Power of love and relationships

14.1

 Love

Sitting in the train station, you hear the woman next to you say "I love you" to her husband before hanging up the phone. Someone sitting across from you exclaims "I love donuts" when her friend brings her one to eat. A mother tells her child she loves him. "Love" is a word with a multitude of meanings. To say you love your mother is different from saying you love your shoes or you love your romantic partner or you love chocolate donuts. When Fehr and Russell (1991) asked college students to list all the kinds of love they could up with, the students were able to list 216 different kinds of love. Puppy love, brotherly love, romantic love, and maternal love are all different types.

To further investigate our conception of love, Meyers and Berscheid (1997) asked people to write down the initials of everyone they loved, everyone they were in love with, and everyone they felt a sexual attraction or desire for. After sorting out where the lists overlapped, the researchers found that the love list was long. We love a lot of people. Most people who were on the in love list were also on the love list (93% of the in love list were on the love list). The love list contained a number of people that were not on the in love list (23% of the love list were on the in love list). This suggests that when we talk about being in love we are talking about something similar to love but more selective in some way. It was the last list that helps us sort out how in love differs from love. Many of the people on the in love lists were also on the sexual attraction or desire for list (87% of the in love list were also on the sexual attraction list). This suggests that when we say we are in love, we are describing a type of love that includes a sexual or desire component.

Three Types of Love

One way we might break down love is to put it into a few categories, two of these roughly analogous to the love versus in love dimensions above. One type of love is the affection we hold for friends and family, what some researchers have deemed companionate love. Companionate love is characterized by deep caring for another person, comfort and trust, and enjoyment of shared experiences (Berscheid, 2010). Marriages characterized by companionate love tend to be lasting and satisfying (Gottman, 1999). The importance of companionate love may be surprising to some, as a more passionate type of love is often expected and striven for in marriage, but researchers find that a more romantic view of love does not do as good of a job of predicting well-being within a marriage (Orbuch, Veroff, & Holmberg, 1993; Grote & Frieze, 1994) or general well-being (Kim & Hatfield, 2004). Companionate love does a better job of predicting well-being in these situations.

Passionate love would describe the in love type of love from above. Passionate love involves intense emotional arousal and physical attraction (Fehr, 1994; Regan, 1998). This strong desire for another person may be the draw into a relationship, which could then transition into a relationship characterized by companionate love (Berscheid, 2010). Unlike companionate love, which seems to increase over time given the right conditions, passionate love tends to decline over time (Hatfield et al., 2008; Tucker & Aron, 1993).

Another category of love is the self-giving, caregiving type of love called compassionate love. Compassionate love might describe a parent child relationship or a long-term friendship. The caring and concern for the welfare of the other present in compassionate love has been described by Margaret Clark and colleagues as part of communal relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Monin, 2006). In communal relationships, partners respond to the needs of the other person, not worrying about when or how their contributions will be repaid. Exchange relationships, by contrast, are those where contributions and rewards are counted and immediate repayment is expected. We tend to act in a more communal manner, showing compassionate love, in close friendships or dating or marriage relationships (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Exchange relationships are more common in our interactions with acquaintances, strangers, or co-workers.

Social Psychology in Depth: Love Online

Finding love online has become popular. Estimates vary but it seems that somewhere around 40% of single Internet users have visited a dating site and/or posted a profile (Madden & Lenhart, 2006; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Seventy-four percent of Internet users who are single and looking for relationships have used the Internet in their quest for love: flirting with someone online, being introduced to someone online, joining a chat group in hopes of finding a date, and even searching for information on a potential date (Madden & Lenhart, 2006). Online daters appear to come from all age groups and income brackets, although individuals who are divorced are more likely than those who are never-married or widowed to use online dating services (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).

Most daters anticipate meeting and potentially forming intimate relationships with the individuals they find online. Individuals who expect to meet in the real world and establish long-term relationships tend to be more honest in their online communication. They also disclose more information consciously and intentionally (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006).

