Mental
Steven911
chapter12a.docx
Chapter 12
Attraction and Relationships
Fuse/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
· Describe how proximity, attractiveness, matching, similarity, equitability, and being "hard to get" influenceattraction
· Explain the two factors of the need to belong and how human tendencies toward social bonds, includingwhat happens when we are deprived, show the need to belong
· Explain the difference between companionate love, passionate love, and compassionate love
· Explain the difference between a communal relationship and an exchange relationship
· Explain Sternberg's triangular theory of love
· Describe how interdependence theory works
· Explain the components of the investment model
· Describe John Gottman's findings about relationship maintenance
Chapter Outline
12.1 Factors in Attraction
· We Like Those Who Are Close to Us
· We Like Those Who Are Attractive
· We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
· We Like Those We Have Equitable Relationships With
· We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get
12.2 Need to Belong
· Social Bonds
· Deprivation
12.3 Love
· Types of Love
· Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love
12.4 Relationship Maintenance
12.5 When Relationships End
Chapter Summary
* * *
Around 2 million Americans marry each year, with other couples entering into long-term commitments with a partner orbeginning cohabitation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). According tothe U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the average household size was 2.59 in 2010. When it comes to other close relationships, mostadults in the United States report that they have around nine close friends (Brewer & Webster, 1999; Carroll, 2004). Themajority of people say they have at least one close friend, with fewer than 2% of U.S. residents reporting no close friends. Forthose who use the social networking site Facebook, the average friend count is 303, though such counts may be artificiallyinflated by a few users who have a very large number of friends. Younger Facebook users tend to have more friends, with anaverage of 506 and 510 for those aged 12–17 and 18–24, respectively (Marketing Charts Staff, 2013). Seeking out, forming, andmaintaining relationships seem to be major activities among human beings. Who do we tend to form friendships with? Whowill become our romantic partners? In this chapter, we explore attraction, the need for social connections, love, andmaintaining relationships.
12.1 Factors in Attraction
Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a romanticrelationship with one person but, refuse to even date another. What attracts us to some people and not others? There are a variety offactors related to attraction.
We Like Those Who Are Close to Us
Surprisingly, simple proximity, or propinquity, has a lot to do with who we meet and become friends with. First-year students were morelikely to develop a friendship with someone they sat next to during an introductory session than those they were not sitting near (Back,Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). In a student apartment building, individuals were more likely to make friends with those living in apartmentsnext to theirs, as opposed to those down the hall or up the stairs. The one exception to this was for those living near the mailboxes. Thepeople in the apartments near the mailboxes saw individuals from all areas of the building frequently and thus became friends withresidents on different floors or farther down the hall (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; also Cadiz Menne & Sinnett, 1971). The mostimportant factor in our liking of those who are close to us is repeated exposure. Exposure does not need to be in a face-to-face context.When we frequently interact with someone online, such as in a chat room or online classroom, we show greater liking for that person(Levine, 2000).
This tendency to have greater liking for things we see often is the mere-exposure effect. The familiarity created by multiple exposurescreates greater fondness for someone over time. Repeated exposure to people and objects is related to greater liking for those people orobjects (Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968). A piece of modern art that you thought was merely interesting the first timeyou saw it may, with repeated exposure, become well loved. In one study of this phenomenon, women who attended more class sessionswere better liked by their classmates, even when they did not interact with those classmates (Moreland & Beach, 1992).
We Like Those Who Are Attractive
Imagine you are beginning school at a large university and have signed up to be part of a welcome week dance. For the dance, you arepaired with another student of the opposite sex based on your answers to some questionnaires. You meet your date and the two of youtry to get to know each other over the course of the evening. As part of this dance, you are asked to evaluate your partner and considerwhether you would like to date him or her again. What might influence your answer? Would how intelligent your date is matter? His orher sincerity? Other personality factors? When researchers did this study, they found none of these predicted evaluations of the date. Theonly predictor of the evaluation students gave of their partner was how physically attractive the date was. The partners of more-attractivedates liked them more and showed a greater desire to go out with them again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). All otherthings being equal, we prefer highly attractive individuals: as dates, as friends, and to interact with in a social situation (Black, 1974;Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1967). In a study of speed daters, the strongest predictor of attraction for both men and women wasattractiveness of the partner (Luo & Zhang, 2009). In another study involving third and eighth graders, physical attractiveness was animportant factor in a desire for friendship with a peer (Zakin, 1983). Physical attractiveness can also play a role in employment. Peopleare more likely to recommend terminating employment of an unattractive employee than a moderately or very attractive employee(Commisso & Finkelstein, 2012).
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful?
How do we decide what is beautiful? Why is beauty so important to us? Throughout history and across cultures, there havebeen different ideals of beauty. In the 1600s, one ideal for beauty in women was conveyed in the art of Peter Paul Rubens.Rubens painted plump, voluptuous women—a portrayal that came to be known for him in the term rubenesque. In contrast,the idea for female beauty in the 1960s was closer to that of Twiggy, an English model who took on the nickname becauseof her thin, boyish figure.
©Bridgeman Art Library, London/Superstock; Science andSociety/SuperStock
Beauty ideals have varied throughout history. In the1600s, voluptuousness was most desired, ascharacterized by the Peter Paul Rubens painting onthe left. However, by the 1960s, beauty was connotedby a thin, waif-like figure, like that of model Twiggy.
In research on beauty, the primary focus has been on the face.Researchers have found that symmetrical face and faces with ratiosthat match the average for the population are more attractive. If youlook at your face in a mirror you might notice some asymmetries.For example, your right nostril might be slightly larger than your leftor your left ear higher on your head than your right ear. Individualswho have greater symmetry are judged more attractive (Bridgstock& Townsend, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Rhodeset al., 2001).
When composite faces are created by a computer from a number ofindividual faces, composite faces are judged to be more attractivethan the individual faces that went into the composite. When faceshave features placed in locations that are the average for thosefound in the population, and the size of features are the average sizefor the population, such faces are judged to be beautiful (Langlois &Roggman, 1990). The ratios that fit these averages are a verticaldistance between eyes and mouth of about 36% of the length of theface. The most beautiful horizontal distance between the eyes is46% of the width of the face (Pallett, Link, & Lee, 2010). The finalset of features that make faces attractive is masculine features inmen and feminine features in women. A man's face with a square chin, thick brows, and thin lips is rated more attractive. Awoman's face with a smaller chin, smaller lower face area, and fuller lips is judged more attractive (Rhodes, 2006).
