Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Chapter 12 Attraction and Relationships Fuse/Thinkstock Learning Objectives By the end of the chapter you should be able to: · Describe how proximity, attractiveness, matching, similarity, equitability, and being "hard to get" influenceattraction · Explain the two factors of the need to belong and how human tendencies toward social bonds, includingwhat happens when we are deprived, show the need to belong · Explain the difference between companionate love, passionate love, and compassionate love · Explain the difference between a communal relationship and an exchange relationship · Explain Sternberg's triangular theory of love · Describe how interdependence theory works · Explain the components of the investment model · Describe John Gottman's findings about relationship maintenance Chapter Outline 12.1 Factors in Attraction · We Like Those Who Are Close to Us · We Like Those Who Are Attractive · We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us · We Like Those We Have Equitable Relationships With · We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get 12.2 Need to Belong · Social Bonds · Deprivation 12.3 Love · Types of Love · Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love 12.4 Relationship Maintenance 12.5 When Relationships End Chapter Summary *    *    * Around 2 million Americans marry each year, with other couples entering into long-term commitments with a partner orbeginning cohabitation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). According tothe U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the average household size was 2.59 in 2010. When it comes to other close relationships, mostadults in the United States report that they have around nine close friends (Brewer & Webster, 1999; Carroll, 2004). Themajority of people say they have at least one close friend, with fewer than 2% of U.S. residents reporting no close friends. Forthose who use the social networking site Facebook, the average friend count is 303, though such counts may be artificiallyinflated by a few users who have a very large number of friends. Younger Facebook users tend to have more friends, with anaverage of 506 and 510 for those aged 12–17 and 18–24, respectively (Marketing Charts Staff, 2013). Seeking out, forming, andmaintaining relationships seem to be major activities among human beings. Who do we tend to form friendships with? Whowill become our romantic partners? In this chapter, we explore attraction, the need for social connections, love, andmaintaining relationships. Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a romanticrelationship with one person but, refuse to even date another. What attracts us to some people and not others? There are a variety offactors related to attraction. We Like Those Who Are Close to Us Surprisingly, simple proximity, or propinquity, has a lot to do with who we meet and become friends with. Fir.

1. Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
Attraction and Relationships
Fuse/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
·
Describe how proximity, attractiveness, matching, similarity, eq
uitability, and being "hard to get" influenceattraction
·
Explain the two factors of the need to belong and how human te
ndencies toward social bonds, includingwhat happens when we
are deprived, show the need to belong
·
Explain the difference between companionate love, passionate l
ove, and compassionate love
·
Explain the difference between a communal relationship and an
exchange relationship
· Explain Sternberg's triangular theory of love
· Describe how interdependence theory works
· Explain the components of the investment model
·
Describe John Gottman's findings about relationship maintenanc
e
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

2. · We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get
12.2 Need to Belong
· Social Bonds
· Deprivation
12.3 Love
· Types of Love
· Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love
12.4 Relationship Maintenance
12.5 When Relationships End
Chapter Summary
* * *
Around 2 million Americans marry each year, with other couple
s entering into long-
term commitments with a partner orbeginning cohabitation (Cen
ters for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Copen, Daniels,
Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). According tothe U.S. Census Bureau (
2010), the average household size was 2.59 in 2010. When it co
mes to other close relationships, mostadults in the United States
report that they have around nine close friends (Brewer & Web
ster, 1999; Carroll, 2004). Themajority of people say they have
at least one close friend, with fewer than 2% of U.S. residents r
eporting no close friends. Forthose who use the social networki
ng site Facebook, the average friend count is 303, though such c
ounts may be artificiallyinflated by a few users who have a very
large number of friends. Younger Facebook users tend to have
more friends, with anaverage of 506 and 510 for those aged 12–
17 and 18–
24, respectively (Marketing Charts Staff, 2013). Seeking out, fo
rming, andmaintaining relationships seem to be major activities
among human beings. Who do we tend to form friendships with?
Whowill become our romantic partners? In this chapter, we exp
lore attraction, the need for social connections, love, andmaintai
ning relationships.

3. Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become
friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a romantic
relationship with one person but, refuse to even date another. W
hat attracts us to some people and not others? There are a variet
y offactors related to attraction.
We Like Those Who Are Close to Us
Surprisingly, simple proximity, or propinquity, has a lot to do w
ith who we meet and become friends with. First-
year students were morelikely to develop a friendship with
someone they sat next to during an introductory session than tho
se they were not sitting
near (Back,Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). In a student apartment b
uilding, individuals were
more likely to make friends with those living in apartmentsnext
to theirs, as opposed to
those down the hall or up the stairs. The one exception to this w
as for those living near
the mailboxes. Thepeople in the apartments near the mailboxes s
aw individuals from all
areas of the building frequently and thus became friends withres
idents on different floors
or farther down the hall (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; als
o Cadiz Menne & Sinnett,
1971). The mostimportant factor in our liking of those who are
close to us is repeated
exposure. Exposure does not need to be in a face-to-
face context.When we frequently
interact with someone online, such as in a chat room or online c
lassroom, we show greater liking for that person(Levine, 2000).
This tendency to have greater liking for things we see often is t
he mere-
exposure effect. The familiarity created by multiple exposurescr
eates greater fondness for someone over time. Repeated exposur
e to people and objects is related to greater liking for those peo
ple orobjects (Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968
). A piece of modern art that you thought was merely interesting

4. the first timeyou saw it may, with repeated exposure, become w
ell loved. In one study of this phenomenon, women who attende
d more class sessionswere better liked by their classmates, even
when they did not interact with those classmates (Moreland & B
each, 1992).
We Like Those Who Are Attractive
Imagine you are beginning school at a large university and have
signed up to be part of a welcome week dance. For the dance, y
ou arepaired with another student of the opposite sex based on y
our answers to some questionnaires. You meet your date and the
two of youtry to get to know each other over the course of the e
vening. As part of this dance, you are asked to evaluate your par
tner and considerwhether you would like to date him or her agai
n. What might influence your answer? Would how intelligent yo
ur date is matter? His orher sincerity? Other personality factors?
When researchers did this study, they found none of these predi
cted evaluations of the date. Theonly predictor of the evaluation
students gave of their partner was how physically attractive the
date was. The partners of more-
attractivedates liked them more and showed a greater desire to g
o out with them again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman
, 1966). All otherthings being equal, we prefer highly attractive
individuals: as dates, as friends, and to interact with in a social
situation (Black, 1974;Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1967). In a stu
dy of speed daters, the strongest predictor of attraction for both
men and women wasattractiveness of the partner (Luo & Zhang,
2009). In another study involving third and eighth graders, phys
ical attractiveness was animportant factor in a desire for friends
hip with a peer (Zakin, 1983). Physical attractiveness can also p
lay a role in employment. Peopleare more likely to recommend t
erminating employment of an unattractive employee than a mod
erately or very attractive employee(Commisso & Finkelstein, 20
12).
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful?
How do we decide what is beautiful? Why is beauty so importan
t to us? Throughout history and across cultures, there havebeen

5. different ideals of beauty. In the 1600s, one ideal for beauty in
women was conveyed in the art of Peter Paul Rubens.Rubens pa
inted plump, voluptuous women—
a portrayal that came to be known for him in the term rubenesqu
e. In contrast,the idea for female beauty in the 1960s was closer
to that of Twiggy, an English model who took on the nickname
becauseof her thin, boyish figure.
©Bridgeman Art Library, London/Superstock; Science andSocie
ty/SuperStock
Beauty ideals have varied throughout history. In the1600s, volu
ptuousness was most desired, ascharacterized by the Peter Paul
Rubens painting onthe left. However, by the 1960s, beauty was
connotedby a thin, waif-like figure, like that of model Twiggy.
In research on beauty, the primary focus has been on the face.R
esearchers have found that symmetrical face and faces with rati
osthat match the average for the population are more attractive.
If youlook at your face in a mirror you might notice some asym
metries.For example, your right nostril might be slightly larger t
han your leftor your left ear higher on your head than your right
ear. Individualswho have greater symmetry are judged more att
ractive (Bridgstock& Townsend, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady,
& Sumich, 1998; Rhodeset al., 2001).
When composite faces are created by a computer from a number
ofindividual faces, composite faces are judged to be more attra
ctivethan the individual faces that went into the composite. Whe
n faceshave features placed in locations that are the average for
thosefound in the population, and the size of features are the av
erage sizefor the population, such faces are judged to be beautif
ul (Langlois &Roggman, 1990). The ratios that fit these average
s are a verticaldistance between eyes and mouth of about 36% o
f the length of theface. The most beautiful horizontal distance b
etween the eyes is46% of the width of the face (Pallett, Link, &
Lee, 2010). The finalset of features that make faces attractive is
masculine features inmen and feminine features in women. A m
an's face with a square chin, thick brows, and thin lips is rated

