A2 Psychology
Module 4: Relationships
Topics you need to know:
a. Attraction and the formation of relationships

Explanations and research studies relating to interpersonal attraction
 Filter Theory
 Matching Hypothesis

Theories relating to the formation/maintenance of relationships
 Sociobiological Theory
 Refinforcement-Affect Model
 Exchange Theory
 Equity Theory
b. Love and the breakdown of relationships

Psychological explanations of love e.g.
o Triangular Theory
o Love as an Attachment
o Explanations (e.g. Lee, Duck) and research studies
relating to the breakdown of relationships.
 Duck’s Model
 Lee’s Model
c. Cultural and sub-cultural differences in relationships.
o Explanations and research studies relating to the nature of
relationships in different cultures (e.g. voluntary/involuntary,
permanent/impermanent types of relationships).
o ‘Understudied’ relationships such as gay and lesbian and mediated relationships
(e.g. relationships formed on the Internet and text [SMS]
relationships).
a. Attraction and the formation of relationships
Explanations and research studies relating to interpersonal
attraction
 Filter Theory
 Matching Hypothesis
Theories relating to the formation/maintenance of
relationships
 Sociobiological Theory
 Refinforcement-Affect Model
 Exchange Theory
 Equity Theory
A2 Psychology: Relationships: Summary of Sociobiological Theory and
Reinforcement-Affect Model
Sociobiological Theory – based on the idea that behaviours that promote reproduction
are naturally selected. Men and women should seek partners who will produce healthy
offspring who can be cared for, which explains why men prefer young women and
women want men with resources. Family relationships can also be explained in terms of
kin selection. However, many sexual relationships cannot be explained in this way.
Research: Marshall (1981) – 86% were willing to be a kidney donar for their children,
67% for their parents, and 50% for their siblings.
The Reinforcement-Affect Model – we are attracted to people who provide us with
reward or reinforcement, but we dislike those who punish us. Some of the main rewards
are providing help or money, respect or status, sex and love. This theory is of most
relevance to the initial stages of attraction. It assumes that people are very selfish and it
ignores the context in which reinforcement is provided. This explanation is more
relevant to individualistic cultures.
Research:
Griffitt (1976) tested this model by arranging for single participants to
wait in an experimenter’s office while the experimenter went on an errand. The radio
was left one with music playing and in the time alone, the participant (a student) heard
two new broadcasts. They were either good or bad news. When the experimenter
returned the participant was asked to fill in a ‘feelings scale’ (to assess emotional state).
They were also asked to read a questionnaire supposedly filled in by another student. It
was filled in to be either in close agreement or disagreement with attitudes previously
expressed by the participant in an earlier questionnaire that had been done in class. The
participant filled in an Interpersonal Judgement Scale to rate the supposed other student.
The participants exposed to the ‘good’ news reported significantly more positive feelings
than those who listened to the ‘bad’ news. These findings support the idea that positive
feelings increase the possibilities of interpersonal attraction.
Economic Theories: Exchange and Equity
An economic theory is a theory that expresses relationships in terms of some distribution
of resources or trading of one thing for another.
Social Exchange Theory
Description
All relationships have give and take, although the balance of this exchange is not always
equal. Social Exchange theory explains how we feel about a relationship with another
person as depending on our perceptions of:



The balance between what we put into the relationship and what we get out
of it.
The kind of relationship we deserve.
The chances of having a better relationship with someone else.
In deciding what is fair, we develop a comparison level against which we compare the
give/take ratio. This level will vary between relationships, with some being more giving
and others where we get more from the relationship. They will also vary greatly in what
is given and received. Thus, for example, exchanges at home may be very different,
both in balance and content.
We also have a comparison level for the alternative relationships. With a high such
comparison level, we might believe the world is full of lovely people just waiting to
meet us. When this level is low, we may stay in a high-cost relationship simply because
we believe we could not find any better elsewhere.
Research
Rusbult (1983) found that during the early 'honeymoon' period of a romantic
relationship, the balance of exchange was largely ignored. Only later were costs related
to satisfaction with the relationship.
Example
My daughter put a lot of effort into buying her brother a birthday present. He was not
sufficiently enthusiastic about it and so she decided to spend more time on her own
rather than 'being ignored' by him.




