Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Friendships & Relationships - Coggle Diagram
Friendships & Relationships
Relationships & Belonging
Centrality of Human Contact\n- Vital to human functioning\n- Isolation leads to ill-adjustment
Feral Children (Victor the Wild Boy of Aveyron)\n- No contact w. others\n- Isolation lead to ill adjustment\n- Never fully learn to integrate w. society\n- Never learned to communicate properly\n- Never learned to control
Other Cases\n- Oxana Malaya\n- Raised w. dogs & exhibited dog-like behaviour\n- Rehabilitation attempts not fully work
Methodological Problems\n- Small sample size\n- Isolation or alternative company\n- Can't conclude one leads to other\n - May be that condition leads to rejection & that causes ill-adjustment
Rhesus Monkeys (Harlow, 1959)\n- Monkeys separated from mothers ended ill-adjusted\n - Never learned to act w. other monkeys when later reintegrated)
Solitary Confinement\n- Recognised as form of torture
Admiral Bert\n- Volunteered to man active weather station on own\n- Began feeling more depressed & later hallucinations
Prevalence of Lonliness\n- 11% young people aged 16-24 felt lonely often/always (ONS data from 20/21)\n- Adolescents & young adults report being loneliest\n- No direct relationship between contact time & feelings of loneliness
Explanation\n- Fundamental human need to belong\n- How feel about & what attribute to\n - Not physical time, but how think about that time
Fundamental Human Need to Belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)\n- Evolutionary basis for seeking relationships\n - Need to belong universal & guide social cog\n - Need to belong satiable\n- Profound - consequences if need not met
Memo Recall\n- 2 conditions\n - Recall series info/attributes\n - Information paired into being in relationship\n- Categorised info together\n - Either remembered both together or neither\n- Shows social processes influence cog
Online Social Support Study\n- Online ball game\n- Beginning all players play fairy\n- At some point begin excluding participant\n- Participants upset & stressed\n- Fundamental need to be included\n - Even in minimal/irrelevant situation
Types of Social Support (Stroebe)\n- Emotional\n- Evaluation\n- Information\n- Instrumental
Emotional\n- Feeling
Evaluation\n- Help make up mind about things
Information\n- About factual things
Instrumental\n- Concrete help
Reasons for Affiliating (Hill, 1987)\n- Reduce uncertainty through comparing w. others\n- Be + stimulated\n- Obtain confirmation & recognition\n- Receive emo support
Consequences of Lack of Social Support\n- Mortality\n - Rates higher for single people\n- Psych problems more common in divorced people\n- Suicide rates higher for divorced people\n- Cancer patients in support group survive longer\n - Belong to group of patients w. similar cancer who survived
Explanation of Gender Differences\n- More pronounced in men than women\n- Women better @ creating social network\n - Men more likely to be more socially isolated
Buffer Effect (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983)\n- More physical symptoms in low & high stress in no support\n- Difference of physical symptoms increases w. more stress
Social Support for Anxiety (Schachter, 1959)\n- Participants told should be administered shocks\n - High anxiety condition = 1/2 told shocks would be strong\n - Low anxiety condition = 1/2 told shocks weak\n- Given option to wait alone or w. others\n- More anxious people preferred company of others
Significance\n- Relationships goof for us\n- As offer social support & suffer w/out. them\n- Company of others help regulate emotions of anxiety
Why Affiliate/Form Bonds w. Others\n- Evo need to belong to group\n- Learn ot live well-adjusted\n- Prevent lnliness\n- Recieve diff types support\n- Beter mental & physical health\n- Reduce anxiety & emo regulation
Interpersonal Attraction
Factors Fostering\n- Proximity/exposure\n- Similarity\n - More than complementarity\n- Reciprocal liking\n- Physical attractiveness
Proximity\n- Physical\n- Hugely important factor influencing interpersonal attraction\n- More exposure = More likely end up liking them
Army\n- Cadets more likely to be friends w. someone with same first letter of surname\n- As rooms based on surname
Student\n- Confederate attend weekly lecture across two years in diff conditions\n- Attend weekly lecture every week, not talk to anyone, \n- Attend weekly lecture on occasion, not talk to anyone\n- In year when attended weekly reported liking her more
Similarity\n- Receive affirmation & confirmation\n- But problematic as prejudice\n - Can reject others
Opposites Attract\n- Only work in specific dimensions
Reciprocal Liking\n- Like someone if think they like us
Physical Attractiveness\n- Physically appealing
Halo Effect\n- Effect of physical attractiveness\n- Judgement on one dimension cloud perception on other dimension\n- + Prejudice\n - Interpersonal liking\n - Judged to produce better work\n - Earn more\n - Lighter sentences in court\n - Judged to be happier\n - Attractive infants get more attention
Effect on Liking More Pronounced\n- For women\n- Early in relationship\n - Strength of effect wanes the better get to know\n- Affected by physical arousal\n - Misattributed