6. more attractive. Awoman's face with a smaller chin, smaller low
er face area, and fuller lips is judged more attractive (Rhodes, 2
006).
According to evolutionary psychologists, beauty may signal fitn
ess. People without genetic disorders and those with goodimmu
ne system responses to disease have more average faces (Rhode
s, 2006). More fertile women have been shown insome samples t
o have more symmetrical faces (Pfluger, Oberzaucher, Katina,
Holzleitner, & Gammer, 2012; for an opposingviewpoint see Sil
va, Lummaa, Muller, Raymond, & Alvergne, 2012). People's car
eful attention to attractiveness may,therefore, be based on a desi
re to choose a mate who will help produce valuable offspring.
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· According to the mere-
exposure effect, which song would you like more: song A that y
ou heard for the first time todayor song B that you have heard 1
5 times in the last 2 weeks?
·
All things being equal, who would most people choose to intera
ct with: Mary, a beautiful woman, Joan, a woman ofaverage attr
activeness, or Lisa, an unattractive woman?
We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
While individuals might desire a relationship with an attractive
other, an attractive person might not desire a relationship with t
he not-so-
attractive individual. One of the messages that an individual wh
o refuses a date or relationship might be sending concerns the d
esirabilityof the other person. In other words, the woman may b
e communicating to the man she rejects that he is not as attracti
ve as he thinks heis, and is "out of her league." She rejects him
because she can do better. Perhaps because of this message, unr
equited love tends to reduceself-esteem in the would-
be lover (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993). Most people
expect and tend to end up in a romanticrelationship with someon
e who is similarly physically attractive (Berscheid, Dion, Walst

7. er, & Walster, 1971; Folkes, 1982; Montoya, 2008;Murstein, 19
72). This tendency to have relationships with those who match u
s is called the matching hypothesis. The next time youhave a ch
ance to observe couples, perhaps at a party, look around and not
ice whether the couples are about the same in attractiveness.Wh
en couples do not match, there is often a quality in the less-
attractive member that in some way makes up for his or her lack
ofphysical beauty, such as social status, money, education, phy
sical grooming, sense of humor, or personality (Carmalt, Cawle
y, Joyner, &Sobal, 2008; Feingold, 1981).
According to the matching hypothesis, we tend to end up with th
ose who are similar to us in attractiveness. Beyond that, do the
values orinterests of a potential relationship partner, either frien
d or romantic partner, make a difference in our liking of that per
son? 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, & Oltma
nns, 2009). Among those who are already our friends, researche
rs find, the intensity offriendship is greater among those who pe
rceive their friend to be similar (Selfhout, Denissen, Branje, &
Meeus, 2009). If a newacquaintance is similar to you, you may f
eel more comfortable and be able to better predict what the othe
r person would want to talkabout or do (Berg & Clark, 1986; Be
rger & Calabrese, 1975). Similarities can allow interactions to p
rogress smoothly and reduce conflict,particularly at the beginni
ng of a relationship.
Similarity may be a more long-
term relationship factor than a short-
term factor. For example, speed daters showed no greater attract
ionto those who were similar; attractiveness was more important
(Luo & Zhang, 2009). Greater similarity is attractive for long-
termrelationships like friendship, or relationships with long-
term romantic partners. Even when we desire similarity in our fr
iendships, wemay not actually be friends with similar people if
our options are limited. Friends in the United States tend to sho
w greater similaritythan friends in Japan. Researchers found tha

8. t this was because of a difference in the ability of individuals wi
thin those cultures to formnew relationships. The Japanese popu
lation, as a whole, is less mobile that the U.S. population, with l
esser likelihood of moving awayfrom family or friends for empl
oyment or other reasons. With fewer opportunities for new frien
dships to form, we tend to stick withfriends who are not necessa
rily 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 givin
g more than you were getting from the other person? If so, you
were partof an inequitable relationship. Equity involves receivin
g benefits proportional to what one provides (Hatfield, 1983). A
ccording to equitytheory, it is not the overall amount of benefit
one receives from a relationship that is important, but whether
what one gives and whatone gets are equal. Partners who gives
more than they receive in a relationship are underbenefited in th
e relationship. Partners whoreceive more than they give in a rela
tionship are overbenefited. As you might imagine, underbenefiti
ng is more distressing to individuals.If you have ever invested i
n a relationship and have not received rewards proportional to y
our input, you were likely unhappy with thatrelationship. This t
heory also predicts that overbenefiting is problematic. When on
e relationship partner overbenefits, that person gainsrewards he
or she knows are undeserved, causing distress (Sprecher, 1986;
1992; Stafford & Canary, 2006).
Although there is some support for this theory, the overall amou
nt of benefits in a relationship may be more important than equi
ty (Cate,Lloyd, Henton, & Larson, 1982; Cate, Lloyd, & Long,
1988). If one is in an equitable relationship, but is neither givin
g nor receiving muchfrom that relationship, it is unlikely to be a
relationship for very long. Some people may expect fairness an
d pay attention to equity;others may be satisfied with an unbala
nced relationship (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003). In long-
term, intimate partnerships, there may alsobe certain domains w
here equity is more important. Housework and childcare often fa

9. ll inequitably to married women, which canpotentially create pr
oblems within the relationship (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 20
07). Equitability in these areas may, therefore, be moreimportan
t 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 da
ting sphere. Individuals who play hard to get appear to be select
ive intheir social choices, and are not easily swayed by the adva
nces of another. Magazines and websites give men and women a
dvice on howto play hard to get in order to win over the object
of their affection (Dahlstrom, 2011). Advertisers use scarcity to
suggest their product isparticularly desirable, so would the same
be true about potential dates? Like that rare painting or limited
-edition collectible, are peoplewho play hard to get liked better?
Much of the advice about playing hard to get, and therefore the
research on the idea, focuses on women playing hard to get in th
eirpotential romantic relationships. In an impressive series of st
udies, Elaine Walster and colleagues (Walster, Walster, Piliavin
, & Schmidt,1973) investigated whether those who were more se
lective in their romantic interactions were liked more than those
who were lessselective. College students who read a story abou
t a woman who was not all that interested in a potential romanti
c partner (Studies 1and 2), and male students who called up a w
oman who was hesitant about accepting his invitation to go out (
Studies 3 and 4), did notreport more attraction to that person. R
esearchers used a unique confederate, a prostitute, to show that
her clients seemed to like herless and were less likely to call her
in the future when she played hard to get (Study 5). Finally, W
alster and colleagues discovered thattargeted selectivity is what
is most attractive about being hard to get (Study 6). Women wh
o appeared to like and want to date the manin question, but not
other men, were more attractive than women who were uniforml
y hard to get or who were willing to date anyone.The men were
most likely to report wanting to date the women who liked them
but no one else, liked her most, and expected fewerproblems in

10. dating.
The strategy of being selectively hard to get is true for both me
n and women (Wright & Contrada, 1986). Interacting with some
one wholikes you but not other people may
provide a boost in self-
esteem (Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephan, 1979); being singled
out by anotherperson makes us feel good. In addition, further w
ork has revealed that
uncertainty can be attractive. Women were most attracted to me
nwhen they were uncertain
how the man had rated them (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 20
11). Perhaps a little
mystery is motivating inromantic relationships. Hard-to-
get tactics also work better for
women than for men, and for long-
term relationships rather than casualflings. Potential
romantic partners report being willing to invest more time and
money in a partner who
seems hard to get, perhapsbecause of the concept of scarcity (Jo
nason & Li, 2013).
Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
·
Are people who are very attractive likely to end up in a relation
ship with someone who is not-at-all attractive?
·
Which adage is most accurate "birds of a feather flock together"
or "opposites attract"?
·
Within a relationship, is it best to get more than you give, give
more than you get, or give and get in equal measure?
· Is being universally hard to get attractive?
12.2 Need to Belong
There are a variety of reasons why we might pursue relationship
s with some people but not others. The question remains as to w
hy wewould pursue relationships at all. Given the statistics on

11. marriage, partnerships, and friendships cited at the beginning of
this chapter, ourbehavior suggests we have a need to be part of
relationships. Psychologists Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue
that we have a need tointeract and be in relationships with other
s. The need to belong has two components: (a) the need for freq
uent positive contact withothers, and (b) the need for enduring c
onnections marked by mutual concern for the welfare of the oth
er.
Social Bonds
This need to belong is evidenced in the ease with which we for
m social bonds, and the trouble we have breaking those bonds.
Whilewaiting in the doctor's office or at the train station, you m
ight find yourself chatting with the person sitting next to you, e
asily forming afriendship. Or after a short stay at summer camp
as a child, you may have promised your bunk mate or the other
kids in your cabin thatyou would be friends forever. Humans qu
ickly, and relatively easily, form social bonds. Research evidenc
e of this can be found in the easeto which the boys in Sherif's st
udy of conflict and superordinate goals made friends with the b
oys in their own group (Sherif, Harvey,White, Hood, & Sherif,
1961). Recall from the chapter on prejudice that within a week t
hese boys were a close-
knit group. Ingroupfavoritism quickly developed when participa
nts were placed into groups, even when these groups were based
on something asunimportant as the number of dots estimated on
a slide (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1970).
Attachment theory helps to explain the bonds we have with thos
e to whom we are close. John Bowlby (1969; 1973) first describ
edattachment in the realm of the infant–
caregiver relationship. Within these early relationships people d
evelop internal working models ofrelationships (Bowlby, 1973).
These working models tell us what to expect from others. Some
people learn that others are available andresponsive to needs an
d that they are worthy of that care, such individuals would be de
scribed as having a secure attachment style.Others learn that oth