Kelley (1959)
Similar to reinforcement theory
But provides a more plausible account of interpersonal attraction
It is assumed that everyone tries to maximise the rewards (e.g. attention) they
obtain from a relationship and to minimise the costs (e.g. time and effort)
 It is also assumed that if a relationship is to continue, people expect the other
person to reward them as much as they reward the other person
 Kelley et al argued that long term friendships and relationships go through four
stages
1.sampling
2.bargaining
3.committment
4.institutionalisation



Sampling – the costs and rewards are explored
Bargaining – a process of negotiation between costs and rewards is agreed
Commitment – exchange of rewards and acceptance of costs stabilise. Great
focus on the relationship itself






Institutionalisation – norms and expectations are firmly established
additional assumptions are sometimes included in the social exchange theory
e.g. how satisfied individuals are with the rewards and costs of a relationship will
depend on what they have come to expect from previous relationships
in other words, they have a COMPARISON LEVEL (CL)
also their level of satisfaction will depend on the rewards and costs that would be
involved if they formed a relationship
e.g. sex and love vs arguments and loss of control
Equity Theory

some theorists (e.g. Hatfield, 1979) have extended the exchange theory to
include more of an emphasis on fairness
People are happiest in relationships where the give and take are about equal. If one
person is getting too little from the relationship, then not only are they going to be
unhappy with this—the person getting the lion’s share will also be feeling rather guilty
about this imbalance. This is reinforced by strong social norms about fairness.
In short-term relationships we tend to trade in things, such as loaning small sums or
buying beers. In longer-term relationships the trade is more emotional.
Overall, though, it is still better to be getting more than less—although you could feel
better about the relationship, the benefits you get from it can buy you compensatory
happiness elsewhere.
Example
Men who have been pulled away from their family by their work sometimes try to even
the scales with expensive holidays. This does not work well as they are trying to trade
(short-term value) money for (long-term value) emotion.



people expect to receive rewards from a relationship which are proportional to
the rewards they provide for the other person
however, it is assumed that imbalance can be tolerated if the two people
involved accept the situation
Walster (1978) said
1. individuals try to maximise the rewards they receive and minimise the costs
2. there is negotiation to produce fairness e.g. one partner may do the shopping
every week to compensate for being away playing sport twice a week
3. if the relationship is unfair, it produces distress (especially in the disadvantage
person)
4. the disadvantaged person will try hard to make the relationship more equitable
Research Evidence
Hatfield (1979) asked newlyweds to indicate the extent to which they felt that
they were receiving more or less than they should in view of what they were
contributing to the marriage. They were also asked to indicate their level of
happiness and anger etc.
The under-benefited had the lowest level of overall satisfaction with their
marriage
The over-benefited cam next (they tended to feel guilty)
Those who perceived their marriage to be equal had the highest level of
satisfaction
These findings – that those who were equal were happiest, and those who were
under-benefited were the unhappiest, was replicated by Buunk (1991).
There are gender differences
** but these findings applied only to those individuals who were high in exchange
orientation (i.e. expecting rewards given by one person in a relationship to be followed
immediately by rewards given by the other person). Those low in exchange orientation
had fairly high marriage satisfaction regardless of whether they were over-benefited,
under-benefited or equal.
Evaluation – this Equity theory seems more plausible than the exchange theory
-

