Relationships

• formation

  need for affiliation, physical attractiveness, proximity and similarity, reciprocity, disclosure
• maintenance

  signalling commitment, shared activities, support, intimacy process model, interpreting information, LDR, forgiveness, maintenance in pandemic
• dissolution

  prevalence and causes, methods, stages, consequences and distress
• formation: need for affiliation

  a need to form positive and lasting interpersonal research

  lack of social contact can cause serious long-term consequences

  HARLOW (1958) rhesus monkey research -> not restricted to our species

  self-regulation of social contact but individual diff

  YOU & MALLEY-MORRISON (2000) caucasian americans reported more intimate friendships and higher expectations than koreans

  BERSCHEID & REIS (1998) variables associated w loneliness:

  • dispositional factors (beh), social circumstances (time spent w peers) and social cognitive tendencies (how you think abt others)
• function: proximity and similarity

  proximity allows familiarity, availability and expectation of continued interaction -> more likely to make an effort.

  has imp consq for design of housing, workplace etc.

  has implications for formation and maintenance of rs

  ROBERTS (2018) proximity and similarity imp for elderly living in residential care

  RICHAUD (2018) co-presence at public park -> friendships being made in Beijing

  COSTA ET AL. (2018) imp outcomes. looked at experience of veterans. living closer to ppl they served w -> lived longer

  assortative mating - elements of similarity make us want to spend time tgth w similar. increases similarity over time>
• have to consider contextual factors

  KILLIAS (2018)

  iranian students living in malaysia viewed other iranians w suspicion -> due to risk w politics etc.

  often chose to maintain distance with those of similar backgrnd
• function: reciprocity

  tend to like those who like us back

  but there are ind dif:

  • attachment e.g. fear of rejection can make one more responsive
  • self-esteem e.g. those high in se less affected by others opinion

  depends on situation

  • we like those who disliked us at first
  • we dislike those who turned cold/distant
• function: disclosure

  sharing of personal info -> gradually builds as trust develops

  3 types of negative disclosure:

  • PREMATURE, being very personal early on, can feel uncomfortable
  • DISHONEST, doesnt give any insight
  • FACTUAL, doesnt work like emotional disclosure does

  LAURENCEAU, BARRETT & ROVINE (2005) response to disclosure can predict stronger feelings of closeness. disclosure imp for romantic and platonic rs

  KUDO & SIMKIN (2003) interviews w japanese students in australia

  • friendship dev dependent on contact freq, similarity & self-disclosure (builds up trust)
• function: physical attractiveness

  broad cross-cultural agreement of physical attractiveness.

  attractive ppl rated more positively and attractiveness influences romantic rs.

  BLESKE-RECHEK & LIGHTHALL (2010) friends are similar attractiveness.

  there a range of physical characteristics important for attractiveness.

  HENDRIE & BREWER (2012) little focus on teeth

  • colour and spacing can allude to diet, genetic cond, environment, general health and ageing
  • no general benefit of having whiter teeth
• maintenance: signalling commitment

  YAMAGUCHI EY AL. (2015)

  acts to signal commitment are similar in friend and romantic rs

  costly commitment signals are more effective

  failing to display appropriate signals are more detrimental in romantic rs
• maintenance: shared activities

  after first 2 yrs, affection and perceived responsiveness decline

  need to start relying on smth other than self-disclosure

  SELF EXPANSION MODELS - have desire to enhance our identity

  • allows to learn more abt partner, get to see them in another context

  REISSMAN, ARON & BERGEN (1993) shared activities = grter rs satisfaction
• maintenance: support

  partner support is unique and difficult to replace

  supportive rs are more satisfied

  perceived support can be beneficial

  received support can be beneficial or detrimental

  partners response to a positive event is also important

  FREDERICKSON (2019) - Broad and Build theory

  • experience and expression of positive emotions
  • shld expand on positive events
  • important to look at response
  • will build resources for the rs
• maintenance: intimacy process model

  focuses on day to day interaction, how they can strength rs, decline of rs or repair rs

  INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL (REIS & PATRICK, 1996; REIS & SHAVER, 1998)

  framework for understanding daily exchanges and their impact on intimacy

  A's self-disclosure -> B's interpretive filter -> B's response -> A's interpretive filter -> A's reaction to response

  reaction feeds A's motives etc., which feeds SD and interpretive filter
• maintenance: interpreting info

  information processing

  • same event can be interpreted differently at different times and by different ppl
  • FLEMLESS (1995, 1996) fatal attraction phenomenon -> same characteristic that lead attraction can also end relationship

  memory bias

  • MCFARLAND & ROSS (1987) memories of past feeling distorted by current rs feelings
  • memory bias allows us to forget info that may threaten our current feelings for the rs
• maintenance: LDR's

  can include a range of rs e.g. college, military, dual career

  usually report higher dedication, rs quality, trust and commitment (e.g. KELMER ET AL., 2013; JIANG & HANCOCK, 2013)

