Lecture 7: Chapter 10: Love and Relationships PDF

Lecture 7 Chapter 10: Love and Relationships VIGNASH THARMARATNAM Passionate and Companionate Love  Berscheid and Hatfield-Walster (1969) proposed two broad categories of love  1. Passionate love: feelings of extreme absorption  Often experience mood swings from ecstasy t...

Lecture 7 Chapter 10: Love and Relationships VIGNASH THARMARATNAM Passionate and Companionate Love  Berscheid and Hatfield-Walster (1969) proposed two broad categories of love  1. Passionate love: feelings of extreme absorption  Often experience mood swings from ecstasy to anguish, and fear of losing one another  2. Companionate love: calmer and perhaps deeper state of unshakable affection  Characterized by mutual self-disclosure, the intertwining of lives, and a sense of warmth or peace  Notonly in romantic relationships, can exist in friendships and other close relationships as well Passionate and Companionate Love  Many researcher argue that passionate love is fragile and diminishes quickly, whereas companionate love is enduring Hatfield (1988) argues instead that in the most successful and satisfying relationships, both types of love simultaneously exist Passionate and Companionate Love  Hatfield and colleagues (2008) conducted interviews with 53 newlywed couples, asking them to describe and rate their levels of passionate and companionate love  After reinterviewing the same couples one year later, found that passionate and companionate love both existed at relatively high levels at the first time-point  Although both decreased somewhat a year later, both unexpectedly appeared to decrease equally  At least relatively early in marriages, passionate love may not be more fragile than companionate love Love Styles  Susan and Clyde Hendrick (1986) propose six love styles:  1. Eros: passionate love When one is almost irresistibly drawn to someone else, often becoming obsessed with thoughts and feelings about that person The burning desire that shows up in songs, poems, and novels Love Styles  2. Ludus: “game playing” or flirtatious love  When people experience attraction or affection, but without commitment  May have more than one lover at a time, perhaps toying with each of them or playing hard to get Love Styles  3. Storge: companionate love  People are committed to one another, experiencing enduring warmth and affection  4. Pragma: practical love  People choose a partner based on their objective qualities, rather than the degree of passion they feel toward that individual E.g.financial security or the potential to be a good parent Love Styles  5. Mania: painful love  Often characterized by a sense of jealousy or dependence  Often feels like an aching pain  Similar to eros in that people also become obsessed with their partners  6. Agape: selfless love  Agape is characterized by an orientation toward giving rather than getting  Somewhat the opposite of pragma  This altruistic type of love may also be extended to acquaintances and even strangers (Post, 2002) Love Styles  Not all love styles associated with satisfying relationships  Usinga self-report measure called Love Attitude Scale to assessed 57 dating couples  Found that scores on the eros form of love was positively related to satisfaction  Scores for ludus were negatively related to satisfaction  Participants’ levels of the other styles generally showed no relationship to satisfaction The Love Triangle  RobertSternberg (1996) developed the triangular theory of love which identifies types of through 3 dimensions:  1.Intimacy: feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships (i.e. companionate love) Emotional in nature, indicating how a person feels about the relationship The Love Triangle  2.Passion: physical and sexual attraction (i.e. eros style of love)  Motivational in nature, spurring a person to engage in the relationship  3.Commitment: the decision to maintain that love, despite possible ups and downs  Cognitive in nature, involves a belief that the relationship is worth maintaining The Love Triangle  These three components are used to describe a variety of kinds of love  Components in isolation Intimacy alone – liking Passion alone – infatuation Commitment alone – empty love The Love Triangle  Combining 2 components together  Intimacy + Passion – romantic love  Passion + Commitment – Fatuous love  Intimacy + Commitment – compassionate love  All 3 components together - consummate love The Love Triangle  Sorokowski and colleagues (2020) surveyed 7,332 individuals in relationships across 25 countries to assess triangular theory 49.5% were dating, 12.1% were engaged, and 38.4% were married, all with a wide range of relationship durations The Love Triangle  Foundsimilar results across all 25 countries Passion was highest in couples who had been together a relatively short period of time Commitment exhibited a positive association with longer relationship durations The Love Triangle  NOTE: Since study was cross- sectional (vs. longitudinal) can’t tell if results from love experienced by couple