That is not to say that online daters never misrepresent themselves, provide idealized portrayals, or are mistaken about their own attributes. Online daters attempt to counter this misrepresentation while looking at online profiles by assuming the image they get from a profile is a bit rosier than reality. Men, for example, might be a little shorter than they claim, women a little heavier (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006).

People go through a decision process while engaging in online dating. The first is when looking at profiles. Some profiles are rejected because they do not fit what one is looking for in terms of age, location, or some other factor. Some online daters describe this as shopping for a date. The dater scans what is available and makes a decision based on the presence of desired qualities. Ironically, having more choices has been found to lead to poorer choices as well as objectification of future partners (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010; Wu & Chiou, 2008). Another point in the decision process comes with online communication. A budding relationship may be ended at this point because of rejected overtures for communication or communication that is slow, uncomfortable, or reveals inaccuracies. When communication moves from online to phone or face-to-face, online daters face another decision point. At this point daters need to decide whether the online profile matches reality and whether any chemistry found online is present in the real world (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010).

When individuals who met online meet face-to-face, a significant minority experience disappointment. In fact, the longer the couple spends engaging in computer-mediated communication the more likely they are to be disappointed when they meet face-to-face (Ramirez & Wang, 2004; Ramirez & Zhang, 2003). The limited information an online dater receives about his or her match can lead to idealized or inaccurate ideas of the qualities the potential partner possesses (Hancock & Dunham, 2001).

Accurate data on the success of online dating is hard to come by. Of the people who have visited online dating sites, about half say they have had positive experiences, with a third describing negative experiences. The vast majority (97%) of currently married or committed people did not meet online. That number is skewed, however, by the fact that many met before online dating was an option. Many online daters know someone who found a long-term romantic partner online (43%). Of the Americans who have looked for love using Internet dating sites, about a quarter are in committed relationships. Those numbers sound hopeful until you consider that almost half of those who have visited online dating sites have not found a relationship partner (Madden & Lenhart, 2006). The Internet may be a good tool, but it seems finding Mr./Ms. Right is just as hard as it has ever been.

Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love

Figure 14.1 Robert Sternberg's Theory of Love

Robert Sternberg (1986) divides love into even more distinct categories. In his triangular theory of love he describes three aspects of love. Each can be thought of as a point on a triangle. Intimacy is one component, described as feelings of closeness or bonds to another person. Intimacy may include sharing of oneself and one's possessions with another, counting on that person in times of need, and receiving emotional support from and providing emotional support to the other person. We tend to grow in intimacy within a relationship. Intimacy is moderately stable over time. Typically, intimacy is quite important in long-term relationships. We have some control over how much intimacy we have in a relationship though we may not be consciously aware of how much we have.

The second component of love in the triangular theory is passion. Passion involves physical attraction to another person and/or expression of desires and needs. Passion is not necessarily stable in our relationships. Generally we do not have a great deal of control over passion, though we are often aware of how much passion we are feeling for someone else.

The final component is decision/commitment. According to Sternberg, this can be a short-term commitment, the decision to love a particular other person, or a long-term commitment, the decision to stay with someone over the long term. We control the amount of commitment we have in a relationship, and it is important for long-term relationships.

Within the triangular theory of love these three components are combined to describe different kinds of love. For example, infatuated love is a type of love that includes passion but no intimacy or commitment. Companionate love, on the other hand, includes intimacy and commitment but no passion. The types of love are shown in Figure 14.1.