12. ers may not be around at times when they are needed and come t
o believe that they are not worthy of care, suchindividuals woul
d be described as having an insecure attachment style (Bartholo
mew & Horowitz, 1991). What people learn aboutthemselves an
d others impacts adult relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007
). People who have a secure attachment style tend to seeksuppor
t from others in times of need and provide reassurance to relatio
nship partners when they need it (Collins & Feeney, 2010).
The effect of insecure attachment on relationships can differ de
pending on the attachment style. Some individuals have difficult
y believingothers are to be trusted, but think they can deal with
stressors on their own—
reflective of a dismissing or avoidant attachment style(Bartholo
mew & Horowitz, 1991). These individuals do not seek or give
a great deal of support to others, though they do still benefitfro
m feeling like they belong and are accepted by others (Carvallo
& Gabriel, 2006; Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Holmberg,
Lomore,Takacs, & Price, 2011; Schwartz, Lindley, & Buboltz, 2
007). People who don't believe they are worthy of care by other
s either trust othersand seek close relationships, having a preocc
upied attachment style, or distrust others and avoid close relatio
nships, having a fearfulattachment style (Bartholomew & Horow
itz, 1991). Preoccupied individuals attempt closeness with other
s, but, because they areconcerned about their own worthiness to
be loved, they tend to seek extreme closeness and be jealous of
other relationships their friendsor romantic partners might have
(Marazziti et al., 2010; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2006). Those w
ith a fearful attachment style are fearfulof intimacy and tend to
avoid relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Edenfield,
Adams, & Briihl, 2012; Welch & Houser, 2010).
Deprivation
What happens if we are deprived of belonging? On April 20, 19
99, Erick Harris and
Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students and oneteacher and wo
unded 23 other people at

13. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. In the end, they
turned their guns on
themselvesand committed suicide. Since the Columbine school s
hooting there have
been more than 60 other school shootings around the world(Info
rmation Please Database,
2012). Many of the student perpetrators of these school shootin
gs had been bullied
or ostracized by theirclassmates (Gibbs & Roche, 1999; Leary,
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).
A marked lack of a sense of belonging can have negative conseq
uences. Bullying seems to be both a consequence of and caused
byinterference with the need to belong. In other words, bullying
is due, in part, to a lack of connections with others and desire f
oracceptance from other children. Boys involved in bullying des
ired acceptance from other boys involved in the types of antisoc
ial activitiesthey were involved in (other bullies), and from othe
r boys in general (Olthof & Goossens, 2008). These boys used b
ullying as a gateway tobelonging. In some schools, bullying can
even denote social status. When the popular kids bully, engagin
g in bullying is accepted practicethat can show or increase one's
social status (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008). Bullyin
g also communicates to bullied individualsthat they do not belo
ng, their peers reject them, leading to negative feelings and eve
n suicide (Dill, Vernberg, Fonagy, Twemlow, & Gamm,2004; H
erba et al., 2008). Not fulfilling the need to belong creates beha
vior that is harmful to others and is dangerous for one's ownphy
sical and mental health. Individuals with limited social ties, incl
uding family and friendships, had poorer physical health (Berk
man,1995; House, Robins, & Metzner, 1982). Individuals who d
o not fulfill the need to belong are also more vulnerable to ment
al illness(Broadhead et al., 1983; Thoits, 1995).
Threats to relationships are associated with negative emotions.
The loss of a loved one is very stressful (Holmes & Rahe, 1967)
. Even thepossibility that an important relationship might end is
met with sadness or jealousy (Leary, 1990; Leary & Downs, 19

14. 95; Leary, Tambor,Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Pines & Aronson, 1
983). Also, our reactions to discrimination may, in part, be root
ed in our need to belong(Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). Discriminat
ion tells us we are not a valued member of the group, in fact, we
either may not be part of thegroup or, if we are, we will not be
able to enjoy all of the privileges of group membership.
Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock
When a person is ostracized by peers, loneliness and increaseda
ggression often result.
Depriving others of their connections with us can be used as a t
ool tocontrol them. Ostracism is the deliberate exclusion of a pe
rson fromone's social group or from social interactions. Ostracis
m is somethingmost people experience and use to control others.
Individuals with highself-
esteem ostracize to end relationships, while those with low self-
esteem use ostracism as a defense against the expected rejection
orcriticism by others (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeis
ter, 2001).Although the individual being ostracized certainly suf
fers, ostracism haspositive effects for the group excluding the in
dividual, as it increasesgroup cohesion (Gruter & Masters, 1986
). A group grows close togetherby having a common target.
Ostracism interferes with our need to belong, particularly when
we areunsure of the
cause of our ostracism (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, &Willia
ms, 2012; Sommer et al., 2001). Ostracism also affects our self-
esteem (Ruggieri, Bendixen, Gabriel, & Alsaker,
2013). Recall from Chapter2 the sociometer theory, the idea that
acceptance and rejection areimportant for self-
esteem. Ostracism tells us that others do not value us as much a
s
we value them (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Whenostracized fr
om a social group, we feel pain, anger, and sadness, though initi
ally we may feel numbness (DeWall & Baumeister,
2006; vanBeest & Williams, 2006; Williams, 2001). The pain w
e experience when ostracized

15. is processed in the same locations of the brain asphysical pain (
Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). In fact, researchers
have found that the pain reliever acetaminophen can
lessenthe pain of ostracism (DeWall, Pond, & Deckman, 2011).
To get back in the good
graces of those around us, we often act in compliant orprosocial
ways when we have been ostracized (Carter-
Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Williams, 2007). For example,
an
ostracized teenmight buy gifts for the friends who ostracized he
r in an attempt to secure
entry back into the group and demonstrate that she is avaluable
member of the group.
When we are ostracized, life seems to lose meaning and we feel
out of control (Nezlek et al., 2012; Ruggieri et al., 2013; Stillm
an et al.,2009; Williams, 1997). Ostracism that affects our sense
of purpose or control is more likely to result in antisocial beha
vior (Williams,2007). The interaction of ostracism and control
may be particularly important for aggression. Warburton, Willia
ms, and Cairns (2006)used a game of toss to ostracize research
participants and then expose them to an unpleasant blast of nois
e. Some of the participantswere able to control the noise and oth
ers were not. Participants were then asked to decide how much h
ot sauce to put in the food of astranger, knowing that the indivi
dual did not like spicy foods but would be required to eat all of
the food. Participants who had no controlover the noise wanted t
o put four times more hot sauce in the stranger's food than those
who had control over the noise. Placing hotsauce in the food of
someone who does not like it is an aggressive act, an act made
more likely when people felt they were ostracized andhad no co
ntrol over their circumstances. At times ostracism's effect on ou
r sense of control results in depression. When people arechronic
ally ostracized they have less of a desire to exert self-
control. This sense of helplessness leads to symptoms of depres
sion (DeWall,Gilman, Sharif, Carboni, & Rice, 2012).Expand Y
our Knowledge: Loneliness Scale

16. A loneliness assessment based on the UCLA LonelinessScale ca
n be accessed at http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/loneliness.htm.
Another result of ostracism is loneliness. Loneliness is the feeli
ng ofbeing without desired social connections. It is possible to f
ulfill onepiece of the need to belong, frequent contacts, without
fulfilling thesecond, ongoing relationships involving mutual car
ing. Lonelinessinvolves a problem with the second part of the n
eed to belong.Someone can be lonely, therefore, even when that
person has frequentcontacts with others. Loneliness may be und
erstood and experienceddifferently in different cultures. Culture
s have different ways ofunderstanding the nature of relationship
s, so, while loneliness appears to be common across cultures, it
is understood differentlydepending on the culture (Rokach, 2007
; van Staden & Coetzee, 2010). Lonely people have the physical
and mental health issuesdiscussed above. One major issue with
loneliness is that it can lead to depression (Cacioppo, Hughes,
Waite, Hawlkey, & Thisted, 2006).Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What are the two aspects of the need to belong?
· What are some of the effects of ostracism?
·
Is it possible to have frequent social contacts with others and sti
ll feel lonely?
Previous section
Next section12.3 Love
In everyday life you may hear a number of different uses of the
word love. Overhearing a cell phone conversation on the street,
you mighthear a woman next to you say "I love you" to her husb
and before hanging up. Someone else might exclaim "I love don
uts" when herfriend brings her one to eat. A mother tells her chi
ld she loves him. "Love" is a word with a multitude of meanings

17. . To say you love yourmother is different from saying you love
your shoes or you love your romantic partner or you love chocol
ate donuts. When Fehr andRussell (1991) asked college students
to list all of the kinds of love they could up with, the students
were able to list 216 different kindsof love. Puppy love, brother
ly love, romantic love, and maternal love are all different types.
To further investigate our conception of love, Meyers and Bersc
heid (1997) asked people to write down the initials of everyone
theyloved, everyone they were in love with, and everyone they f
elt a sexual attraction or desire for. After sorting out where the l
istsoverlapped, the researchers found that the love list was long.
We love a lot of people. Most people who were on the in love li
st were alsoon the love list (93% of the in love list were on the l
ove list). The love list contained a number of people that were n
ot 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 talking about someth
ing similar to love, but moreselective 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 listwere also on the sexual a
ttraction list); when we say we are in love, we are describing a t
ype of love that includes a sexual attraction ordesire component
.
Types of Love
One way we might break down love is to delineate a few categor
ies; two of these types are roughly analogous to the love versus
in lovedimensions above. One type of love is the affection we h
old for friends and family, what some researchers have deemed
companionatelove. Companionate love is characterized by deep
caring for another person, comfort and trust, and the enjoyment
of shared experiences(Berscheid, 2010). Marriages characterize
d by companionate love tend to be lasting and satisfying (Gottm
an, 1999). The importance ofcompanionate love may be surprisi
ng to some, as a more passionate type of love is often expected
and striven for in marriage, butresearchers find that a more rom
antic view of love does not do as good a job of predicting well-