changing over time, or if people who end up having longer relationships tend to emphasize commitment vs. passion Love 2.0  Barbara Fredrickson’s (2001) defines love as the “supreme emotion” and asserts that its presence often triggers other positive emotions like joy, happiness, pride, and gratitude  Also differs from other emotions due to its interpersonal nature  Defineslove as a moment-to-moment emotional experience characterized by warm and mutual caring  When in love, one becomes sincerely invested in the other person’s well-being, for its own sake Love 2.0 Argued that real love is characterized by “shared positivity”: when two people connect over a shared positive emotion Can certainly occur between romantic partners, in friendships or even between strangers Love 2.0  Sharedpositivity leads to “positive resonance”, where two people’s brains and behaviors tend to “sync up”  May mirror each other’s posture or vocal tone  May nod along with one another, make eye contact, or smile  Likelyconferred an evolutionary advantage by allowing people to bond and collaborate more effectively in groups Love 2.0  Liu and colleagues (2017) tested the degree to which two brains synchronize when someone tells an engaging story  Recorded a native English speaker and two native Turkish speakers telling unrehearsed, entertaining, real-life stories  Later played these stories for other English speaking participants  Inboth tasks, used functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to see “live” picture of brain activity  Unlike fMRI, involves portable and wearable sensors Love 2.0  Listeners’ brain activity was correlated with the storyteller’s brain activity only when the story was recounted in English  Activityin their brain synched up with the person telling the story when they understood it Occurred in brain areas involved in language comprehension and social information processing (e.g. capacity to discern the beliefs, desires, and goals of others) Biological Mechanisms of Love  Fredrickson argued that 2 biological mechanisms play a role in love:  1. Presence of oxytocin: hormone that helps people to read social cues better, and be more generous or altruistic  Helps to foster positivity resonance  Called the “tend and befriend” hormone  Play a role in a response to stress of many species, including humans  Involving the urge to protect offspring (tending) and to seek out the social group for support and protection (Taylor, 2006)  Often released in the body during positive social encounters, results in increased trust, at least for one’s in-group Biological Mechanisms of Love 2.Strength of vagal tone: parasympathetic activity of the vagus nerve Extends from the brain to various parts of the body, including the heart, lungs, and digestive tract Biological Mechanisms of Love  Can be measured through one’s respiratory sinus arrhythmia: heart rate variability in synchrony with respiration, where the R-R interval on an ECG is shortened during inspiration and prolonged during expiration  At rest, the parasympathetic system is always slowing heart rate from its natural rhythm (e.g. from 90 bpm from the heart “pacemaker” to 70-80 bpm  Expansion of lungs interferes with parasympathetic NS’s ability to interfere with heart rate, leading to ↑ heart rate when inhaling  Difference between inhalation + exhalation = how much parasympathetic activity is impacting heart rate Biological Mechanisms of Love  Baselinevagal tone is believed plays role in emotion regulation and social competence  E.g. People with ↓ vagal tone are more prone to ↑ physiological arousal and negative emotions when presented with stressful stimuli, ↓ their ability to cope (Beauchaine, 2001)  Peoplewho are better able to regulate their emotions tend to act more prosocially (i.e., kinder) toward others Biological Mechanisms of Love  Moderate levels of vagal tone (as opposed to very low or high levels) are related to prosocial behavior in both adults and children (Kogan et al., 2014; (Stellar, Cohen, Oveis & Keltner, 2015)  Moderately slowing your heart rate helps you focus on others and stop worrying about your own problems  Too much calming causes people to stop worrying about others as well The Impact of One’s Social Network  Having a social network is associated with ↑ psychological well-being  Diener and Seligman (2002) found that happiest 10% (vs. least happy 10%) of undergraduate participants polled spent less time alone  Were much more satisfied with their relationships – including their close friendships, family relationships, and romantic relationships The Impact of One’s Social Network  Only a small to medium (but significant) effect size on the size of one’s social network and psychological well-being (Lucas & Dyrenforth, 2006) A relatively small number of friendships can predict high levels of happiness if they are high in quality (Demir & Weitekamp, 2007) The Impact of One’s Social Network  The happiness of people around us influences our own happiness  Fowlerand Christakis (2008) followed 4,739 people ranging in age