Intimate Relationships 9th Edition PDF

Intimate Relationships NINTH EDITION Rowland S. Miller Sam Houston State University miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 1 12/01/21 7:55 PM  INTIM...

Intimate Relationships NINTH EDITION Rowland S. Miller Sam Houston State University miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 1 12/01/21 7:55 PM  INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS, NINTH EDITION Published by McGraw Hill LLC, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10121. Copyright ©2022 by McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions ©2018, 2015, and 2012. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning. Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States. This book is printed on acid-free paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LCR 26 25 24 23 22 21 ISBN 978-1-260-80426-3 (bound edition) MHID 1-260-80426-7 (bound edition) ISBN 978-1-264-16424-0 (loose-leaf edition) MHID 1-264-16424-6 (loose-leaf edition) Portfolio Manager: Sarah Remington Designer: Beth Blech Product Developer: Elisa Odoardi Content Licensing Specialist: Carrie Burger Marketing Manager: AJ Laferrera Cover Image: National Gallery of Art, Washington Content Project Manager: Maria McGreal Compositor: MPS Limited Buyer: Sandy Ludovissy All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Miller, Rowland S. author. Title: Intimate relationships / Rowland S. Miller, Sam Houston State University Description: Ninth edition. | New York, NY : McGraw Hill, | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020028611 | ISBN 9781260804263 (hardcover) Subjects: LCSH: Family life education. | Interpersonal relations. Classification: LCC HQ10.B735 2022 | DDC 302--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020028611 The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw Hill LLC, and McGraw Hill LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites. mheducation.com/highered miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 2 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Contents PREFACE ix ABOUT THE AUTHOR xii 1. The Building Blocks of Relationships 1 the nature and importance of intimacy 2 the influence of culture 6 the influence of experience 14 the influence of individual differences 20 the influence of human nature 37 the influence of interaction 41 the dark side of relationships 42 for your consideration 42 key terms 43 chapter summary 43 suggestions for satisfaction 45 references 45 2. Research Methods 59 the short history of relationship science 60 developing a question 64 obtaining participants 64 choosing a design 68 the nature of our data 70 the ethics of such endeavors 76 iii miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 3 12/01/21 7:55 PM  iv Contents interpreting and integrating results 78 a final note 80 for your consideration 80 key terms 81 chapter summary 81 suggestions for satisfaction 82 references 82 3. Attraction 87 the fundamental basis of attraction 87 proximity: liking those near us 88 physical attractiveness: liking those who are lovely 94 reciprocity: liking those who like us 105 similarity: liking those who are like us 107 so, what do men and women want? 116 for your consideration 119 key terms 119 chapter summary 119 suggestions for satisfaction 121 references 121 4. Social Cognition 133 first impressions (and beyond) 133 the power of perceptions 140 impression management 156 so, just how well do we know our partners? 161 for your consideration 166 key terms 166 chapter summary 167 suggestions for satisfaction 168 references 169 miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 4 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Contents v 5. Communication 179 nonverbal communication 181 verbal communication 193 dysfunctional communication and what to do about it 203 for your consideration 209 key terms 209 chapter summary 209 suggestions for satisfaction 211 references 211 6. Interdependency 221 social exchange 221 the economies of relationships 229 are we really this greedy? 241 the nature of commitment 249 for your consideration 254 key terms 255 chapter summary 255 suggestions for satisfaction 257 references 257 7. Friendship 266 the nature of friendship 266 friendship across the life cycle 275 differences in friendship 279 friendship difficulties 285 for your consideration 295 key terms 296 chapter summary 296 suggestions for satisfaction 297 references 298 miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 5 12/01/21 7:55 PM  vi Contents 8. Love 308 a brief history of love 308 types of love 310 individual and cultural differences in love 327 does love last? 331 for your consideration 335 key terms 336 chapter summary 336 suggestions for satisfaction 337 references 337 9. Sexuality 343 sexual attitudes 343 sexual behavior 348 sexual satisfaction 366 sexual coercion 374 for your consideration 377 key terms 377 chapter summary 377 suggestions for satisfaction 379 references 379 10. Stresses and Strains 395 perceived relational value 395 hurt feelings 397 ostracism 400 jealousy 402 deception and lying 413 betrayal 417 forgiveness 421 miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 6 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Contents vii for your consideration 423 key terms 424 chapter summary 424 suggestions for satisfaction 426 references 426 11. Conflict 436 the nature of conflict 436 the course of conflict 440 the outcomes of conflict 454 for your consideration 459 key terms 460 chapter summary 460 suggestions for satisfaction 461 references 462 12. Power and Violence 468 power and interdependence 468 violence in relationships 482 for your consideration 493 key terms 493 chapter summary 493 suggestions for satisfaction 495 references 495 13. The Dissolution and Loss of Relationships 503 the changing rate of divorce 503 the predictors of divorce 509 breaking up 519 the aftermath of breakups 523 miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 7 12/01/21 7:55 PM  viii Contents for your consideration 533 key terms 533 chapter summary 533 suggestions for satisfaction 535 references 535 14. Maintaining and Repairing Relationships 544 maintaining and enhancing relationships 546 repairing relationships 554 in conclusion 563 for your consideration 564 key terms 564 chapter summary 565 suggestions for satisfaction 566 references 566 AUTHOR INDEX I-1 SUBJECT INDEX I-26 miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 8 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Preface to the Ninth Edition Welcome to Intimate Relationships! I’m very pleased that you’re here. I’ve been deeply honored by the high regard this book has enjoyed, and I’m privileged to offer you another very thorough update on the remarkable work being done in relationship science. The field is busier, broader, and more innovative than ever, so a new edition is warranted—and this one contains almost 800 citations of brand-new work published in the last 3 years. No other survey of relationship science is as current, comprehen- sive, and complete. Readers report that you won’t find another textbook that’s as much fun to read, either. I’m more delighted by that than I can easily express. This is a scholarly work primarily intended to provide college audiences with broad coverage of an entire field of inquiry, but it’s written in a friendly, accessible style that gets students to read chapters they haven’t been assigned—and that’s a real mark of success! But really, that’s also not surprising because so much of relationship science is so fascinating. No other science strikes closer to home. For that reason, and given its welcoming, reader-friendly style, this book has proven to be of interest to the general public, too. (As my father said, “Everybody should read this book.”) So, here’s a new edition. It contains whole chapters on key topics that other books barely mention and has a much wider reach, citing hundreds more studies, than other books do. It draws on social psychology, communication studies, family studies, ­sociology, clinical psychology, neuroscience, demography, economics, and more. It’s much more current and comprehensive and more fun to read than any other overview of the modern science of close relationships. Welcome! ix miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 9 12/01/21 7:55 PM  x Preface to the Ninth Edition What’s New in This Edition Two new features have enhanced the pedagogy and increased the lasting value of the book. Key Terms that are introduced are now listed at the end of each chapter alongside the page numbers that provide their definitions. And more importantly, the