According to evolutionary psychologists, beauty may signal fitness. People without genetic disorders and those with goodimmune system responses to disease have more average faces (Rhodes, 2006). More fertile women have been shown insome samples to have more symmetrical faces (Pfluger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, & Gammer, 2012; for an opposingviewpoint see Silva, Lummaa, Muller, Raymond, & Alvergne, 2012). People's careful attention to attractiveness may,therefore, be based on a desire to choose a mate who will help produce valuable offspring.
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· According to the mere-exposure effect, which song would you like more: song A that you heard for the first time todayor song B that you have heard 15 times in the last 2 weeks?
We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
While individuals might desire a relationship with an attractive other, an attractive person might not desire a relationship with the not-so-attractive individual. One of the messages that an individual who refuses a date or relationship might be sending concerns the desirabilityof the other person. In other words, the woman may be communicating to the man she rejects that he is not as attractive as he thinks heis, and is "out of her league." She rejects him because she can do better. Perhaps because of this message, unrequited love tends to reduceself-esteem in the would-be lover (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993). Most people expect and tend to end up in a romanticrelationship with someone who is similarly physically attractive (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971; Folkes, 1982; Montoya, 2008;Murstein, 1972). This tendency to have relationships with those who match us is called the matching hypothesis. The next time youhave a chance to observe couples, perhaps at a party, look around and notice whether the couples are about the same in attractiveness.When couples do not match, there is often a quality in the less-attractive member that in some way makes up for his or her lack ofphysical beauty, such as social status, money, education, physical grooming, sense of humor, or personality (Carmalt, Cawley, Joyner, &Sobal, 2008; Feingold, 1981).
According to the matching hypothesis, we tend to end up with those who are similar to us in attractiveness. Beyond that, do the values orinterests of a potential relationship partner, either friend or romantic partner, make a difference in our liking of that person? In general,we like and want to interact with those who are similar to us in values, interests, personality, gender, and race (Byrne et al., 1967;Johnson, 1989; Tenney, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2009). Among those who are already our friends, researchers find, the intensity offriendship is greater among those who perceive their friend to be similar (Selfhout, Denissen, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). If a newacquaintance is similar to you, you may feel more comfortable and be able to better predict what the other person would want to talkabout or do (Berg & Clark, 1986; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Similarities can allow interactions to progress smoothly and reduce conflict,particularly at the beginning of a relationship.
Similarity may be a more long-term relationship factor than a short-term factor. For example, speed daters showed no greater attractionto those who were similar; attractiveness was more important (Luo & Zhang, 2009). Greater similarity is attractive for long-termrelationships like friendship, or relationships with long-term romantic partners. Even when we desire similarity in our friendships, wemay not actually be friends with similar people if our options are limited. Friends in the United States tend to show greater similaritythan friends in Japan. Researchers found that this was because of a difference in the ability of individuals within those cultures to formnew relationships. The Japanese population, as a whole, is less mobile that the U.S. population, with lesser likelihood of moving awayfrom family or friends for employment or other reasons. With fewer opportunities for new friendships to form, we tend to stick withfriends who are not necessarily similar to ourselves but are close in geographic proximity (Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009).
We Like Those We Have Equitable Relationships With
Have you ever had a relationship where you felt you were giving more than you were getting from the other person? If so, you were partof an inequitable relationship. Equity involves receiving benefits proportional to what one provides (Hatfield, 1983). According to equitytheory, it is not the overall amount of benefit one receives from a relationship that is important, but whether what one gives and whatone gets are equal. Partners who gives more than they receive in a relationship are underbenefited in the relationship. Partners whoreceive more than they give in a relationship are overbenefited. As you might imagine, underbenefiting is more distressing to individuals.If you have ever invested in a relationship and have not received rewards proportional to your input, you were likely unhappy with thatrelationship. This theory also predicts that overbenefiting is problematic. When one relationship partner overbenefits, that person gainsrewards he or she knows are undeserved, causing distress (Sprecher, 1986; 1992; Stafford & Canary, 2006).
Although there is some support for this theory, the overall amount of benefits in a relationship may be more important than equity (Cate,Lloyd, Henton, & Larson, 1982; Cate, Lloyd, & Long, 1988). If one is in an equitable relationship, but is neither giving nor receiving muchfrom that relationship, it is unlikely to be a relationship for very long. Some people may expect fairness and pay attention to equity;others may be satisfied with an unbalanced relationship (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003). In long-term, intimate partnerships, there may alsobe certain domains where equity is more important. Housework and childcare often fall inequitably to married women, which canpotentially create problems within the relationship (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 2007). Equitability in these areas may, therefore, be moreimportant to relationship success for some married couples than equity in other domains (Gottman & Carrere, 1994).
We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get
The idea of playing hard to get is a familiar notion within the dating sphere. Individuals who play hard to get appear to be selective intheir social choices, and are not easily swayed by the advances of another. Magazines and websites give men and women advice on howto play hard to get in order to win over the object of their affection (Dahlstrom, 2011). Advertisers use scarcity to suggest their product isparticularly desirable, so would the same be true about potential dates? Like that rare painting or limited-edition collectible, are peoplewho play hard to get liked better?
Much of the advice about playing hard to get, and therefore the research on the idea, focuses on women playing hard to get in theirpotential romantic relationships. In an impressive series of studies, Elaine Walster and colleagues (Walster, Walster, Piliavin, & Schmidt,1973) investigated whether those who were more selective in their romantic interactions were liked more than those who were lessselective. College students who read a story about a woman who was not all that interested in a potential romantic partner (Studies 1and 2), and male students who called up a woman who was hesitant about accepting his invitation to go out (Studies 3 and 4), did notreport more attraction to that person. Researchers used a unique confederate, a prostitute, to show that her clients seemed to like herless and were less likely to call her in the future when she played hard to get (Study 5). Finally, Walster and colleagues discovered thattargeted selectivity is what is most attractive about being hard to get (Study 6). Women who appeared to like and want to date the manin question, but not other men, were more attractive than women who were uniformly hard to get or who were willing to date anyone.The men were most likely to report wanting to date the women who liked them but no one else, liked her most, and expected fewerproblems in dating.