14.2

 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 we determine satisfaction is to look at the rewards and costs in a relationship and the comparison level. Imagine you were in a relationship and found there were a lot of costs. Your partner left messes around the house, often borrowed money without paying it back, and had several annoying habits. The relationship also held some rewards. Your partner was sweet and affectionate and when you went out heads turned because your partner was very good looking. When you put it all together, though, the costs outweighed the benefits. You might be dissatisfied with a relationship where the outcome was not good, but there is some variation here. Some individuals do not expect a lot of rewards in their relationships, so having a relationship with a lot of costs and only a few rewards might still be satisfying for these people. Others might be dissatisfied even with large rewards because they expect highly rewarding relationships. This expectation for the outcomes in a relationship is the comparison level.

We often determine satisfaction based on rewards and costs. Perhaps your partner brings you breakfast in bed, but is also extremely messy.

This theory also involves a calculation of dependence. In this context, dependence is the degree to which we believe our current relationship is the best we can do, in other words, how dependent we are on this particular relationship. Our calculation of dependence involves a comparison level of alternatives. The comparison level of alternatives is the outcomes we would expect to receive if we were in an alternate relationship. Imagine you were in a city where a number of neat and solvent relationship partners were available, all of whom were also likely to be affectionate and good looking. Given the alternatives, you would be unlikely to stay with your present messy, annoying partner. If, however, you looked around and found that alternative partners were no better than or were worse than your present partner, you might stay, even though you are unsatisfied. Within this theory you might be satisfied in a relationship (your rewards outweigh the costs) but still leave that relationship because there are other attractive alternatives.

An expansion of this idea is the investment model. According to this model, the level of commitment one has for a particular relationship is a function of satisfaction with the relationship, quality of alternatives, and investment (Rusbult, 1983). As you might imagine, individuals who are more satisfied with a relationship are more likely to be committed to a relationship. But satisfaction alone is not enough to predict commitment. As in the interdependence theory, alternatives are also important. If one has good alternatives to a current relationship, that person might move to another relationship even if satisfaction is not low. This model also includes one's investment in the relationship. Investment may take the form of intrinsic investments like time and emotional energy. Investments may also be extrinsic investments like shared possessions or even mutual friends that might be lost if one were to leave the relationship. Even when satisfaction is low and alternatives are good, people might stay in a relationship because of their enormous investment in the relationship, an investment they would lose by leaving. Putting this all together, a member of a couple who is very satisfied, has few alternatives, and has high investments will likely be quite committed to a relationship and make the decision to remain in the relationship. An individual who is not satisfied, has a number of alternatives, and has a small investment is likely 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 relationships and have been quite successful in predicting relationship outcomes. John Gottman and his colleagues are able to predict with over 90% accuracy the likelihood of divorce for a couple with their mathematical model (Gottman, Swanson, & Swanson, 2002). Couples may follow a variety of patterns, but overall, the researchers found that a ratio of five positive to every one negative behaviors must be maintained for relationships to last. A couple that fights often might have a long relationship if that fighting is balanced with expressions of fondness toward one another (Gottman, 1993). Couples that largely avoid both conflict and positive interactions may last for a while, but eventually divorce (Gottman & Levinson, 2002).

A particularly destructive interaction pattern is called the demand-withdraw pattern. One member of the couple brings up an issue he or she needs to talk about and the other member attempts to avoid the discussion. The person bringing up the issue is critical and contemptuous; the member responding comes back with defensiveness, eventually withdrawing (Gottman, 1998). Note that anger is not among these emotions. Properly expressed anger is not necessarily a problem for a relationship, provided it is expressed within the context of positive interactions. Four behaviors—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling (withdrawal)—are so important to the success, or lack of success, in a relationship that Gottman calls them the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman, 1994).

14.3

 When Relationships End

About half of all first marriages end in divorce (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Rogers, 2004), with subsequent marriages ending at even higher rates (Cherlin, 1992; Glick, 1984). A vast number of nonmarital relationships end each year as well (Sprecher & Fehr, 1998). Many of the same factors that attract us to others may also affect our likelihood of ending a relationship. When relationships do not feel equitable or there are differences in educational aspirations, the relationships of college students 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), money issues, substance abuse, jealousy, and growing apart and by personal factors like moodiness and irritating habits (Amato & Previti, 2003; Amato & Rogers, 1997).

