Interpersonal Relationships

1
Interpersonal Relationships

• Chapter 20

2
Key Themes

• Interpersonal attraction
• Fatal attraction
• Love styles
• Adult attachments and interpersonal processes
• Relationship dissolution/break-up

3
Learning Outcomes

• Outline the main theories and models of
  interpersonal attraction
• Outline the main theories of love styles and be
  able to distinguish between Sternbergs and Lees
  models of love
• Understand the role of attachment within
  relationships
• Outline the main concepts behind relationship
  dissolution
• Identify and distinguish between the two main
  models of forgiveness

4
The Five Hypothesesof Interpersonal Attraction
Figure 20.1 The five hypotheses of interpersonal
attraction
5
The Similarity hypothesis

• Krueger and Caspi (1993) explain that this
  hypothesis suggests that we are more likely to be
  attracted to people that are similar to ourselves
  in both personality and attitude.
• The reason for this may be due to the fact that
  we understand people who are more like us, better
  than those are who are dissimilar.
• People who are similar to us, allow us to verify
  our own attitudes and behaviours, as well as
  there being the greater opportunity for
  reciprocal rewards for example, we like those
  people who like us back

6
The Ideal partner hypothesis

• Attracted to certain people who we believe
  possess certain specific traits or qualities that
  we think are ideal, such as stable emotions,
  sociability or intelligence (Buss Barnes,
  1986).
• It is argued that we all have an idea of what our
  ideal partner should be like, and generally, we
  tend to compare prospective partners to that
  ideal. The closer to the ideal that person is,
  the more attracted we are to them.

7
The Repulsion hypothesis

• This theory suggests that people are repulsed by
  people who are dissimilar to them.
• it is not that attitude similarity leads to
  attraction (similarity hypothesis), but rather
  that dissimilar attitudes leads to repulsion
  (repulsion hypothesis)
• The Replusion hypothesis emphasises the point
  that we also actively avoid or dislike people
  with very different attitudes to our own.

8
The Optimal outbreeding hypothesis

• the optimal outbreeding hypothesis expands on the
  optimal dissimilarity hypothesis, and is based on
  findings that some animals show preference to
  breed with those who are somewhat, but not
  entirely different, to themselves
• Here the similarity variable is to do with
  genetic qualities rather than personality or
  attitude, qualities that are emphasised in the
  Optimal dissimilarity hypothesis.

9
The Optimal dissimilarity hypothesis

• the optimal dissimilarity hypothesis suggests
  that individuals find people who are slightly
  different to themselves as the most attractive.
• in other words, we are attracted, by the novelty,
  in someone slightly different, provided they are
  not too dissimilar for us to understand (Berlyne,
  1967).

10
Fatal Attraction (Felmlee, 1995)

• Suggested that those characteristics we view as
  most important when choosing a partner may often
  be the very same characteristics that lead to the
  break-up of that relationship.
• Nice to passive
• Strong to stubborn
• Funny to flaky
• Outgoing to over the top
• Caring to clinging.

11
Love Styles.

• Walster and Walster (1978) suggest that there are
  two kinds of love
• passionate love, reflecting a short and intense
  relationship, which is often accompanied by
  physiological arousal such as rapid heart rate
  and shortness of breath, and
• compassionate love, reflecting a close and
  enduring relationship, which hinges on affection
  and feelings of intimacy outside physiological
  arousal.

12
Love Styles

• Clark and Mills (1979) differentiated between
  exchange relationships (relationships based on
  costs and benefits) and communal relationships
  (relationship based on altruistic motives).
• exchange relationships involve the calculating of
  costs and benefits within the relationship (a
  cost might be having to spend a lot of your time
  with someone a benefit might be doing the things
  you enjoy with someone)
• communal relationships involve more
  self-sacrifices, you do not do something for your
  partner because you will get a reward (exchange),
  but rather because you choose to.

13
The Triangular Theory of Love
Figure 20.2 Sternbergs triangular theory of
love Source From Sternberg, R.J. (1998).
Triangulating love. In R.J. Sternberg M. L.
Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.
119138), New Haven, CT Yale University Press.
Reproduced with permission
14
Three Basic Components of Sternbergs Love
Triangle Combine to Form Seven Different
Relationship, or Love, Styles
Table 20.1 Three basic components of Sternbergs
love triangle combine to form seven different
relationship, or love, styles
15
Love Styles (or the colours of love)

• Primary love styles
• Eros
• Ludus
• Storge
• Secondary love styles
• Pragma
• Mania
• Agape.

