FuseThinkstockLearning Objectives By the end of the c.docx

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”
influence attraction
• Explain the two factors of the need to belong
and how human tendencies toward social bonds,
including what 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
Attraction and Relationships 12
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
• 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
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 257 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
Around 2 million Americans marry each year, with other
couples entering into
long-term commitments with a partner or beginning
cohabitation (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Copen, Daniels, Vespa,
& Mosher, 2012).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the average
household size was 2.59
in 2010. When it comes to other close relationships, most adults
in the United
States report that they have around nine close friends (Brewer &
Webster, 1999;
Carroll, 2004). The majority of people say they have at least
one close friend, with
fewer than 2% of U.S. residents reporting no close friends. For
those who use
the social networking site Facebook, the average friend count is
303, though such
counts may be artificially inflated by a few users who have a
very large number
of friends. Younger Facebook users tend to have more friends,
with an average
of 506 and 510 for those aged 12–17 and 18–24, respectively
(Marketing Charts
Staff, 2013). Seeking out, forming, and maintaining
relationships seem to be major
activities among human beings. Who do we tend to form
friendships with? Who
will become our romantic partners? In this chapter, we explore
attraction, the need
for social connections, love, and maintaining relationships.
12.1 Factors in Attraction
Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become
friends with, oth-ers remain strangers. We may begin a romantic
relationship with one person but, refuse to even date another.
What attracts us to some people and not others?
There are a variety of factors 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 more likely 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 apartments next
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. The people in the apartments near the mailboxes
saw individuals from all
areas of the building frequently and thus became friends with
residents on different floors
or farther down the hall (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950;
also Cadiz Menne & Sinnett,
1971). The most important 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 exposures creates greater
fondness for someone over
time. Repeated exposure to people and objects is related to
greater liking for those people
or objects (Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968).
A piece of modern art that
you thought was merely interesting the first time you saw it

may, with repeated exposure,
become well loved. In one study of this phenomenon, women
who attended more class
sessions were better liked by their classmates, even when they
did not interact with those
classmates (Moreland & Beach, 1992).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 258 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful?
How do we decide what is beauti-
ful? Why is beauty so important to
us? Throughout history and across
cultures, there have been differ-
ent 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 because of her thin,
boyish figure.
In research on beauty, the pri-
mary focus has been on the face.
Researchers have found that symmetrical face and faces with
ratios that match the average

for the population are more attractive. If you look at your face
in a mirror you might notice
some asymmetries. For example, your right nostril might be
slightly larger than your left
or your left ear higher on your head than your right ear.
Individuals who have greater sym-
metry are judged more attractive (Bridgstock & Townsend,
1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, &
Sumich, 1998; Rhodes et al., 2001).
(continued)
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 are paired with
another student of the opposite
sex based on your answers to some questionnaires. You meet
your date and the two of
you try 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 consider whether you
would like to date him
or her again. What might influence your answer? Would how
intelligent your date is
matter? His or her sincerity? Other personality factors? When
researchers did this study,
they found none of these predicted evaluations of the date. The
only predictor of the
evaluation students gave of their partner was how physically
attractive the date was. The
partners of more-attractive dates liked them more and showed a
greater desire to go out
with them again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman,
1966). All other things 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
was attractiveness of the
partner (Luo & Zhang, 2009). In another study involving third
and eighth graders, physi-
cal attractiveness was an important factor in a desire for
friendship with a peer (Zakin,
1983). Physical attractiveness can also play a role in
employment. People are more likely
to recommend terminating employment of an unattractive
employee than a moderately
or very attractive employee (Commisso & Finkelstein, 2012).
©Bridgeman Art Library, London/Superstock; Science and
Society/SuperStock
Beauty ideals have varied throughout history. In the 1600s,
voluptuousness was most desired, as characterized by the
Peter Paul Rubens painting on the left. However, by the
1960s, beauty was connoted by a thin, waif-like figure, like
that of model Twiggy.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 259 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Test Yourself
• According to the mere-exposure effect, which song would you
like more: song A that
you heard for the first time today or song B that you have heard
15 times in the last