it takes more account of the rewards and costs of the other person, as well
as of the individual him/her self
but they both assume people are very selfish
this notion may possess some validity in an individualist society (USA) –
but less likely to apply to collectivists cultures
what is the difference between equity and equality?
You would expect to see an association between equity and future quality of a
relationship – but this is not the case.
KEY STUDY DISCUSSION ACTIVITY
(refer to separate handout/book)
b. Love and the breakdown of relationships
Psychological explanations of love e.g
o Triangular Theory
o Love as an Attachment
Explanations (e.g. Lee, Duck) and research studies
relating to the breakdown of relationships.
 Duck’s Model
 Lee’s Model
Triangular Theory of love
Introduction
‘’I have proposed a triangular theory of love, according to which love has three
components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Different combinations of these
three components yield different kinds of love. For example, intimacy and passion
together produce romantic love, intimacy and commitment together produce
companionate love, passion and commitment together produce fatuous love, and so
forth. All three components together produce consummate love. I have also
proposed a theory of love as a story, which specifies how people come to form the
different love triangles. According to this theory, from early in life, people are
exposed to various love stories, and as a function of this exposure and their
personalities, they create a hierarchy of preferred stories. Examples of such stories
are the business story (love is like a business, with two business partners
contributing to the business venture), the collector story (no one person can fulfill all
one's love needs, so one needs to collect people who in combination, hopefully, will
serve to fulfill those needs), the fairy-tale story (love is a story about a prince and a
princess), and the war story (love is war). There are roughly two dozen stories in the
theory at present.’’ (Sternberg)
The triangular theory of love characterizes love in an interpersonal relationship on three
different scales: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Different stages and types of love
can be explained as different combinations of these three elements; for example, the
relative emphasis of each component changes over time as an adult romantic relationship
develops. According to the author of the theory, psychologist Robert Sternberg, a
relationship based on a single element is less likely to survive than one based on two or
more.
Passion
`the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction,
sexual consummation, and related phenomena`
Intimacy
`feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in
loving relationships`
Commitment
`the decision that one loves someone else and ... the
commitment to maintain that love`
The Seven Forms of Love
Combinations of intimacy, passion, and commitment
Intimacy Passion Commitment
Liking or friendship
x
Infatuation or limerence
x
x
Empty love
Romantic love
x
Companionate love
x
Fatuous love
Consummate love
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1. Liking in this case is not used in a trivial sense. Sternberg says that this intimate
liking characterizes true friendships, in which a person feels a bondedness, a
warmth, and a closeness with another but not intense passion or long-term
commitment.
2. Infatuated love is often what is felt as "love at first sight." But without the
intimacy and the commitment components of love, infatuated love may disappear
suddenly.
3. Empty love: Sometimes, a stronger love deteriorates into empty love, in which the
commitment remains, but the intimacy and passion have died. In cultures in which
arranged marriages are common, relationships often begin as empty love.
4. Romantic love: Romantic lovers are bonded emotionally (as in liking) and
physically through passionate arousal.
5. Companionate love is often found in marriages in which the passion has gone out
of the relationship, but a deep affection and commitment remain. Companionate
love is generally a personal relation you build with somebody you share your life
with, but with no sexual or physical desire. It is stronger than friendship because
of the extra element of commitment. The love ideally shared between family
members is a form of companionate love, as is the love between deep friends or
those who spend a lot of time together in any asexual but friendly relationship.
6. Fatuous love can be exemplified by a whirlwind courtship and marriage in which
a commitment is motivated largely by passion, without the stabilizing influence of
intimacy.
7. Consummate love is the complete form of love, representing the ideal relationship
toward which many people strive but which apparently few achieve. Sternberg
cautions that maintaining a consummate love may be even harder than achieving
it. He stresses the importance of translating the components of love into action.
"Without expression," he warns, "even the greatest of loves can die" (1987,
p.341). Consummate love may not be permanent. For example, if passion is lost
over time, it may change into companionate love.
