Soc 319: Sociological
Approaches to Social
Psychology
Interpersonal Attraction (cont’d) &
Close Relationships
March 24 & 26, 2009
A. Interpersonal Attraction: Who do
we choose?

1. “Availables”
 a. Institutional structures
 i. Despite cultural myth of “freedom of
choice,” institutional structures guide who
we meet, and how we meet them.
 ii. Neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and
social networks are bound by social class &
race/ethnicity, and - in earlier eras – religion.
A. Interpersonal Attraction: Who do
we choose?


b. Physical proximity
 Exchange theory: Easy to interact with those who
are near by. The “costs” are low because there is
little investment in terms of time, effort, or travel
costs.
c. Familiarity: Importance of familiarity: Proximity 
familiarity liking.
 Mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968). Repeatedly
viewing a person or object over time leads to liking.
We respond with mild discomfort to anything or
anyone new. With repeated exposure, the feelings of
anxiety decrease and the new object becomes
familiar.
B. What characteristics do we seek in a
partner?
 1. Physical attractiveness
 a. Buss & colleagues: Universal importance of
attractiveness; indicator of “fitness.”



Physical attractiveness-economic prospects “trade off”
when selecting long-term partners. Women have
greater vested interest in offspring well-being.
Attractive women can “trade up.” [Economists’ data
support this]
Data from 37 countries offer support for hypothesis.
b. Stevens, Owens and Schaefer (1990)


Found men and women “match” on both physical
attractiveness and socioeconomic prospects.
Supports “matching” hypothesis.
B. What characteristics do we seek in a
partner?
 1. Physical attractiveness
 b. Debates over importance of attractiveness
 i. Most people seek “beautiful” partners (recall “halo
effect”).
 Self-fulfilling prophecy (Snyder)

Ii. Equity guides partner choices.
 Expectancy value theories: higher likelihood of success
when we strive for others of like “quality.” (Level of
Aspiration)
 Equity theories: Inequities lead to imbalance and desire to
offset such imbalances.
 Normative influences discourage “mismatches”
(Forgas,1993).
Couples who match in attractiveness
Abhishek Bacchanal and
Aishwarya Rai
Elizabeth Moss and Fred
Armisen
Couples who don’t match in attractiveness (support
for Buss??)
Donald Trump and Melania Knauss
B. What characteristics do we seek in a
partner?
 2. Similarity

a. Matching hypothesis
 i. Equity theory
 ii. Expectancy value theories
 iii. Consistency theories
“Matching” or Homogamy Hypothesis:
Shifting Criteria Over Time
 Religion: Was important influence; has waned since
mid-20th century;
 Race: Important influence throughout 20th century,
though drastic reduction in importance. Specific racegender patterns persist.
 Social class: Key stratifier today, reflecting
institutional structures, timing of partner selection
(Mare; Kalmijn). Powerful implications for social
stratification and transmission of class.
 Importance of third-party influences endorsing
homogamy has waned throughout 20th century
(Kalmijn), esp. among higher-order partnerings.
Trends in U.S. Interracial Marriage
Number (millions)
U.S. Interracial Couples in Millions and as Percent of all
Married Couples, 1970-2000
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.4
Number (millions)
2.9
2
Percent of all
married couples
0.7
1970
1980
1990
2000
B. What characteristics do we seek in a
partner?
 3. Complementarity or “opposites attract”
(Winch,1958)

Limited empirical support for notion that people seek
those with different personality traits that complement
their own. Most data support similarity of personality
traits among partners.
II. Close Relationships
A. Liking vs. Loving (Rubin)
1. Using survey items to measure love
a. Affiliative/dependent need
b. Predisposition to help
c. Exclusiveness/absorption
2. Does the scale differentiate loving and
liking?
Rubin (1970) Scale of Liking &
Loving
Items Measuring Liking
 I feel that _____________ is a very stable person.
 I have confidence in ______________’s opinions.
Items Measuring Loving
 I feel strong feelings of possessiveness towards ____________.
 I like it when __________ confides in me.
 I would do almost anything for _____________.
 Rubin asked a number of participants to fill out his
questionnaires based upon how they felt both about their
partner and a good friend. The results revealed that good friends
scored high on the liking scale, but only significant others rated
high on the scales for loving.
B. Sternberg Taxonomy of Love
Relationships
1. Ingredients
a. Intimacy
b. Passion
c. Commitment
2. Types of love
a. Non-love
b. Liking
c. Infatuation
d. Empty love
e. Romantic love
f. Companionate love
g. Fatuous love
h. Consummate love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRhCTnkd3vM
3. Critiques
Sternberg Taxonomy
Sternberg Taxonomy (easier to read)
Combinations of intimacy, passion, and commitment
Intimacy
Liking or friendship
Passion
x
Infatuation or limerence
x
Empty love
x
Romantic love
x
Companionate love
x
Fatuous love
Consummate love
Commitment
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C. Attachment Styles (Shaver et al.)
1. Attachment theory
2. Attachments styles
a. Secure
b. Avoidant
c. Anxious-ambivalent
Shaver categories


Secure
 I find it relatively easy to get
close to others and am
comfortable depending on them
and having them depend on
me. I don't often worry about
being abandoned or about
someone getting too close to
me.
Avoidant.
 I am somewhat uncomfortable
being close to others; I find it
difficult to trust them
completely, difficult to allow
myself to depend on them. I am
nervous when anyone gets too
close, and often, love partners
want me to be more intimate
that I feel comfortable being.
 Anxious/Ambivalent. I find
that others are reluctant to
get as close as I would like. I
often worry that my partner
doesn't really love me or
won't want to stay with me. I
want to merge completely
with another person, and this
desire sometimes scares
people away.
D. Equity theory in relationships


Hatfield and Rapson argue that equity is
difficult to assess in long-term
relationships.
“Rewards” are varied and
interchangeable
E. Key predictors of marital
dissolution
 Interactional styles (Gottman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E94xTxEydN4&featur
e=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw9SE315GtA&NR=
1
 Young age at marriage
 Financial troubles
 Having divorced parents
 Age/gender of children (?)
 Birth cohort
 Educational attainment
Gottman (1999): Interactional
predictors of divorce, based on
Marriage Lab
 Harsh startups. You find yourself beginning a discussion with





your spouse using criticism, sarcasm, or harsh words.
The Four Horsemen. Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and
stonewalling (withdrawal) invade your communication.
Flooding. Your spouse’s negativity is so overwhelming that it
leaves you shell-shocked. You disengage emotionally from the
relationship.
Body Language. Your heart rate increases, your blood
pressure mounts, and your ability to process information is
reduced. This makes it harder to pay attention to what your
partner is saying.
Failed Repair Attempts. Efforts made by either partner to
deescalate the tensions during a touchy discussion fail to work.
Bad Memories. Couples who are "stuck" in a negative view of
their spouse and marriage often rewrite their past – for the
worse.