History of relationships research

Pre1960s
 Festinger, Schachter, & Bach, 1950

1960s-70s





Newcomb, 1961
Byrne, 1961
Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966
Dutton & Aron, 1974
1980s
 Love, Investment model

1990s
 Evolutionary psych

2000s
 “Real” relationships

People say that physical attraction isn’t that important, but
research shows that it is
Predictors of attraction (target)
Physical attractiveness (similar across
cultures)
 Females: large lips, high cheekbones,
big eyes, small nose
 Men: strong jaw, big eyes, large smile
 Facial symmetry

“Averaged” faces are more
symmetrical

http://www.faceresearch.org/demos/aver
age
And it doesn’t just matter for
romantic relationships





Physically attractive children are punished
less
Physically attractive defendants get lighter
sentences
Plain people make 5-10% less than
average-looking people, who make about
4% less than very physically attractive
people (controlling for gender, education,
occupation, etc.)
Strong consensus across cultures
Why?
What is beautiful is good
stereotype (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1978)

Physically attractive seen as more





Sociable
Happy
Friendly
Sexually warm
Well-adjusted
Extraverted
Popular
Mature
Likeable
Poised
In US/Canada, also strong, assertive,
and dominant
 In S. Korea, also sensitive, honest,
empathic, trustworthy, generous

What else affects attraction?

Other target or perceiver or situation
variables?
What’s the story on
similarity vs.
complementarity?

Fertility effects on women






Women prefer the smell of symmetrical
and genetically dissimilar men when they
are ovulating (and similar men otherwise)
Women dress more fashionably
They buy sexier clothing
They make more money if they use
attractiveness to make money
They are attracted to more masculine men
(e.g., strong jaw, deep voice, tall)
They flirt more
Fertility effects on men

When a man’s partner is ovulating, he is
 More attentive
 More jealous
 Sees other men as more of a threat
Major theoretical approaches







Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)
Equity theory (Walster, Walster, &
Berscheid, 1978)
Interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley,
1959)
Investment model (Rusbult, 1990)
Attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
Evolutionary psychology (Buss, Kenrick)
Communal vs. exchange relationships
(Clark)
More recent theories
Vulnerability-stress-adaptation model
(Karney & Bradbury)
 Diathesis-stress model (Simpson &
Rholes)
 Risk regulation model (Murray &
Holmes)

Investment Model (Rusbult)

Commitment (whether you stay in a
relationship) is predicted by
 Satisfaction
○ Rewards – costs
○ What you expect in a relationship (comparison
level)
 Alternatives (comparison level for
alternatives)
 Investments
Investment model
Predicts 50-90% of commitment in
relationships of all types (dating,
marriage, domestic abuse, homosexual,
jobs)
 Predicts willingness to accommodate
 Predicts when people will derogate
alternatives
 EVLN
 How does it differ from equity?

Attachment





Bowlby
Ainsworth “Strange Situation”
Secure, Avoidant, Anxious-ambivalent
Hazan & Shaver, 1987
Avoidance vs. Ambivalence as separate
dimensions




Secure
Preoccupied
Fearful avoidant
Dismissive avoidant
Secure
I find it relatively easy to get close to
others an 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.
Avoidant

I am somewhat uncomfortable being
close to others. I feel it difficult to trust
them completely, difficult to allow myself
to depend on them. I am nervous when
anyone gets close and often romantic
partners want me to be more intimate
than 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 stay with me. I want to merge
completely with another person, and this
desire sometimes scares people away.
More recent measures of
attachment
Adult Attachment Interview (George,
Kaplan, & Main, 1985)
 ECR-R (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan,
2000)
 List of measures

Attachment theory (Bowlby,
Hazen & Shaver, Feeney,
Simpson)
Our experiences with parents and later partners
can affect how we view relationships
 Views of others vs. views of self
 What is the problem with looking at these
categorically?
 When does someone
become an attachment figure?
What is main point of
Attachment theory?

Diathesis-stress model (Simpson
& Rholes, 2012)







What characterizes secure vs. anxious vs.
avoidant adults?
Which threats activate which orientations?
Acute vs. chronic stressors
How does each orientation react to stress?
Figure 6.1
What moderates these effects?
Parenting studies
What are anxious and avoidant people
most worried about?
 What types of support do they need?
 Can attachment orientations change?
 How much is childhood experience and
how much is intimate partner exp?
 How do attachment styles interact?
 Do orientations differ by culture?
 Issues with this approach?