insights of each chapter are now synthesized into applied Suggestions for ­Satisfaction from ­relationship science that offer readers helpful recommendations that can improve their chances for contentment in their own relationships. (The Suggestions also provide instructors with starting points for enlightening discussions!) In addition, as usual, after thorough, substantive revision, this new edition is remark- ably up-to-date and cutting-edge. It contains 796 (!) new references that support new or expanded treatment of a variety of intriguing and noteworthy topics that include: Tinder Sexual rejections Humility Implicit attitudes Flooding Facial expressions Savoring Life History Theory Stealthing Friends with benefits Selfishness Commitment readiness Remarriage Traditional masculinity Foodie calls Back burner relationships Social media Satisficers and maximizers Transference Transgenders’ relationships Open science Consensual non-monogamy The Dark Triad Evolutionary perspective on attraction Further, in substantially expanded discussions of gender and sexual orientation, the book now quietly but explicitly rejects any assumptions that there are just two genders or that heterosexual relationships are in some fashion more genuine than ­same-sex partnerships. Both assumptions, of course, are simply untrue. I’ll also note in particular the book’s brand-new consideration of transgenders’ relationships and ­consensual non-monogamy; both topics have been of interest to relationship scientists since my last edition, and there’s now news to share with you. What Hasn’t Changed If you’re familiar with the eighth edition of this book, you’ll find things in the same places. Vital influences on intimate relationships are introduced in chapter 1, and when they are mentioned in later chapters, footnotes remind readers where to find definitions that will refresh their memories. Thought-provoking Points to Ponder appear in each chapter, too. They invite read- ers to think more deeply about intriguing phenomena, and they can serve equally well as touchstones for class discussion, topics for individual essays, and personal reflections regarding one’s own behavior in close relationships. The book’s singular style also remains intact. There’s someone here behind these pages. I occasionally break the third wall, speaking directly to the reader, both to be miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 10 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Preface to the Ninth Edition xi friendly and to make some key points (and because I can’t help myself). I relish the opportunity to introduce this dynamic, exciting science to a newcomer—what a remark- able privilege!—and readers report that it shows. Finally, this new edition is again available as a digital SmartBook that offers a personalized and adaptive reading experience. Students do better when their text tells them which concepts are giving them trouble, so if you haven’t examined the Smart- Book for Intimate Relationships, I encourage you to do so. Kudos and fond remembrance are due to Sharon Stephens Brehm, the original creator of this book, who was the first person to write a text that offered a compre- hensive introduction to relationship science. Her contributions to our field endure. And despite the passage of some years, I remain deeply grateful to Dan Perlman, the co- author who offered me the opportunity to join him in crafting a prior edition. No colleague could be more generous. I’ve also been grateful during this edition for the wonderful support and assistance of editorial and production professionals, Elisa ­Odoardi, Susan Raley, Carrie Burger, Beth Blech, Danielle Clement, Maria McGreal, and Jitendra Uniyal. Thanks, y’all! And I’m glad you’re here! I hope you enjoy the book. The 9th edition of Intimate Relationships is now available online with Connect, McGraw-Hill Education’s integrated assignment and assessment platform. Connect also offers SmartBook® 2.0 for the new edition, which is the first adaptive reading experi- ence proven to improve grades and help students study more effectively. All of the title’s website and ancillary content is also available through Connect, including: A full Test Bank of multiple choice questions that test students on central concepts and ideas in each chapter. An Instructor’s Manual for each chapter with full chapter outlines, sample test questions, and discussion topics. Lecture Slides for instructor use in class. miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 11 12/01/21 7:55 PM  About the Author Rowland S. Miller is Distinguished Regents Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Sam Houston State Univer- sity in Huntsville, Texas. He has been teaching a course in Close Relationships for over 35 years, and he won the 2008 Teaching Award from the Interna- tional Association for Relationship Research (primar- ily as a result of this book). He’s also been recognized as one of the most outstanding college teachers in Texas by the Minnie Stevens Piper Foundation, which named him a Piper Professor of 2016. He is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and he won the Edwin Newman Award for Excellence in Research from Psi Chi and the American Psychological Association. His parents were happily married for Courtesy of Carolyn A. Miller 73 years, and he’d like to have as long with his wonder- ful wife, Carolyn, to whom this book is dedicated; she was a huge help behind the scenes, talking the author out of (nearly) all of his bad ideas. xii miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 12 12/01/21 7:55 PM  About the Author xiii Remote Proctoring & Browser-Locking Capabilities New remote proctoring and browser-locking capabilities, hosted by Proctorio within Connect, provide control of the assessment environment by enabling security options and verifying the identity of the student. Seamlessly integrated within Connect, these services allow instructors to control students’ assessment experience by restricting browser activity, recording students’ activity, and verifying students are doing their own work. Instant and detailed reporting gives instructors an at-a-glance view of potential academic integrity concerns, thereby avoiding personal bias and supporting evidence-based claims. Writing Assignment Available within McGraw-Hill Connect® and McGraw-Hill Connect® Master, the Writing Assignment tool delivers a learning experience to help students improve their written communication skills and conceptual understanding. As an instructor you can assign, monitor, grade, and provide feedback on writing more efficiently and effectively. miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 13 12/01/21 7:55 PM  xiv Contents Instructors: Student Success Starts with You Tools to enhance your unique voice Want to build your own course? No problem. Prefer to use our turnkey, prebuilt course? Easy. Want to make changes throughout 65% Less Time the semester? Sure. And you’ll save time with Connect’s auto-grading too. Grading Study made personal Incorporate adaptive study resources like SmartBook® 2.0 into your course and help your students be better prepared in less time. Learn more about the powerful personalized learning experience available in SmartBook 2.0 at www.mheducation.com/highered/connect/smartbook Laptop: McGraw Hill; Woman/dog: George Doyle/Getty Images Affordable solutions, Solutions for added value your challenges Make technology work for you with A product isn’t a solution. Real LMS integration for single sign-on solutions are affordable, reliable, access, mobile access to the digital and come with training and textbook, and reports to quickly show ongoing support when you need it you how each of your students is doing. and how you want it. Visit www. And with our Inclusive Access program supportateverystep.com for videos you can provide all these tools at a and resources both you and your discount to your students. Ask your students can use throughout the McGraw Hill representative for more semester. information. Padlock: Jobalou/Getty Images Checkmark: Jobalou/Getty Images miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 14 12/01/21 7:55 PM  Contents xv Students: Get Learning that Fits You Effective tools for efficient studying Connect is designed to make you more productive with simple, flexible, intuitive tools that maximize your study time and meet your individual learning needs. Get learning that works for you with Connect. Study anytime, anywhere “I really liked this Download the free ReadAnywhere app and access your app—it made it easy to online eBook or SmartBook 2.0 assignments when it’s study when you