The strategy of being selectively hard to get is true for both men and women (Wright & Contrada, 1986). Interacting with someone wholikes you but not other people may provide a boost in self-esteem (Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephan, 1979); being singled out by anotherperson makes us feel good. In addition, further work has revealed that uncertainty can be attractive. Women were most attracted to menwhen they were uncertain how the man had rated them (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011). Perhaps a little mystery is motivating inromantic relationships. Hard-to-get tactics also work better for women than for men, and for long-term relationships rather than casualflings. Potential romantic partners report being willing to invest more time and money in a partner who seems hard to get, perhapsbecause of the concept of scarcity (Jonason & Li, 2013).
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· Which adage is most accurate "birds of a feather flock together" or "opposites attract"?
· Is being universally hard to get attractive?
2.2 Need to Belong
There are a variety of reasons why we might pursue relationships with some people but not others. The question remains as to why wewould pursue relationships at all. Given the statistics on marriage, partnerships, and friendships cited at the beginning of this chapter, ourbehavior suggests we have a need to be part of relationships. Psychologists Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that we have a need tointeract and be in relationships with others. The need to belong has two components: (a) the need for frequent positive contact withothers, and (b) the need for enduring connections marked by mutual concern for the welfare of the other.
Social Bonds
This need to belong is evidenced in the ease with which we form social bonds, and the trouble we have breaking those bonds. Whilewaiting in the doctor's office or at the train station, you might find yourself chatting with the person sitting next to you, easily forming afriendship. Or after a short stay at summer camp as a child, you may have promised your bunk mate or the other kids in your cabin thatyou would be friends forever. Humans quickly, and relatively easily, form social bonds. Research evidence of this can be found in the easeto which the boys in Sherif's study of conflict and superordinate goals made friends with the boys in their own group (Sherif, Harvey,White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Recall from the chapter on prejudice that within a week these boys were a close-knit group. Ingroupfavoritism quickly developed when participants were placed into groups, even when these groups were based on something asunimportant as the number of dots estimated on a slide (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1970).
Attachment theory helps to explain the bonds we have with those to whom we are close. John Bowlby (1969; 1973) first describedattachment in the realm of the infant–caregiver relationship. Within these early relationships people develop internal working models ofrelationships (Bowlby, 1973). These working models tell us what to expect from others. Some people learn that others are available andresponsive to needs and that they are worthy of that care, such individuals would be described as having a secure attachment style.Others learn that others may not be around at times when they are needed and come to believe that they are not worthy of care, suchindividuals would be described as having an insecure attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). What people learn aboutthemselves and others impacts adult relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). People who have a secure attachment style tend to seeksupport from others in times of need and provide reassurance to relationship partners when they need it (Collins & Feeney, 2010).
The effect of insecure attachment on relationships can differ depending on the attachment style. Some individuals have difficulty believingothers are to be trusted, but think they can deal with stressors on their own—reflective of a dismissing or avoidant attachment style(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These individuals do not seek or give a great deal of support to others, though they do still benefitfrom feeling like they belong and are accepted by others (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006; Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Holmberg, Lomore,Takacs, & Price, 2011; Schwartz, Lindley, & Buboltz, 2007). People who don't believe they are worthy of care by others either trust othersand seek close relationships, having a preoccupied attachment style, or distrust others and avoid close relationships, having a fearfulattachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Preoccupied individuals attempt closeness with others, but, because they areconcerned about their own worthiness to be loved, they tend to seek extreme closeness and be jealous of other relationships their friendsor romantic partners might have (Marazziti et al., 2010; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2006). Those with a fearful attachment style are fearfulof intimacy and tend to avoid relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Welch & Houser, 2010).
Deprivation
What happens if we are deprived of belonging? On April 20, 1999, Erick Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students and oneteacher and wounded 23 other people at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. In the end, they turned their guns on themselvesand committed suicide. Since the Columbine school shooting there have been more than 60 other school shootings around the world(Information Please Database, 2012). Many of the student perpetrators of these school shootings had been bullied or ostracized by theirclassmates (Gibbs & Roche, 1999; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).
A marked lack of a sense of belonging can have negative consequences. Bullying seems to be both a consequence of and caused byinterference with the need to belong. In other words, bullying is due, in part, to a lack of connections with others and desire foracceptance from other children. Boys involved in bullying desired acceptance from other boys involved in the types of antisocial activitiesthey were involved in (other bullies), and from other boys in general (Olthof & Goossens, 2008). These boys used bullying as a gateway tobelonging. In some schools, bullying can even denote social status. When the popular kids bully, engaging in bullying is accepted practicethat can show or increase one's social status (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008). Bullying also communicates to bullied individualsthat they do not belong, their peers reject them, leading to negative feelings and even suicide (Dill, Vernberg, Fonagy, Twemlow, & Gamm,2004; Herba et al., 2008). Not fulfilling the need to belong creates behavior that is harmful to others and is dangerous for one's ownphysical and mental health. Individuals with limited social ties, including family and friendships, had poorer physical health (Berkman,1995; House, Robins, & Metzner, 1982). Individuals who do not fulfill the need to belong are also more vulnerable to mental illness(Broadhead et al., 1983; Thoits, 1995).
Threats to relationships are associated with negative emotions. The loss of a loved one is very stressful (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Even thepossibility that an important relationship might end is met with sadness or jealousy (Leary, 1990; Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary, Tambor,Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Pines & Aronson, 1983). Also, our reactions to discrimination may, in part, be rooted in our need to belong(Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). Discrimination tells us we are not a valued member of the group, in fact, we either may not be part of thegroup or, if we are, we will not be able to enjoy all of the privileges of group membership.
Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock
When a person is ostracized by peers, loneliness and increasedaggression often result.
Depriving others of their connections with us can be used as a tool tocontrol them. Ostracism is the deliberate exclusion of a person fromone's social group or from social interactions. Ostracism is somethingmost people experience and use to control others. Individuals with highself-esteem ostracize to end relationships, while those with low self-esteem use ostracism as a defense against the expected rejection orcriticism by others (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001).Although the individual being ostracized certainly suffers, ostracism haspositive effects for the group excluding the individual, as it increasesgroup cohesion (Gruter & Masters, 1986). A group grows close togetherby having a common target.