from 21 to 70 over 20 years Utilized network analysis to indicate the degree of separation between people  E.g. 1 degree - individual → friend  E.g. 2 degrees individual → friend → friend The Impact of One’s Social Network  Happinessspreads from their social network to them, even up to three degrees of separation 1degree – 15.3% more likely to be happy 2degrees – 9.8 % more likely to be happy 3degrees – 5.6% more likely to be happy Friendships  Friendship: voluntary interdependence between two people that includes the satisfaction of interpersonal needs or desires such as intimacy, support, or self- validation (Demir et al., 2015)  About 75 % preschoolers are involved in friendships (Hartup & Stevens, 1999)  By adolescence and adulthood, between 80-90 % of people have friends (Hartup & Stevens, 1997) Does decrease somewhat with older age Friendships  Both the quantity and quality of friendships have been found to be associated with happiness Adults generally have somewhere between 3-5 friends, on average Nonetheless, quality (r = 0.2-0.6; Brannon et al., 2013) seems to matter more than quantity (r < 0.2; Berry & Hansen) Friendships  The closeness of the friendship impacts friendship quality  Demir and colleagues (2007) asked college students to rank friends by their degree of closeness, and rate the quality of each relationship in terms of companionship, intimacy, reliability, and affection  Alsoasked to fill out scales assessing their own psychological well-being  Majority of participants reported three friends – a best friend + 2 close friends  Only the quality of the best friendships emerged as statistically significantly associated with well-being Online Relationships  Weinstein (2018) evaluated the impact of social media on US teens on well- being  While using social media, 72% reported feeling happy, 68.5% reported being amused, and 59.3% reported being close to friends  Whileusing social media, 16.9% reported frequently feeling jealous, 15.3% felt left out, 10.2% felt anxious, 7.9% felt irritated, and 6.7% felt upset Online Relationships  Found using social media was often associated with a “see-saw” of experiences  From closeness to disconnection  From self-expression to concern about other’s judgements  From inspiration to distress  From entertainment to boredom  From admiration from envy  May be slightly more weighted toward the negative, with a small negative association with social media use and psychological being (Orben, 2020) Online Relationships  Verduyn and colleagues (2017) defined 2 types of social media use that differentially impact psychological well-being:  1. Active use: producing or exchanging information  E.g.posting updates, sharing links, or sending public or private messages  Positively associated with psychological well-being  2. Passive use: monitoring other people’s posts, without engaging further  Negative associated with psychological well-being Online Relationships  Sapiezynski and colleagues (2018) tracked the social media usage of university students, while also tracking their physical movements with their phones’ locations  Since participants often knew one another, researchers could use Wi-Fi proximity monitoring to determine whether they had spent time with one another in real life  Found 73% of Facebook friends met at least once a month, often during regular campus or class activities;  Found 43% of Facebook friends met outside of campus at least once a month  ↑ communication online with Facebook friends → ↑ likelihood to meet in person Marital Status  Being married (vs. not married) is generally related to ↑ psychological well-being, on average (Becker et al., 2019) Longitudinal studies show that transition from being single to married is associated with ↑ well- being (Haring-Hidore et al., 1985) Marital Status  Marriagesare often difficult, with about 40-50% of marriages ending in divorce  Researchers only survey people still married, not those that were married and divorced  End of a marriage (via divorce or death) typically ↓ well-being, with a stronger effect size than getting married (Lucas, 2005) Marital Status  Haring-Hidore and colleagues (1985) found the average effect of marriage on well-being to be statistically significant but small Stronger association was somewhat larger for men than women Stronger association in younger (vs. older) people Marital Status  Wadsworth (2016) investigated contextual factors might influence marriage’s association with well-being  Usedarchival data from the CDC’s 2005– 2008 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to collect information on demographic factors, marital status, and general life satisfaction Sample sizes ranging from 355,241 to 414,366 Marital Status  Found that when marriage is more common in one’s environment among one’s peers, ↑ effect of marriage being associated with life satisfaction  Instates where 20% of peers are married, 9% increase in life satisfaction when married (vs. unmarried)  Instates where 80% of peers are married, 17% increase in life satisfaction when married (vs. unmarried)  Stronger effect when marriage is viewed as an expectation or achievement in one’s peer group Marital Status  Wightet al. (2013) used data from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to evaluate levels of psychological distress in lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) individuals when legally married vs. not  Distress characterized by feeling nervous, hopeless, restless, fidgety, depressed, worthless, or as though everything was an effort Marital Status  LGBpersons in legally recognized same-sex marriages (vs. domestic partnerships) had ↓ distress than both LGB people in registered domestic partnerships or not in legally recognized relationships  Also found married (vs. nonmarried) heterosexuals had ↓ distress Attachment Theory  Attachment:an emotional bond with another person Theory of attachment was originally developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth Believed that bonds formed by children with their parents/early caregivers influence the way they will form relationships throughout their lives, including into adulthood Attachment Theory  Types of Attachment: Secure, Anxious-Ambivalent, and Avoidant, Disorganized  1. Secure Attachment: behavioural profile including:  Exploration when attachment figure is present  Crying and protest when attachment figure leaves  Easy soothing when the attachment figure returns  Corresponds to about 65% of babies (Van Ijzendoom & Kroonenberg, 1988)  Show higher cognitive functioning, become teens that are more socially mature, and adults who maintain good relationships (Ranson & Urichuk, 2008; Murray et al., 2006; Salvatore et al.,2011) Attachment Theory  2. Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment: profile in which babies:  Are hesitant to explore even when the attachment figure is present  Become intensely distressed and panics when attachment figure leaves  Difficult to soothe when the attachment figure returns  Simultaneous clinging and pushing/twisting away  Accounts for about 20% of babies (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970)  Have increased risk of aggressive, antisocial behaviour later in life (Burgess et al. 2003) Attachment Theory  3. Avoidant Attachment: a behavioural profile in which babies:  Seem unconcerned with the caregiver’s presence or absence  Will play quietly and independently regardless of circumstance  Babies still show increase in biological measures of stress (e.g. Increased heart rate, salivary cortisol)  Suggests babies are just as upset, but are handling stress in a different way (Spangler & Grossman, 1993)  Accounts for about 15% of babies  Children insecurely attached (anxious- ambivalent/avoidant) are more likely to suffer from psychopathology and physical illness symptoms as adults (Sroufe et al., 2005; Puig et al., 2013) Attachment Theory 4. Disorganized attachment: infant displays intense anxiety even when the caregiver is present Frightened yet unable to turn to caregiver for comfort Higher chance that the caregiver is emotionally volatile, suffering from depression or trauma, or even abusive Attachment Theory  People with diff. attachment styles had different relationship histories and beliefs  Secure  Longer relationships than other attachment style adults  Less likely to have been divorced  Describe their most important love experience as happy, friendly, and trusting  Endorsed the belief that ups and downs are normal in relationships  Unlikely to say that it was easy to fall in love, or that they fell in love frequently  Described themselves as easy to know and likeable  Described other people as well-intentioned and good- hearted Attachment Theory  People with diff. attachment styles had different relationship histories and beliefs  Anxious  Describe themselves as obsessively preoccupied with their partners  Experiencing intense emotional highs and lows in relationships  More likely than secure and avoidant adults to agree that their love experiences were love at first sight  Felt an intense feeling of oneness with their partner was important to them  Most likely to say that they fell in love easily and often  Agreed the most strongly out of all 3 groups that they experienced much self-doubt, were misunderstood or unappreciated  More able than most people to commit to a long-term relationship Attachment Theory  People with diff. attachment styles had different relationship histories and beliefs  Avoidant  Describe being afraid of closeness in their most important relationships  Felt unable to accept their partner’s imperfections  More likely than secure and anxious adults that romantic love does not last forever  Were less likely out of all 3 groups to agree that romantic feelings grow and wane repeatedly over the course of a relationship  More likely to endorse statement that they were independent and able to get along by themselves Attachment Theory  According to Fraley and Shaver (2000), adults styles reflect deeply ingrained expectations about caregiver/partner relationships that are the basis for