don't convenient, even if you’re offline. And since the app have your textbook in automatically syncs with your eBook and SmartBook 2.0 assignments in Connect, all of your work is available front of you.” every time you open it. Find out more at www.mheducation.com/readanywhere - Jordan Cunningham, Eastern Washington University Everything you need in one place Your Connect course has everything you need—whether reading on your digital eBook or completing assignments for class, Connect makes it easy to get your work done. Calendar: owattaphotos/Getty Images Learning for everyone McGraw Hill works directly with Accessibility Services Departments and faculty to meet the learning needs of all students. Please contact your Accessibility Services Office and ask them to email [email protected], or visit www.mheducation.com/about/accessibility for more information. Top: Jenner Images/Getty Images, Left: Hero Images/Getty Images, Right: Hero Images/Getty Images miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 15 12/01/21 7:55 PM miL04267_fm_i-xvi.indd 16 12/01/21 7:55 PM  CHAPTER 1 The Building Blocks of Relationships The Nature and Importance of Intimacy ♦ The Influence of Culture ♦ The Influence of Experience ♦ The Influence of Individual Differences ♦ The Influence of Human Nature ♦ The Influence of Interaction ♦ The Dark Side of Relationships ♦ For Your Consideration ♦ Key Terms ♦ Chapter Summary ♦ Suggestions for Satisfaction ♦ References How’s this for a vacation? Imagine yourself in a nicely appointed suite with a pastoral view. You’ve got high-speed access to Netflix and Hulu, video games, plenty of books and magazines, and all the supplies for your favorite hobby. Delightful food and drink are provided, and you have your favorite entertainments at hand. But there’s a catch: No one else is around, and you have no phone and no access to the Web. You’re completely alone. You have almost everything you want except for other people. Texts, tweets, Instagram, and Snapchat are unavailable. No one else is even in sight, and you cannot interact with anyone else in any way. How’s that for a vacation? A few of us would enjoy the solitude for a while, but most of us would quickly find it surprisingly stressful to be completely detached from other people (Schachter, 1959). Most of us need others even more than we realize. Day by day, we tend to prefer the time we spend with others to the time we spend alone (Bernstein et al., 2018), and there’s a reason prisons sometimes use solitary confinement as a form of punishment: Human beings are a very social species. People suffer when they are deprived of close contact with others, and at the core of our social nature is our need for intimate relationships. Our relationships with others are central aspects of our lives. They’re indispensable and vital, so it’s useful to understand how they start, how they operate, how they thrive, and how, sometimes, they end in a haze of anger and pain. This book will promote your own understanding of close relationships. It draws on psychology, sociology, communication studies, family studies, and neuroscience to offer a comprehensive survey of what behavioral scientists have learned about relationships through careful research. It offers a different, more scientific view of relationships than you’ll find in magazines or the movies; it’s more reasoned, more cautious, and often less romantic. You’ll also find that this is not a how-to manual. Insights abound in the pages ahead, and there’ll be plenty of news you can use, but you’ll need to bring your own values and personal experiences to bear on the information presented here. 1 miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 1 12/01/21 4:03 PM  2 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships To set the stage for the discoveries to come, we’ll first define our subject matter. What are intimate relationships? Why do they matter so much? Then, we’ll consider the fundamental building blocks of close relationships: the cultures we inhabit, the experiences we encounter, the personalities we possess, the human origins we all share, and the interactions we conduct. In order to understand relationships, we need to consider who we are, where we are, and how we got there. THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF INTIMACY Relationships come in all shapes and sizes. We can have consequential contact with almost anyone—cashiers, classmates, fellow commuters, and kin (Epley & Schroeder, 2014)—but we’ll focus here on our relationships with friends and lovers because they exemplify intimate ­relationships. Our primary focus is on intimate relationships between adults. The Nature of Intimacy What, then, is intimacy? That’s actually a complex question because intimacy is a multifaceted concept with several different components. It’s generally held (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007) that intimate relationships differ from more casual associations in at least seven specific ways: knowledge, interdependence, caring, trust, responsiveness, mutual- ity, and commitment. First, intimate partners have extensive personal, often confidential, knowledge about each other. They share information about their histories, preferences, feelings, and desires that they do not reveal to most of the other people they know. The lives of intimate partners are also intertwined: What each partner does affects what the other partner wants to do and can do (Fitzsimons et al., 2015). Interdependence between intimates—the extent to which they need and influence each other—is frequent (they often affect each other), strong (they have meaningful impact on each other), diverse (they influence each other in many different ways), and enduring (they influence each other over long periods of time). When relationships are interdependent, one’s behavior affects one’s partner as well as oneself (­Berscheid et al., 2004). The qualities that make these close ties tolerable are caring, trust, and responsive- ness. Intimate partners care about each other; they feel more affection for one another than they do for most others. They also trust one another, expecting to be treated fairly and honorably (Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015). People expect that no undue harm will result from their intimate relationships, and if it does, they often become wary and reduce the openness and interdependence that characterize closeness (Jones et al., 1997). In contrast, intimacy increases when people believe that their partners under- stand, respect, and appreciate them, being attentively and effectively responsive to their needs and concerned for their welfare (Reis & Gable, 2015). Responsiveness is power- fully rewarding, and the perception that our partners recognize, understand, and sup- port our needs and wishes is a core ingredient of our very best relationships (Reis et al., 2017). miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 2 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 3 As a result of these close ties, people who are intimate also consider themselves to be a couple instead of two entirely separate individuals. They exhibit a high degree of mutuality, which means that they recognize their close connection and think of themselves as “us” instead of “me” and “him” (or “her”) (Davis & Weigel, 2020). In fact, that change in outlook—from “I” to “us”—often signals the subtle but significant moment in a developing relationship when new partners first acknowledge their attach- ment to each other (Agnew et al., 1998). Indeed, researchers can assess the amount of intimacy in a close relationship by simply asking partners to rate the extent to which they “overlap.” The Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (see ­Figure 1.1) is a straight- forward measure of mutuality that does a remarkably good job of distinguishing between intimate and more casual relationships (Aron et al., 2013). Finally, intimate partners are ordinarily committed to their relationships. That is, they expect their partnerships to continue indefinitely, and they invest the time, effort, and resources that are needed to realize that goal. Without such commitment, people who were once very close may find themselves less and less interdependent and knowl- edgeable about each other as time goes by. None of these components is absolutely required for intimacy to occur, and each may exist when the others are absent. For instance, spouses in a stale, unhappy mar- riage may be very interdependent, closely coordinating the practical details of their daily lives, but living in a psychological vacuum devoid of much affection or respon- siveness. Such partners would certainly be more intimate than mere acquaintances are, but they would undoubtedly feel less close to one another than they used to (perhaps, for instance, when they decided to marry), when more of the components were present. In general, our most satisfying and meaningful intimate relationships include all seven of these defining ­characteristics (Fletcher et al., 2000), but intimacy can exist to a lesser degree when only some of them are in place. And as unhappy marriages demonstrate, intimacy can also vary enormously over the course of a long relationship. FIGURE 1.1. The Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale. How intimate is a relationship? Just asking people to pick the picture that portrays a particu- lar partnership does a remarkably good job of assessing the closeness they feel. Please circle the picture below that best describes your current relationship with your partner. Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other Self Other Source: Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 3 12/01/21 4:03 PM  4 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships So, there’s no one kind of intimate relationship. Indeed, a fundamental lesson about relationships is a very simple one: They come in all shapes and sizes. This variety is a source of great complexity, but it’s also endlessly fascinating. (And that’s why I wrote this book!) The Need to Belong Our focus on intimate relationships means that we’ll not consider the wide variety of interactions that you have each day with casual friends and acquaintances. Should we be so particular? Is such a focus justified? The answers, of course, are yes. Although our casual interactions can be very influential (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014), there’s something special about intimate relationships (Venaglia & Lemay, 2017). In fact, a powerful and pervasive drive to establish intimacy with others may be a basic part of our human nature. According to theorists Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995), we need frequent, pleasant interactions with intimate partners in lasting, caring relation- ships if we’re to function normally. There is a human need to belong in close relation- ships, and if the need is not met, a variety of problems follows. Our need to belong is presumed to necessitate “regular social contact with those to whom one feels connected” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 501). In order to fulfill the need, we are driven to establish and maintain close relationships with other people; we require interaction and communion with those who know and care for us. But we only need a few close relationships; when the need to belong is satiated, our drive to form additional relationships is reduced. (Thus, when it comes to relationships, quality is more important than quantity.) It also doesn’t matter much who our partners are; as long as they provide us stable affection and acceptance, our need can be satisfied. Thus, when an important relationship ends, we are often able to find replacement partners who—though they may be quite different from our previous ­partners—are none- theless able to satisfy our need to belong (Hirsch & Clark, 2019). Some of the support for this theory comes from the ease with which we form relationships with others and from the tenacity with which we then resist the dissolu- tion of our existing social ties. Indeed, when a valued relationship is in peril, we may find it hard to think about anything else. The potency of the need to belong may also be why being entirely alone for a long period of time is so stressful (Schachter, 1959); anything that threatens our sense of connection to other people can be hard to take (Leary & Miller, 2012). In fact, some of the strongest evidence supporting a need to belong comes from studies of the biological benefits we accrue from satisfying close ties to others. In gen- eral, people live happier, healthier, longer lives when they’re closely connected to others than they do when they’re on their own (Loving & Sbarra, 2015). Holding a lover’s hand reduces the brain’s alarm in response to threatening situations (Coan et al., 2006), and pain seems less potent when one simply looks at a photograph of a loving partner (Master et al., 2009). Wounds even heal faster when others accept and support us (Gouin et al., 2010). In contrast, people with insufficient intimacy in their lives are at risk for a wide variety of health problems (Valtorta et al., 2016). When they’re lonely, young adults have weaker immune responses, leaving them more likely to catch a cold or flu (Pressman et al., 2005). Across the life span, people who have few friends or miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 4 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 5 lovers—and even those who simply live alone—have much higher mortality rates than do those who are closely A Point to Ponder connected to caring partners (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015); Why are married people less in one extensive study, people who lacked close ties to likely to die from cancer than others were 2 to 3 times more likely to die over a 9-year unmarried people are? Are span (Berkman & Glass, 2000). ­Married people in the unhealthy people simply less United States are less likely to die from any of the 10 likely to get married, or is marriage advantageous to our leading causes of cancer-related death than unmarried health? How might marriage people are (Aizer et al., 2013). And losing one’s existing be beneficial? ties to others is damaging, too: Elderly widows and wid- owers are much more likely to die in the first few months after the loss of their spouses than they would have been had their marriages continued (Elwert & Christakis, 2008), and a divorce also increases one’s risk of an early death (Zhang et al., 2016). Our mental and physical health is also affected by the quality of our connections to others (Robles et al., 2014) (see Figure 1.2). Day by day, people who have pleas- ant interactions with others who care for them are more satisfied with their lives FIGURE 1.2. Satisfying intimacy and life and death. Here’s a remarkable example of the manner in which satisfying intimacy is associated with bet- ter health. In this investigation, middle-aged patients with congestive heart failure were tracked for several years after their diseases were diagnosed. Forty-eight months later, most of the patients with less satisfying marriages had died, whereas most of the people who were more happily married were still alive. This pattern occurred both when the initial illnesses were rela- tively mild and more severe, so it’s a powerful example of the link between happy intimacy and better health. In another study, patients who were satisfied with their marriages when they had heart surgery were over 3 times more likely to still be alive 15 years later than were those who were unhappily married (King & Reis, 2012). Evidently, fulfilling our needs to belong can be a matter of life or death. 1.0.9 Proportion of Patients Alive.8.7 Better Marital Quality.6.5 Poorer Marital.4 Quality.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Months from Diagnosis Source: Coyne, J. C., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Sonnega, J. S., Nicklas, J. M., & Cranford, J. A. (2001). “Prognostic importance of marital quality for survival of congestive heart failure,” American Journal of ­Cardiology, 88, 526–529. