Matakuliah
Tahun
: pengantar psikologi sosial
: 2010
pertemuan 6-hubungan interpersonal
Thought Frequency As Pie Charts
The
relationshi
p
Wom
en
Men
thrash
ing
Aging
Havin
g to
pee
Things
we
shouldn
Me
n
Spor
ts
Fo
od
The
relations
Sex
hip
Se
Pe x
ts
Career
Strange
ear &
Goin
g
bald
Agin
g
Quotes
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but
in looking outward together in the same direction."
--- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but few
have seen it.
--- La Rochefoucauld
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most
insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required
to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting
condition continuously until death do them part.“
--- George Bernard Shaw
ALVY'S VOICE OVER: I THOUGHT OF THAT OLD JOKE, YOU
KNOW, THIS GUY GOES TO A PSYCHIATRIST AND SAYS, "DOC,
MY BROTHER'S CRAZY. HE THINKS HE'S A CHICKEN." AND,
THE DOCTOR SAYS, "WHY DON'T YOU TURN HIM IN?" AND THE
GUY SAYS, "I WOULD, BUT I NEED THE EGGS." WELL, I GUESS
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH HOW I FEEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TOTALLY IRRATIONAL AND CRAZY AND
ABSURD AND...BUT, I GUESS WE KEEP GOING THROUGH IT
BECAUSE, UH, MOST OF US NEED THE EGGS.
---ANNIE HALL
CECILIA: I JUST MET A WONDERFUL NEW MAN. SURE,
HE'S FICTIONAL BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING.
---THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO
IKE: WELL, I'M OLD-FASHIONED. I DON'T BELIEVE IN
EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
MATE FOR LIFE, LIKE PIGEONS OR CATHOLICS.
---MANHATTAN
CLIFF: WENDY AND I FINALLY DECIDED TO CALL IT QUITS, YOU
KNOW, AND EVEN THOUGH THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE
BEEN TERRIBLE, THIS KIND OF THING MAKES ME FEEL SAD,
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
BABS: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU TOLD ME? YOU TOLD ME
IT'S BEEN PLATONIC FOR A YEAR. AND I SAY, ONCE THE SEX
GOES, IT ALL GOES.
---CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
ARTHUR: I HAD DROPPED OUT OF LAW SCHOOL WHEN I MET
EVE. SHE WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL. VERY PALE AND COOL IN HER
BLACK DRESS...WITH NEVER ANYTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE
STRAND OF PEARLS. AND DISTANT. ALWAYS POISED AND
DISTENT.
BY THE TIME THE GIRLS WERE BORN...IT WAS ALL SO PERFECT,
SO ORDERED. LOOKING BACK, OF COURSE, IT WAS RIGID. THE
TRUTH IS...SHE'D CREATED A WORLD AROUND US THAT WE
EXISTED IN WHERE EVERYTHING HAD ITS PLACE, WHERE
THERE WAS ALWAYS A KIND OF HARMONY. OH, GREAT DIGNITY.
I WILL SAY...IT WAS LIKE AN ICE PALACE.
THEN SUDDENLY, ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE...AN ENORMOUS
ABYSS OPENED UP BENEATH OUR FEET. AND I WAS STARING
INTO A FACE I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE.
---INTERIORS
Early Attraction Factors
• Proximity (physical distance, repeated exposure)
• Anxiety
study)
Affiliation Link (Dr. Zilstein
• General Emotional Arousal
Attraction Link
Nonanxiou
s subjects
Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study”
Anxious
Schachter (1959) manipulated
subjects
the anxiety levels of female
# of Subjects
20
20
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Choose to wait alone
subjects by having them
anticipate either painful or
innocuous shock. The
dependent variable was
subjects’ choice to wait with
others or to wait alone.
The results indicated that
anxious subjects chose to
wait with others more than
non-anxious subjects.
Choose to wait
with others
Also, a follow-up study
found that anxious people
preferred to wait with
other anxious people
rather than those who
were not anxious
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)
Attitude similarity and attraction
Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked
to rate how much they liked a
stranger after learning he agreed
with varying proportions of their
attitudes expressed on a
questionnaire. (Higher numbers
indication greater liking.)
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
As the graph shows, the greater the proportion of
attitudes subjects shared with the stranger, the
more subjects liked him.
8.00
7.00
6.00
.00 .20 .40
.60
.80 1.00
Proportion of similar attitudes held
by other person
WHY SUCH A POWERFUL EFFECT OF
SIMILARITY?
A) COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY
(WE LIKE OURSELVES, THEREFORE WE LIKE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE US)
B) SOCIAL COMPARISON (VALIDATION OF ONE'S BELIEFS)
C) ANTICIPATE/PREDICT OTHER'S BEHAVIOR (e.g., LIKES/DISLIKES,
INTERESTS)
D) THEY WILL LIKE US ALSO (RECIPROCAL)
REPULSION HYPOTHESIS
Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening
“Lab” studies
Avg. attraction score
• Similar attitudes
5.5
• No information regarding attitudes
5.2
• Dissimilar attitudes
2.1 (less attraction)
No difference
Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic)
Description of person
Democrat
No party affiliation
Republican
No
difference
Disliked
D S S D S
DS
S D D
DDD S
Reject those who are dissimilar
S D
DDSDDD
S D D S D
S
S
S
End result is that we are left with similar people
to interact with
S
S
S
S
S
The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other theories in
social psychology:
•
Balance Theory
Imbalance is motivating
•
Congruity Theory
Incongruity is motivating
•
Dissonance Theory
Dissonance is motivating
•
Equity Theory
Inequity is motivating
Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather than being given other’s
attitudes is quite different
Active search process
Misattribution of Emotional Arousal
Bridge characteristics:
• Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled
• Low handrails (3 feet)
• 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids
versus
Higher scores and
greater percent
called back when
on this bridge
TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual
content % of men who called female back
• Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual
attraction
EATING LIGHTLY AND SELF-PRESENTATION
Basic Premise: People are motivated to behave in ways to enhance their
image
• Females have greater number of eating disorders and dieting than males
(emphasis on thin as attractive)
“Undesirable” Male
Equal intake of candy by males
and females
“Desirable” Male
• Females ate less food when interacting with a desirable male
Conversation Style and Relationship Type
Intimate Friend (versus Casual Friend)
Voice Quality
Feminine
Babylike
High pitch
Relaxed
Pleasant
Trait Ratings
Submissive
Scatterbrained
Approachable
Sincere
Much better than chance identification of who was being spoken
to, a casual versus intimate friend.
No difference in what was said (transcript analysis). Focus on
how things were said, paralinguistic cues.
Physical Attractiveness
Advantages:
• Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date)
• More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm, intelligent)
• Higher income
• Higher evaluation of work performance
• More lenient treatment in the legal system
Often different
in physical
attraction
• Better mental health
• Matching
Short
Length of
relationship
Long
Couple is
equal in
physical
attraction
Routine Conversation
Misattributions of friendly behavior
Female
Male
Viewed female as promiscuous;
were attracted to the female; saw
themselves as flirtatious and
seductive
Female
Observers
Viewed males as behaving in a sexual manner;
females as promiscuous
Male
Sexual
Interaction
The life cycle
of a
relationship
Communication/
consolidation
Relationship
continues
Deterioration
and decline
Buildup
Attraction
Ending
Important
variables
influencing
attraction
Emotion
Triggering factors:
Proximity, Similarity,
Erotic love etc…
High: Heady
feeling of
romantic love
Social-exchange and equity:
Communication, Self-disclosure,
Communal concern, External
supports
Low:
Relationship in
stable state
Social-exchange and
equity/inequity: Relative
attractiveness of alternatives,
Barriers to dissolution
High: Upset of
deterioration and
trauma of disruption
Social Exchange Theory
• Costs (Inputs)
Loss of freedom, $, time, etc.
• Benefits (Outputs)
Companionship, sexual
fulfillment, etc.
• Comparison Level
(e.g., a standard)
Other person in a relationship,
yourself in the past, an ideal
• Comparison Level for
Alternatives
Evaluation of the value of other
partners
Gender and the Personal Columns
Males
Female
s
Offer
Seek
Offer
Seek
Money
Young
Money
Status
Physicall
y
attractive
Physical
attractivenes
s
Career
Job information
Personality
traits (e.g.,
sincerity)
Relationship Breakups
About 50% “survival” rate; on average overall
relationship satisfaction goes down across
time
• Who identifies more problems?
• Who initiates most breakups?
• When are the partners most likely to remain
friends, when the male of female initiates the
breakup?
Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions
Positive Event
My partner takes me out to
an expensive dinner
Relationship-Enhancing
Attribution
Distress-Maintaining
Attribution
My partner is sweet
and thoughtful
My partner took me
out to write the cost off
on taxes
Internal, stable,
global
External, unstable,
specific
Something
unexpected must have
come up
My partner is always
uncaring and selfish
External, unstable,
specific
Internal, stable,
global
Negative Event
My partner forgot my
birthday
Sample Liking Scale Items
When I am with _____, we are almost always in the same mood.
I think that _____ is unusually well-adjusted.
I would highly recommend _____ for a responsible job.
In my opinion, _____ is an exceptionally mature person.
I have great confidence in _____’s good judgment.
I think that _____ is someone one of those people who quickly win your respect.
_____ is one of the most likeable people I know.
_____ is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be.
I would vote for _____ in a class or group election.
Sample Love Scale Items
I would do anything for _____.
I feel responsible for _____’s well being.
I feel very possessive toward _____.
If I could never be with _____, I would feel miserable.
If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek _____ out.
I would forgive _____ for practically anything.
In would greatly enjoy being confided in by _____.
When I am with _____, I spend a good deal of my time just looking at him/her.
I would be hard for me to get along without _____.
Liking & Loving for Dating Partners and Same-Sex Friends
Index
Women
Men
Love for Partner
89.5
89.3
Liking for Partner
88.7
84.6
Love for Friend
65.3
55.1
Liking for Friend
80.5
79.1
Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches
• Individual subjective reactions to cues in an
interaction
Relationships
• Active search/detection process for cues
• Timing and sequencing of cues (e.g.,
baking a cake example)
Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer
Approaches (cont.)
Thoughts about
interpersonal
interactions
Narratives/stories
about relationships
Evaluation of
interaction as good,
average, poor
• Future
possibilities
• Strategies
• Who is told? When they are told?
What is said? Why they are told?
• Differences in perceptions;
memory for facts