Week 10 – Relationships (Liking & Loving) Flashcards
Seeking connectedness
® Need to belong (aka need for affiliation): refers to the fundamental human need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships.
o Early in development, children try to affiliate and form bonds with others.
o People readily form social attachments under a range of conditions, and resist the dissolution of relationships.
Relationship and interpersonal relationship definition
an association between two or more people.
Interpersonal relationship: an association between two people
Kinds of relationships:
there are various kinds of relationships
* Family, friend, romantic partner, colleague, boss, teammate…
* Close - distant
* One way of classifying: patterns of exchange between relationship partners
* Exchange rules: patterns according to which relationship partners exchange rewards and punishments
Relational Models Theory
- Alan Fiske’s (1992) Relational Models Theory
- Different relationships are governed by different rules of interaction/’exchange’
- Four ‘relational models’ – patterns of exchange that can be used to think about relationships
The four relationship model
-Communal sharing
-Authority ranking
-Equality matching
-Market pricing
Relational Models Theory communal sharing
communal sharing relationships organize individuals into groups or pairs, within which individuals feel a sense of equivalency or common fate. Examples of these kinds of relationships include families, romantic partners, tight-knit groups etc. Key concepts in such relationships include sharing, empathy, need-based giving, solidarity & community.
Relational Models Theory authority ranking
authority ranking relationships involve a linear ordering of social status, in which subordinates give differential respect to superiors, and superiors provide guidance and wisdom to those who are in subordinate positions. Authority ranking relationships tend to characterize interactions between bosses and employees, and teacher & student. Key ideas here include hierarchy, order, duty, respect, deference, protection & discipline.
Relational models Equality matching
organizes relationships on even balance, or 1:1 reciprocity. Here, key concepts include equality. Equality matching often characterizes relationships between colleagues, housemates, students.
Relational models: market pricing
these sorts of relationships use a proportionality metric/rule of exchange to coordinate relationships. Here, key concepts include cost/benefit calculations, input/output ratios. These types of relationships
tend to govern customer sales, relationships between business partners, and organizations & their clients.
Relational Models Theory: mixed model
® Many relationships are mixed-model – e.g. a romantic partner is typically communal sharing, but equality matching sometimes creeps in. Between a parent & child, there can be both communal sharing and authority ranking.
® Different stages of the same relationship can be characterized by different exchange rules – e.g. some may begin as equality matching and move towards communal sharing
Relationships and well-being
- Close relationships provide us with social support:
- Emotional and physical coping resources provided by other people
- Social support is associated with great psychological and physical well-being
- Effects on mortality risk are comparable to other significant factors Holt-Lunstad et al (2010)
The costs of loneliness
- Loneliness: negative feelings arsing from unmet needs for affection and self-validation
- Not being alone, but feeling a sense of isolation
- Loneliness increases risk of negative health conditions, cognitive decline and impaired executive functioning (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009)
Relationship formation: attraction and liking
- Attraction: desire for a voluntary relationship
- Liking: positive evaluation of an object (here another person)
Factors that influence attraction and liking
- Physical attractiveness
- Similarity
- Positive interaction: Proximity, familiarity and mimicry
these factor shows mutual reinforcement
Important of physical attractiveness
- We like those who are physically attractive
-including facial symmetry. There is a stereotype that physically attractive people are warm, friendly. This can contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Contributes to self-fulfilling prophecy of physical attractiveness* Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977)
- Men and women have a ‘getting acquainted’ phone conversation
- Men who believed that they were talking to anattractive woman were more sociable, sexually warm, interesting, independent, bold, humorous…
- This led the women to reciprocate
- This increased mutual liking
Stereotype influences men’s behavior, which influences women’s behaviour, which increased mutual liking (and can reinforce the stereotype
importance of Similarity
similar others (not opposites) tend to attract. Similarity increases liking (similarity-attraction principle). Similarity can include looks, attitudes, personality, activities.
- Similarity encourages positive interaction over common interests.
-Similar others validate our beliefs and attitudes (positive reinforcement).
-We also assume that similar others like us (inferred reciprocal attraction – we like people who like us)
Positive interaction: proximity
- We tend to like the people we frequently interact with
- Usually the people who are close to us (proximity or propinquity)
Festinger, Schachter & Back (1950) on friend formation and proximity * 63% of friends lived within 2 apartments - Proximity increases frequency of (positive) interaction
- Proximity increases familiarity
Familiarity leads to liking (mere exposure effect)
- Moreland & Beach (1992)
- Similar attractively women attended a class 0, 5, 10 or 15 times during a semester
- Mere exposure increases attraction
positive interaction: mimicry
- Face to face interaction opens up possibility of non-verbal processes to impact liking
- Non conscious mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)
- Participants interacted with face-rubbing or foot-shaking confederates
- Participants non-consciously mimicked confederates’ actions
-also another where confederate mimic pariticpant habit -> better liking - Mimicry increases liking
factor to build a close relationship
-self-disclosure
-cognitive interdependence
-behavioral interdependence
- Affective (emotional) interdependance
Self-disclosure
- Self-disclosure: process of revealing information about the self
- Facts, thoughts, feelings, emotions…
- As a relationship develops self-disclosure increases in
- Breadth: more topics
- Depth: level of intimacy
Consequences of self-disclosure
- Self-disclosure can deepen and strengthen relationships because
- Self-disclosure increases liking E.g., mutual self-disclosure can increase perceived similarity
- Although depth needs to be calibrated to relationship stage Wortman et al (1976)
- Signals trust in relationship partner E.g., via vulnerability
- Better enables behavioural coordination
- Working towards common goals is easier when relationship partners know about each others’ preferences and abilities
Who discloses more
- Women tend to disclose more than men, Especially regarding feelings and emotions
-Reis (1986) found that male-to-male interaction tends to be low on intimacy self-disclosure, whereas male-to-female or female-to-female interaction tends to be higher on intimacy. - People from individualistic cultures tend to self-disclose more than those from collectivist cultures
Interdependence and close relationships meanings
- Increasing interdependence: Each partner’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence the other
- Close relationship: A relationship involving strong, frequent interdependence
- Cognitive, behavioural and affective .Not defined in terms of positive feelings
Cognitive interdependence
is where representations of the self and other overlap. There is an intertwining of concepts of self and partner. Cognitive interdependence can be measured using the inclusion of other in the self scale (Aron et al., 1992).