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 5 12/01/21 4:03 PM  6 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships than are those who lack such social contact (Sun et al., 2020), and this is true around the world (Galínha et al., 2013). In contrast, psychiatric problems, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, inflammation, obesity, and sleep problems all tend to afflict those with troubled ties to others (Gouin et al., 2020; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017). On the surface (as I’ll explain in detail in chapter 2), such patterns do not necessarily mean that shallow, superficial relationships cause psychological problems; after all, people who are prone to such problems may find it difficult to form loving relation- ships in the first place. Nevertheless, it does appear that a lack of intimacy can both cause such problems and make them worse (Braithwaite & Holt-Lunstad, 2017). In general, whether we’re young or old (Allen et al., 2015), gay or straight (Wight et al., 2013), or married or just cohabiting (Kohn & Averett, 2014), our well-being seems to depend on how well we satisfy the need to belong. Evidently, “we are wired for close connection with others and this connection is vital to our survival” (Johnson, 2019). Why should we need intimacy so much? Why are we such a social species? One possibility is that the need to belong evolved over eons, gradually becoming a natural tendency in all human beings (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). That argument goes this way: Because early humans lived in small groups surrounded by a difficult environ- ment full of saber-toothed tigers, people who were loners were less likely than gre- garious humans to have children who would grow to maturity and reproduce. In such a setting, a tendency to form stable, affectionate connections to others would have been evolutionarily adaptive, making it more likely that one’s children would survive and thrive (Hare, 2017). As a result, our species slowly came to be ­characterized by people who cared deeply about what others thought of them and who sought accep- tance and closeness from others. Admittedly, this view—which ­represents a provoca- tive way of thinking about our modern behavior (and about which I’ll have more to say later in this chapter)—is speculative. Nevertheless, whether or not this evolution- ary account is entirely correct, there is little doubt that almost all of us now care deeply about the quality of our attachments to others. We are also at a loss, prone to illness and maladjustment, when we have insufficient intimacy in our lives. We know that food and shelter are essential for life, but the need to belong suggests that intimacy with others is essential for a good, long life as well (Sbarra & Coan, 2018). “Human beings need social connections just like we need oxygen, food, and water” (Gabriel, 2020). Now, let’s examine the major influences that determine what sort of relationships we construct when we seek to satisfy the need to belong. We’ll start with a counterpoint to our innate need for intimacy: the changing cultures that provide the norms that govern our intimate relationships. THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE I know it seems like ancient history—smart phones and Snapchat and AIDS didn’t exist—but let’s look back at 1965, which may have been around the time that your grandparents were deciding to marry. If they were a typical couple, they would have miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 6 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 7 married in their early twenties, before she was 21 and before he was 23.1 They prob- ably would not have lived together, or “c­ohabited,” ­without being married because almost no one did at that time. And it’s also unlikely that they would have had a baby without being married; 95 percent of the children born in the United States in 1965 had parents who were married to each other. Once they settled in, your grandmother probably did not work outside the home—most women didn’t—and when her kids were preschoolers, it’s quite likely that she stayed home with them all day; most women did. It’s also likely that their ­children—in particular, your mom or dad—grew up in a household in which both of their parents were present at the end of the day. Things these days are very different (Smock & Schwartz, 2020). The last several decades have seen dramatic changes in the cultural context in which we conduct our close relationships. Indeed, you shouldn’t be surprised if your grandparents are aston- ished by the cultural landscape that you face today. In the United States, Fewer people are marrying than ever before. Back in 1965, almost everyone (94 percent) married at some point in their lives, but more people remain unmar- ried today. Demographers now predict that fewer than 80 percent of young adults will ever marry (and that proportion is even lower in Europe [Perelli-Harris & Lyons-Amos, 2015]). Include everyone who is divorced, widowed, or never mar- ried, and slightly less than half (49 percent) of the adult population of the United States is presently married. That’s an all-time low. People are waiting longer to marry. On average, a woman is 28 years old when she marries for the first time, and a man is almost 30, and these are the oldest such ages in American history. That’s much older than your grandparents prob- ably were when they got married (see Figure 1.3). A great many Americans (43 percent) reach their mid-30s without marrying. Do you feel sorry for people who are 35 and single? Read the “Are You Prejudiced Against Singles?” box2 on page 9. People routinely live together even when they’re not married. ­Cohabitation was very rare in 1965—only 5 percent of all adults ever did it—but it is now ordinary. More Americans under the age of 44 have cohabited than have ever been married (Horowitz et al., 2019). People often have babies even when they’re not married. This was an uncommon event in 1965; only 5 percent of the babies born in the United States that year had unmarried mothers. Some children were conceived out of wedlock, but their parents usually got married before they were born. Not these days. In 2018, 40 percent of the babies born in the United States had unmarried mothers (Martin et al., 2019). On average, an American mother now has her first child (at age 26.9) before she gets married (at 28.0), and about one-third (32 percent) of children in the United States presently live with an unmarried parent (Livingston, 2018a). 1 These and the following statistics were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau at www.census.gov, the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics at www.cdc.gov/nchs, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics at bls.gov /data, the Pew Research Center at pewsocialtrends.org, and the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr.html. 2 Please try to overcome your usual temptation to skip past the boxes. Many of them will be worth your time. Trust me. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 7 12/01/21 4:03 PM  8 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 30 29 28 27 26 25 Age 24 23 22 21 Men 20 Women 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019 Year FIGURE 1.3. Average age of first marriage in the United States. American men and women are waiting ­longer to get ­married than ever before. About one-half of all marriages end in divorce, a failure rate that’s 2-and-a-half times higher than it was when your grandparents married. In recent years, the divorce rate has been slowly decreasing for couples with college degrees—which is probably good news if you’re reading this book!—but it remains high and unchanged for people with less education. In 2018, in the United States, there were just under half as many divorces as marriages (Schweizer, 2019). So because not all lasting marriages are happy ones, an American couple getting married this year is more likely to divorce sometime down the road than to live happily ever after.3 Most preschool children have parents who work outside the home. In 1965, three- quarters of U.S. mothers stayed home all day when their children were too young to go to school, but only one-quarter of them (and 7 percent of fathers) do so now (Livingston, 2018b). These remarkable changes suggest that our shared assumptions about the role that marriage and parenthood will play in our lives have changed ­substantially in recent years. Once upon a time, everybody got married within a few years of leaving high school and, happy or sad, they tended to stay with their original ­partners. Pregnant 3 This is sobering, but your chances for a happy marriage (should you choose to marry) are likely to be better than those of most other people. You’re reading this book, and your interest in relationship science is likely to improve your chances considerably. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 8 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 9 Are You Prejudiced Against Singles? Here’s a term you probably haven’t seen be- less” with lousy lovers (Spielmann et al., fore: singlism. It refers to prejudice and dis- 2020). crimination against those who choose to Still, we make an obvious mistake if we remain single and opt not to devote them- casually assume that singles are unhealthy, selves to a primary romantic relationship. lonely loners. Yes, some singles remain unat- Many of us assume that normal people want tached because they lack self-confidence and to be a part of a romantic couple, so we find social skill (Apostolou, 2019), but many oth- it odd when anyone chooses instead to stay ers are single by choice because they like it that single (Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020). The result is way (Pepping et al., 2018). They have an active a culture that offers benefits to married cou- social life and close, supportive friendships ples and puts singles at a disadvantage with that provide them all the intimacy they desire, regard to such things as Social Security bene- and they remain uncoupled because they cel- fits, insurance rates, and service in restau- ebrate their freedom and self-sufficiency. They rants (DePaulo, 2014). have closer relationships with their parents, Intimacy is good for us, and married siblings, neighbors, and friends than married people live longer than unmarried people do. people do (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016), and as Middle-aged Americans who have never mar- one woman wrote to Dear Abby (2016), “I do ried are 2½ times more likely than those who what I want when I want and how I want. I are married to die an early death (Siegler control the remote, the thermostat and my et al., 2013). Patterns like these lead some re- money. I have no desire for male companion- searchers to straightforwardly recommend ship and can honestly say I have never felt hap- happy romances as desirable goals in life. pier or more content in my life.” And most single people do want to have So, what do you think? Is there some- romantic partners; few singles (12 percent) thing wrong or missing in people who are con- prefer being unattached to being in a steady tent to remain single? If you think there is, you romantic relationship (Poortman & Liefbroer, may profit by reading Bella DePaulo’s blog 2010), and a fear of being single can lead defending singles at www.psychologytoday people to lower their standards and “settle for.com/blog/living-single. people felt they had to get married, and co­habitation was known as “living in sin.” But not so anymore. Marriage is now a choice, even if a baby is on the way, and increasing numbers of us are putting it off or not getting married at all. If we do marry, we’re less likely to consider it a solemn, life-long commitment (Cherlin, 2009). In general, recent years have seen enormous change in the cultural norms that used to encourage people to get, and stay, married. Do these changes matter? Indeed, they do. Cultural standards provide a foundation for our relationships (Kretz, 2019); they shape our expectations and define the patterns we think to be normal. Let’s consider, in particular, the huge rise in the prevalence of cohabitation that has occurred in recent years. Most young adults now believe that it is desirable for a couple to live together before they get married so that they can spend more time together, share expenses, and test their compatibility (Horowitz et al., 2019). Such attitudes make cohabitation a reasonable choice—and indeed, most people now cohabit before they ever marry. However, when people do not already have firm plans miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 9 12/01/21 4:03 PM  10 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships to marry, cohabitation does not make it more likely that a subsequent marriage (if one occurs) will be successful; instead, such cohabitation increases a couple’s risk that they will later divorce (Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019). There are ­probably several reasons for this. First, on average, those who cohabit begin living together at younger ages than their older—and possibly wiser—peers who get married (Kuperberg, 2014). But more importantly, couples who choose to cohabit are usually less committed to each other than are those who marry—they are, after all, keeping their options open (Wagner, 2019)—so they encounter more problems and uncertainties than married people do. They’re less satisfied and they trust each other less (Horowitz et al., 2019) because they experience more conflict ­(Stanley et al., 2010), jealousy (Gatzeva & Paik, 2011), infidelity (Wagner, 2019), and physical aggression (Manning et al., 2018) than spouses do. Clearly, cohabitation is more ­tumultuous and volatile than marriage usually is. As a result, the longer people cohabit, the less enthusiastic about marriage—and the more accepting of divorce—they become. Take a look at Figure 1.4: As time passes, cohabitat- ing couples gradually become less likely to ever marry but no less likely to split up; 5 years down the road, cohabitating couples are just as likely to break up as they were when they moved in together. (Marriage is fundamentally different. The longer a cou- ple is married, the less likely they are to ever divorce [Wolfinger, 2005]). Overall, then, casual cohabitation that is intended to test the partners’ compatibility seems to FIGURE 1.4. The outcomes of cohabitation over time. Here’s what became of 2,746 cohabiting couples in the United States over a span of 5 years. As time passed, couples were less likely to marry, but no less likely to break up. After living together for 5 years, cohabiting couples were just as likely to break up as they were when they moved in together. (The transition rate describes the percentage of couples who either broke up or got married each month. The numbers seem low, but they reflect the proportion of cou- ples who quit cohabiting each month, so the proportions add up and become sizable as months go by.).035.03.025 Transition Rate.02 Marriage Dissolution.015.01.005 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Months Source: Wolfinger, N. H. (2005). Understanding the divorce cycle: The children of divorce in their own marriages. Cambridge University Press. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 10 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 11 undermine the positive attitudes toward marriage, and the determination to make a marriage work, that support marital success (Busby et al., 2019). Couples who are engaged to marry when they move in together typically fare better than those who cohabit without plans to marry (Willoughby & Belt, 2016), but even they tend to be less happy with their relationships than those who marry without cohabiting first (Brown et al., 2017). So casual cohabitation is corrosive, and these days, cohabiting partners are actually less likely to ever marry than in the past (Sassler & Lichter, 2020). Widespread acceptance of cohabitation as a “trial run” is probably one reason why, compared to 1965, fewer people get married and fewer marriages last.4 Sources of Change So, the norms that currently govern our intimate relationships differ from those that guided prior generations, and there are several reasons why. One set of influences involves economics. Societies tend to harbor more single people, tolerate more divorces, and support a later age of marriage the more industrialized and affluent they become (South et al., 2001), and levels of socioeconomic development have increased around the world. Education and financial resources allow people to be more independent, so that women in particular are less likely to marry than they used to be (Dooley, 2010). And in American marriages, close to one of every three wives earns more than her husband (Parker & Stepler, 2017), so “the traditional male breadwinner model has given way to one where women routinely support households and outearn the men they are married to, and nobody cares or thinks it’s odd” (Mundy, 2012, p. 5).5 Over the years, the individualism—that is, the support of self-expression and the emphasis on personal fulfillment—that characterizes Western cultures has also become more pronounced (Santos et al., 2017). This isn’t good news, but most of us are more materialistic (Twenge & Kasser, 2013) and less concerned with others (Twenge, 2013) than our grandparents were. And arguably, this focus on our own happiness has led us to expect more personal gratification from our intimate p­artnerships—more pleasure and delight, and fewer hassles and sacrifices—than our grandparents did (Finkel, 2017). Unlike prior generations (who often stayed together for the “sake of the kids”), we feel justified in ending our partnerships to seek contentment elsewhere if we become dis- satisfied (Cherlin, 2009). Eastern cultures promote a more collective sense of self in which people feel more closely tied to their families and social groups (Markus, 2017), and the divorce rates in such cultures (such as Japan) are much lower than they are in the United States (Cherlin, 2009). New technology matters, too. Modern reproductive technologies allow single women to bear children fathered by men picked from a catalog at a sperm bank whom 4 Most people don’t know this, so here’s an example of an important pattern we’ll encounter often: Popular opinion assumes one thing, but relationship science finds another. Instances such as these demonstrate the value of careful scientific studies of close relationships. Ignorance isn’t bliss. Intimate partnerships are complex, and accurate information is especially beneficial when common sense and folk wisdom would lead us astray. 