18. being within a marriage or general well-
being (Grote & Frieze, 1994; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Orbuch, Ve
roff, & Holmberg, 1993). Companionate love does a better job o
f predictingwell-being in these situations.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Online dating can be beneficial for widening one's social networ
kthus increasing the chances of finding love. However, expertsc
aution against maintaining online communication with a potenti
alpartner for too long, because the longer two people spendinter
acting online, the more likely they are to be disappointed byeac
h other when they meet in person.
Passionate love would describe the in love type of love mention
edearlier. Passionate love involves intense emotional arousal an
d physicalattraction. (Fehr, 1994; Regan, 1998). This strong des
ire for anotherperson may be the initial draw in a relationship,
which could thentransition into a relationship characterized by c
ompanionate love(Berscheid, 2010). Unlike companionate love,
which seems to increaseover time given the right conditions, pa
ssionate love tends to decline overtime (Hatfield & Rapson, 200
8; Tucker & Aron, 1993). Although onewould think otherwise, r
esearchers have found that arranged marriagesare largely no diff
erent in the amount of companionate and passionatelove, as mar
riages 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. Com
passionate love might describe a parent–
childrelationship or a long-
term friendship. Individuals who have a secureattachment style
are more likely to have compassionate love for theirpartner than
those with an insecure style (Sprecher & Fehr, 2011). Due tothe
ir background, securely attached individuals may approach inti
materelationships with greater willingness to give care to their
partner. Margaret Clark and colleagues describe the caring and
concern for thewelfare of the other that is present in compassion

19. ate love as part of communal relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979
; Clark & Monin, 2006).In communal relationships, partners res
pond to the needs of the other person, not worrying about when
or how their contributions willbe repaid. Exchange relationships
, by contrast, are those where contributions and rewards are cou
nted and immediate repayment isexpected. We tend to act in a m
ore communal manner, showing compassionate love, in close fri
endships or dating or marriagerelationships (Sprecher & Fehr, 2
005). Exchange relationships are more common in our interactio
ns with acquaintances, strangers, orcoworkers.Social Psycholog
y in Depth: Love Online
It has become popular to look for love online. Estimates vary, b
ut it seems that somewhere around 40% of single Internetusers h
ave visited a dating site or posted a profile (Madden & Lenhart,
2006; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Seventy-
fourpercent of Internet users who are single and looking for rela
tionships have used the Internet in their quest for love: flirtingw
ith someone online, being introduced to someone online, joining
a chat group in hopes of finding a date, and evensearching for i
nformation on a potential date (Madden & Lenhart, 2006). Onlin
e daters appear to come from all age groupsand income brackets
, although individuals who are divorced are more likely than tho
se who are never-
married or widowedto use online dating services (Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007).
Most daters anticipate meeting and potentially forming intimate
relationships with the individuals they find online.Individuals w
ho expect to meet in the real world and establish long-
term relationships tend to be more honest in theironline commu
nication. They also disclose more information consciously and i
ntentionally (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006).That is not to say t
hat online daters never misrepresent themselves, provide idealiz
ed portrayals, or are mistaken abouttheir own attributes. Online
daters attempt to counter this misrepresentation while looking at
online profiles by assumingthe image they get from a profile is
a bit rosier than reality. Men, for example, might be a little shor

20. ter than they claim,women a little heavier (Ellison, Heino, & Gi
bbs, 2006).
There is a typical decision process while engaging in online dati
ng. The first step involves looking at profiles. Some profilesare
rejected because they do not fit what one is looking for in terms
of age, location, or some other factor. Some onlinedaters descri
be this as shopping for a date. The dater scans what is available
and makes a decision based on the presence ofdesired qualities.
Ironically, having more choices has been found to lead to poorer
choices, as well as objectification offuture partners (Heino, Elli
son, & Gibbs, 2010; Wu & Chiou, 2008). Another point in the d
ecision process comes with onlinecommunication. A budding rel
ationship may be ended at this point because of rejected overtur
es for communication orcommunication that is slow, uncomforta
ble, or reveals inaccuracies. When communication moves from o
nline to phone orface-to-
face, online daters face another decision point. At this point dat
ers need to decide whether the online profilematches 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, t
he longer thecouple spends engaging in computer-
mediated communication, the more likely they are to be disappo
inted when they meetface-to-
face (Ramirez & Wang, 2004; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). The lim
ited information an online dater receives about his orher match
can lead to idealized or inaccurate ideas of the qualities the pote
ntial partner possesses (Hancock & Dunham,2001). Accurate dat
a on the success of online dating is hard to come by. Of the peo
ple who have visited online dating sites,about half say they have
had positive experiences, with a third describing negative exper
iences. The vast majority (97%) ofcurrently married or committ
ed people did not meet online. That number is skewed, however,
by the fact that many metbefore online dating was an option. M
any online daters know someone who found a long-

21. term romantic partner online(43%). Of the Americans who have
looked for love using Internet dating sites, about a quarter are i
n committedrelationships. Those numbers sound hopeful until y
ou consider that almost half of those who have visited online da
tingsites have not found a relationship partner (Madden & Lenh
art, 2006). The Internet may be a good tool, but it seemsfinding
Mr. or Ms. Right is just as hard as it has ever been.
Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love
Robert Sternberg (1986) divides love into even more distinct cat
egories. In his triangular theory of love, he describes three aspe
cts oflove. Each can be thought of as a point on a triangle (see F
igure 12.1). Intimacy is one component, described as feelings of
closeness orbonds to another person. Intimacy may include shar
ing of oneself and one's possessions with another, counting on t
hat person in times ofneed, and receiving emotional support fro
m and providing emotional support to the other person. We tend
to grow in intimacy within arelationship. Intimacy is moderatel
y stable over time. Typically, intimacy is quite important in lon
g-
term relationships. We have somecontrol over how much intima
cy 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 differen
t types of love.
From Sternberg, Robert J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. P
sychological Review 93(2): 119–
135.Copyright © 1986 by the American Psychological Associati
on.
The second and third components of love in the triangular theor
y are passion and commitment. Passion involves physical attract
ion toanother person or expression of desires and needs. Passion
is not necessarily stable in our relationships. Generally, we do
not have agreat deal of control over passion, though we are ofte

22. n aware of how much passion we are feeling for someone else.
The final componentis commitment. According to Sternberg, thi
s 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 lo
ng term. We control the amount of commitment we have in arela
tionship, and it is important for long-
term relationships. Individuals who are securely attached tend t
o have more intimacy andcommitment in relationships, and grea
ter relationship satisfaction (Madey & Rodgers, 2009).
Within the triangular theory of love these three components are
combined to describe different kinds of love. For example, infat
uated loveis a type of love that includes passion but no intimacy
or commitment. Companionate love, on the other hand, include
s intimacy andcommitment but no passion.Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
·
If people were to list the names of all the people they were in lo
ve with, is that list likely to contain more or fewernames than a
list of people they love?
·
When Marcus needed help moving, Aaron spent the day moving
furniture and boxes, expecting no immediaterepayment of the fa
vor. From this evidence, it appears Marcus and Aaron have a co
mmunal relationship or an exchangerelationships?
·
The type of love in Sternberg's triangular theory of love that inc
ludes passion, intimacy, and commitment is what?
12.4 Relationship Maintenance
What keeps partners in relationships? One way to look at our rel
ationships over the long term is to use the interdependence theo
ry(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). With this t
heory we can determine satisfaction and dependency within rela
tionships.The way satisfaction is determined is by looking at the
rewards and costs in a relationship and the comparison level. I

23. magine you were ina relationship and found there were a lot of
costs: your partner left messes around the house, often borrowe
d money without paying itback, and had several annoying habits
. The relationship also held some rewards: your partner was swe
et and affectionate and when youwent out, heads turned because
your partner was very good looking. When you put it all togeth
er, though, the costs outweighed thebenefits. A relationship whe
re a partner feels appreciated tends to increase the benefits side
of the equation and leads to greatercommitment to the relationsh
ip (Gordon, Impett, Kogan, Oveis, & Keltner, 2012). Some indi
viduals do not expect a lot of rewards in theirrelationships, so h
aving a relationship with a lot of costs and only a few rewards
might still be satisfying for these people. Others mightbe dissati
sfied even with large rewards because they expect highly reward
ing relationships. This expectation for the outcomes in arelation
ship is the comparison level.
This theory also involves a calculation of dependence. In this co
ntext, dependence is the degree to which we believe our currentr
elationship is the best we can do, in other words, how dependent
we are on this particular relationship. Our calculation of depen
denceincludes a comparison level of alternatives. The compariso
n level of alternatives is the outcome we would expect to receiv
e if we werein an alternate relationship. Imagine you were in a c
ity where a number of neat and solvent relationship partners wer
e available, all ofwho were also likely to be affectionate and go
od looking. Given the alternatives, you would be unlikely to sta
y with your present messy,annoying partner. However, if you lo
oked around and found that alternative partners were no better t
han or were worse than yourpresent partner, you might stay eve
n though you are unsatisfied. Within this theory you might be sa
tisfied in a relationship (your rewardsoutweigh the costs) but sti
ll leave that relationship because there are other attractive alter
natives. When people are less identified withtheir relationship, t
hey are more likely to pay attention to and change their behavio
r in response to attractive alternatives. Individualswho are more
identified with their relationship naturally and spontaneously di

