Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Attraction and close relationships (Y1) - Coggle Diagram
Attraction and close relationships (Y1)
The need to belong
Importance of other people -
social bonding is fundamental to human existence (evolutionary advantage) - helpful in hunter-gatherer societies for protection and group raising of children
Babies are naturally oriented toward humans more than non-social objects (Walton et al, 1992)
people form social bonds easily without any special circumstances
Social bonds form even under aversive conditions
The belongingness hypothesis -
Humans are motivated by a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995)
We need -
-> Frequent, affectively pleasant or positive interactions with the same individuals
-> That occur in a framework of long-term, stable, caring and concern
Impact of relationships on health -
People with supportive close relationships show -
-> Better physical health
-> Better recovery from illness
-> Better mental health - reduced stress, anxiety, depression, higher wellbeing - Braithwaite and Holt-Lunstad, 2017
Consequences of belonging deprivation -
Social pain - exclusion may be experienced at a neural level like physical pain (Eisenberger, Libereman and Williams, 2003)
Social isolation and loneliness cause declines in cognitive function, mental health and increased mortality - labelled as a big risk factor
COVID-19 pandemic -
Enforced isolation associated with increased mental health difficulties and reduced immunity (Pai and Vella, 2022)
Reminders of social distancing intensify pain perceptions and lower pain thresholds (Lee et al, 2022)
Efforts to restore belonging - people will go a long way to gain or restore feelings of belonging -
Solitary confinement
Initiation ceremonies
Despite physical or safety risks
Attraction
Interpersonal attraction -
A force between two people that draws them toward each other rather than apart
Applies to friendship as well as romantic relationships
Finding a mate -
Widespread belief in 'romantic destiny'
Evolutionary psychology (Buss and Schmidt, 1993) - what motivates mate choice is reproductive fitness
Opportunity of viable offspring - women care about resources and physicality, men care more about paternal certainty
The qualities / characteristics people find attractive are those that signal fitness
Facial attractiveness - evolved from preference for healthy, fertile males
High agreement in facial attractiveness ratings - consistent across sexes, sexual orientations, ethnic groups and ages
Features of attractive faces - healthy, symmetrical (inconsistent findings) and average (non distinctive)
in same gender relationships -
Most research focuses on heterosexual attraction -> heteronormative (Thorne, Hegarty and Hepper, 2020)
-> Explicitly - by recruiting or analysing only heterosexual individuals
-> implicitly - by using female confederates and assuming all male participants will be attracted to them
LGBTQ+ relationships are subject to stereotypes (e.g. promiscuity) and prejudice
Some data indicate the same main factors in romantic attraction for lesbian and gay individuals (e.g. similarity, physical / personality ideals, no gender differences)
Social exchange theory - relationship cost and alternatives may differ
Theories of attraction
Ideal characteristics - warmth-trustworthiness, vitality-attractiveness, status-resources
Proximity - who we interact with most often -
Festinger et al, 1950 - students randomly assigned to apartments, neighbours and those on the same floor became friends, but stairwells doubled the number of friendships with upstairs neighbours
Functional distance - how often paths cross
Why does proximity influence attraction -
-> Availability (low cost of interaction)
-> Anticipation of future interaction
-> Familiarity
Familiarity - mere exposure effect -
Repeated exposure to an object results in greater attraction to that object
Moreland and Beach, 1992 - like-ability increased by attending more lectures
Similarity - matching hypothesis -
Similar attitudes, values and traits (Newcomb, 1961)
Byrne and colleagues (1965, 1971 and 1974) proportion of attitude (minimal group paradigm -> social identity)
Why -
-> Validate our attitudes (reinforcement)
-> They will like us back (reciprocity)
-> Smooth interactions (less conflict)
Matching hypothesis - similar desirability levels (physical, intelligence and wealth)
-> Real life couples rated more alike in attractiveness levels (Murstein, 1972)
-> Approach equal-status others to avoid rejection
Complementarity hypothesis - opposites attract -
Carson (1969) - complementary levels of dominance / submission attract
Dominance / submission dissimilarity linked to attraction and relationship quality (Markey and Markey, 2007)
No evidence for opposite attitudes or values
Personality similarity v complementarity -
Krueger and Caspi, 1993 - women completed personality questionnaires and rated dating profiles similar or different from own personality
Attractiveness v similarity in online dating - McGloin and Denes (2017)
Heterosexual participants saw online dating profile of a different sex person that had been physically enhanced v natural photo
Enhanced photos were judged more attractive but for female photos, they were less trustworthy
Perceived similarity -> increased trustworthiness -> attractiveness
Desire to date was best predicted by physical attractiveness and trustworthiness for both sexes
Influence of emotional arousal -
Dutton and Aron (1974) - surveyed men after they had crossed a shaky bridge or a stable bridge - more likely to call the female experimenter after crossing a shaky bridge
Theories of attraction - why?