2 weeks?
Because it has been heard more often, song B should be
preferred over song A. According
to the mere-exposure effect, we like things more with more
exposure.
• All things being equal, who would most people choose to
interact with: Mary, a beautiful
woman, Joan, a woman of average attractiveness, or Lisa, an
unattractive woman?
When possible people prefer to interact with and form
relationships with attractive
people, so Mary should be the most preferred partner.
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful? (continued)
When composite faces are created by a computer from a number
of individual faces, com-
posite faces are judged to be more attractive than the individual
faces that went into the
composite. When faces have features placed in locations that
are the average for those
found in the population, and the size of features are the average
size for the population,
such faces are judged to be beautiful (Langlois & Roggman,
1990). The ratios that fit these
averages are a vertical distance between eyes and mouth of
about 36% of the length of the
face. The most beautiful horizontal distance between the eyes is
46% of the width of the
face (Pallett, Link, & Lee, 2010). The final set of features that
make faces attractive is mascu-
line features in men and feminine features in women. A man’s
face with a square chin, thick

brows, and thin lips is rated more attractive. A woman’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 good immune system responses to
disease have more average
faces (Rhodes, 2006). More fertile women have been shown in
some samples to have
more symmetrical faces (Pfluger, Oberzaucher, Katina,
Holzleitner, & Gammer, 2012; for an
opposing viewpoint see Silva, Lummaa, Muller, Raymond, &
Alvergne, 2012). People’s care-
ful attention to attractiveness may, therefore, be based on a
desire to choose a mate who
will help produce valuable offspring.
We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
While individuals might desire a relationship with an attractive
other, an attractive per-
son might not desire a relationship with the not-so-attractive
individual. One of the mes-
sages that an individual who refuses a date or relationship might
be sending concerns the
desirability of 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 he is,
and is “out of her league.”
She rejects him because she can do better. Perhaps because of
this message, unrequited
love tends to reduce self-esteem in the would-be lover
(Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell,
1993). Most people expect and tend to end up in a romantic
relationship with someone

fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 260 7/16/13 9:47 AM
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 you
have 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
of physical 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 or interests of a
potential relationship part-
ner, 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
of friendship is greater among those who perceive their friend

to be similar (Selfhout,
Denissen, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). If a new acquaintance is
similar to you, you may feel more
comfortable and be able to better predict what the other person
would want to talk about
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 attraction to those who
were similar; attrac-
tiveness was more important (Luo & Zhang, 2009). Greater
similarity is attractive for
long-term relationships like friendship, or relationships with
long-term romantic part-
ners. Even when we desire similarity in our friendships, we may
not actually be friends
with similar people if our options are limited. Friends in the
United States tend to show
greater similarity than friends in Japan. Researchers found that
this was because of a
difference in the ability of individuals within those cultures to
form new relationships.
The Japanese population, as a whole, is less mobile that the
U.S. population, with lesser
likelihood of moving away from family or friends for
employment or other reasons. With
fewer opportunities for new friendships to form, we tend to
stick with friends 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 part of an
inequitable relationship. Equity
involves receiving benefits proportional to what one provides
(Hatfield, 1983). Accord-
ing to equity theory, it is not the overall amount of benefit one
receives from a relation-
ship that is important, but whether what one gives and what one
gets are equal. Partners
who gives more than they receive in a relationship are
underbenefited in the relation-
ship. Partners who receive 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 that relationship. This theory also
predicts that overben-
efiting is problematic. When one relationship partner
overbenefits, that person gains
rewards he or she knows are undeserved, causing distress
(Sprecher, 1986; 1992; Stafford
& Canary, 2006).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 261 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Although there is some support for this theory, the overall
amount of benefits in a rela-
tionship 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 receiv-
ing much from that relationship, it is unlikely to be a
relationship for very long. Some peo-
ple may expect fairness and pay attention to equity; others may
be satisfied with an unbal-
anced relationship (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003). In long-term,
intimate partnerships, there
may also be certain domains where equity is more important.
Housework and childcare
often fall inequitably to married women, which can potentially
create problems within the
relationship (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 2007). Equitability in
these areas may, therefore,
be more important 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. Individu-
als who play hard to get appear to be selective in their social
choices, and are not easily
swayed by the advances of another. Magazines and websites
give men and women advice
on how to play hard to get in order to win over the object of
their affection (Dahlstrom,
2011). Advertisers use scarcity to suggest their product is
particularly desirable, so would
the same be true about potential dates? Like that rare painting
or limited-edition collect-
ible, are people who 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 their potential
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 less selective.
College students who
read a story about a woman who was not all that interested in a
potential romantic partner
(Studies 1 and 2), and male students who called up a woman
who was hesitant about
accepting his invitation to go out (Studies 3 and 4), did not
report more attraction to that
person. Researchers used a unique confederate, a prostitute, to
show that her clients
seemed to like her less and were less likely to call her in the
future when she played
hard to get (Study 5). Finally, Walster and colleagues
discovered that targeted selectiv-
ity is what is most attractive about being hard to get (Study 6).
Women who appeared to
like and want to date the man in 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 fewer problems in dating.
The strategy of being selectively hard to get is true for both
men and women (Wright
& Contrada, 1986). Interacting with someone who likes you but
not other people may
provide a boost in self-esteem (Matthews, Rosenfield, &
Stephan, 1979); being singled

