week 8 Flashcards
Why are interpersonal relationships so important
Evolutionary- affiliation and group living enhanced our prehistoric ancestors’ chances of survival and reproduction, as well as the survival of their offspring’s
Social support and wellbeing: A strong association between being in relationships and overall wellbeing. Mortality studies. Instrumental support-practical assistance, emotional support
Affiliation in distressing situations (Schachter,1959)
Study 1 - Female participants given choice to wait alone or with other people for a study in which they believe they would receive painful vs. non-painful electric shocks
Those who expected painful shocks preferred to wait with others significantly more
Study 2 - Participants given choices to wait:
Alone vs. with women who’re waiting for the same study vs. with women who’re waiting for an academic tutorial
Interpersonal relationships so important part 2
People affiliate to obtain information about other people’s attitudes and behaviours to
Reduce uncertainty, ambiguity, and confusion
Provide guidance for how we should respond to the situation.
Festinger’s (1954) ‘Social Comparison Theory’: comparing oneself with others is essential for evaluating and enhancing aspects of the self
Effects of social exclusion/ostracism/rejection
Cyberball (William et al., 2000): a virtual ball-tossing game between a participant and two confederates (or computer-controlled).
Participants are eventually excluded from receiving the ball.
Loneliness
Loneliness are experienced by a substantial proportion of the population across societies (e.g., Perissinotto, et al., 2012; Surkalim, et al., 2022).
A meta-analysis of studies in the period 1980–2014 showed that loneliness and living alone increased the likelihood of mortality by 26 - 32 percent (Holt-Lunstad, et al., 2015).
A more recent meta-analysis (k=114, pooledN=18,512) showed medium to large effects of loneliness on all health outcomes, including mental health, overall wellbeing, physical health, etc (Park, et al., 2020).
Physical appearance
Physical attractiveness is an asset in many facets of life. A physically attractive person is more likely to
be liked more in a first date (Walster, Aronson, et al., 1966)
raise higher sums of money for charity (Chaiken, 1979)
be successful in a job interview (Huang & Lin, 2016)
earn more money once they have a job (Frieze et al., 1991; French, 2002)
be treated leniently in the legal system (Downs & Lyons, 1991; Mackelprang & Becker, 2015)
be perceived as trustworthy (Ma, Xu & Luo, 2015)
…
`
The matching phenomenon
People are more likely to choose as partners people who are similar match to themselves in terms of physical attraction
Asset: seeking complementary assets allows people to exchange what they want from relationships
Proximity
Being in close proximity to others can facilitate attraction- the propinquity effect
Back, et al. (2008) randomly assigned students to sit next to someone, or in the same row as that person, for one whole term. They found the closer students sat to the person, the more they like them.
Spatial proximity also amplifies attractiveness rating
Familiarity
Repeated exposure effect on liking
In a classroom setting, Moreland and Beach (1992) arranged four new female ‘students’ taking part in class on 0, 5, 10, 15 occasions.
They found that the new ‘student’ was rated as more attractive the more often other students saw her.
Arousal attraction effect
It’s possible for people to make mistakes about what is causing their physical arousal
Arousal attraction effect’ (Dutton & Aron, 1974)
Male participants either crossed the risky Capilano suspension bridge or a safer bridge
Researcher (male vs. female) at the end of the bridge asked them to fill out questionnaire, and gave them a phone number to call in case they had any questions
» Misattribution of physiological arousal for attraction
Similarity
Similarity of attitudes, interests, and values is one of the most important positive, psychological determinants of attraction.
Galton’s (1870/ 1952) correlational study of married couples’ attitude similarity
Newcomb (1961): measuring interpersonal attraction over the course of a semester
Initially, proximity was the key predictor of attraction. But as the semester progresses, attraction was more closely related to similarity of attitudes and values.
Law of attraction (Clore, 1976): attraction towards a person is linearly related to the proportion of attitudes one shared with them
Mutual liking
In general, we like people who like us and dislike people who dislike us- the reciprocity, principle
Dittes and Kelley (1956) - participants were more attracted to their small discussion group if they were told the fellow group members liked (vs. disliked) them.
Gold et al. (1984) - A young woman expressed interest in male participants was liked more than when she expressed no interest.
Reinforcement in relationships
Attraction is a result of direct reinforcement people who reward us directly become associated with pleasure and we learn to like them
Byrne and Clore’s (1970) reinforcement affect model posits that people can be liked or disliked depending on their association with positive or negative feelings.
Liking by association: People associate others with features of the environment (Griffitt & Veitch, 1971).
Social exchange theory
The social exchange theory posits that relationships work like economic exchanges (e.g., Homans, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
Interpersonal resources that may be exchanged include: love, status, information, money, goods, and services (Foa & Foa, 1974).
People’s evaluation of their relationship depends on:
The rewards they gain from the relationship
The costs they incur from the relationship
The relationship they expect (comparison levels) and the likelihood that they could have a better relationship with another person (comparison levels for alternatives)
Equity theory
People are not simply after more rewards or less costs; they also need equity and fairness.
People are happiest in equitable relationships in which the cost-reward ‘payoff’ is approximately the same for both parties (Adams, 1965; Hatfield et al., 1978).
Equal cost-reward ratio