Ostracism interferes with our need to belong, particularly when we areunsure of the cause of our ostracism (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, &Williams, 2012; Sommer et al., 2001). Ostracism also affects our self-esteem (Ruggieri, Bendixen, Gabriel, & Alsaker, 2013). Recall from Chapter2 the sociometer theory, the idea that acceptance and rejection areimportant for self-esteem. Ostracism tells us that others do not value us as much as we value them (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Whenostracized from a social group, we feel pain, anger, and sadness, though initially we may feel numbness (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006; vanBeest & Williams, 2006; Williams, 2001). The pain we experience when ostracized is processed in the same locations of the brain asphysical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). In fact, researchers have found that the pain reliever acetaminophen can lessenthe pain of ostracism (DeWall, Pond, & Deckman, 2011). To get back in the good graces of those around us, we often act in compliant orprosocial ways when we have been ostracized (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Williams, 2007). For example, an ostracized teenmight buy gifts for the friends who ostracized her in an attempt to secure entry back into the group and demonstrate that she is avaluable member of the group.
When we are ostracized, life seems to lose meaning and we feel out of control (Nezlek et al., 2012; Ruggieri et al., 2013; Stillman et al.,2009; Williams, 1997). Ostracism that affects our sense of purpose or control is more likely to result in antisocial behavior (Williams,2007). The interaction of ostracism and control may be particularly important for aggression. Warburton, Williams, and Cairns (2006)used a game of toss to ostracize research participants and then expose them to an unpleasant blast of noise. Some of the participantswere able to control the noise and others were not. Participants were then asked to decide how much hot sauce to put in the food of astranger, knowing that the individual did not like spicy foods but would be required to eat all of the food. Participants who had no controlover the noise wanted to put four times more hot sauce in the stranger's food than those who had control over the noise. Placing hotsauce in the food of someone who does not like it is an aggressive act, an act made more likely when people felt they were ostracized andhad no control over their circumstances. At times ostracism's effect on our sense of control results in depression. When people arechronically ostracized they have less of a desire to exert self-control. This sense of helplessness leads to symptoms of depression (DeWall,Gilman, Sharif, Carboni, & Rice, 2012).
Expand Your Knowledge: Loneliness Scale
A loneliness assessment based on the UCLA LonelinessScale can be accessed at http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/loneliness.htm .
Another result of ostracism is loneliness. Loneliness is the feeling ofbeing without desired social connections. It is possible to fulfill onepiece of the need to belong, frequent contacts, without fulfilling thesecond, ongoing relationships involving mutual caring. Lonelinessinvolves a problem with the second part of the need to belong.Someone can be lonely, therefore, even when that person has frequentcontacts with others. Loneliness may be understood and experienceddifferently in different cultures. Cultures have different ways ofunderstanding the nature of relationships, so, while loneliness appears to be common across cultures, it is understood differentlydepending on the culture (Rokach, 2007; van Staden & Coetzee, 2010). Lonely people have the physical and mental health issuesdiscussed above. One major issue with loneliness is that it can lead to depression (Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawlkey, & Thisted, 2006).
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What are the two aspects of the need to belong?
· What are some of the effects of ostracism?
· Is it possible to have frequent social contacts with others and still feel lonely?
2.2 Need to Belong
There are a variety of reasons why we might pursue relationships with some people but not others. The question remains as to why wewould pursue relationships at all. Given the statistics on marriage, partnerships, and friendships cited at the beginning of this chapter, ourbehavior suggests we have a need to be part of relationships. Psychologists Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that we have a need tointeract and be in relationships with others. The need to belong has two components: (a) the need for frequent positive contact withothers, and (b) the need for enduring connections marked by mutual concern for the welfare of the other.
Social Bonds
This need to belong is evidenced in the ease with which we form social bonds, and the trouble we have breaking those bonds. Whilewaiting in the doctor's office or at the train station, you might find yourself chatting with the person sitting next to you, easily forming afriendship. Or after a short stay at summer camp as a child, you may have promised your bunk mate or the other kids in your cabin thatyou would be friends forever. Humans quickly, and relatively easily, form social bonds. Research evidence of this can be found in the easeto which the boys in Sherif's study of conflict and superordinate goals made friends with the boys in their own group (Sherif, Harvey,White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Recall from the chapter on prejudice that within a week these boys were a close-knit group. Ingroupfavoritism quickly developed when participants were placed into groups, even when these groups were based on something asunimportant as the number of dots estimated on a slide (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1970).
Attachment theory helps to explain the bonds we have with those to whom we are close. John Bowlby (1969; 1973) first describedattachment in the realm of the infant–caregiver relationship. Within these early relationships people develop internal working models ofrelationships (Bowlby, 1973). These working models tell us what to expect from others. Some people learn that others are available andresponsive to needs and that they are worthy of that care, such individuals would be described as having a secure attachment style.Others learn that others may not be around at times when they are needed and come to believe that they are not worthy of care, suchindividuals would be described as having an insecure attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). What people learn aboutthemselves and others impacts adult relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). People who have a secure attachment style tend to seeksupport from others in times of need and provide reassurance to relationship partners when they need it (Collins & Feeney, 2010).
The effect of insecure attachment on relationships can differ depending on the attachment style. Some individuals have difficulty believingothers are to be trusted, but think they can deal with stressors on their own—reflective of a dismissing or avoidant attachment style(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These individuals do not seek or give a great deal of support to others, though they do still benefitfrom feeling like they belong and are accepted by others (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006; Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Holmberg, Lomore,Takacs, & Price, 2011; Schwartz, Lindley, & Buboltz, 2007). People who don't believe they are worthy of care by others either trust othersand seek close relationships, having a preoccupied attachment style, or distrust others and avoid close relationships, having a fearfulattachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Preoccupied individuals attempt closeness with others, but, because they areconcerned about their own worthiness to be loved, they tend to seek extreme closeness and be jealous of other relationships their friendsor romantic partners might have (Marazziti et al., 2010; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2006). Those with a fearful attachment style are fearfulof intimacy and tend to avoid relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Welch & Houser, 2010).
Deprivation
What happens if we are deprived of belonging? On April 20, 1999, Erick Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students and oneteacher and wounded 23 other people at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. In the end, they turned their guns on themselvesand committed suicide. Since the Columbine school shooting there have been more than 60 other school shootings around the world(Information Please Database, 2012). Many of the student perpetrators of these school shootings had been bullied or ostracized by theirclassmates (Gibbs & Roche, 1999; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).