out by another person makes us feel good. In addition, further
work has revealed that
uncertainty can be attractive. Women were most attracted to
men when they were uncer-
tain how the man had rated them (Whitchurch, Wilson, &
Gilbert, 2011). Perhaps a little
mystery is motivating in romantic relationships. Hard-to-get
tactics also work better for
women than for men, and for long-term relationships rather than
casual flings. Potential
romantic partners report being willing to invest more time and
money in a partner who
seems hard to get, perhaps because of the concept of scarcity
(Jonason & Li, 2013).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 262 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Section 12.2 Need to Belong
12.2 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 we would pursue relationships at all. Given
the statistics on marriage, partnerships, and friendships cited at
the begin-
ning of this chapter, our behavior suggests we have a need to be
part of relationships.
Psychologists Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that we have
a need to interact and be
in relationships with others. The need to belong has two
components: (a) the need for
frequent positive contact with others, 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. While waiting in the
doctor’s office or at the train
station, you might find yourself chatting with the person sitting
next to you, easily form-
ing a friendship. Or after a short stay at summer camp as a
child, you may have prom-
ised your bunk mate or the other kids in your cabin that you
would be friends forever.
Humans quickly, and relatively easily, form social bonds.
Research evidence of this can be
found in the ease to which the boys in Sherif’s study of conflict
and superordinate goals
Test Yourself
• Are people who are very attractive likely to end up in a
relationship with someone who
is not-at-all attractive?
Probably not. According to the matching hypothesis people tend
to be in relationships
with those who match them in attractiveness. However, if the
not-at-all attractive
individual has other positive qualities, such as wealth, that
person may appeal to the
attractive individual.
• Which adage is most accurate “birds of a feather flock
together” or “opposites attract”?
“Birds of a feather flock together” is more accurate. We are

more attracted to individu-
als who are similar to us.
• Within a relationship, is it best to get more than you give, give
more than you get, or
give and get in equal measure?
According to equity theory it is best to have a balance of giving
and getting. How-
ever, overall benefits may be more important because they
signify investment in a
relationship.
• Is being universally hard to get attractive?
No. Research indicates that being selective in one’s social
choices is most attractive,
that is, wanting to be in a relationship with the potential
relationship partner but not
with others.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 263 7/16/13 9:47 AM
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. Ingroup favoritism quickly developed when participants
were placed into groups,
even when these groups were based on something as
unimportant 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 described attachment in the
realm of the infant–caregiver
relationship. Within these early relationships people develop
internal working models of
relationships (Bowlby, 1973). These working models tell us
what to expect from others.
Some people learn that others are available and responsive to
needs and that they are wor-
thy 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, such individuals would
be described as having
an insecure attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
What people learn about
themselves and others impacts adult relationships (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). People
who have a secure attachment style tend to seek support 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 believing others 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 benefit from feeling
like they belong and are

accepted by others (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006; Edenfield,
Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Holm-
berg, Lomore, Takacs, & Price, 2011; Schwartz, Lindley, &
Buboltz, 2007). People who
don’t believe they are worthy of care by others either trust
others and seek close relation-
ships, having a preoccupied attachment style, or distrust others
and avoid close relation-
ships, having a fearful attachment style (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). Preoccupied
individuals attempt closeness with others, but, because they are
concerned about their
own worthiness to be loved, they tend to seek extreme closeness
and be jealous of other
relationships their friends or romantic partners might have
(Marazziti et al., 2010; Pietro-
monaco & Barrett, 2006). Those with a fearful attachment style
are fearful of 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 one teacher and
wounded 23 other people at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. In the end, they
turned their guns on
themselves and committed suicide. Since the Columbine school
shooting there have
been more than 60 other school shootings around the world
(Information Please Data-
base, 2012). Many of the student perpetrators of these school
shootings had been bul-
lied or ostracized by their classmates (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 by interference with the
need to belong. In other
words, bullying is due, in part, to a lack of connections with
others and desire for
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 264 7/16/13 9:47 AM
acceptance from other children. Boys involved in bullying
desired acceptance from other
boys involved in the types of antisocial activities they were
involved in (other bullies), and
from other boys in general (Olthof & Goossens, 2008). These
boys used bullying as a gate-
way to belonging. In some schools, bullying can even denote
social status. When the pop-
ular kids bully, engaging in bullying is accepted practice that
can show or increase one’s
social status (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008). Bullying
also communicates to bul-
lied individuals that they do not belong, their peers reject them,
leading to negative feel-
ings 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 own physical 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 the possibility
that an important relation-
ship 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 discrimina-
tion may, in part, be rooted in our need to belong (Carvallo &
Pelham, 2006). Discrimina-
tion tells us we are not a valued member of the group, in fact,
we either may not be part
of the group or, if we are, we will not
be able to enjoy all of the privileges
of group membership.
Depriving others of their connec-
tions with us can be used as a tool
to control them. Ostracism is the
deliberate exclusion of a person
from one’s social group or from
social interactions. Ostracism is
something most people experience
and use to control others. Individu-
als with high self-esteem ostracize to
end relationships, while those with
low self-esteem use ostracism as a
defense against the expected rejec-