24. scount alternatives, leading to greater survival of theirexisting r
elationship (Linardatos & Lydon, 2011).
Digital Vision/Thinkstock
Investment is one motivation two people may have for stayingto
gether. People who have invested significant time and energyint
o a relationship are less likely to abandon it, even if they aredis
satisfied with aspects of the relationship.
An expansion of this idea is the investment model. According to
thismodel, the level of commitment one has for a particular rela
tionshiprelates to one's satisfaction with the relationship, the qu
ality ofalternatives, and the investments associated with the rela
tionship(Rusbult, 1983). As you might imagine, individuals who
are more satisfiedwith a relationship are more likely to be com
mitted to a relationship. Butsatisfaction alone is not enough to p
redict commitment. As in theinterdependence theory, alternative
s are also important. If one has goodalternatives to a current rel
ationship, that person might move to anotherrelationship even if
satisfaction is not low. Investment may take the formof intrinsi
c investments, like time and emotional energy. Investments may
also be extrinsic investments, like shared possessions or even m
utualfriends that might be lost if one were to leave the relations
hip. Evenwhen satisfaction is low and alternatives are good, peo
ple might stay in arelationship because of their enormous invest
ment in the relationship, aninvestment they would lose by leavi
ng. Putting this all together, a memberof a couple who is very s
atisfied, has few alternatives, and has highinvestments will likel
y be quite committed to a relationship and make thedecision to r
emain in the relationship. An individual who is not satisfied, ha
s a number of alternatives, and has a small investment islikely t
o show low commitment to the relationship (Rusbult, Drigotas,
& Verette, 1994; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
Though this may all seem more like economics than relationship
s, other researchers have also played a numbers game with relati
onshipsand have been quite successful in predicting relationship
outcomes. John Gottman and his colleagues are able to predict

25. with greater than90% accuracy the likelihood of divorce for a c
ouple with their mathematical model (Gottman, Swanson, & Sw
anson, 2002). Couples mayfollow a variety of patterns, but over
all, the researchers found that a ratio of five positive behaviors t
o every one negative behavior mustbe maintained for relationshi
ps to last. A couple that fights often might have a long relations
hip if that fighting is balanced withexpressions of fondness tow
ard one another (Gottman, 1993). Couples that largely avoid bot
h conflict and positive interactions may lastfor a while, but eve
ntually divorce (Gottman & Levenson, 2002).Expand Your Kno
wledge: John Gottman
Additional information on Gottman and his work,including work
shops and DVDs, can be found at hiswebsite: http://www.gottma
n.com/.
A particularly destructive interaction pattern is called the dema
nd-
withdraw pattern. One member of the couple brings up an issue
he orshe needs to talk about and the other member attempts to a
void thediscussion. The person bringing up the issue is critical a
ndcontemptuous; the member responding comes back with defen
siveness,eventually withdrawing (Gottman, 1998). Note that ang
er is not amongthese emotions. Properly expressed anger is not
necessarily a problemfor a relationship, provided it is expressed
within the context ofpositive interactions. Four behaviors—
criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling (withdrawa
l)—
are so detrimental to thesuccess of a relationship that Gottman c
alls them the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman, 1994).
A variety of strategies can be employed to nurture good interact
ions and make negative interactions less likely. Simply having a
positiveoutlook on the relationship and expecting good things i
s positive for relationships. Openness to engaging in communica
tion is helpful.Self-
disclosure is when a person in a relationship tells the other pers
on something, particularly intimate or important information. Se
lf-disclosure by one person tends to lead to self-

26. disclosure by the other, something called disclosure reciprocity.
Such reciprocity can leadto deeper commitment by both membe
rs. Expressions of love are helpful to relationships. Sharing of r
esponsibilities is also helpful.Finally, couples that have shared s
ocial networks tend to maintain their relationship to a greater de
gree than those who have entirelyseparate social networks (Ada
ms & Baptist, 2012; Canary & Stafford, 1992).Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
·
Suzanne expects relationships to be very rewarding and have fe
w costs. Annaliese expects relationships to have aboutequal amo
unts of costs and benefits. According to interdependence theory
Suzanne and Annaliese are different on whatvariable?
·
What unique addition does the investment model add to the inter
dependence theory of relationships?
·
Leon tells Tara about a frightening episode from his childhood.
She responds by telling him about an unpleasantexperience she
had when she was a teenager. Leon and Tara's behavior is an ex
ample of what?
12.5 When Relationships End
About half of all first marriages end in divorce by the 20th anni
versary, with subsequent marriages ending at even higher rates (
Bramlett& Mosher, 2002; Cherlin, 1992; Goodwin, Mosher, & C
handra, 2010; Rogers, 2004; Glick, 1984). A vast number of non
marital relationshipsend each year as well (Sprecher & Fehr, 19
98). Many of the same factors that attract us to others and help
us maintain our relationshipsalso affect our likelihood of ending
a relationship. When relationships do not feel equitable or there
are differences in aspirations,relationships are more likely to e
nd. Mismatched couples in terms of attractiveness are also more
likely to break up (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau,1976). Divorce is ofte
n preceded by problems like infidelity, incompatibility (general
disagreement about a variety of issues), moneyissues, substance

27. abuse, jealousy, growing apart, and by personal factors like mo
odiness and irritating habits (Amato & Previti, 2003;Amato & R
ogers, 1997).Expand Your Knowledge: State of Marriageand Di
vorce
For an interesting report on marriage and divorce withindifferen
t states, check out the report from the PewResearch Center at htt
p://pewresearch.org/pubs/1380/marriage-and-divorce-by-
state. The report looks at age of marriage, rateof divorce, and so
me correlations to marriage and divorcepatterns.
A variety of factors may be behind breakups, but one we often d
o notthink about is the calendar. In one study of college student
relationships, the point in the school year had an effect on when
couples broke up (Hill et al., 1976). The end of the school year
andschool vacations are a potentially dangerous time for college
relationships. Valentine's Day is also a dangerous time for relati
onshipsthat are not doing well. A cultural expectation exists for
couples onValentine's Day. For partners whose relationship is al
ready in choppywater, the time and energy needed to successfull
y navigate Valentine'sDay activities may be more than the mem
bers can handle. A couplemight not want to put the time and mo
ney into a Valentine's Daycelebration for a relationship that app
ears troubled, and therefore theybreak up before getting to Vale
ntine's Day. Couples may also find thatthe ideal love that Valen
tine's Day promotes is not present in their own celebration and
break up post-
Valentine's Day. In a study ofcollege student couples, the numb
er of breakups increased in the two-
week time period around Valentine's Day (Morse & Neuberg, 20
04).
According to Duck (1982) the breakup process often begins wit
h a personal realization of the need to end the relationship, som
etimes byone member of the couple and sometimes by both. Nex
t, the members negotiate with one another about the dissolution
of therelationship. At times one member may be resistant and as
k that they work harder or go to counseling, but at other times b
oth partiesagree that a breakup is an appropriate course of actio

28. n. A couple is not done breaking up when they have agreed to br
eak up; they mustrecover from the breakup and others in their e
nvironment must be told of the breakup (Duck, 1982). Dependin
g on the type and lengthof the relationship the entire process co
uld take hours or years.
Someone who wants to break up might use a variety of approach
es to dissolve the relationship. These strategies can be grouped i
nto fourcategories. (1) A person might withdraw from the relati
onship and avoid contact with the partner, hoping the partner wi
ll get themessage that the relationship is over. Avoiding one's s
pouse and hoping he or she realize this means a divorce is comi
ng may be difficult.However, a short romantic entanglement in t
he teen years may end this way. (2) Another strategy involves u
sing other people or otherindirect ways to break up. For exampl
e, one might have a friend tell the significant other that the relat
ionship is over. An announcementof being single on a social me
dia platform like Facebook could also send a message to a boyfr
iend or girlfriend that the relationship hasended. (3) Alternative
ly, the partner might be more direct but attempt to set a positive
tone, describing the other person's positivequalities. Perhaps yo
u have heard the phrase "it's not you, it's me. . . ." (4) Finally, a
simple direct approach stating a desire to break upmay be used
to end the relationship (Baxter, 1982; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Bax
ter, 1985). The particular strategy one uses may depend onthe re
lationship type, the reason for the breakup, as well as the degree
of compassionate love one has for the partner (Sprecher,Zimme
rman, & Abrahams, 2010).
Tetra Images/SuperStock
The primary emotions that accompany a breakup are love, anger
,and sadness. Anger may actually be more beneficial than sadne
ss,as it resolutely breaks the bond between two people, whereas
sadness can linger and lead to depression.
A variety of emotions accompany a breakup. The primary emoti
ons arelove, anger, and sadness (Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). If you
have experienceda breakup, you may remember the rollercoaster