A marked lack of a sense of belonging can have negative consequences. Bullying seems to be both a consequence of and caused byinterference with the need to belong. In other words, bullying is due, in part, to a lack of connections with others and desire foracceptance from other children. Boys involved in bullying desired acceptance from other boys involved in the types of antisocial activitiesthey were involved in (other bullies), and from other boys in general (Olthof & Goossens, 2008). These boys used bullying as a gateway tobelonging. In some schools, bullying can even denote social status. When the popular kids bully, engaging in bullying is accepted practicethat can show or increase one's social status (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008). Bullying also communicates to bullied individualsthat they do not belong, their peers reject them, leading to negative feelings and even suicide (Dill, Vernberg, Fonagy, Twemlow, & Gamm,2004; Herba et al., 2008). Not fulfilling the need to belong creates behavior that is harmful to others and is dangerous for one's ownphysical and mental health. Individuals with limited social ties, including family and friendships, had poorer physical health (Berkman,1995; House, Robins, & Metzner, 1982). Individuals who do not fulfill the need to belong are also more vulnerable to mental illness(Broadhead et al., 1983; Thoits, 1995).
Threats to relationships are associated with negative emotions. The loss of a loved one is very stressful (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Even thepossibility that an important relationship might end is met with sadness or jealousy (Leary, 1990; Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary, Tambor,Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Pines & Aronson, 1983). Also, our reactions to discrimination may, in part, be rooted in our need to belong(Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). Discrimination tells us we are not a valued member of the group, in fact, we either may not be part of thegroup or, if we are, we will not be able to enjoy all of the privileges of group membership.
Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock
When a person is ostracized by peers, loneliness and increasedaggression often result.
Depriving others of their connections with us can be used as a tool tocontrol them. Ostracism is the deliberate exclusion of a person fromone's social group or from social interactions. Ostracism is somethingmost people experience and use to control others. Individuals with highself-esteem ostracize to end relationships, while those with low self-esteem use ostracism as a defense against the expected rejection orcriticism by others (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001).Although the individual being ostracized certainly suffers, ostracism haspositive effects for the group excluding the individual, as it increasesgroup cohesion (Gruter & Masters, 1986). A group grows close togetherby having a common target.
Ostracism interferes with our need to belong, particularly when we areunsure of the cause of our ostracism (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, &Williams, 2012; Sommer et al., 2001). Ostracism also affects our self-esteem (Ruggieri, Bendixen, Gabriel, & Alsaker, 2013). Recall from Chapter2 the sociometer theory, the idea that acceptance and rejection areimportant for self-esteem. Ostracism tells us that others do not value us as much as we value them (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Whenostracized from a social group, we feel pain, anger, and sadness, though initially we may feel numbness (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006; vanBeest & Williams, 2006; Williams, 2001). The pain we experience when ostracized is processed in the same locations of the brain asphysical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). In fact, researchers have found that the pain reliever acetaminophen can lessenthe pain of ostracism (DeWall, Pond, & Deckman, 2011). To get back in the good graces of those around us, we often act in compliant orprosocial ways when we have been ostracized (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Williams, 2007). For example, an ostracized teenmight buy gifts for the friends who ostracized her in an attempt to secure entry back into the group and demonstrate that she is avaluable member of the group.
When we are ostracized, life seems to lose meaning and we feel out of control (Nezlek et al., 2012; Ruggieri et al., 2013; Stillman et al.,2009; Williams, 1997). Ostracism that affects our sense of purpose or control is more likely to result in antisocial behavior (Williams,2007). The interaction of ostracism and control may be particularly important for aggression. Warburton, Williams, and Cairns (2006)used a game of toss to ostracize research participants and then expose them to an unpleasant blast of noise. Some of the participantswere able to control the noise and others were not. Participants were then asked to decide how much hot sauce to put in the food of astranger, knowing that the individual did not like spicy foods but would be required to eat all of the food. Participants who had no controlover the noise wanted to put four times more hot sauce in the stranger's food than those who had control over the noise. Placing hotsauce in the food of someone who does not like it is an aggressive act, an act made more likely when people felt they were ostracized andhad no control over their circumstances. At times ostracism's effect on our sense of control results in depression. When people arechronically ostracized they have less of a desire to exert self-control. This sense of helplessness leads to symptoms of depression (DeWall,Gilman, Sharif, Carboni, & Rice, 2012).
Expand Your Knowledge: Loneliness Scale
A loneliness assessment based on the UCLA LonelinessScale can be accessed at http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/loneliness.htm .
Another result of ostracism is loneliness. Loneliness is the feeling ofbeing without desired social connections. It is possible to fulfill onepiece of the need to belong, frequent contacts, without fulfilling thesecond, ongoing relationships involving mutual caring. Lonelinessinvolves a problem with the second part of the need to belong.Someone can be lonely, therefore, even when that person has frequentcontacts with others. Loneliness may be understood and experienceddifferently in different cultures. Cultures have different ways ofunderstanding the nature of relationships, so, while loneliness appears to be common across cultures, it is understood differentlydepending on the culture (Rokach, 2007; van Staden & Coetzee, 2010). Lonely people have the physical and mental health issuesdiscussed above. One major issue with loneliness is that it can lead to depression (Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawlkey, & Thisted, 2006).
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What are the two aspects of the need to belong?
· What are some of the effects of ostracism?
· Is it possible to have frequent social contacts with others and still feel lonely?
12.4 Relationship Maintenance
What keeps partners in relationships? One way to look at our relationships over the long term is to use the interdependence theory(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). With this theory we can determine satisfaction and dependency within relationships.The way satisfaction is determined is by looking at the rewards and costs in a relationship and the comparison level. Imagine you were ina relationship and found there were a lot of costs: your partner left messes around the house, often borrowed money without paying itback, and had several annoying habits. The relationship also held some rewards: your partner was sweet and affectionate and when youwent out, heads turned because your partner was very good looking. When you put it all together, though, the costs outweighed thebenefits. A relationship where a partner feels appreciated tends to increase the benefits side of the equation and leads to greatercommitment to the relationship (Gordon, Impett, Kogan, Oveis, & Keltner, 2012). Some individuals do not expect a lot of rewards in theirrelationships, so having a relationship with a lot of costs and only a few rewards might still be satisfying for these people. Others mightbe dissatisfied even with large rewards because they expect highly rewarding relationships. This expectation for the outcomes in arelationship is the comparison level.