Physical Attractiveness of Partner (Sigall & Landy, 1973)\n- Participants attend lab w. male & female confederate\n - If confederates presented as random people/in a relationship\n- Female confederate look as attractive/unattractive\n- Impression of male confederate\n- Couple & attractive women = Male thought to be more attractive
Significance\n- Not objective\n- How perceived informed by social relations\n - Not always objective
Shocks (Dutton & Aron, 1974)\n- Male participants told would be given mild/painful shock\n- Female confederate present\n - Different attractiveness\n- More severe shock = Find women more attractive
Explanation\n- Already in state of excitation/arousal\n- Certain level (unconscious) introspection\n- Attribute to attractiveness\n- Misread & misattribute own physiological reaction
Bridge Study (Dutton & Aron)\n- Participants walk across high/low bridge\n- Middle of bridge confederate attractive/unattractive\n- High bridge = Find more attractive
Average Faces\n- Like average faces\n - Not anything that particularly stands out
What Perceived as Physically Attractive\n- Faces\n - Average faces\n - Certain features\n - Bilateral symmetry\n- Non-face\n - Waist:hip ratio\n - Red
Features\n- Babyishness, large eyes & small nose for women\n- Strong jaw for men
Bilateral Symmetry\n- More symmetrical = More attractive
WHR\n- Not about weight/BMI\n- Ratio more strongly affect attractiveness in women\n - Below .85
Red\n- Wear red = More attractive
Link\n- Red warning colour\n- May be misattribution of arousal to warning signal
Cultural Differences\n- Beauty specific to some cultures\n - Not consistent cross-culturally
Japan\n- Paleness
Interpersonal Relationships
Matching Hypothesis (Goffman)\n- Relationship aspiration = Desire for goal + Perceived probability of goal attainment\n- Levels physical attractiveness between partners & friends tend to match (Forgas, 1993)
ADD TO
Relational Self Theory (Andersen & Chen, 2002)\n- Rational selves built in interactions w. associated beliefs & feelings\n- People who remind us of prior significant others activate relational selves\n - Start behaving & feeling towards them as did to prior significant other
Usefulness\n- Organisational psycholgists\n - Bring hang ups & subjective expectations\n - Act toward line manager in way similar to parents\n- Person placeholder to schema\n - Can be beneficial for building rapport\n - Can hinder otherwise healthy relationships
Importance of Attributions, Biases, Expectations for Seeking & Reacting\n- Not what look @ that matters but what see (Thoreau)
Attachment Theory (Ainsworth)\n- How attach to early caregiver form how attach to later relationships\n- Secure\n- Avoidant\n- Anxious
Secure\n- Find easy to get close to others\n- Comfortable w. mutual dependence\n- Not worry about being abandoned
Avoidant\n- Uncomfortable being close\n- Difficult to trust\n- Not like to depend on others
Anxious\n- Feels others reluctant to get as close as would like\n- Worries partner not really love them\n- Extreme desire to merge w. other\n - Might put other off
Testing\n- Toddler & primary caregiver arrive to lab\n- Caregiver leave & retrun\n - See how toddler react
Why Affiliate/Form Bonds w. Specific Person\n- Features\n- Own psychology
Limitation\n- Several factors subjective not objective
Romantic Relationships & Love
Finding a Person\n- Attributes
Social Exchange Theory (Fromm)\n- Maximisation of own utility\n - Rewards exceed costs\n- Satisfaction depend on comparison level\n - Past\n - Significant others\n - Perceived options
Advantage\n- Good evidence for mechanism
Limitation\n- People not like it\n- Not the whole story
Imago Theory/Therapy (Hendrix)\n- Explains why choose specific partner\n- Partner who hurts/challenges us in same way previously hurt/challenged\n - Look to repeat experience & relive trauma in hopes of having better outcome\n- Resemblance w. parents\n- Chance to heal childhood wounds
Why Fall in Love w. Specific Person\n- All factors leading to intra/interpersonal attraction also relevant\n - Especially if matching between self & partner\n- If target of affection fits own psych\n- If perceived benefits outweigh perceived costs
Types of Love (Aronson)\n- Passionate\n - Limerance\n- Companionate
Passionate (Limerance)\n- Intense longing\n- Physiological arousal\n- Feelings great fulfilment & ecstasy when reciprocated
Break Up\n- When not aware the change normal\n- Assume change is end of love
Companionate\n- Intimacy & affection\n- Deep care for other\n- Not necessarily passion/arousal in presence\n - Mature romantic relationships
Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg, 1986)\n- Passion\n- Commitment\n- Intimacy
Types of Love\n- I + P = Romantic/passionate love\n- I + C = Companionate love\n- I + P + C = Consummate love
Cross-Cultural\n- Some cultures more willing to marry someone don't love
Arrange\n - Little love in first year\n - More love in 10 year\n- Love marriage\n - Higher love in yr 1\n - Lower love in yr 10
Explanations\n- No options mean love must work\n- Limerence of beginning not last\n- Intense love @ start = High expecations & object affecst
Which Romantic Relationships Research Apply To\n- Not know as little research\n - On non white\n - On non hetero\n - On polyamory/polygamy