infant styles  Secure infants expect caregivers to be responsive, consistent, warm  Secure adults think of themselves of lovable and worthy, and see their lovers as kind, trustworthy and dependable Attachment Theory  Anxious infants expect inconsistency from caregivers, and are highly dependent and terrified of separation  Anxious adults want to be in deep, intense relationships, think such relationship are possible, but don’t really trust others, don’t think of themselves as loveable, constantly afraid of abandonment  Avoidant infant have given up on their caregivers, playing on their own and showing little reaction when the caregiver leaves  Avoidant adults appear to have given up on committed, intimate relationships Attachment Theory  Newer research shows that, although this connection is often statistically significant, the effect isn’t necessarily strong  Dinero and colleagues (2008) interviewed 15-16 years olds with their parents, and the same teenagers in their mid- twenties with their romantic partners  Used a sophisticated behavioral coding system to assess the style of relationship they had with both  Found that the correlation between how people interacted as teens vs. adults ranged from 0.17 to 0.41 (small to moderate effect size) Social Exchange Theories  Socialexchange theories propose that people’s decisions to engage/remain relationships, as well as their satisfaction in that relationships, depend on weighing the relationships’ costs and benefits  Sometimes called “economic” theories of relationships  Applies to friendships, romantic relationships, career relationships, or any other types Social Exchange Theories  Thibault and Kelley (1959) propose that partners in relationships seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs  Whatis reward or cost can differ from person to person, and change over time E.g.Rewards: companionship, emotional support, sex, material resources, stability E.g. Costs: stress, arguments, time commitments, compromises Social Exchange Theories  Thibaultand Kelley (1959) proposed that people use 2 factors when making relationship decisions:  1. Comparison level: individual’s raw evaluation of how attractive the relationship is based on the cost-benefit analysis  Comparing the relationship with the kind of relationship that the person believes they deserve  Influenced by their past romantic experiences and cultural norms from media Social Exchange Theories  2. Comparison level for alternatives: an individual’s perception of whether other potential relationships would be more rewarding (or less costly) than being in their current relationship  People stick with their current relationships as long as they find them better (in terms of benefits and costs) than alternatives Social Exchange Theories  Criticisms of Thibault and Kelley’s (1959) social exchange theories is that people often seem committed to their relationships despite occasional, more attractive alternatives that may arise  CarylRusbult developed the investment theory of commitment, with 3 major factors that maintain a person’s commitment to a relationship: 1 and 2: satisfaction level + quality of alternatives  Same as Thibault and Kelley’s social exchange theory  3. Investment size: the resources that people put into a relationship Social Exchange Theories  As we remain in relationships longer, we invest things into them  E.g. tangible things: money and possessions  E.g.intangible things: effort, trust, self-disclosure, or shared memories  The more we invest, the more likely we are to remain committed to the relationship, even if it begins to fall short on the other two factors  Why people might stay in marriages, even though seemingly better alternatives exist Social Exchange Theories  Critiques of social exchange theories  1. Don’t explain why people sometimes engage in relationship behaviors that have no potential benefit to themselves  E.g. people often engage in prosocial/altruistic actions, seemingly without regard to the personal costs or benefits  2.Most research on the social exchange theories is correlational, can’t conclude causality  Don’t know if ↑ investment in relationships → ↑ commitment, or if ↑ commitment → ↑ investment Social Exchange Theories  Critiques of social exchange theories  1. Don’t explain why people sometimes engage in relationship behaviors that have no potential benefit to themselves  E.g. people often engage in prosocial/altruistic actions, seemingly without regard to the personal costs or benefits  2.Most research on the social exchange theories is correlational, can’t conclude causality  Don’t know if ↑ investment in relationships → ↑ commitment, or if ↑ commitment → ↑ investment Balance Theory of Relationships  Gottman (1993) defined the balance theory of relationships: the stability of a relationship and its level of satisfaction depends on a healthy balance between negative and positive interactions  Disagreements and even anger are not necessarily harmful to the longevity of a couple  What is more important is how they regulate or balance