This theory also involves a calculation of dependence. In this context, dependence is the degree to which we believe our currentrelationship is the best we can do, in other words, how dependent we are on this particular relationship. Our calculation of dependenceincludes a comparison level of alternatives. The comparison level of alternatives is the outcome we would expect to receive if we werein an alternate relationship. Imagine you were in a city where a number of neat and solvent relationship partners were available, all ofwho were also likely to be affectionate and good looking. Given the alternatives, you would be unlikely to stay with your present messy,annoying partner. However, if you looked around and found that alternative partners were no better than or were worse than yourpresent partner, you might stay even though you are unsatisfied. Within this theory you might be satisfied in a relationship (your rewardsoutweigh the costs) but still leave that relationship because there are other attractive alternatives. When people are less identified withtheir relationship, they are more likely to pay attention to and change their behavior in response to attractive alternatives. Individualswho are more identified with their relationship naturally and spontaneously discount alternatives, leading to greater survival of theirexisting relationship (Linardatos & Lydon, 2011).
Digital Vision/Thinkstock
Investment is one motivation two people may have for stayingtogether. People who have invested significant time and energyinto a relationship are less likely to abandon it, even if they aredissatisfied with aspects of the relationship.
An expansion of this idea is the investment model. According to thismodel, the level of commitment one has for a particular relationshiprelates to one's satisfaction with the relationship, the quality ofalternatives, and the investments associated with the relationship(Rusbult, 1983). As you might imagine, individuals who are more satisfiedwith a relationship are more likely to be committed to a relationship. Butsatisfaction alone is not enough to predict commitment. As in theinterdependence theory, alternatives are also important. If one has goodalternatives to a current relationship, that person might move to anotherrelationship even if satisfaction is not low. Investment may take the formof intrinsic investments, like time and emotional energy. Investments mayalso be extrinsic investments, like shared possessions or even mutualfriends that might be lost if one were to leave the relationship. Evenwhen satisfaction is low and alternatives are good, people might stay in arelationship because of their enormous investment in the relationship, aninvestment they would lose by leaving. Putting this all together, a memberof a couple who is very satisfied, has few alternatives, and has highinvestments will likely be quite committed to a relationship and make thedecision to remain in the relationship. An individual who is not satisfied, has a number of alternatives, and has a small investment islikely to show low commitment to the relationship (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
Though this may all seem more like economics than relationships, other researchers have also played a numbers game with relationshipsand have been quite successful in predicting relationship outcomes. John Gottman and his colleagues are able to predict with greater than90% accuracy the likelihood of divorce for a couple with their mathematical model (Gottman, Swanson, & Swanson, 2002). Couples mayfollow a variety of patterns, but overall, the researchers found that a ratio of five positive behaviors to every one negative behavior mustbe maintained for relationships to last. A couple that fights often might have a long relationship if that fighting is balanced withexpressions of fondness toward one another (Gottman, 1993). Couples that largely avoid both conflict and positive interactions may lastfor a while, but eventually divorce (Gottman & Levenson, 2002).
Expand Your Knowledge: John Gottman
Additional information on Gottman and his work,including workshops and DVDs, can be found at hiswebsite: http://www.gottman.com/ .
A particularly destructive interaction pattern is called the demand-withdraw pattern. One member of the couple brings up an issue he orshe needs to talk about and the other member attempts to avoid thediscussion. The person bringing up the issue is critical andcontemptuous; the member responding comes back with defensiveness,eventually withdrawing (Gottman, 1998). Note that anger is not amongthese emotions. Properly expressed anger is not necessarily a problemfor a relationship, provided it is expressed within the context ofpositive interactions. Four behaviors—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling (withdrawal)—are so detrimental to thesuccess of a relationship that Gottman calls them the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman, 1994).
A variety of strategies can be employed to nurture good interactions and make negative interactions less likely. Simply having a positiveoutlook on the relationship and expecting good things is positive for relationships. Openness to engaging in communication is helpful.Self-disclosure is when a person in a relationship tells the other person something, particularly intimate or important information. Self-disclosure by one person tends to lead to self-disclosure by the other, something called disclosure reciprocity. Such reciprocity can leadto deeper commitment by both members. Expressions of love are helpful to relationships. Sharing of responsibilities is also helpful.Finally, couples that have shared social networks tend to maintain their relationship to a greater degree than those who have entirelyseparate social networks (Adams & Baptist, 2012; Canary & Stafford, 1992).
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What unique addition does the investment model add to the interdependence theory of relationships?
12.5 When Relationships End
About half of all first marriages end in divorce by the 20th anniversary, with subsequent marriages ending at even higher rates (Bramlett& Mosher, 2002; Cherlin, 1992; Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010; Rogers, 2004; Glick, 1984). A vast number of nonmarital relationshipsend each year as well (Sprecher & Fehr, 1998). Many of the same factors that attract us to others and help us maintain our relationshipsalso affect our likelihood of ending a relationship. When relationships do not feel equitable or there are differences in aspirations,relationships are more likely to end. Mismatched couples in terms of attractiveness are also more likely to break up (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau,1976). Divorce is often preceded by problems like infidelity, incompatibility (general disagreement about a variety of issues), moneyissues, substance abuse, jealousy, growing apart, and by personal factors like moodiness and irritating habits (Amato & Previti, 2003;Amato & Rogers, 1997).
Expand Your Knowledge: State of Marriageand Divorce
For an interesting report on marriage and divorce withindifferent states, check out the report from the PewResearch Center at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-state . The report looks at age of marriage, rateof divorce, and some correlations to marriage and divorcepatterns.
A variety of factors may be behind breakups, but one we often do notthink about is the calendar. In one study of college studentrelationships, the point in the school year had an effect on whencouples broke up (Hill et al., 1976). The end of the school year andschool vacations are a potentially dangerous time for collegerelationships. Valentine's Day is also a dangerous time for relationshipsthat are not doing well. A cultural expectation exists for couples onValentine's Day. For partners whose relationship is already in choppywater, the time and energy needed to successfully navigate Valentine'sDay activities may be more than the members can handle. A couplemight not want to put the time and money into a Valentine's Daycelebration for a relationship that appears troubled, and therefore theybreak up before getting to Valentine's Day. Couples may also find thatthe ideal love that Valentine's Day promotes is not present in their own celebration and break up post-Valentine's Day. In a study ofcollege student couples, the number of breakups increased in the two-week time period around Valentine's Day (Morse & Neuberg, 2004).