A variety of factors may be behind breakups, but one we often do not think about is the calendar. The school year had an affect on when couples broke up in one study of college student relationships (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). Valentine's Day is also a dangerous time for relationships that are not doing well. A cultural expectation exists for couples on Valentine's Day. For partners whose relationship is already in choppy waters, the time and energy needed to successfully navigate Valentine's Day activities may be more than the members can handle. A couple might not want to put the time and money into a Valentine's celebration for a relationship that appears troubled, and therefore they break up before getting to Valentine's Day. Couples may also find that the ideal of love that Valentine's Day promotes was not present in their own celebration and break up post-Valentine's Day. In a study of college student couples, the number of breakups increased in the two-week time period around Valentine's Day (Morse & Neuberg, 2004).

Relationships end for a number of reasons.                                   

The breakup process may begin with a personal realization of the need to end the relationship, followed by a negotiation with the partner for dissolution of the relationship. A couple is not done breaking up when they have agreed to break up; they must recover from the breakup, and others in their environment must be told of the breakup (Duck, 1982). Someone who wants to break up might use a variety of strategies. These can be grouped into four categories. A person might withdraw from the relationship and avoid contact with the partner, hoping the partner will get the message that the relationship is over. Another strategy involves using other people or other indirect ways to break up. For example, one might have a friend tell the significant other that the relationship is over. A partner might attempt to set a positive tone, describing the other person's positive qualities. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "you're a great person but. . . ." Finally, a more direct approach stating a desire to break up may be used to end the relationship (Baxter, 1982; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter, 1985). The particular strategy one uses may depend on the reason for the breakup as well as the degree of compassionate love one has for the partner (Sprecher, Zimmerman, & Abrahams, 2010).

A variety of emotions accompany a breakup. The primary emotions are love, anger, and sadness (Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). If you have experienced a breakup you may remember the rollercoaster of emotions that accompanied it. Emotions tend to be very variable in the first few weeks after a breakup (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Love and sadness tend to occur together. For example, one might listen to a song that provides a reminder of the love that was shared and this brings along with it feelings of sadness. Continued attachment (love) is not generally positive for people and may be associated with depression (Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). Sadness does tend to get better with time. In one study of dating breakups in college students, at the end of a month most participants showed no more sadness than those in intact relationships (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Anger may actually be somewhat of a positive emotion in breakups as it serves to more firmly sever the bond, provided one does not get stuck on anger. In line with the investment model, individuals who had greater investment (dated longer and felt closer) and who saw fewer positive alternatives showed more distress at the ending of a relationship (Simpson, 1987).

Breakups are sometimes mutual, but often not (Baxter, 1984; Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976; Sprecher, 1994), so the initiator and the partner who is left may be dealing with different emotions. Sadness is a common emotion in those who have been broken up with (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009). For the one who does the leaving, emotions may be different. Though guilt about hurting one's partner and regret may be present (Emery, 1994; Vaughn, 1986), there might also be a sense of relief or freedom (Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998). 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 relationship can produce positive change (Nelson, 1989; 1994). When asked about positive changes that occurred because of a romantic relationship breakup, the most common had to do with things learned about the self. People mention being more self-confident and independent. Individuals also learn things from the relationship, such as what they want from a relationship or how to do better in future relationships. Other relationships can also grow because of a breakup. Friends and family may be seen as more important or these relationships might be closer than they were in the past (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003).

Conclusion

Love comes in a variety of guises, at times including passion or friendship or compassion. The staying power of relationships depends on factors inside the relationship, like costs and rewards; factors inside of the person, like comparison level; and factors outside the relationship, like available alternatives. When relationships end, the emotions experienced may depend on one's status as an initiator of the breakup and the quality of the relationship before it ended.

 

 

 

PSY 301 Test Summary 14