5 Well, actually, some men, particularly those with traditional views of what it means to be a man (Coughlin & Wade, 2012), are troubled when they earn less than their wives. Their self-esteem suffers (Ratliff & Oishi, 2013), and they are more likely than other men to use drugs to treat erectile dysfunction (Pierce et al., 2013). Traditional masculinity can be costly in close relationships, a point to which we’ll return on page 28. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 11 12/01/21 4:03 PM  12 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships the women have never met! Women can also control their fertility, having children only when they choose, and American women are having fewer children than they used to. The American birth rate is at an all-time low (Hamilton et al., 2019), and one in every four young American women has used emergency contraception—a “morning-after” pill—to help keep it that way (Haeger et al., 2018). Modern communication technologies are also transforming the ways in which we conduct our relationships (Okdie & Ewoldsen, 2018). Your grandparents didn’t have mobile phones, so they didn’t expect to be able to reach each other anywhere at any time of day. They certainly didn’t do any sexting—that is, sending sexually explicit images of themselves to others with a smartphone—as more than 20 percent of young adults now have (Garcia et al., 2016, who also found that 23 percent of the time, those who receive a sext share it with two or three others). And they did not have to develop rules about how frequently they could text each other, how long they could take to respond, and whether or not they could read the messages and examine the call histories on the other’s phone; these days, couples are happier if they do (Halpern & Katz, 2017). In addition, most of the people you know are on Facebook (Gramlich, 2019), connected to hundreds of “friends,”6 and that can complicate our more ­intimate part- nerships. Facebook provides an entertaining and efficient way to (help to) satisfy our needs for social contact (Waytz & Gray, 2018), but it can also create dilemmas for lovers, who have to decide when to go “Facebook official” and announce that they’re now “in a relationship” (Seidman et al., 2019). (They also have to decide what that means: Women tend to think that this change in status signals more intensity and commitment than men do [Fox & Warber, 2013].) Thereafter, a partner’s heavy use of Facebook (McDaniel & Drouin, 2019) and pictures of one’s partner partying with others (Utz et al., 2015) can incite conflict and jealousy, and a breakup can be embar- rassingly public (Haimson et al., 2018). Clearly, social media such as Facebook and Snapchat can be mixed blessings in close relationships. Moreover, many of us are permanently connected to our social networks, with our smartphones always by A Point to Ponder our sides (Lapierre, 2020), and we are too often Which of the remarkable tempted to “give precedence to people we are not with changes in technology over over people we are with” (Price, 2011, p. 27). Modern the last 50 years has had the couples have to put up with a lot of technoference, the most profound effect on our frequent interruptions of their interactions that are relationships? Birth control caused by their various technological devices (McDan- pills? Smartphones? Online iel & Drouin, 2019), and phubbing—which occurs when dating sites? Something else? one partner snubs another by focusing on a phone—is particularly obnoxious (Roberts & David, 2016). No one much likes to be ignored while you text or talk with ­someone else (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018), but it hap- pens most of the time when two friends are eating together (Vanden Abeele et al., 2019). In fact—and this is ­troubling—our devices can be so alluring and distracting 6 Psychology students at Sam Houston State University (n = 298) do have hundreds of Facebook “friends”—562 each, on average—but that number doesn’t mean much because most of them aren’t real friends; 45 percent of them are mere acquaintances, and others (7 percent) are strangers they have never met (Miller et al., 2014). We’ll return to this point in chapter 7, but for now, let me ask: How many people on your Facebook list are really your friends? miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 12 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 13 Steve Kelley Editorial Cartoon used with the permission of Steve Kelley and Creators Syndicate. All rights reserved. Phubbing is obnoxious and is best avoided. (Kushlev et al., 2019) that simply having your smartphone lying on the table is likely to reduce the quality of the conversation you share at dinner with a friend (Dwyer et al., 2018). Here’s a suggestion: When you next go out to dinner with your lover, why don’t you leave your phone in the car? ”When technology diminishes our relationships with loved ones and distracts us from the things that truly matter, it’s no longer a tool; it’s a toxin” (Lane, 2017). Finally, an important—but more subtle—influence on the norms that govern rela- tionships is the relative numbers of young men and women in a given culture (Sng & Ackerman, 2020). Societies and regions of the world in which men are more numerous than women tend to have very different standards than those in which women outnum- ber men. I’m describing a region’s sex ratio, a simple count of the number of men for every 100 women in a specific population. When the sex ratio is high, there are more men than women; when it is low, there are fewer men than women. The baby boom that followed World War II caused the U.S. sex ratio, which had been very high, to plummet to low levels at the end of the 1960s. For a time after the war, more babies were born each year than in the preceding year; this meant that when the “boomers” entered adulthood, there were fewer older men than younger women, and the sex ratio dropped. However, when birthrates began to slow and fewer children entered the demographic pipeline, each new flock of women was smaller than the preceding flock of men, and the U.S. sex ratio crept higher in the 1990s. Since then, reasonably stable birthrates have resulted in fairly equal numbers of marriageable men and women today. These changes may have been more important than most people realize. Cultures with high sex ratios (in which there aren’t enough women) tend to support traditional, miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 13 12/01/21 4:03 PM  14 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships old-fashioned roles for men and women (Secord, 1983). After the men buy expensive engagement rings (Griskevicius et al., 2012), women stay home raising children while the men work outside the home. Such cultures also tend to be sexually conservative. The ideal newlywed is a virgin bride, unwed pregnancy is shameful, open cohabitation is rare, and divorce is discouraged. In contrast, cultures with low sex ratios (in which there are too few men) tend to be less traditional and more permissive. Women seek high-paying careers (Durante et al., 2012), and they are allowed (if not encouraged) to have sexual relationships outside of marriage (Moss & Maner, 2016). The specifics vary with each historical period, but this general pattern has occurred throughout his- tory (Guttentag & Secord, 1983). Ancient Rome, which was renowned for its sybaritic behavior? A low sex ratio. Victorian England, famous for its prim and proper ways? A high sex ratio. The Roaring Twenties, a footloose and playful decade? A low sex ratio. And in more recent memory, the “sexual revolution” and the advent of “women’s lib- eration” in the late 1960s? A very low sex ratio. Thus, the remarkable changes in the norms for U.S. relationships since 1965 may be due, in part, to dramatic fluctuations in U.S. sex ratios. Indeed, another test of this pattern is presently unfolding in China, where limitations on family size and a prefer- ence for male children have produced a dramatic scarcity of young women. Prospective grooms will outnumber prospective brides in China by more than 50 percent for the next 25 years (Huang, 2014). What changes in China’s norms should we expect? The rough but real link between a culture’s proportions of men and