tion or criticism by others (Sommer,
Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister,
2001). Although the individual being
ostracized certainly suffers, ostracism has positive effects for
the group excluding the
individual, as it increases group cohesion (Gruter & Masters,
1986). A group grows close
together by having a common target.
Ostracism interferes with our need to belong, particularly when
we are unsure 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 Chapter 2 the sociometer theory, the idea
that acceptance and rejection
are important for self-esteem. Ostracism tells us that others do
not value us as much as
we value them (van Beest & Williams, 2006). When ostracized
from a social group, we feel
Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock
When a person is ostracized by peers, loneliness and
increased aggression often result.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 265 7/16/13 9:47 AM
pain, anger, and sadness, though initially we may feel numbness
(DeWall & Baumeister,

2006; van Beest & Williams, 2006; Williams, 2001). The pain
we experience when ostracized
is processed in the same locations of the brain as physical pain
(Eisenberger, Lieberman, &
Williams, 2003). In fact, researchers have found that the pain
reliever acetaminophen can
lessen the pain of ostracism (DeWall, Pond, & Deckman, 2011).
To get back in the good
graces of those around us, we often act in compliant or
prosocial ways when we have
been ostracized (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008;
Williams, 2007). For example, an
ostracized teen might buy gifts for the friends who ostracized
her in an attempt to secure
entry back into the group and demonstrate that she is a valuable
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 aggres-
sion. 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 partici-
pants were 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 a stranger,
knowing that the individual
did not like spicy foods but would be required to eat all of the
food. Participants who had
no control over the noise wanted to put four times more hot

sauce in the stranger’s food
than those who had control over the noise. Placing hot sauce 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 and had no control over their circumstances. At times
ostracism’s effect on our
sense of control results in depression. When people are
chronically 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).
Another result of ostracism is loneliness. Loneliness is the
feeling of being without
desired social connections. It is possible to fulfill one piece of
the need to belong, frequent
contacts, without fulfilling the second, ongoing relationships
involving mutual caring.
Loneliness involves a problem with the second part of the need
to belong. Someone can be
lonely, therefore, even when that person has frequent contacts
with others. Loneliness may
be understood and experienced differently in different cultures.
Cultures have different
ways of understanding the nature of relationships, so, while
loneliness appears to be com-
mon across cultures, it is understood differently depending on
the culture (Rokach, 2007;
van Staden & Coetzee, 2010).
Lonely people have the
physical and mental health
issues discussed above. One
major issue with loneliness is
that it can lead to depression

(Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite,
Hawlkey, & Thisted, 2006).
Expand Your Knowledge: Loneliness Scale
A loneliness assessment based on the UCLA Loneli-
ness Scale can be accessed at http://psychcentral.com
/quizzes/loneliness.htm.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 266 7/16/13 9:47 AM
http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/loneliness.htm
http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/loneliness.htm
CHAPTER 12Section 12.3 Love
12.3 Love
In everyday life you may hear a number of different uses of the
word love. Overhear-ing a cell phone conversation on the street,
you might hear a woman next to you say “I love you” to her
husband before hanging up. Someone else might exclaim “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 of 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 over-
lapped, 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); when we talk
about being in love we are talk-
ing about something similar to love, but more selective in some
way. 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); when we say we are
in love, we are describing
a type of love that includes a sexual attraction or desire
component.
Types of Love
One way we might break down love is to delineate a few
categories; two of these types
are 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
Test Yourself
• What are the two aspects of the need to belong?
The two aspects of the need to belong are the need for frequent

positive contact with
others and the need for enduring connections marked by mutual
concern for the welfare
of the other.
• What are some of the effects of ostracism?
The effects of ostracism include lowered self-esteem, loss of a
feeling of meaning in life,
feeling out of control, and greater aggression.
• Is it possible to have frequent social contacts with others and
still feel lonely?
Yes. Loneliness is the feeling of being without desired social
connections. It is possible to
frequently interact with others and not feel that others care
about us and are involved
in an ongoing affectionate relationship with us.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 267 7/16/13 9:47 AM
companionate love. Companionate love is characterized by deep
caring for another
person, comfort and trust, and the 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 research-

