Interpersonal Relationships 5
Interpersonal Relationships
I. Evolutionary Perspective
-Natural selection – species evolve via genetic survival (i.e., transmission of genes from one generation to the next).
-Physical structures, mental traits, and behavioral tendencies that facilitate genetic survival remain in the gene pool (are selected)
-Less effective structures, traits, and tendencies are transmitted at a slower rate and eventually die out (are not selected)
-Human behavior reflects the behavioral tendencies that promoted genetic-survival among hominid ancestry.
A. Sex Differences in Mate Preference (Buss, 1997; Buss & Kenrick, 1998)
E.g., David Buss (1989) sex differences in mate preference within 37 cultures across 6 continents.
B. Sex Difference in Desire for Sexual Variety
Ancestral males maximize genetic survival by having multiple sex partners - manifest itself in a desire for sexual variety.
E.g. David Schmitt (2003) -surveyed 16,288 people from 10 world regions
C. Female Mate-Preference Fluctuates across Menstrual Cycle
-Ancestral females might maximize genetic survival by obtaining a partner with resources AND mating outside pair-bond with a mate who could bestow genetic benefits to the offspring (i.e., a male displaying evidence of power & health) – such infidelity is risky and payoff only if produce offspring – so most successful if linked to fertility cycle.
E.g., Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, & Christensen (2004)
D. Infanticide Rates for Genetic Fathers vs. Stepfathers
II. Attachment Theory (John Bowlby)
Repeated patterns of infant-caregiver interaction affect relationship functioning throughout life.
A. Repeated Infant-Caregiver Interactions
Attachment system evolved to maintain proximity between the infant and caregiver. Threat to attachment elicits:
1) Protest –
2) Despair –
3) Detachment –
B. Ainsworth’s Styles of Attachment and the Strange-Situation
C. Attachment and Adult Romantic-Relationships
Attachment styles (mental models) extend beyond the infant-caregiver and affect later relationships
1. Adult Attachment and Love Experiences (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
Secure "I find it pretty easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me."
Ambivalent "I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my dating partners do not really love me or will not want to stay with me. I want to get close to my partners and this sometimes scares people away."
Avoidant "I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, dating partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being."
2. Adult Attachment: Conflict and Support
E.g. Simpson, Rholes, & Dede (1996)
Anxious and avoidant styles are associated with greater conflict in the face of a threat to the relationship
E.g., Simpson, Rholes, Orinea, & Grich (2002)
Secure level is associated with appropriate support giving
C.3. Adult Attachment and Relationship Violence
Sexual jealousy and concerns with abandonment are reoccurring themes with relationship violence.
-Physically violent husbands are more ambivalently attached than are non-violent husbands
-Male and female members of reciprocally violent relationships are more ambivalently attached than are male and female members of non-violent relationships
-Stressors in relationships (e.g., arguments, etc.) might activate abandonment issues among anxiously attached persons who subsequently become emotionally aroused and lash out physically against their partners.
III. Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978)
A. Satisfaction and Dependence
(1) Average outcome (AVE):
(2) Comparison Level (CL):
(3) Comparison level for Alternatives (CL-ALT):
Why remain in a bad Relationship?
B. Transformation of Motivation
C. The Investment model of Commitment (Caryl Rusbult 1983)
Dependence is subjectively experienced as commitment.
1. What Affects Commitment?
Commitment = Satisfaction – Alternatives + Investments
2. Commitment (i.e., dependence) Affects Relationship Maintenance
A. Stay vs. Leave
E.g., Rusbult and Martz (1995)
B. Accommodation
Tendency to suppress gut level instinct to respond destructively when partner is behaving badly
E.g,. Rusbultt, Verrette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipcus (1991)
-Completed measures of the investment model and accommodation
Accommodation measure: series of statements describing negative partner behaviors & potential reactions
When my partner yells at me, I:
(a) think about ending our relationship,
(b) avoid my partner,
(c) talk to him/her about it,
(d) give my partner the benefit of the doubt and forget about it.
C. Willingness to Sacrifice
E.g., Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox (1997, Study 1)
-Completed measures of the investment model and willingness to sacrifice (WTS).
WTS: Ps listed the 3 most important activities in their life (outside of their relationship)
“imagine that it was not possible to engage in Activity X and maintain your relationship with your partner.
To what extent would you consider ending your relationship with your partner?"
(0 = definitely would not consider ending relationship, 8 = definitely would consider ending relationship)”
E.g., Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox (1997, Study 2)
-Time 1: Couple separately completed measures of Study 1
-Time 2: Couple separately completed stair task (step-up-and-down a step as quickly as possible in 1 min)
Repeat stair task and told partner would be paid $0.10 for each step beyond previous total