29. of emotions thataccompanied it. Emotions tend to be very varia
ble in the first few weeksafter a breakup (Sbarra & Emery, 2005
). Love and sadness tend to occurtogether. For example, one mi
ght listen to a song that provides areminder of the love that was
shared and this brings along with itfeelings of sadness that the r
elationship is over. Continued attachment(love) is not generally
positive for people and may be associated withdepression (Sbarr
a & Emery, 2005; Sbarra & Ferrer, 2006). Because ofintense ini
tial emotions, people often overestimate the length andintensity
of the emotions they will feel after a breakup (Eastwick, Finkel
y,Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008). Although emotions may
be intenseat first, sadness does tend to get better with time. In o
ne study of datingbreakups in college students, most participant
s who had been broken upfor a month showed no more sadness t
han those in intact relationships(Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Anger
may actually be somewhat of a positiveemotion in breakups as it
serves to more firmly sever the bond, providedone does not get
stuck on anger. In line with the investment model,individuals w
ho had greater investment (were together longer and feltcloser)
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 a
nd the partner who is left may be dealing with different emotion
s (Baxter,1984; Hill et al., 1976; Sprecher, 1994). Sadness is a c
ommon emotion in those who have been broken up with as well
as, for some,betrayal (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Field, Diego, P
elaez, Deeds, & Delgado, 2009). For the one who does the leavi
ng, emotions often followa different pattern. Though regret and
guilt about hurting one's partner may be present, there might als
o be a sense of relief or freedom(Emery, 1994; Sprecher, Felmle
e, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998; Vaughn, 1986). Knowing the rel
ationship would soon end because they werethe ones to instigate
it, the initiators of the breakup may have already dealt with sad
ness about ending the relationship before talking totheir partner
about the disillusion. Generally, the initiator of the breakup doe
s better than the one who is broken up with (Thompson &Spanie

30. r, 1983).
Breakups can have a positive impact on someone's life. If a relat
ionship was fraught with conflict or abuse, a breakup of that rel
ationshipcan produce positive change (Nelson, 1989; 1994). Wh
en asked about positive changes that occurred because of a roma
ntic relationshipbreakup, the most common had to do with thing
s learned about the self. Some people report being more self-
confident and independentas the result of a breakup. One factor
in recovery from a breakup is the ability to redefine the self. Pe
ople need to develop a new self-
concept that does not include the former relationship partner (M
ason, Law, Bryan, Portley, & Sbarra, 2012). Individuals also lea
rn thingsfrom the relationship, such as what they want from a re
lationship or how to do better in future relationships. Other rela
tionships can alsogrow because of a breakup. Friends and family
may be seen as more important, or these relationships might be
come closer than theywere in the past (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003)
. Sometimes when a relationship is troubled, ending it may be b
est for everyone and can makesomeone available for a healthier
and happier relationship in the future.Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
· What major emotions accompany a breakup?
·
Who usually does better when a relationship breaks up, the one
who initiates the breakup or the person who is brokenup with?
Conclusion
We like those we interact with often, those who are attractive, t
hose who are similar to us, and those we have equitable relation
shipswith. We also like those who like us exclusively. We form
relationships quickly and easily and are happier and healthier be
cause of theserelationships. Our need for interaction and close b
onds is a need, not just a want, in our lives. Love comes in a var
iety of guises, at timesincluding passion or friendship or compa
ssion. The staying power of relationships depends on factors ins
ide the relationship, like costsand rewards; factors inside of the

31. person, like comparison level; and factors outside the relationsh
ip, like available alternatives. Whenrelationships end, the emoti
ons experienced may depend on one's status as an initiator of th
e breakup, the type of relationship, and thequality of the relatio
nship before it ended.
Chapter Summary
Factors in Attraction
A variety of factors exist that help determine our liking of other
s. We like those we see or interact with often, as the mere-
exposure effectpredicts. We also like those who are attractive.
Although we would prefer to interact with those who are attracti
ve, we usually end up inrelationships with those who are similar
to us in attractiveness, as proposed by the matching hypothesis.
We tend to like those who aresimilar to us in values and interes
ts rather than those who are different. We prefer to not overbene
fit or underbenefit in a relationship,but have a relationship char
acterized 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 e
nduring connections. Evidence of this need is seen in our ease o
f formingand reluctance in ending relationships. The need is als
o evident in our happiness when we have social bonds and the n
egative emotions(anger, sadness) associated with lack of connec
tion. Deprivation is associated with mental and physical health
detriments. Ostracisminterferes with our sense of self-
esteem and brings about feelings of meaninglessness, lack of co
ntrol, and aggression. We may interactwith others when we are l
onely, but we do not feel that we have a close connection to any
one.
Love
Love is a concept with many facets. Companionate love involve
s a deep caring for another person, passionate love includes desi

32. re foranother, 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 invo
lved, 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 ha
s forcosts and rewards in a relationship. Dependence on a partic
ular relationship, according to this theory, is determined by cost
s, rewards,and possible alternatives. The investment model pred
icts commitment to a relationship through a combination of satis
faction, quality ofalternatives, and investments in the relationsh
ip. One relationship researcher with an impressive track record
at predicting relationshipsuccess, John Gottman, notes that a rat
io of at least five positive for every one negative behavior must
be maintained for relationships tolast. Relationships characteriz
ed by criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling are l
ikely to fail. Having a positive outlook andexpressing love for a
relationship partner tends to help maintain relationships. Openn
ess, including self-
disclosure, can lead to disclosurereciprocity and, therefore, dee
pening of a relationships. Sharing responsibilities and having m
utual friends is also helpful to relationshipmaintenance.
When Relationships End
Breakups normally follow a pattern of individual realizations ab
out the relationship, a breakup of the partnership, telling others
about thebreakup, and recovery. Love, sadness, and anger are al
l emotions felt in a breakup. One's status as initiator of a breaku
p and quality of therelationship before the breakup can affect th
e emotions one feels after a relationship dissolves. Ending of rel
ationships is not alwaysnegative. Some people learn confidence
or independence or other important lessons when a relationship
ends.
Critical Thinking Questions

33. 1.
Have you had an experience with any of the factors related to at
traction? For example, do you find yourself friends with yournei
ghbors? Is your significant other, if you have one, similar to yo
u in attractiveness?
2.
If you were a scientist looking into liking, what other factors mi
ght you want to investigate?
3.
What kinds of situations could you imagine in which someone w
ould fulfill one aspect of the need to belong, but not the other?
Howwould that affect the person?
4.
How could you assist others whose need to belong is not fulfille
d? For example, if older adults in nursing homes lack frequentc
ontacts with others, how might that be alleviated?
5.
Some researchers describe three types of love (companionate, p
assionate, and compassionate), others three aspects of love (pas
sion,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?
Howmight you apply interdependence theory or the investment
model to relationships you are part of or know about?
7.
If you have experienced a relationship breakup, does the researc
h on this topic fit with your experience? Is there anything theser
esearchers are missing?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to reveal the definition.
communal relationships
companionate love
comparison level
comparison level of alternatives

34. compassionate love
commitment
disclosure reciprocity
equity
exchange relationships
hard to get
insecure attachment style
interdependence theory
intimacy
investment
investment model
loneliness
matching hypothesis
mere-exposure effect
need to belong
ostracism
overbenefited
passion
passionate love
secure attachment style
self-disclosure
triangular theory of love
underbenefited
· 8.5 Research Design: Null Hypothesis Significance Testing
Following the process for developing a research manuscript, use
the problem area you have been studying and form a statistical
hypothesis to test your research question. This must be done in
a quantitative approach in order to test for significance levels,
so if you have been working with a qualitative methodology, a
mixed design here would be appropriate.
Prepare a plan for:
· How you would test the hypothesis.

35. · What would constitute a statistically significant finding.
· What the implications would be for your research effort.
· Must demonstrate understanding of the null hypothesis and
interpretation of significance testing.
· Where applicable, the student should provide evidence they
have processed peer review feedback and made adjustments
where practicable.
· You will be graded on your paper via the rubric and marked
for the satisfactory completion of two peer comments.
· This activity is graded satisfactory/unsatisfactory, all
parts must be completed up to standards to receive points.
· Grading will reflect whether the assignment has been
completed satisfactorily
Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. ISBN:
Chapter 1
Discovering Social Psychology
Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock
Learning Objectives
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
· Define social psychology
· Describe the history of social psychology
· Describe the scientific method
·
Discuss the observational method and explain when that method
is most appropriate to the researchquestion
·
Discuss the correlational method and explain when that method

36. is most appropriate to the researchquestion
·
Discuss the experimental method and explain when that method
is most appropriate to the researchquestion
·
Define terms associated with the experimental method including
independent and dependent variable,experimental group and co
ntrol group, random assignment and random sampling, internal a
nd externalvalidity, generalizability, experimental and mundane
realism, and demand characteristics
· Understand the dangers of hindsight bias
Chapter Outline
1.1 What Is Social Psychology?
1.2 Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
· Social Psychology Before 1950
· Social Psychology Since 1950
1.3 How Do We Do Social Psychology?
· Observational Method: What Is Happening?
· Correlational Method: What Might Happen?
· Experimental Method: What Causes That?
· Statistical Measurement
· Ethics in Research
Chapter Summary
* * *
One in every seven people on Earth is registered on Facebook. T
he site added the 1 billionth user in September 2012. Each U.S.
user has an average of around 260 friends (Statista, 2012; Vance
, 2012). In 2011 there were an estimated 181 million blogs bype
ople from around the world (Nielsenwire, 2012). On its sixth bir
thday in March 2012, Twitter reported an average of 340million
Tweets a day, with a 140 million users (Twitterblog, 2012). Wh
at can we conclude from this information? Humanbeings are int
ensely interested in and regularly seek out interaction with other
human beings. Social psychology is a field thatis also intereste