ers find that a more romantic view of love does not do as good a
job of predicting well-
being within a marriage or general well-being (Grote & Frieze,
1994; Kim & Hatfield,
2004; Orbuch, Veroff, & Holmberg, 1993). Companionate love
does a better job of pre-
dicting well-being in these situations.
Passionate love would describe the in love type of love
mentioned earlier. Passionate love
involves intense emotional arousal and physical attraction.
(Fehr, 1994; Regan, 1998). This
strong desire for another person may be the initial draw in 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 & Rapson,
2008; Tucker & Aron, 1993).
Although one would think otherwise, researchers have found
that arranged marriages are
largely no different in the amount of companionate and
passionate love, as marriages
where the partners chose one another (Regan, Lakhanpal, &
Anguiano, 2012).
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 friend-
ship. Individuals who have a secure
attachment style are more likely to
have compassionate love for their
partner than those with an insecure

style (Sprecher & Fehr, 2011). Due to
their background, securely attached
individuals may approach intimate
relationships with greater willingness
to give care to their partner. Margaret
Clark and colleagues describe the
caring and concern for the welfare
of the other that is present in com-
passionate love as part of communal
relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979;
Clark & Monin, 2006). In communal
relationships, partners respond to the
needs of the other person, not worry-
ing about when or how their contri-
butions will be repaid. Exchange relationships, by contrast, are
those where contribu-
tions 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 coworkers.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Online dating can be beneficial for widening one’s social
network thus increasing the chances of finding love.
However, experts caution against maintaining online
communication with a potential partner for too long,
because the longer two people spend interacting online,
the more likely they are to be disappointed by each
other when they meet in person.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 268 7/16/13 9:47 AM

Social Psychology in Depth: Love Online
It has become popular to look for love online. Estimates vary,
but it seems that somewhere
around 40% of single Internet users have visited a dating site 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 estab-
lish 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 por-
trayals, 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).
There is a typical decision process while engaging in online
dating. The first step involves
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, 2007). 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 expe-
riences. 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 part-
ner 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. or Ms. Right is just as hard as it has ever
been.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 269 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Sternberg’s Triangular 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 (see Figure 12.1). 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.
Figure 12.1: Sternberg’s triangular theory of love
Sternberg’s three aspects of love combine to form many
different types of love.
From Sternberg, Robert J. (1986). A triangular theory of love.
Psychological Review 93(2): 119–135. Copyright © 1986 by the
American Psychological
Association.
Empty Love
(Commitment Alone)
Consummate Love
(Intimacy + Passion +
Commitment)

Companionate Love
(Intimacy + Commitment)
Liking
(Intimacy Alone)
Romantic Love
(Intimacy + Passion)
Infatuation
(Passion Alone) Fatuous Love
(Passion + Commitment)
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 270 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Test Yourself
• If people were to list the names of all the people they were in
love with, is that list likely
to contain more or fewer names than a list of people they love?
Researchers found that the list of people we are in love with is
usually shorter than our
love list, indicating that love is a broader term than in love.
• When Marcus needed help moving, Aaron spent the day
moving furniture and boxes,
expecting no immediate repayment of the favor. From this
evidence, it appears Marcus
and Aaron have a communal relationship or an exchange
relationships?

Communal relationship. Aaron helped in response to a need
Marcus had and without an
expectation of immediate repayment.
• The type of love in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love that
includes passion, intimacy,
and commitment is what?
Consummate love includes all three of Sternberg’s elements,
passion, intimacy, and
commitment.
The second and third components of love in the triangular
theory are passion and com-
mitment. Passion involves physical attraction to another person
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 pas-
sion we are feeling for someone else. The final component is
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 impor-
tant for long-term relationships. Individuals who are securely
attached tend to have more
intimacy and commitment in relationships, and greater
relationship satisfaction (Madey
& Rodgers, 2009).
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 pas-
sion but no intimacy or commitment. Companionate love, on the
other hand, includes
intimacy and commitment but no passion.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 271 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Section 12.4 Relationship Maintenance
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 in a rela-
tionship 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. A
relationship where a partner
feels appreciated tends to increase the benefits side of the
equation and leads to greater
commitment to the relationship (Gordon, Impett, Kogan, Oveis,

& Keltner, 2012). 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. Oth-
ers 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.
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
includes a comparison level of alternatives. The comparison
level of alternatives is the
outcome 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 who 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
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.
When people are less
identified with their relationship, they are more likely to pay
attention to and change their

behavior in response to attractive alternatives. Individuals who
are more identified with
their relationship naturally and spontaneously discount
alternatives, leading to greater
survival of their existing relationship (Linardatos & Lydon,
2011).
An expansion of this idea is the investment model. According to
this model, the level
of commitment one has for a particular relationship relates to
one’s satisfaction with the
relationship, the quality of alternatives, and the investments
associated with the relation-
ship (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.
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,
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 272 7/16/13 9:47 AM