Reinforcement-affect model -
We like people who are around when we experience positive feelings (Byrne and Clore, 1970)
-> Situation
-> Similarity
-> Ideal characteristics (need satisfaction)
Accounts well for friendships but not long-term relationships
Social exchange models -
social environment is a marketplace where humans can satisfy our needs
Liking and commitment determined by cost-reward ratio
Attraction also affected by comparison level and comparison level of alternatives
Equity models -
Defines relationship as equitable when the ratio of inputs to outcomes is seen to be the same by both partners
Marriage is a mutual exchange of resources
Love is often nothing but a favourable exchange between two people who get the most of what they can expect, considering their value on the personality market (Eric Fromm, 1955)
Love in adult relationships
Love = combination of emotions, cognitions and behaviour that can be involved in intimate relationships
Prototype structure - fuzzy concept with many features, some more central and others more peripheral
Concept of love is subjective - influenced by culture and own beliefs (Hatfield and Walster, 1981)
Types of love I -
Passionate or romantic love - intense emotional state, confusion of feelings such as tenderness, sexuality, elation, pain, anxiety, relief, altruism and jealousy (Hatfield and Walster, 1981; Hatfield, 1987 and Fehr, 1994)
Companionate love - feelings of friendly affection and deep attachment
Types of love II - Triangular theory of love - Sternberg (1988) - 7 types of love; 3 corners, 3 sides and 1 central love
Passion (infatuation) -> romantic love -> intimacy (liking) -> companionate love -> commitment (empty love) -> fatuous love
Outside the triangle - no love
Passion + intimacy = romantic love
Passion + commitment = fatuous love
Commitment + intimacy = companionate love
All three = consummate love -> most likely to last
Types of Love III - Love Styles; Colour theory - Lee (1976) -
Primary colours are main, secondary colours are combinations
-> Eros - passionate - red
-> Mania - obsessive - purple (eros + ludus)
-> Ludus - game-playing - blue
-> Pragma - logical - green (ludus + storge)
-> Storge - companionate - yellow
-> Agape - altruistic - orange (eros + storge)
Questionnaire - Hendrick and Hendrick (1995) - love attitude scale to measure the 6 love styles
Romantic love as attachment - Hazan and Shaver, 1987
Adult romantic relationships can be viewed as attachment bonds -
Evolutionary adaptive attachment to mate
Attachment functions of secure base
Individual differences in attachment style -
Same patterns / style as in infancy and childhood
Secure, anxious / ambivalent, avoidant
Impact relationship perceptions, emotions and behaviour
Relationship maintenance
Over time - post honeymoon period -
Passionate love settles to companionate love
Attachment security increases
Relevance of social exchange increases (Rusbult, 1983)
Predicting relationship longevity -
Investment model (Rusbult and Buunk, 1993) = satisfaction (v alternatives) + dependence + investment = commitment -> staying together
Social exchange and equity models
Evidence for social exchange, investment model and equity -
Spreecher, 2001 - 101 dating couples followed over 4 years with 5 time points - longitudinal design
Satisfaction best predicted by rewards, as well as lack of alternatives and equity for men
Commitment best predicted by amount of investment and lack of alternatives
Breakups predicted by women's commitment as well as alternatives and low equity (Duck's phased breakdown model)
Relationship maintenance strategies - behaviours / activities enacted to keep relationship in desired state (Canary and Dainton, 2006)
All associated with satisfaction, commitment and love (Oglosky and Bowers, 2013)
More longitudinal data needed to test if strategies lead to longevity, or if successful couples use them because they are committed
Positivity, openness, affection, networking, sharing tasks and assurance
Psychological strategies -
Partner-regulation - strategies to bring a partner closer to one's standards (Overall et al, 2006) - Michelangelo effect (Drigotas et al, 1999)
Cognitive strategies may be more effective -
-> Enhance your partner's virtues and downplay their faults - positive illusions, Murray and Holmes, 1999
-> Change your expectations to fit more closely with what your partner has to offer (Fletcher, Simpson and Thomas, 2000)
-> Adjust your perceptions so that your partner resembles your ideal (Murray, Holmes and Griffin, 1996)
Biases in love research -
Most research on romantic love focuses on -
-> White American couples, heterosexual couples, new or mid term relationships and self report data
More research needed on -
-> Culturally diverse and older samples
-> LGBTQ+ couples
-> Non-monogamous relationships
Summary -
We all have fundamental, evolutionary need to belong and attach to others and suffer if deprived of belonging
Interpersonal attraction is guided by a combination of ideals, proximity and situational factors, which allow discovery
Theories describe different forms of love, which may differ between relationships over time
Relationships endure when social exchange is profitable, equitable and partners are committed and engage in relationship maintenance strategies