37. d in human beings. Social psychologists study people—
in particular, people interacting with one another.
1.1 What Is Social Psychology?
Christin Gilbert/age fotostock/SuperStock
Humans use social networking websites to stay connected andint
eract with other people.
Social psychology is the scientific study of human thoughts, fee
lings, andbehavior as humans relate to and are influenced by oth
ers. However,many academic disciplines are interested in huma
n thoughts, feelings, orbehavior. If you were to take a literature
course, you would find yourselfcontemplating the thoughts of Is
hmael in Moby Dick or the actions ofLady Macbeth in Macbeth.
In an art course you might work on translatinga particular feeli
ng into a sculpture or a painting. What makes socialpsychology
different is the method it employs to study humans. As withothe
r science-
related fields, social psychologists use the scientific methodto l
earn about human beings, a method that employs careful observ
ationand empirical evidence to come to conclusions. The focus
of socialpsychology, however, is on the thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors of people,rather than the physical pieces that together
make up a person like DNA,cells, or muscles, and constitute th
e focus of natural science fields likebiology. Social psychology,
as a branch of psychology, focuses on howindividuals are affec
ted by others; and, as related to sociology, socialpsychology loo
ks at a person's social setting within the dynamics of the social
system.
Becoming a Social Psychologist
00:00
00:00
Characteristics of a social psychologist.
Critical Thinking Questions

38. ·
According to Dr. Christenfield, what are the twoskills needed to
thrive as a social psychologist?
· Which of these skills is easier to train, and why?
Social psychology is often paired with another branch of psycho
logy, personalitypsychology. One of the largest organizations fo
r social psychologists, the Societyfor Personality and Social Psy
chology (SPSP), includes personality psychologists.Social psyc
hologists emphasize how different people act in similar ways in
similar situations, documenting how outside forces affect behav
ior. Personalitypsychologists focus on differentiating people fro
m one another, observing howforces inside the person affect beh
avior. For example, to explain why your friendStuart joined a cu
lt, a social psychologist might look at the persuasivetechniques
the cult used to convince all of their converts to join. In contras
t, apersonality psychologist would focus on how Stuart's tenden
cy toward followingthose in authority makes him, but not someo
ne else, particularly vulnerable tocults. Because situational forc
es interact with personal characteristics,explanations for behavi
or must address both. Social and personalitypsychologists theref
ore largely address both in the work they do.
Social psychologists study a wide variety of topics, including vi
ews of the self,persuasion, attraction, and group processes. In g
eneral, social psychologists areinterested in how people relate t
o and influence one another, but there aremany facets that do no
t fit this definition. Social psychology is a large, unwieldy,and l
argely disjointed field of study. In a history of the field of psyc
hology,science writer Morton Hunt (1983) aptly summarizes the
issue: “The problem,"he writes, “is that social psychology has
no unifying concept; it did not developfrom the seed of a theore
tical construct . . . but grew like crabgrass in uncultivated regio
ns of the social sciences" (p. 397). Welcome tothe study of crab
grass.
Large, unwieldy, and disjointed as it may be, social psychology
offers the student and the scientist a way of answering the quest
ions thathaunt our daily lives. How do I understand who I am an

39. d my capabilities? What should I do in this new situation? Is tha
t personinterested in dating me? Does that infomercial really co
nvince anyone to buy the product? How do I get my school or w
ork group to workbetter together? The diversity of topics found
in social psychology also allows for wonderful interconnections
with other areas ofpsychology. Both social psychologists and c
ognitive psychologists are interested in decision making and attr
ibutions. Social psychologistsand developmental psychologists a
re both interested in attachment and romantic relationships. The
special expertise and focus of thedifferent areas means we kno
w more about these topics than we might if they were studied in
only one field of psychology.
Test Yourself
Given the preceding introduction to the field of social psycholo
gy, which of the following questions would best be answeredby
social psychology? Click on each question below to reveal the a
nswer.
· What happened in Gettysburg in July 1863?
·
Does playing violent video games cause people to behave more
aggressively toward others?
· Can playing hard-to-
get make a person more attractive to others?
· Is there a God?
1.2 Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
In 1898, Norman Triplett published an article posing a question
about bicyclists. He wondered why cyclists seemed to race faste
r when inthe presence of other cyclists than when racing against
the clock alone. To explore the effect of others on individual ac
tion, Triplettdeveloped a few hypotheses and then tested them u
sing the scientific method. For this reason, Triplett is considere
d by many socialpsychologists to have conducted the first social
psychological research study (Allport, 1954; Jones, 1998; thou
gh there is somedisagreement, see Danziger, 2000 and Haines &
Vaughan, 1979). Triplett found that, in general, participants in
his study were able toperform actions more quickly when in the

40. presence of others.
The other study often cited as one of the first in the field of soci
al psychology was performed by Max Ringelmann, a French agri
culturalengineer. He carried out his work in the 1880s and publi
shed his findings in 1913 (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). In his resea
rch, Ringelmannasked participants to pull on a rope either alone
, in a group of 7, or in a group of 14. He then assessed how hard
the participants pulled.He found that in the group of 14, the ave
rage per person force was much less than the average per person
force when participants werepulling alone: 61.4 kg of force ver
sus 85.3 kg of force. In a later study where participants pushed
a cart in pairs or alone, he also foundless individual exertion of
force when participants were working with others. Both Triplett'
s and Ringelmann's studies used the scientificmethod to better u
nderstand how an individual's performance is affected by others,
the essence of social psychology.
Social Psychology Before 1950
Associated Press
Kurt Lewin, an important early social psychologist,emphasized t
he importance of theories and methods.
If we date the start of social psychology to 1898, we realize that
the field is not veryold, at least not for a scientific discipline.
Work in the field began slowly, and before1950 the number of r
esearchers and theories was small. Muzafer Sherif (1936) didso
me early work on the power of the group to influence judgments
, discovering thatnorms were quickly and naturally developed in
groups of people. Miller and Dollardstudied aggression and pro
posed a link between frustration and aggression (Dollard,Doob,
Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Miller, 1941). In early work on
attitudes, RichardT. LaPiere (1934) found that our attitudes and
our actions do not always align, whileFritz Heider (1946) propo
sed a theory of attitudes that focused on balance.
In these early days the field struggled to define itself, its metho
d, and its subject ofinterest. Two major figures in the field held

41. opposing views. Floyd Henry Allport(1890–
1979) wrote an early textbook for social psychology, published
in 1924. Allportwas a strong proponent of the use of a rigorous
scientific method. He advocated for afocus on individuals, not g
roups or norms, and the behaviors of people, not thoughtsor feel
ings. Another major figure was Kurt Lewin (1890–
1947), a refugee from NaziGermany who moved to the United St
ates in 1933. Lewin had a major influence on thefield of social
psychology. He believed that outside forces affect the behavior
of theindividual, that the actions and decisions of the individual
are constrained by fields offorce, similar to how the planets in
our solar system are constrained in theirmovement by the pull o
f gravity from the bodies that surround them. But Lewin'scontri
butions were primarily in the realm of theory and method—
it was the way hedid social psychology that people emulated. Fo
r more on what Lewin did and hisdisagreement with Allport, see
the Social Psychology in Depth box.Social Psychology in Dept
h: Lewin's Contributions
The psychologist finds himself in the midst of a rich and vast la
nd full of strange happenings: There are menkilling themselves;
a child playing; a person who, having fallen in love and being c
aught in an unhappysituation, is not willing or not able to find a
way out; . . . there is the reaching out for higher and morediffic
ult goals; loyalty to a group; dreaming; planning; exploring the
world; and so on without end.
It is an immense continent full of fascination and power and full
of stretches of land where no one ever hasset foot.
Psychology is out to conquer this continent, to find out where it
s treasures are hidden, to investigate itsdanger spots, to master i
ts vast forces, to utilize its energies. How can one reach this goa
l? (Lewin, 1940, citedin Marrow, 1969, p. 3)
As a young science, social psychology struggled to find its direc
tion and focus. Kurt Lewin helped the field find its way,while al
so making great contributions to child development and industri
al/organizational psychology (Ash, 1992). Lewinexplained that
behavior (B) was a function (f) of both the person (P) and the en

42. vironment (E), resulting in an equationwritten as B = f (P, E). F
or human beings, the environment (E) most often includes other
people, so Lewin was intenselyinterested in the effect we have o
n one another. In fact, Lewin was the person who coined the ter
m group dynamics(Berscheid, 2003).
Lewin saw the importance of studying people outside the labora
tory, in everyday situations. He also studied the importantissues
of the day, focusing psychological study on the particular socia
l issues that needed to be solved. The study thatinitially gained
him popularity in the United States was one of leadership styles.
Lewin and his colleagues (Lewin, Lippitt, &White, 1939) comp
ared the behavior of children assigned to groups led by adults us
ing an authoritarian and laissez-
fairestyle with the behavior of children led by those using a mor
e democratic style. They found that hostile behavior was usually
higher in the groups led using an authoritarian or laissez-
faire style than led using a democratic style. Lewin believed tha
tgroups could be studied experimentally and did so in studies li
ke the one on leadership styles.
Another prominent psychologist, Floyd Allport (1924), argued t
hat only the individual could be the subject of study. Allportmai
ntained that psychology studies the individual, so extending psy
chology to groups goes against the definition of the field.Allpor
t also believed that social psychologists should focus on laborat
ory studies. It was Allport who pointed to Triplett's1898 study a
s the first in the history of social psychology, not because Tripl
ett himself saw it as a social psychological studybut because it f
it Allport's model of what a study in social psychology should b
e (Berscheid, 2003). Allport was a goodsalesman.
The topics that social psychologists study, however, are more in
line with Lewin's ideas of appropriate subjects for the fieldthan
Allport's ideas. Social psychologists study the interaction of th
e person and environment, and groups—
both largegroups and very small groups (those made up of two p
eople). The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
, anorganization Lewin helped start, is alive and well. Lewin's i