CHAPTER 12Section 12.4 Relationship Maintenance
an investment they would lose by
leaving. Putting this all together, a
member of a couple who is very sat-
isfied, 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 alter-
natives, 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 num-
bers game with relationships and
have been quite successful in pre-
dicting relationship outcomes. John Gottman and his colleagues
are able to predict with
greater than 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
behaviors to every one nega-
tive behavior 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 inter-
actions may last for a while, but eventually divorce (Gottman &
Levenson, 2002).
A particularly destructive
interaction pattern is called
the demand-withdraw pat-
tern. One member of the cou-
ple 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 contemptu-
ous; 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 stone-
walling (withdrawal)—are so detrimental to the success 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 nega-
tive interactions less likely. Simply having a positive outlook
on the relationship and
Expand Your Knowledge: John Gottman
Additional information on Gottman and his work,
including workshops and DVDs, can be found at his

website: http://www.gottman.com/.
Digital Vision/Thinkstock
Investment is one motivation two people may have for
staying together. People who have invested significant
time and energy into a relationship are less likely to
abandon it, even if they are dissatisfied with aspects of
the relationship.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 273 7/16/13 9:47 AM
http://www.gottman.com/
CHAPTER 12Section 12.5 When Relationships End
expecting good things is positive for relationships. Openness to
engaging in communi-
cation 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 per-
son tends to lead to self-disclosure by the other, something
called disclosure reciprocity.
Such reciprocity can lead to 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 entirely separate social networks (Adams
& Baptist, 2012; Canary &
Stafford, 1992).
Test Yourself

• Suzanne expects relationships to be very rewarding and have
few costs. Annaliese
expects relationships to have about equal amounts of costs and
benefits. According to
interdependence theory Suzanne and Annaliese are different on
what variable?
The two women are different in their comparison level, the
relative amount of cost and
benefit they expect from a relationship.
• What unique addition does the investment model add to the
interdependence theory
of relationships?
The investment model includes investments in its calculation of
relationship commitment.
• Leon tells Tara about a frightening episode from his
childhood. She responds by telling
him about an unpleasant experience she had when she was a
teenager. Leon and Tara’s
behavior is an example of what?
Leon and Tara are engaging in disclosure reciprocity, self-
disclosure by one leading to
self-disclosure by the other member of the couple.
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 relationships end each year as well

(Sprecher & Fehr, 1998).
Many of the same factors that attract us to others and help us
maintain our relationships
also 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 dis-
agreement about a variety of issues), money issues, substance
abuse, jealousy, growing
apart, and by personal factors like moodiness and irritating
habits (Amato & Previti, 2003;
Amato & Rogers, 1997).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 274 7/16/13 9:47 AM
A variety of factors may be
behind breakups, but one
we often do not think about
is the calendar. In one study
of college student relation-
ships, the point in the school
year had an effect on when
couples broke up (Hill et al.,
1976). The end of the school
year and school vacations
are a potentially dangerous
time for college relation-
ships. 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 water,
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 Day 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 love
that Valentine’s Day promotes is 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).
According to Duck (1982) the breakup process often begins
with a personal realization of
the need to end the relationship, sometimes by one member of
the couple and sometimes
by both. Next, the members negotiate with one another about
the dissolution of the rela-
tionship. At times one member may be resistant and ask that
they work harder or go to
counseling, but at other times both parties agree that a breakup
is an appropriate course
of action. 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). Depending on the type and length of 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 rela-
tionship. These strategies can be grouped into four categories.
(1) A person might with-
draw from the relationship and avoid contact with the partner,
hoping the partner will get
the message 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 entan-
glement in the teen years may end this way. (2) 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. An announcement
of being single on a social
media platform like Facebook could also send a message to a
boyfriend or girlfriend that
the relationship has ended. (3) Alternatively, the partner might
be more direct but attempt
to set a positive tone, describing the other person’s positive
qualities. Perhaps you have
heard the phrase “it’s not you, it’s me. . . .” (4) Finally, a
simple direct approach stating a
Expand Your Knowledge: State of Marriage
and Divorce
For an interesting report on marriage and divorce
within different states, check out the report from
the Pew Research Center at http://pewresearch.org
/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-state. The report
looks at age of marriage, rate of divorce, and some cor-
relations to marriage and divorce patterns.

fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 275 7/16/13 9:47 AM
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-state
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-state
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 relationship type, 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 sad-
ness 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 that the relationship is
over. Continued attachment (love) is not gener-
ally positive for people and may be associated
with depression (Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Sbarra &
Ferrer, 2006). Because of intense initial emotions,
people often overestimate the length and inten-
sity of the emotions they will feel after a breakup
(Eastwick, Finkely, Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein,
2008). Although emotions may be intense at first,

sadness does tend to get better with time. In one
study of dating breakups in college students,
most participants who had been broken up for
a month 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 (were
together 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, so the initiator
and the partner who is left
may be dealing with different emotions (Baxter, 1984; Hill et
al., 1976; Sprecher, 1994). Sad-
ness 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 follow a 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 were the
ones to instigate it, the
initiators of the breakup may have already dealt with sadness
about ending the relation-
ship before talking to their partner about the disillusion.
Generally, the initiator of the
breakup does better than the one who is broken up with
(Thompson & Spanier, 1983).

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, whereas sadness can
linger and lead to depression.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 276 7/16/13 9:47 AM
Test Yourself
• What major emotions accompany a breakup?
Love, anger, and sadness are major emotions found in a
relationship breakup. Betrayal
on the part of the one who is broken up with and regret or guilt
for the person who initi-
ates the breakup is also common.
• Who usually does better when a relationship breaks up, the
one who initiates the
breakup or the person who is broken up with?
Generally, the initiator of the breakup has more positive
outcomes than the person who
is broken up with.
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 rela-
tionship breakup, the most common had to do with things
learned about the self. Some
people report being more self-confident and independent as 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
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 become closer
than they were in the past
(Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Sometimes when a relationship is
troubled, ending it may be
best for everyone and can make someone available for a
healthier and happier relation-
ship in the future.
Conclusion
We like those we interact with often, those who are attractive,
those who are similar to us,
and those we have equitable relationships with. We also like
those who like us exclusively.
We form relationships quickly and easily and are happier and
healthier because of these
relationships. 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 times including

passion or friendship or com-
passion. 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, the type of rela-
tionship, and the quality of the relationship before it ended.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 277 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Chapter Summary
Chapter Summary
Factors in Attraction
A variety of factors exist that help determine our liking of
others. We like those we see or
interact with often, as the mere-exposure effect predicts. We
also like those who are attrac-
tive. Although we would prefer to interact with those who are
attractive, we usually end
up in relationships with those who are similar to us in
attractiveness, as proposed by the
matching hypothesis. We tend to like those who are similar to
us in values and interests
rather than those who are different. We prefer to not overbenefit
or underbenefit in a rela-
tionship, but have a relationship characterized by equity. We
also tend to like those who
like us and only us.

Need to Belong
The need to belong has two components: frequent contact and
enduring connections. Evi-
dence of this need is seen in our ease of forming and reluctance
in ending relationships.
The need is also evident in our happiness when we have social
bonds and the negative
emotions (anger, sadness) associated with lack of connection.
Deprivation is associated
with mental and physical health detriments. Ostracism interferes
with our sense of self-
esteem and brings about feelings of meaninglessness, lack of
control, and aggression. We
may interact with others when we are lonely, but we do not feel
that we have a close con-
nection to anyone.
Love
Love is a concept with many facets. Companionate love
involves a deep caring for another
person, passionate love includes desire for another, and
compassionate love is a self-giving
type of love. Love can also be characterized according to the
amount of intimacy, passion,
and decision/commitment involved, according to Sternberg’s
triangular theory of love.
Relationship Maintenance
Interdependence theory predicts satisfaction with a relationship
by bringing together
costs, rewards, and the expectations one has for costs and
rewards in a relationship.
Dependence on a particular relationship, according to this
theory, is determined by costs,
rewards, and possible alternatives. The investment model
predicts commitment to a rela-

tionship through a combination of satisfaction, quality of
alternatives, and investments
in the relationship. One relationship researcher with an
impressive track record at pre-
dicting relationship success, John Gottman, notes that a ratio of
at least five positive for
every one negative behavior must be maintained for
relationships to last. Relationships
characterized by criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and
stonewalling are likely to fail.
Having a positive outlook and expressing love for a relationship
partner tends to help
maintain relationships. Openness, including self-disclosure, can
lead to disclosure reci-
procity and, therefore, deepening of a relationships. Sharing
responsibilities and having
mutual friends is also helpful to relationship maintenance.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 278 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Key Terms
communal relationships Relationships
where partners respond to the needs of the
other person, not worrying about when or
how their contributions will be repaid.
companionate love The type of love
characterized by deep caring for another
person, comfort and trust, and enjoyment
of shared experiences.
comparison level In interdependence
theory, the expectations individuals have