16
Lees Styles (colours) of Love
Figure 20.3 Lees styles (colours) of love
17
Personality and Love Styles

• Davies (1996) found that extraversion was
  positively associated with the Ludus or Eros love
  styles
• Neuroticism was positively associated with the
  Mania lovestyle, whilst negatively associated
  with Pragma
• Psychoticism was positively associated with the
  Ludus love styles, and negatively associated with
  Storge and Agape love styles

18
Three Different Styles of Attachment

• Secure attachment
• Anxious-resistant
• Anxious-avoidant.

19
Secure Attachment

• More trusting
• Tend to have long-term relationships
• High self-esteem and high regard for others
• Generous and supportive when lovers are under
  stress
• Positive, optimistic, and constructive in
  interacting with others.

20
Anxious-resistant

• High break-up rate despite deep involvement
• Intense grieving following loss
• Unstable self-esteem with self-doubt
• Tend to be emotional especially when under stress
• Jealous and untrusting.

21
Anxious-avoidant

• Less investment in relationships
• Prefers to be alone
• Withdraws from partner when under stress
• Find social interactions boring and irrelevant
• Do not like self-disclosure by self and others.

22
Individual Differences in Attachment Styles
(Shaver Fraley, 2004)
Figure 20.4 Individual differences in attachment
styles Source Shaver Fraley (2004)
23
Relationship Dissolution

• The investment model
• How individuals initiate the end of a
  relationship
• How individuals react when the other person
  initiates the end of the relationship.

24
The Investment Model

• Commitment
• Comparison
• Satisfaction
• Quality of alternatives
• Investments.

25
The Investment Model of Relationships
Figure 20.5 The investment model of relationships
26
Response Categories to How Individuals Initiate
the End of a Relationship

• Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986) and Rusbult
  Zembrodt, (1983) have looked at how partners
  dealt with these realisations that the
  relationship was to come to and end, and
  conceptualised their behaviour and responses to
  these realisations into four basic response
  categories
• Exit strategy
• Voice strategy
• Loyalty strategy
• Neglect strategy
• Constructiveness versus destructiveness
• Activity versus passivity.

27
Response Categories to How Individuals Initiate
the End of a Relationship

• Exit Strategy This strategy involves behaviours
  or responses that include ending the relationship
  by thinking about it mentally or talking about it
  ending. It might also include acting in a
  potentially destructive way.
• Voice Strategy This strategy involves actively
  and constructively attempting to improve
  conditions, such as discussing problems,
  suggesting solutions, asking the partner what is
  bothering them about the relationship

28
Response Categories to How Individuals Initiate
the End of a Relationship

• Loyalty Strategy  This strategy involves waiting
  for things to get better, or hoping that they
  will sort themselves out in time. In other
  words, remaining passively loyal to the
  relationship (Rusbult Zembrodt, 1983).
• Neglect Strategy The fourth strategy suggests
  that individuals respond to the partner's
  dissatisfaction by doing nothing to improve
  things and letting the relationship fall apart.
  It may involve ignoring the partner, spending
  less time with them, criticising them for things
  unrelated to the problem, and refusing to discuss
  the problems (Rusbult Zembrodt, 1983).

29
Response Categories to How Individuals Initiate
the End of a Relationship

• Rusbult et al (1986) differ from one another
  along two dimensions of constructiveness vs.
  destructiveness, and activity vs. passivity.
• Voice and Loyalty strategies are relatively
  constructive responses as they involve the
  attempt to maintain or improve the relationship,
  whereas the Exit and Neglect strategies are
  considered to be more destructive to the
  relationship.

30
Baxter Model of Relationship Dissolution

• The end of long-term relationships is due to
  expectations not being met.
• Partners expected a certain amount of autonomy,
  or independence
• Partners expected to find a good basis for
  similarity between them.
• Partners expected support when upset or feeling
  down, or when self esteem was low.
• Partners expected loyalty and faithfulness.
• Partners expected honesty and openness.
• Partners expected to spend time together.
• Partners expected to share equally, effort and
  resources.
• Partners expected some 'spark' to remain in the
  relationship.

31
Baxter Model of Relationship Dissolution

• Baxter argues that direct strategies include such
  behaviours and responses as
• fait accompli which is the instant dissolution
  of the relationship,
• discussions over the state of the relationship
  for example Do you think our relationship is
  working?
• using arguments as a basis for the relationship
  to end, or
• both people agreeing to end the relationship.

