensiveness
4 horsemen
Victimising yourself to revers the blame and ward off a percieved attack
Defensiveness antidote
Take responsibility: Accept your partner’s perspective and offer an apology for any wrongdoing
Stonewalling
4 horemen
Withdrawing to avoid conflict and convey disapproval, distance and seperation
Stonewalling antidote
Physiological self-soothing: Take a break and spend time doing something soothing and distracting
Heterosexual vs homosexual relationships
Gottman et al. (2003)
40 homo and heterosexual couples (matched)
* Homosexual couples use fewer hostile tactics during conflict
Predicting divorce
Gottman & Leveson (2000)
14 year longitudinal study with 79 heterosexual couples
- 1 horsemen present = divorce after an average of 5.6 years
- Emotional disengagement present = 9.4 years
- 93% accuracy of divorce predictions
Magic ratio
During conflict - 5:1 ratio
Outside of conflict - 20:1
20 positive interactions for every negative 1
Social exchange theory
Cost reward ratio (money, time and love, intimacy)
Both need to be in a state of profit
Comparison to assess profit:
1. Comparison level - how much do we feel we should be rewarded
2. Comparsion level of alternatives - would other relationships be more profitable
Relationship Breakdown: 4 factors
Levinger (1980)
- A new life is the only solution
- Alternatives are available
- Expectation that the relationship will fail
- Lack of commitment
Responses to breakdown
Constructive or destructive
Active or Passive
Loyalty, Neglect, Voice behaviour, exit behaviour
Relationship Enhancement programmes - what do they do?
Aim to improve relationships, educate and prevent breakdown
- Teach specific skills (e.g., conflict management, team working)
- Reduce number of negative interactions
- Maintain higher levels of relationship satisfaction
- Reduced chance of break-up
- Effects can last up to 5 years
COMPASS Model
Rhind & Jowett (2010)
Conducted interviews with coaches and athletes - ‘Times felt or not felt close, committed or complememtary and what factors contributed?’
* Two sides - both people engaging
* Compass - guides relationship, not direction
Conflict management, Openness, Motivational, Preventative
Assurance, Support, Social networks
Conflict management
- Making the effort to understand what’s going on with someone
- Resolve and negotiate in a calm manner
Openness
- Disclosing private information
- Feeling assured that you will be listened to
- Be able to talk about anything
Motivational
- Why should the relationship keep going?
- Whats the end goal?
- What effort do we put in to keep it successful?
Preventative : Compass
- Conflict management
- Manage expectations → e.g. long-distance relationships
- Setting boundaries
Assurance
- Being committed to the relationship
- Being there for someone no matter what
Support
Offering support in multiple forms → emotional, rational
Social Networks
- Shared networks → integrating groups of friends
- Come together as a big group
CARM-Q
Coach Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire
146 atheletes and 105 coaches took the CARM-Q
Associations between measure:
- Closeness was associated with openness, support and social networks
- Commitment was associated with motivation and assurance
- Complementarity was associated with conflict management and preventative strategies
Haas & Lannutti (2022)
Online survey, 1300 participants
Tested on Relational outcomes: commitment, satisfaction, closeness, control mutuality, resilience
and Engagement in relational maintenance behaviours
- Assurances emerged as the primary predictor of all of the relational outcomes
- LGBTQ - higher use of communication relational assurances
- Commitment - positively predicted by shared networks
- Satisfaction - positively predicted by conflict management and shared networks
No ‘one size fits all’
- What works for one person might not work for another
- Different situations causes need for different strategies (e.g. death, pregnancy, illness)
- Negotiation and compromise
Stafford and Canary (1991)
920 couples (married, engaged, dating)
- Perceptions of partner’s relationship maintenance behaviours
- Factor analysis: 5 Maintenance behaviours (Openess, Assurances, Positivity, Sharing tasks, Social networks (OPASS))
- Approaches lead to more commitment, liking, relationship satisfcation and control mutuality