for the relative levels of costs and rewards
in a relationship. This helps determine
satisfaction with a relationship.
comparison level of alternatives In
interdependence theory, the outcomes we
expect to receive if we were in an alternate
relationship. This helps determine depen-
dency on a relationship.
When Relationships End
Breakups normally follow a pattern of individual realizations
about the relationship, a
breakup of the partnership, telling others about the breakup, and
recovery. Love, sad-
ness, and anger are all emotions felt in a breakup. One’s status
as initiator of a breakup
and quality of the relationship before the breakup can affect the
emotions one feels after a
relationship dissolves. Ending of relationships is not always
negative. Some people learn
confidence or independence or other important lessons when a
relationship ends.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Have you had an experience with any of the factors related to
attraction? For
example, do you find yourself friends with your neighbors? Is
your significant
other, if you have one, similar to you in attractiveness?
2. If you were a scientist looking into liking, what other factors
might you want to
investigate?

3. What kinds of situations could you imagine in which
someone would fulfill
one aspect of the need to belong, but not the other? How would
that affect the
person?
4. How could you assist others whose need to belong is not
fulfilled? For example,
if older adults in nursing homes lack frequent contacts with
others, how might
that be alleviated?
5. Some researchers describe three types of love (companionate,
passionate, and
compassionate), others three aspects of love (passion, intimacy,
commitment).
Are there other types or aspects of love not covered by these?
6. Consider some of your own relationships. Based on
Sternberg’s theory of love,
how would you characterize these relationships? How might you
apply inter-
dependence theory or the investment model to relationships you
are part of or
know about?
7. If you have experienced a relationship breakup, does the
research on this topic fit
with your experience? Is there anything these researchers are
missing?
Key Terms
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 279 7/16/13 9:47 AM

CHAPTER 12Key Terms
compassionate love A type of love charac-
terized as self-giving and caregiving.
commitment In Sternberg’s triangu-
lar theory of love, the component that
includes a short-term commitment, the
decision to love a particular other person,
or long-term commitment, the decision to
stay with someone over the long term.
disclosure reciprocity When self-disclo-
sure by one person leads to self-disclosure
by the other person.
equity A balance of inputs and outputs.
exchange relationships Relationships
where contributions and rewards are
counted and immediate repayment is
expected.
hard to get Selective in social choices.
insecure attachment style A way of
approaching relationships, learned in early
childhood, where one believes that oth-
ers will not be available and responsive to
one’s needs and that one is not worthy of
that care.
interdependence theory The theory
that satisfaction and dependency in a
relationship can be determined by inves-

tigating costs, rewards, and comparison
level for satisfaction and costs, rewards,
and comparison level of alternatives for
dependency.
intimacy In Sternberg’s triangular theory
of love, the component that includes
feelings of closeness or bonds to another
person.
investment Within the investment model,
investment may take the form of intrin-
sic investments like time and emotional
energy or extrinsic investments like shared
possessions or even mutual friends that
might be lost if one were to leave the
relationship. High investment is related to
higher commitment.
investment model Model that proposes
that commitment is a function of satisfac-
tion with the relationship, quality of alter-
natives, and investment.
loneliness The feeling that one is without
desired social connections.
matching hypothesis A tendency to have
relationships with those who match us in
physical attractiveness.
mere-exposure effect The tendency to
have greater liking for people or things
one encounters often.
need to belong A fundamental human

need involving a need for frequent inter-
actions with others and the presence of
affective bonds.
ostracism The deliberate exclusion of a
person from one’s social group or from
social interactions.
overbenefited Within equity theory,
receiving more from a relationship than
one puts into it.
passion In Sternberg’s triangular theory
of love, the component that includes the
physical attraction to another person or
expression of desires and needs.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 280 7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12Key Terms
passionate love The love one has for
romantic partners; a more sexually based
love.
secure attachment style A way of
approaching relationships, learned in early
childhood, where one believes that others
are available and responsive to one’s needs
and that one is worthy of that care.
self-disclosure When a person in a
relationship tells a partner personal
information.

triangular theory of love Sternberg’s
theory of love that uses three components,
intimacy, passion, and commitment, to
describe different types of love.
underbenefited Within equity theory,
providing more to a relationship than one
receives from it.
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 281 7/16/13 9:47 AM
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 282 7/16/13 9:47 AM

FuseThinkstockLearning Objectives By the end of the c.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FuseThinkstockLearning Objectives By the end of the c.docx

Similar to FuseThinkstockLearning Objectives By the end of the c.docx (15)

More from budbarber38650

More from budbarber38650 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

FuseThinkstockLearning Objectives By the end of the c.docx