32
Baxter Model of Relationship Dissolution

• Indirect strategies include behaviours such as
• withdrawal for example Im really busy with
  work at the moment,
• pseudo-de-escalation for example, stating that
  the relationship should be less close and
  suggesting both people spend less time together,
• cost-escalation exaggerating the cost of the
  relationship, for example, suggesting the other
  person is too demanding.
• passive aggressiveness aggression expressed
  indirectly through negative attitudes and
  resistance to reasonable requests (usually in the
  hope that the other person gets fed up with them
  and ends it themselves), and
• fading away slowly disappearing from the
  relationship.

33
Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution (Duck,
1982)

• Intrapsychic phase
• Dyadic phase
• Social phase
• Grave-dressing phase.

34
Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution

• Intrapsychic phase According to Duck the
  relationship is fairly healthy at this stage.
  However within this phase you begin to think
  about the negative aspects of your partner and of
  the relationship itself, but do not discuss these
  thoughts with your other partner. Consequently,
  dissatisfaction builds up with feelings of there
  is something wrong, eventually the I cant
  stand it any more feelings build up to a point,
  which catapults you into the stages of the
  relationship actually ending. Threshold I
  can't stand this anymore.

35
Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution

• Dyadic phase This phase involves confronting the
  partner with the negative thoughts from the
  intrapsychic stage, and trying to sort out the
  various problems. The break-up now comes out into
  the open, either with one person saying Im
  leaving or Im thinking of leaving. Both
  partners must now face reality and intensive
  discussions may ensue. The focus here is on the
  partnership. Threshold I'd be justified in
  withdrawing.

36
Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution

• 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. Eventually the
  pressure of I really mean it breaks out and it
  becomes a public issue. Now the focus turns
  outwards to the perceptions of other people.
  Friends may be recruited to support either side,
  and issues of who is to blame and what should be
  done arise. Eventually, it becomes inevitable
  that the split will happen and things move on to
  the next phase. Threshold I mean it.

37
Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution

• Grave-dressing phase Here, Duck argues that the
  relationship now is officially ended (buried),
  with all explanations for the relationship
  dissolution in place (true or otherwise). The
  phase focuses on communicating a socially
  acceptable account of the end of the
  relationship an important phase in terms of
  preparing the people involved for future
  relationships. Threshold It's now inevitable.

38
How individuals react when the other person
initiates the end of the relationship.

• The majority of research in this area focuses on
  the extent of distress and trauma that the
  individual will go through, rather than
  theoretically predicting self-specific emotional
  and behavioural reactions (for example, Tashiro,
  Frazier Berman, 2006).
• Overall, research suggests that the individual
  will suffer negative physical and self-specific
  emotional responses such as posttraumatic stress
  disorder, and can include mood swings,
  depression, feelings of rejection, loneliness
  (Chung et al, 2002 2003).

39
How individuals react when the other person
initiates the end of the relationship.

• U.S.A. psychologists Deborah Davis, Phillip
  Shaver and Michael Vernon (Davis, Shaver
  Vernon, 2003) have shown that individuals with
  anxiety attachments show greater pre-occupation
  with the relationship dissolution, show more
  distress and anger, present dysfunctional coping
  strategies and disordered resolution with the
  loss of the relationship.

40
How individuals react when the other person
initiates the end of the relationship.

• Alternatively, Davis, et al. found that
  individuals with avoidant attachments show
  significantly less distress reactions, showing
  more avoidant tactics and self-reliant coping
  strategies at the end of a relationship. This
  attachment style may show insights into why some
  people can very quickly move onto the next
  relationship, seemingly not to have a care in the
  world.

41
How individuals react when the other person
initiates the end of the relationship.

• Davis et al. found that individuals with secure
  attachments tended to use their friends and
  family to help them cope with the end of the
  relationship. Davis et al. suggest that people
  with this attachment style still suffer
  unhappiness and distress at the end of a
  relationship, but remain more optimistic about
  the future (Davis, Shaver Vernon, 2003).

42
How individuals react when the other person
initiates the end of the relationship.

• Research carried out investigating the impact of
  personality and coping with the break-up of a
  relationship, namely, those scoring high on
  neuroticism, like those individuals with anxiety
  attachment styles, tend to take longer to get
  over the relationship, whereas those who score
  high on psychoticism take less time.
• As with individuals with secure attachments,
  individuals who score high on extraversion will
  tend to use family and friends, but again do
  feels negative emotions at the end of the
  relationship (Furnham Heaven, 1998 White,
  Hendrick Hendrick Chung et al 2002).

43
Revision Advice

• How have individual difference factors (traits,
  groups) helped us understand aspects of the
  relationship cycle.
• Look for personality, attachment..
• You might want to isolate areas..

44
Key Themes

• Interpersonal attraction
• Fatal attraction
• Love styles
• Adult attachments and interpersonal processes
• Relationship dissolution/break-up