Lee’s Model (1984)
Duck’s Model (1982)
Duck (1982) had put forward a stage model of the break-up of relationships somewhat
similar to that of Lee's (1984). He identified four phases or stages of break-up, where
each phase is triggered by a threshold:
1. Intrapsychic phase: This involves thinking about the negative aspects of one's
partner and of the relationship, but not discussing these thoughts with him or her;
this corresponds roughly to Lee's dissatisfaction stage. Threshold: “I can't stand
this anymore.”
2. Dyadic phase: This phase involves confronting the partner with the negative
thoughts from the intrapsychic stage, and trying to sort out the various problems;
this corresponds to Lee's stages of exposure, negotiation, and resolution attempts.
Threshold: “I'd be justified in withdrawing.”
3. Social phase: This phase involves deciding what to do now that the relationship is
effectively over; it includes thinking of face-saving accounts of what has
happened; this corresponds roughly to Lee's termination stage. Threshold: “I
mean it.”
4. Grave-dressing phase: This phase focuses on communicating a socially
acceptable account of the end of the relationship; it is an important phase in terms
of preparing the people involved for future relationships. Threshold: “It's now
inevitable.”
Comparing the two models
There are some important differences between Lee's stage theory and Duck's phase
theory. Lee's theory focuses mainly on the various processes involved when there is still
some hope that the relationship can be saved, whereas Duck's theory focuses more on the
processes involved after it is clear that the relationship is at an end. It is probable that a
six- or seven-stage theory incorporating all of the processes identified in the two theories
would provide a more adequate account of relationship break-up than either theory on its
own.
Both models have some useful practical implications. They can be used to identify the
stage of breakdown and suggest appropriate ways to attempt to repair the relationship.
The models also suggest how, once a relationship has broken down, couples may deal
with the end in order to start afresh in new relationships. Duck (1994), for example,
suggested that couples in the intrapsychic phase should aim to re-establish liking for their
partner by focusing on the positive aspects of their relationship rather than the tendency
in this phase to focus on the negative.
Neither model explains why relationships break down but merely focuses on the
sequence of likely events.
References
Duck, S. (1982). Human relationships (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships. London: Sage.
Lee, L. (1984). Sequences in separation: A framework for investigating endings of the
personal (romantic) relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 49-74.
c. Cultural and sub-cultural differences in
relationships.
Explanations and research studies relating to the nature of
relationships in different cultures
o (e.g. voluntary/involuntary, permanent/impermanent
types of relationships).
o ‘Understudied’ relationships such as gay and lesbian and
mediated relationships
(e.g. relationships formed on the Internet and text [SMS]
relationships).
Cultural Differences
in Relationships
www.psychologywebsite.co.uk
A2 Psychology
Lecturer: Zoe Cross
Critical Issue: Cultural difference in relationships
Most research into relationships has been carried out in Western cultures – UK and
USA
It is also limited in the fact that it uses heterosexual subjects and voluntary
relationships (as opposed to obligatory ones)
It could be argued that behaviour needs to be understood within the context in which
they occur
There are undoubtedly differences between cultures, but over the years there have also
been changed within cultures
Celia Mosher asked her middle class female patients about their sex lives during the
latter part of the 19th century =
Those born in the middle = sex was necessary for reproduction
Those born later in the century = pleasurable and positive (Western, 1996)
Individualistic vs Collectivist cultures…
Individualistic cultures = stress the personality of the potential spouse
Collectivist cultures = stress social status of potential spouse
Levine (1995) = there was a positive correlation (+0.56) between a society’s
individualism and the perceived necessity of love for marriage
In other words, there was a fairly strong tendency for members of individualistic
societies to regard love as more important for marriage, than did collectivist cultures
Voluntary and Involuntary relationships
Shaver et al (1991) = most Chinese people associate romantic love with sorrow and
pain etc
In the eyes of the Chinese, the western view that marriage should be based on romantic
love is unrealistically optimistic
Harris (1995) = studied 42 hunter gatherer societies around the world…
There was evidence of romantic love in 26 of these…
But only 6 gave individuals complete freedom of choice of marriage partner
Are arrange marriages happier or less happier than love marriages?
About the same actually
But…don’t you think that even in individualistic societies, parents often strive to
influence the marriage choice of their children?