According to Duck (1982) the breakup process often begins with a personal realization of the need to end the relationship, sometimes byone member of the couple and sometimes by both. Next, the members negotiate with one another about the dissolution of therelationship. At times one member may be resistant and ask that they work harder or go to counseling, but at other times both partiesagree that a breakup is an appropriate course of action. A couple is not done breaking up when they have agreed to break up; they mustrecover from the breakup and others in their environment must be told of the breakup (Duck, 1982). Depending on the type and lengthof the relationship the entire process could take hours or years.
Someone who wants to break up might use a variety of approaches to dissolve the relationship. These strategies can be grouped into fourcategories. (1) A person might withdraw from the relationship and avoid contact with the partner, hoping the partner will get themessage that the relationship is over. Avoiding one's spouse and hoping he or she realize this means a divorce is coming may be difficult.However, a short romantic entanglement in the teen years may end this way. (2) Another strategy involves using other people or otherindirect ways to break up. For example, one might have a friend tell the significant other that the relationship is over. An announcementof being single on a social media platform like Facebook could also send a message to a boyfriend or girlfriend that the relationship hasended. (3) Alternatively, the partner might be more direct but attempt to set a positive tone, describing the other person's positivequalities. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "it's not you, it's me. . . ." (4) Finally, a simple direct approach stating a desire to break upmay be used to end the relationship (Baxter, 1982; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter, 1985). The particular strategy one uses may depend onthe relationship type, the reason for the breakup, as well as the degree of compassionate love one has for the partner (Sprecher,Zimmerman, & Abrahams, 2010).
Tetra Images/SuperStock
The primary emotions that accompany a breakup are love, anger,and sadness. Anger may actually be more beneficial than sadness,as it resolutely breaks the bond between two people, whereassadness can linger and lead to depression.
A variety of emotions accompany a breakup. The primary emotions arelove, anger, and sadness (Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). If you have experienceda breakup, you may remember the rollercoaster of emotions thataccompanied it. Emotions tend to be very variable in the first few weeksafter a breakup (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Love and sadness tend to occurtogether. For example, one might listen to a song that provides areminder of the love that was shared and this brings along with itfeelings of sadness that the relationship is over. Continued attachment(love) is not generally positive for people and may be associated withdepression (Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). Because ofintense initial emotions, people often overestimate the length andintensity of the emotions they will feel after a breakup (Eastwick, Finkely,Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008). Although emotions may be intenseat first, sadness does tend to get better with time. In one study of datingbreakups in college students, most participants who had been broken upfor a month showed no more sadness than those in intact relationships(Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Anger may actually be somewhat of a positiveemotion in breakups as it serves to more firmly sever the bond, providedone does not get stuck on anger. In line with the investment model,individuals who had greater investment (were together longer and feltcloser) and who saw fewer positive alternatives showed more distress atthe ending of a relationship (Simpson, 1987).
Breakups are sometimes mutual, but often not, so the initiator and the partner who is left may be dealing with different emotions (Baxter,1984; Hill et al., 1976; Sprecher, 1994). Sadness is a common emotion in those who have been broken up with as well as, for some,betrayal (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Field, Diego, Pelaez, Deeds, & Delgado, 2009). For the one who does the leaving, emotions often followa different pattern. Though regret and guilt about hurting one's partner may be present, there might also be a sense of relief or freedom(Emery, 1994; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998; Vaughn, 1986). Knowing the relationship would soon end because they werethe ones to instigate it, the initiators of the breakup may have already dealt with sadness about ending the relationship before talking totheir partner about the disillusion. Generally, the initiator of the breakup does better than the one who is broken up with (Thompson &Spanier, 1983).
Breakups can have a positive impact on someone's life. If a relationship was fraught with conflict or abuse, a breakup of that relationshipcan produce positive change (Nelson, 1989; 1994). When asked about positive changes that occurred because of a romantic relationshipbreakup, the most common had to do with things learned about the self. Some people report being more self-confident and independentas the result of a breakup. One factor in recovery from a breakup is the ability to redefine the self. People need to develop a new self-concept that does not include the former relationship partner (Mason, Law, Bryan, Portley, & Sbarra, 2012). Individuals also learn thingsfrom the relationship, such as what they want from a relationship or how to do better in future relationships. Other relationships can alsogrow because of a breakup. Friends and family may be seen as more important, or these relationships might become closer than theywere in the past (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Sometimes when a relationship is troubled, ending it may be best for everyone and can makesomeone available for a healthier and happier relationship in the future.
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What major emotions accompany a breakup?
Conclusion
We like those we interact with often, those who are attractive, those who are similar to us, and those we have equitable relationshipswith. We also like those who like us exclusively. We form relationships quickly and easily and are happier and healthier because of theserelationships. Our need for interaction and close bonds is a need, not just a want, in our lives. Love comes in a variety of guises, at timesincluding passion or friendship or compassion. The staying power of relationships depends on factors inside the relationship, like costsand rewards; factors inside of the person, like comparison level; and factors outside the relationship, like available alternatives. Whenrelationships end, the emotions experienced may depend on one's status as an initiator of the breakup, the type of relationship, and thequality of the relationship before it ended.
12.5 When Relationships End
About half of all first marriages end in divorce by the 20th anniversary, with subsequent marriages ending at even higher rates (Bramlett& Mosher, 2002; Cherlin, 1992; Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010; Rogers, 2004; Glick, 1984). A vast number of nonmarital relationshipsend each year as well (Sprecher & Fehr, 1998). Many of the same factors that attract us to others and help us maintain our relationshipsalso affect our likelihood of ending a relationship. When relationships do not feel equitable or there are differences in aspirations,relationships are more likely to end. Mismatched couples in terms of attractiveness are also more likely to break up (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau,1976). Divorce is often preceded by problems like infidelity, incompatibility (general disagreement about a variety of issues), moneyissues, substance abuse, jealousy, growing apart, and by personal factors like moodiness and irritating habits (Amato & Previti, 2003;Amato & Rogers, 1997).