these experiences Balance Theory of Relationships 3types of regulated couples (i.e. that have stable balance between positive and negative interactions)  1. Validating couples: calm and have an easy-going manner with each other Often empathic toward one another, attempting to understand each other’s perspectives and, work out their problems constructively and openly Balance Theory of Relationships  2.Volatile couples: experience a wide array of ups and downs emotionally  When they disagree, may dig in and vociferously try to convince each other that they’re right, but tend to eventually work things out  3. Conflict minimizing couples: try hard not to fight  Try to maintain a sense of optimism at all times, even if it means avoiding or ignoring disagreements Balance Theory of Relationships  Althoughthe last two styles may seem problematic, they are considered regulated because they tend to last  Balance achieved between positive and negative interactions tends to be stable, even if perhaps not totally ideal  Gottman suggests a “magic ratio” of positive to negative interactions of 5:1 Balance Theory of Relationships  There are two major types of unregulated relationships that lack balance  1.Hostile couples: show open contempt for one another, often engaging in the same arguments over and over again  2. Hostile-detached couples: where one member of the couple seeks to detach from the argument while the other member keeps fighting Arguments can look like sneak attacks Culture, Love, and Marriage  Despite love’s universality, culture plays a large role in how people express love  Across the globe, despite specific meanings of love across cultures, people’s conceptions of both passionate and companionate love tend to be similar However, unclear if due to inherent similarities across cultures or the widespread impacts of globalization Culture, Love, and Marriage  Various cultures have different definitions of “beautiful”  E.g. In the Sepik River region of Papua, New Guinea, some men decorate themselves with scars to prove their courage  Different standards regarding body weight  InWhite American culture, attractiveness is stereotypically associated with being slim for women and muscular for men  BlackAmerican culture, is more likely than White American culture to celebrate people who weigh more as being beautiful (Hunter et al., 2020; Kalch- Oliver & Ancis, 2011) Culture, Love, and Marriage Culturealso influences how people practice marriage In 2016, the yearly marriage rate in the United States was 7 marriages per 1,000 people, 5.5 in South Korea and 2.7 in Argentina (Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020) Culture, Love, and Marriage  Culturealso may influence the degree to which people marry for love versus for other reasons In 1700s, arranged marriages in the West were common for pragmatic concerns, financial arrangements, or religious issues Now in modern times extremely rare in the West Culture, Love, and Marriage  Arranged marriages are still relatively common in India, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, among other places (Hatfield et al., 2015)  However in India, for instance, some families practice a kind of modified arranged marriage (Brown et al., 2020)  Although potential matches are arranged, couples often can meet and spend time together before agreeing to the match  Aslong as certain social requirements are met, families may accept couples who meet outside of this match system Culture, Love, and Marriage  Kephart (1967) asked college men and women if they would marry someone who had all the qualities they desired in a partner, but you just weren’t in love with  Mostmen (64.6 %) answered “no” to this question, whereas a much smaller number of women (24.3 %) provided a “no” response  Could be due to time period, since women at the time possessed much less legal, social, and economic power than men Culture, Love, and Marriage  Sprecher and Hatfield (2017) put the same question to students attending a sociology course at an American university 16 years in a row (1997–2012)  Instead of asking the question in a yes-or-no format, they used a rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly no) to 5 (strongly yes)  Reversed the scores to indicate a greater need for love as a prerequisite for marriage  Mean rating was 4.53 across all the years of the study  Both men and women both answered the question with mean ratings in the mid-4s  Men were slightly more willing to marry without love than women Culture, Love, and Marriage  Levine and colleagues (2004) asked college students in 11 nations if they would be willing to marry someone they did not love  In the United States, Mexico, Hong Kong, England, and Australia 77.6-85.9% said they would not marry someone they didn’t love  In other countries, including the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan, 24.0-39.1% said they would not marry someone they didn’t love  Across these studies, being more financially impoverished makes people pick partners out of necessity than out of love