Other cultural variations…
Physical attributes
In north America – light skin is regarded as more attractive than dark skin (Cash,
1992)
The study below by Anderson (1992) highlights the differences in cultural attitudes
to female body shape (complete activity on the follow page, in groups, and we will
discuss as a class)
Differences – yes? What about similarities?
Buss (1979) – studied 37 cultures around the world…
Men – preferred younger women
Women – preferred older men
Why?
Sociobiological approach? How would it explain these findings?
Now evaluate the sociobiological approach…
Doesn’t explain why men and women in nearly all cultures regard kindness and
intelligence as being more important than age?
The sociobiologists continually underestimate the importance of cultural factors in
their explanation
Howard et al (1987) tried to explain these preferences in terms of social and cultural
factors…
Historically they argue, women have had much lower status than men…
And marry an older man with status to enhance their social status…
Women, who have no status to offer, offer instead, youth and physical attractiveness
But times have changed? Does this explanation apply now?
Monogamy and Polygamy?
In some societies it is the norm to have two or more wives (polygyny)
Humans are normally regarded as monogamous by nature, but studies have shown
that this isn’t always the case
The arguments for polygamy are put forward by the sociobiologists
How? Explain this…
Sub-Cultural Differences
What is a sub-culture?
Gender Differences
Wright (1982) said…
Male friendships = ‘side by side’
Female friendships = ‘face to face’
What does this mean? Side by side and face to face?
Men – engage in activities together - ‘instrumental relationships’
Women – involve sharing emotions – ‘expressive relationships’
Older men = pragmatic love styles than younger men
Women showed no age differences
Social Class Differences
There are trends that can be seen in the way working and middle class people engage
in relationships…
Divorce rates four times higher in unskilled manual families than professional
families (Haskey, 1987)
Argyle (1994) middle class – based on shared interests
Working class – more community based
But… these differences don’t extend to all aspects of relationships…
e.g. Risavy (1996) found no effect on love style for social class
Understudied Relationships
Understudied relationships provide us with further information about sub-cultural
differences
Why are they called ‘understudied’?
Gay and Lesbian relationships
Most has concentrated on heterosexual relationships
What are the misconceptions about homosexual relationships?
It has often been assumed that homosexual relationships are short lived
But in-fact, it seems that about 50% of gay en and 65% gay women are in steady
relationships
Schmitt et al (1986) measured love for their partner and liking for their partner in
heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples…
The mean level of love didn’t differ significantly amongst them
The mean level of liking was also fairly high in all types of couple
this was reinforced by Coyle (1995)
What are the differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships?
The view that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are similar is an
oversimplification
Homosexual couples – are more likely to have additional sexual partners outside of the
relationship
Another difference…
Homosexuals have to content with the hostility of society
Heterosexual couples tend to stay together for longer
WHY?
Cultural support? Social support?
Electronic Friendships
New area
Conduct studies through participant observation and online questionnaires
Electronic = emails, chat rooms etc
How does email differ from other forms of communication?
Paralanguage
For business – email is ideal- why?
But for more personal contacts, a new vocabularly is growing?
Happy :-)
Devil with grin >:-)
Language and paralanguage are used as a means of creating a social group
Usernets – anyone know what they are?
Umbrella for about 14000 forums or newsgroups
e.g. UFOs, low self esteem etc
there are lots of counselling and diagnostic services available online to help with
things like low self esteem…
what are the ethical concerns relating to this though?
MUDs
Multi user dungeon/dimension
Multi user simulation environment which collectively grows over time
But…. There are problems with policing such MUDs
***********read attached handout on JennyMUSH************
Problems?
98% communicated by direct email
28% used postal system
One third telephoned
One third actually met each other
Key study ‘The Computers that Bind’
Complete this key study by reading the information and answering the two question
at the bottom of the page
Problems with Electronic Affairs
People may pretend to be someone they are not
Not all bad though…
Might be an interesting experience to try out being a man or being a member of a
minority group – to see how others behave towards you
Second drawback – vulnerability
But….
We need to remember that many of the problems inherent in internet relationships
have always been with us…
Telephone was and is used for erotic conversations
Letters for communicating with pen pals