women and its relational norms serves as a compelling example of the manner in which culture can affect our relationships. To a substantial degree, what we expect and what we accept in our deal- ings with others can spring from the standards of the time and place in which we live. THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE Our relationships are also affected by the histories and experiences we bring to them, and there is no better example of this than the global orientations toward relationships known as attachment styles. Years ago, developmental researchers (e.g., Bowlby, 1969) realized that infants displayed various patterns of attachment to their major caregivers (usually their mothers). The prevailing assumption was that whenever they were hungry, wet, or scared, some children found responsive care and protection to be reliably avail- able, and they learned that other people were ­trustworthy sources of security and kindness. As a result, such children developed a secure style of attachment: They hap- pily bonded with others and relied on them comfortably, and they readily developed relationships characterized by relaxed trust. Other children encountered different situations. For some, attentive care was unpredictable and inconsistent. Their caregivers were warm and interested on some occasions but distracted, anxious, or unavailable on others. These children thus devel- oped fretful, mixed feelings about others known as anxious-­ambivalent attachments. Being uncertain of when (or if) a departing caregiver would return, such children became nervous, clingy, and needy in their relationships with others. Finally, for a third group of children, care was provided reluctantly by rejecting or hostile adults. Such children learned that little good came from depending on others, miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 14 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 15 Tom Merton/Corbis Children’s relationships with their major caregivers teach them trust or fear that sets the stage for their subsequent relationships with others. How responsive, reliable, and effective was the care that you received? and they withdrew from others with an avoidant style of attachment. Avoidant children were often suspicious of others, and they did not easily form trusting, close relationships. The important point, then, is that researchers believed that early interpersonal experiences shaped the course of one’s subsequent relationships. Indeed, attachment processes became a popular topic of research because the different styles were so obvi- ous in many children. When they faced a strange, intimidating environment, for instance, secure children ran to their mothers, calmed down, and then set out to bravely explore the unfamiliar new setting (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Anxious-ambivalent chil- dren cried and clung to their mothers, ignoring the parents’ reassurances that all was well. These patterns were impressive, but relationship researchers really began to take notice of attachment styles when Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987) ­demonstrated that similar orientations toward close relationships could also be observed among adults. Their surveys found that most people said that they were relaxed and comfort- able depending on others; that is, they sounded secure in their intimate relationships. However, a substantial minority (about 40 percent) said they were insecure; they either found it difficult to trust and to depend on their partners, or they nervously worried that their relationships wouldn’t last. In addition, respondents reported childhood memories and current attitudes that fit their styles of attachment. Secure people gener- ally held positive images of themselves and others, and remembered their parents as miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 15 12/01/21 4:03 PM  16 chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships loving and supportive. In contrast, insecure people viewed others with uncertainty or distrust, and remembered their parents as inconsistent or cold. With provocative results like these, attachment research quickly became one of the hottest fields in relationship science (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2018). And researchers promptly realized that there seemed to be four, rather than three, patterns of attachment in adults. In particular, theorist Kim Bartholomew (1990) suggested that there were two different reasons why people might wish to avoid being too close to others. In one case, people could want relationships with others but be wary of them, fearing rejection and mistrusting them. In the other case, people could be independent and self-reliant, genu- inely preferring autonomy and freedom rather than close attachments to others. Thus, Bartholomew (1990) proposed four general categories of attachment style (see Table 1.1). The first, a secure style, remained the same as the secure style identi- fied in children. The second, a preoccupied style, was a new name for anxious ambiva- lence. Bartholomew renamed the category to reflect the fact that, because they nervously depended on others’ approval to feel good about themselves, such people worried about, and were preoccupied with, the status of their relationships. The third and fourth styles reflected two different ways to be “avoidant.” ­Fearful people avoided intimacy with others because of their fears of rejection. Although they wanted others to like them, they worried about the risks of relying on others. In con- trast, people with a dismissing style felt that intimacy with others just wasn’t worth the trouble. Dismissing people rejected interdependency with others because they felt self- sufficient, and they didn’t care much whether others liked them or not. It’s also now generally accepted that two broad themes underlie and distinguish these four styles of attachment (Gillath et al., 2016). First, people differ in their avoid- ance of intimacy, which affects the ease and trust with which they accept interdependent intimacy with others. People who are comfortable and relaxed in close relationships are TABLE 1.1. Four Types of Attachment Style Which of these paragraphs describes you best? Secure It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfort- able depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me. Preoccupied I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them. Fearful I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. Dismissing I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me. Source: Bartholomew, K. (1990). “Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178. miL04267_ch01_001-058.indd 16 12/01/21 4:03 PM  chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Relationships 17 low in avoidance, whereas those who distrust others, value their independence, and keep their emotional distance are high in avoidance (Ren et al., 2017). People also differ in their anxiety about abandonment, the dread that others will find them unworthy and leave them. Secure people take great comfort in closeness with others and do not worry that others will mistreat them; as a result, they gladly seek intimate interdependency with others. In contrast, with all three of the other styles, people are burdened with anxiety or discomfort that leaves them less at ease in close relationships. Preoccupied people want closeness but ­anxiously fear rejection. Dismissing people don’t worry about rejection but don’t like closeness. And fearful people get it from both sides, being uncomfortable with intimacy and worrying it won’t last. (See Figure 1.5.) Importantly, the two themes of avoidance of intimacy and anxiety about ­abandonment are continuous dimensions that range from low to high. This means that, although it’s convenient to talk about attachment styles as if they were discrete, pure categories that do not overlap, it’s not really accurate to do so (Lubiewska & Van de Vijver, 2020). When they are simply asked to pick which one of the four paragraphs in Table 1.1 fits them best, most people in the United States—usually around 60 percent— describe themselves as being securely attached (Mickelson et al., 1997).7 However, if FIGURE 1.5. The dimensions underlying attachment. Low Avoidance of Intimacy SECURE PREOCCUPIED Comfortable with intimacy Uneasy and vigilant toward and interdependence; any threat to the relationship; optimistic and sociable needy and jealous Low Anxiety High Anxiety about about Abandonment Abandonment DISMISSING FEARFUL Self-reliant and uninterested Fearful of rejection and in intimacy; mistrustful of others;