Cavallo, Murray, & Holmes, 2014








Commitment insurance system
Seek connection vs. avoid rejection
When does this model apply more?
Is trust a matter of the individual or his/her
partner?
Is self-esteem a good operationalization of
trust?
How do attachment styles relate to the
model?
Why would this be a controlled process?
What is the “smart unconscious”?
Moderators of risk regulation






Whether immediate or distant (not tied to
certain relationship) threats
Chronic trust in the partner
Self-esteem
Attachment anxiety
How do these factors relate to anxious vs.
avoidant attachment and their reactions?
How does this affect initiation of
relationships?
Rules

If = ptr, then ptr committed
 Find similar mate value
 Maintain match
 Comparisons change commitment (lke
Swann study)
○ Doubt of self leads low SE to doubt ptr
○ High SE to think ptr loves them more
If exchange concerns, promote
dependence
 If ptr dependent, then = ptr
 If ptr committed, pursue connectedness

 Low SE responds to rejection w/ withdrawal

How different from attachment?
 Is low SE = anxious attachment? Avoidant
attachment?
Similarities between theories

Cognitive dissonance and
 Risk regulation
 Attachment
 Investment
Three with each other
 What implications do the three have for
how to make a relationship work?

What predicts relationship
success?
Individual factors
 Quality of interactions
 Circumstances

How to have a good relationship
Have surprise (Berscheid, 1983)
 Do novel, exciting activities (Aron)
 Make positive attributions
 Assume they love you and make them
feel loved (Murray)
 Remember the positive
 Think you’re better than other couples
 Be accurate but positive (Fletcher)

How interconnected are we?

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon
It also only takes about 6-7 steps to get to
another person in the same country by mail
 Or to anyone among the millions of people
on the internet (email study and Microsoft
messenger project)

So can the internet help you find
love?
By 2005, 37% of single people who
used the internet used it to date online
(higher today)
 By 2007-2009, more relationships began
online than any other method other than
meeting through friends

What types of internet dating are
available?

How would these differ in terms of

access
 communication
 matching?

Table 1
History of online dating
Walster et al. study from 1960s
 Project Cupid
 Early computer dating
 Video dating
 Match in 1995
 eHarmony in 2000
 Apps in 2008

Stigma
Is there a stigma to online dating?
 Why or why not?
 Why has it become more popular?

Process
Who uses it?
 What makes it different from other types
of relationship initiation processes?
 How well do matching algorithms work?
 Why is it difficult to test whether they
work? How would you do that?
 What is good/bad about CMC?

How would you make a better
online dating machine?
More deceptive ads
Use fewer “I” and “me”
 Use more negative phrases (e.g., “not
judgmental” instead of “open-minded”)
 Use fewer words overall

Speed dating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hO
KtyQMZeE
Breakups
Who falls in love first?
 Who says it first?
 Who does hearing it make happiest?
 Who falls out of love faster?
 Who initiates more breakups?
 Who is more interested in staying
friends?

Gottman research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oB6z
NcLIH0
 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

 Contempt
 Stonewalling
 Defensiveness
 Criticism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTAKtDB8fY
Love (80s)




Rubin’s love scale http://psychcentral.com/lib/rubinslove-scale-and-rubins-liking-scale/000792
Companionate vs. passionate love (Berscheid &
Walster, 1978)
Sternberg’s triangular theory (intimacy, passion,
commitment)
Love styles (Henrick & Henrick)
 eros, ludus, storge, mania, agape, pragma
 http://www.fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/
selfmeasures/Different_Types_of_Love_LOVE_ATTITUD
ES_SHORT.pdf


Sternberg’s love as a theory (scripts)
How can love be best conceptualized?
Passionate vs. companionate
love
Passionate: intense longing with
arousal. I would feel deep despair if X
left me. My thoughts are often on X. I
would rather be with X than anyone
else. X always seems to be on my mind.
 Companionate love: intimacy and
affection. I have confidence in the
stability of my relationship with X. I am
committed to X. I expect my love for X to
last the rest of my life.

Sternberg’s triangular theory
Measurement issues, etc.
IOS (Aron)
 Experimental induction of closeness
(Aron)
 RCI (Berscheid)

 Frequency, strength, diversity

Are we accurate vs. enhancing about
our relationships?
Evolutionary psych
Parental investment model (Trivers)
 What is attractive
 Long vs. short term strategies
 Jealousy
 Scent
 Rape
 Avoiding temptation
 Warding off rivals

Evolutionary arguments for these
effects
Parental investment model
 For women, good genes and status
should be important in a man
 For men, good genes, age, and fertility
cues (e.g., waist-to-hip ratio) should be
important
 Cultural/situational effects as well (in
most cultures men have more resources
and are the “approachers” in
relationships

Jealousy effects
Imagine your partner having sex with
someone else.
 Imagine your partner sharing his/her
deepest secrets with someone else.


Which would bother you more?
Men—more sexual jealousy
 Women—more emotional jealousy
 But:

 Does one imply the other?
 Are men just more affected by thinking about
sex?
 Or are men just more avoidant?
 Hard to test in the real world