Behavioural interdependence
- Behavioural interdependence: each person has influence on other partner’s decisions, activities and plans.
- May involve moving to a communal sharing model, in which the mode of interaction is ‘each according to need’. Giving becomes less contingent on the possibility of reciprocation (less likely to be governed by an equality matching model)
Aron et al. (1991) on behavioral interdependence
found that participants are more likely to give less money for themselves when dividing it between themselves and a best friend, versus between themselves and a stranger. Furthermore, when the other person is the participant’s best friend, knowledge of their role in the division makes no difference – but when the other person is a stranger and they believe the stranger will not know how much they are giving, they
tend to take even more money for themselves (and give less to the stranger). This shows that expectations of reciprocation matter with a stranger, but not with best friends. Relationships between best friends are NOT governed by expectations of reciprocation (being based on a communal sharing model)
Affective interdependence
-is governed by the level of intimacy (positive emotional bond that includes understanding and support).
-With increasing closeness, relationships move beyond more reciprocal disclosure to deeper relations of acknowledgement, acceptance/understanding, emotional responsiveness, and increased sensitivity and care.
-Affective interdependence is one of the primary bases of the important social support functions played by relationships
Commitment
Commitment describes a long-term orientation towards a relationship, with the intention to maintain it over time and foster lasting, strong emotional bonds with the partner. Commitment develops over time, and allows partners to trust that the other will be there for them (projects interdependence into the future).
Rusbult’s (1980) Investment Model of Commitment
- Satisfaction level: recognition of net cognitive, affective and behavioural benefits provided
- Quality of alternatives: desirability of alternatives to relationship
- Investment size: resources put into the relationship
- Time, emotional energy, money, possessions,shared friends
- More satisfaction and investment, with fewer viable alternatives increases commitment
Satisfaction and commitment
® Satisfaction does not equal commitment. Rusbult & Martz (1995) found that in abusive relationships, women were more likely to be committed to and therefore stay with their partner if there were fewer viable alternatives and a higher investment, whereas satisfaction had less of an impact
the concept of love
® Fehr & Russell (1991) found a variety of definitions and features of love.
® Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love suggests that there 3 dimensions by which we can think of different types of love.
Intimacy (feeling close, bonded, connected and interdependent),
commitment (long-term orientation to the relationship)
passion (physical and sexual attraction, intensity of emotional connection)
Threats to relationships
External
* Financial strain
* Gender roles E.g., expectations around household duties
* Rivals
Internal
* Illness
* Change/mismatch in preferences/expectations
Baxter’s (1986) relationship rules
o Autonomy: partners should acknowledge one another’s individual identities and loves beyond the relationship. Females care more about autonomy than males do.
o Similarity display: partners should express similar attitudes, beliefs, values and interests.
o Supportiveness: partners should enhance one another’s self-worth and self-esteem.
o Openness: partners should be open, genuine, and authentic with one another. Females value this more than males do.
o Loyalty/fidelity: partners should remain loyal and faithful to one another.
o Shared time: partners should have substantial shared time together.
o Equity: partners should reap rewards commensurate with their investments. Females value this more than males.
o Romance: partners should experience a mysterious and inexplicable ‘magic’ in one another’s presence. Males care about this more than females.
Managing conflicts
- Accommodation: processes of responding to a negative action by the partner
- Destructive accommodation (Gottman’s ‘four horsemen’)
- Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, Stonewalling (silent treatment)
- Constructive accommodation
- Open discussion, Patience, Forgiveness
Consequences of accommodation
strategies
- Rusbult et al (1991)
- Constructive vs destructive
- Active vs passive
active constructive: discuss, seek help, suggest, change
passive constructive: wait, hope, pray, support
active destructive: exit, abuse, scream, threaten, separate
passive destructive: avoid, neglect, let fall apart
Constructive accommodation is aided by
o Commitment
o Idealization of partner
o Implicit theories: beliefs about how the world works. Growth beliefs foster constructive accommodation; whereas people with destiny beliefs are less likely to use constructive accommodation to resolve conflict.
o Theories of personality: Incremental theories(personality can change) foster active, constructive accommodation processes, whereas entity theories (personality cannot change) foster passive, destructive accommodation processes. Incremental theorists believe their partners can change, and that they themselves have an active role to play in bringing about that change through active engagement and discussion. Entity theorists believe that people can’t change, and therefore are more likely to sit back and wait until things resolve themselves, and not force change on their relationship partner