Expand Your Knowledge: State of Marriageand Divorce
For an interesting report on marriage and divorce withindifferent states, check out the report from the PewResearch Center at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-state . The report looks at age of marriage, rateof divorce, and some correlations to marriage and divorcepatterns.
A variety of factors may be behind breakups, but one we often do notthink about is the calendar. In one study of college studentrelationships, the point in the school year had an effect on whencouples broke up (Hill et al., 1976). The end of the school year andschool vacations are a potentially dangerous time for collegerelationships. Valentine's Day is also a dangerous time for relationshipsthat are not doing well. A cultural expectation exists for couples onValentine's Day. For partners whose relationship is already in choppywater, the time and energy needed to successfully navigate Valentine'sDay activities may be more than the members can handle. A couplemight not want to put the time and money into a Valentine's Daycelebration for a relationship that appears troubled, and therefore theybreak up before getting to Valentine's Day. Couples may also find thatthe ideal love that Valentine's Day promotes is not present in their own celebration and break up post-Valentine's Day. In a study ofcollege student couples, the number of breakups increased in the two-week time period around Valentine's Day (Morse & Neuberg, 2004).
According to Duck (1982) the breakup process often begins with a personal realization of the need to end the relationship, sometimes byone member of the couple and sometimes by both. Next, the members negotiate with one another about the dissolution of therelationship. At times one member may be resistant and ask that they work harder or go to counseling, but at other times both partiesagree that a breakup is an appropriate course of action. A couple is not done breaking up when they have agreed to break up; they mustrecover from the breakup and others in their environment must be told of the breakup (Duck, 1982). Depending on the type and lengthof the relationship the entire process could take hours or years.
Someone who wants to break up might use a variety of approaches to dissolve the relationship. These strategies can be grouped into fourcategories. (1) A person might withdraw from the relationship and avoid contact with the partner, hoping the partner will get themessage that the relationship is over. Avoiding one's spouse and hoping he or she realize this means a divorce is coming may be difficult.However, a short romantic entanglement in the teen years may end this way. (2) Another strategy involves using other people or otherindirect ways to break up. For example, one might have a friend tell the significant other that the relationship is over. An announcementof being single on a social media platform like Facebook could also send a message to a boyfriend or girlfriend that the relationship hasended. (3) Alternatively, the partner might be more direct but attempt to set a positive tone, describing the other person's positivequalities. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "it's not you, it's me. . . ." (4) Finally, a simple direct approach stating a desire to break upmay be used to end the relationship (Baxter, 1982; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter, 1985). The particular strategy one uses may depend onthe relationship type, the reason for the breakup, as well as the degree of compassionate love one has for the partner (Sprecher,Zimmerman, & Abrahams, 2010).
Tetra Images/SuperStock
The primary emotions that accompany a breakup are love, anger,and sadness. Anger may actually be more beneficial than sadness,as it resolutely breaks the bond between two people, whereassadness can linger and lead to depression.
A variety of emotions accompany a breakup. The primary emotions arelove, anger, and sadness (Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). If you have experienceda breakup, you may remember the rollercoaster of emotions thataccompanied it. Emotions tend to be very variable in the first few weeksafter a breakup (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Love and sadness tend to occurtogether. For example, one might listen to a song that provides areminder of the love that was shared and this brings along with itfeelings of sadness that the relationship is over. Continued attachment(love) is not generally positive for people and may be associated withdepression (Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). Because ofintense initial emotions, people often overestimate the length andintensity of the emotions they will feel after a breakup (Eastwick, Finkely,Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008). Although emotions may be intenseat first, sadness does tend to get better with time. In one study of datingbreakups in college students, most participants who had been broken upfor a month showed no more sadness than those in intact relationships(Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Anger may actually be somewhat of a positiveemotion in breakups as it serves to more firmly sever the bond, providedone does not get stuck on anger. In line with the investment model,individuals who had greater investment (were together longer and feltcloser) and who saw fewer positive alternatives showed more distress atthe ending of a relationship (Simpson, 1987).
Breakups are sometimes mutual, but often not, so the initiator and the partner who is left may be dealing with different emotions (Baxter,1984; Hill et al., 1976; Sprecher, 1994). Sadness is a common emotion in those who have been broken up with as well as, for some,betrayal (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Field, Diego, Pelaez, Deeds, & Delgado, 2009). For the one who does the leaving, emotions often followa different pattern. Though regret and guilt about hurting one's partner may be present, there might also be a sense of relief or freedom(Emery, 1994; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998; Vaughn, 1986). Knowing the relationship would soon end because they werethe ones to instigate it, the initiators of the breakup may have already dealt with sadness about ending the relationship before talking totheir partner about the disillusion. Generally, the initiator of the breakup does better than the one who is broken up with (Thompson &Spanier, 1983).
Breakups can have a positive impact on someone's life. If a relationship was fraught with conflict or abuse, a breakup of that relationshipcan produce positive change (Nelson, 1989; 1994). When asked about positive changes that occurred because of a romantic relationshipbreakup, the most common had to do with things learned about the self. Some people report being more self-confident and independentas the result of a breakup. One factor in recovery from a breakup is the ability to redefine the self. People need to develop a new self-concept that does not include the former relationship partner (Mason, Law, Bryan, Portley, & Sbarra, 2012). Individuals also learn thingsfrom the relationship, such as what they want from a relationship or how to do better in future relationships. Other relationships can alsogrow because of a breakup. Friends and family may be seen as more important, or these relationships might become closer than theywere in the past (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Sometimes when a relationship is troubled, ending it may be best for everyone and can makesomeone available for a healthier and happier relationship in the future.
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What major emotions accompany a breakup?
Conclusion
We like those we interact with often, those who are attractive, those who are similar to us, and those we have equitable relationshipswith. We also like those who like us exclusively. We form relationships quickly and easily and are happier and healthier because of theserelationships. Our need for interaction and close bonds is a need, not just a want, in our lives. Love comes in a variety of guises, at timesincluding passion or friendship or compassion. The staying power of relationships depends on factors inside the relationship, like costsand rewards; factors inside of the person, like comparison level; and factors outside the relationship, like available alternatives. Whenrelationships end, the emotions experienced may depend on one's status as an initiator of the breakup, the type of relationship, and thequality of the relationship before it ended.