  JIANG & HANCOCK (2013) LDR appear to engage in more SD, promoting intimacy

  GREENBERG & NEUSTAEDTER (2013) advancement of tech allows for time to be spent tgth enhancing intimacy, only problem now is time difference and technical issues
• maintenance: forgiveness

  INTRAPERSONAL lvl - anger, blame turns into compassion

  • silent forgiveness - difficult for the partner

  INTERPERSONAL lvl - expressing w actions/words

  • hollow forgiveness - lying to the other, personally still angry

  important that both elements are there when forgiving

  important factors for forgiveness:

  • minor acts
  • remorse
  • emotionally stable victim
  • committed satisfied relationship
• maintenance: COVID-19 & rs satisfaction

  YANG & MA (2020) married couples experienced greater decline in emotional well-being than unmarried during pandemic.

  PRASSO (2020) filings for divorced increased after outbreak.

  LUETKE ET AL. (2020) 34% ppl in rs reported conflict related to covid and restrictions.

  pandemic also had positive change

  • SCHMID ET AL. (2021) rs satisfaction, 20% positive, 40% negative
  • -> shows individual variation
• important factors during covid

  • heavy stress - increase in anxiety, depression etc.
  • compromised coping strategies and access to social support
  • separation or increased time w partner
  • pre-existing issues

  these stressors threaten quality and stability of the rs

  maladaptive beh (e.g. withdrawal, hostility, less responsive) may increase
• maintenance: COVID-19 & rs satisfaction 2 (INFIDELITY)

  little research done

  COOP GORDON & MITCHELL (2020) outline ways covid impacts the risk of affairs and recovery process

  • increased stress, decreased rs satisfaction can lead to infidelity, though social distancing makes this problematic
  • dating sites for married ppl, 17000 new members everyday during pandemic
  • affairs (during or before pandemic) more likely to be discovered
  • difficulties recovering from affair - difficult to distance, lack of social support
  • difficult to protect children
• supporting rs during COVID

  STANLEY & MARKMAN (2020) identify strategies counselling/therapists can use to help preserve & protect rs

  3 keys:

  • make it safe to connect
  • be prepared for the work
  • dont be complacent, dont let it slide
• dissolution: prevalence & causes

  ROBAK & WEITZMAN (1998) rs dissolution is a common experience

  issues that can lead to dissolution:

  • partners failure to meet needs
  • desire for freedom
  • unreciprocated love
  • external challenges as well

  LEVINGER (1980) 4 indicators of the end:

  • new life seems the only way forward
  • alternative partner available
  • expecting rs to fail
  • lack of commitment to a continuing rs
• dissolution: methods

  COLLINS & GILLATH (2012) break up strategy questionnaire

  avoidance, self blame, open confront, cost escalation (being mean), manipulation, distant/mediated communication, de-escalation (nth said in hopes of improvement)

  factors (inc personality) can influence break up method chosen

  BREWER & ABELL (2017) women high on machiavellianism more likely to use:

  • avoidance
  • cost escalation
  • manipulation
  • distant
• dissolution: stages

  DUCK (1998) rs dissolution model:

  1. intrapsychic phase - internal thinking
  2. dyadic phase - communicating w partner
  3. social phase - taking issues to others, can give reassurance
  4. grave-dressing phase - post rs e.g. think abt how you look to others
• dissolution: consequences & distress

  AKERT (1998) both typically report distress

  SPRECHER ET AL. (1998) breakup initiator lower lvls of distress. distress after breakup associated w commitment, satisfaction, having few perceived alt

  DAVIS, SHAVER & VERNON (2013) breakup has imp consequences for physical and mental health
• dissolution: consequences & distress 2

  MCSHALL & JOHNSON (2015) association between rs quality and psychopathology consistent across cultures, but:

  YIP ET AL. (2015) divorced ppl from asian countries have higher suicide rates. risk of suicide associated w ind/col, long-term orientation, survival/self-expression and gender inequality score of the country

  MCNAMEE & SMYTH (2019) moving on for women:

  • caucasian parents likely to encourage new rs
  • latino parents likely to discourage it, view first marriage as sacred
• dissolution: consequences & distress 3

  GRIFFITH ET AL. (2017) reasons for staying friends w ex:

  • security
  • practicality
  • civility
  • unresolved romantic issues

  security and practicality -> positive outcomes

  unresolved romantic issues -> negative outcomes

  practicality or civility -> less likely to last long-term