43. deas continue to be used in the area of action research, whichfo
cuses on making improvements to difficult situations while adva
ncing scientific knowledge (Bargal, 2008; Sommer, 2009).Given
the big issues we face in the world today—
war, poverty, and discrimination, to name a few—
one can hope for Lewin'stradition to continue.
Social Psychology Since 1950
In the 1950s and 1960s, the number of social psychologists and
research within the field expanded rapidly. A number of factors
contributed to this increased interest in the field. One desire of
a number of social psychologists, and therefore a topic of study
in thisperiod, was to explain the violent events leading up to an
d taking place during World War II. Researchers focused on sub
jects such as thecauses of aggression, group actions (e.g., confo
rmity and social facilitation), and individual actions (e.g., obedi
ence). In the United Statesthe field benefited from a number of
psychologists who fled Europe before or during World War II. S
erious study of many of the topicsyou will read about throughou
t this text began in these decades. These concepts, the researche
rs, and their major findings aresummarized in Table 1.1. As we
explore social psychology throughout the coming weeks, keep t
his table in mind.
Table 1.1: Social psychological topics and researchers of the 19
50s and 1960s
Topic
Researcher, Date, Title, and Journal
Major Finding
Aggression
Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967).Weapons as aggression-
elicitingstimuli. In the Journal of Personalityand Social Psychol
ogy.
The presence of a weapon elicited greater aggressionthan the pr
esence of a neutral stimulus or no object.
Attraction
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D.,& Rottmann, L. (1966).

44. Importance ofphysical attractiveness in datingbehavior. In the J
ournal of Personalityand Social Psychology.
Attractive individuals were liked more, more likely tobe pursue
d for a later date, and rated their datesmore harshly.
Cognitivedissonance
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M.(1959). Cognitive consequence
s offorced compliance. In the Journal ofAbnormal and Social Ps
ychology.
Participants receiving a small reward to lie toanother participant
were more likely to report theyenjoyed the boring study and wo
uld participate in asimilar study in the future than those who rec
eived alarge reward.
Conformity
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies ofinterdependence and conformity:
Aminority of one against theunanimous majority. In Psychologi
calMonographs.
Even when an answer was obviously wrong,individuals conform
ed to a unanimous group at leastsome of the time.
Helping
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968).Group inhibition of bystande
rintervention in emergencies. In the Journal of Personality and
SocialPsychology.
Participants alone helped more quickly when alonethan when in
the presence of unresponsive others orother naïve participants.
Obedience
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral studyof obedience. In the Journa
l ofAbnormal and Social Psychology.
Commands of obedience were obeyed even when thecommands
appeared to harm another individual.
Persuasion
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951).The influence of source cre
dibility oncommunication effectiveness. In Public Opinion Quar
terly.
After time, participants accepted an originallyrejected message
from an untrustworthy source.
Socialfacilitation

45. Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., &Herman, E. M. (1969). Sociale
nhancement and impairment ofperformance in the cockroach. In
the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology.
Cockroaches running a difficult maze took a shortertime when t
hey were alone than when they wereobserved by other cockroac
hes. Cockroaches runningan easy maze took a longer time when
they werealone than when they were observed.
Since the 1960s, psychology as a whole has put more emphasis
on cognition or thinking processes rather than just observable b
ehavior.In research on the self, for example, social psychologist
s have found that the way we think about ourselves influences t
he way weapproach the world. People who view themselves as p
ossessing particular qualities tend to notice those qualities in ot
hers. Our cognitiveprocesses also impact the decisions we make,
an idea we will explore in the chapter on making judgments. Ba
sic cognitive processes suchas categorization also impact how w
e think about others. Because of our tendency to categorize, we
assume people who share onecharacteristic share others as well,
resulting in stereotypes.
As our technologies for looking inside the brain have improved,
so too have our abilities to see how brain anatomy and brain pr
ocessesrelate to the social aspects of the person. Researchers ha
ve found that when we think about ourselves, we use a different
part of the brainthan if we are thinking about other people or thi
ngs. Processing information about the self utilizes a unique loca
tion in the brain, andwhen people are thinking about themselves
, this part of the brain shows heightened activation. Other parts
of the brain are activatedwhen people are paying attention to wh
at others are doing, either in attempting to understand others' th
ought processes or evaluatingwhether their actions may be threa
tening. We also use different parts of our brain when we are atte
mpting to regulate our thoughts orbehaviors in social situations
(Heatherton, 2011). Social neuroscience is still a relatively new
field; researchers are only beginning toexplore all the ways our
brain reflects our social activities.
In more recent decades, social psychologists have also paid mor

46. e attention to the impact of cultural differences on the person (e
.g.,Markus & Kitayama, 1991). They have found that people ma
y think differently about themselves and their relationships and
interact withone another differently depending on culture. For e
xample, studies show that young people in the United States pla
ce more emphasis andimportance on romantic relationships than
people in South Korea do. College students in the two countries
were surveyed at thebeginning and the end of the spring semest
er to assess stability of romantic relationship status, romantic lo
neliness, and closeness. Theresearchers then compared the Sout
h Korean and U.S. students—
those who were in stable romantic relationships and those who
werenot. U.S. students in stable romantic relationships showed l
ess loneliness than their U.S. counterparts without a stable roma
nticrelationship. Korean students had only a small decrease in l
oneliness when in a stable romantic relationship. In other words
, when not ina romantic relationship, Korean young adults do no
t experience as much romantic loneliness as young adults in the
United States do.Within relationships, young adults in the Unite
d States report greater closeness to their partner than young adu
lts in Korea do(Seepersad, Choi, & Shin, 2008). These findings
suggest that young adults in the United States place greater imp
ortance on romanticrelationships for combatting loneliness and
gaining closeness with another person. Friends or family may be
more important for SouthKorean young adults in meeting social
needs.Expand Your Knowledge: Looking forMore?
The Inquisitive Mind, or In-
Mind, is a website withinteresting, accessible articles on social
psychology forthe general public. If you would like to learn mor
e aboutcurrent findings in the field from respected researchers,t
ake a look at http://www.in-mind.org/.
Social psychologists have also begun incorporating evolutionary
theories to explain various psychological findings. According to
evolutionary theory, those characteristics of an organism that all
ow itto survive and reproduce within its environment are most li
kely toappear in later generations. Evolutionary theory is often

47. used inbiology and other sciences, but within psychology our fo
cus is moreoften on adaptive behaviors (e.g., being afraid of str
angers) rather thanon adaptive biological characteristics (e.g., o
pposable thumbs). Adaptivebehaviors may still have a biologica
l mechanism that can be passed onthrough the genes. For instan
ce, in evolutionary history, individualswho showed a strong res
ponse to strangers in the amygdala, the brainstructure largely re
sponsible for the emotion of fear, were more likely to survive a
n attack by a rival group. Their survival meant they hadchildren
and passed the genes responsible for their stranger-
activated amygdala on to future generations.
Evolutionary psychology can act as a metatheory, a theory that
explains other theories (Duntley & Buss, 2008). For example, o
n the themeof romantic relationships, evolutionary psychologist
s would suggest that a man capable of identifying a fertile wom
an and keeping thatwoman away from other men will be more su
ccessful in passing down his genes to future generations. A wo
man, on the other hand,would want to identify a man who is will
ing and able to invest in her and her offspring, given the long in
vestment she has in pregnancyand a dependent infant. We find e
xactly these kinds of patterns across cultures (Buss, Larsen, We
sten, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buss &Schmitt, 1993; Kaighobadi, S
hackelford, & Buss, 2010). Men report greater interest in physic
al attractiveness, desire more sexual partners,and are more jealo
us of sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. Women, on the
other hand, show more interest in status and incomeand are mor
e jealous when a partner becomes emotionally close to another
woman, which could potentially lead him to stop investing inher
and their offspring.Test Yourself
Click on each question below to reveal the answer.
·
The first study in social psychology was conducted by Triplett i
n
a. 1809
b. 1898
c. 1950

48. d. 1989
·
When did the number of researchers in the field of social psych
ology begin to increase?1.3 How Do We Do Social Psychology?
What makes social psychology a science? The common theme a
mong the chemist in the lab, the physicist at the Large Hadron C
ollider,the ecologist out in the forest, and the psychologist is th
e method all use to explore the subject matter: the scientific met
hod. Thescientific method begins with a testable prediction, a h
ypothesis, which can be inspired by experiences in the world or
developed from a theory, which is a set of principles or a frame
work for a set of observations based on previous research. Once
a hypothesis has beendeveloped, the researcher will want to act
ually test the prediction. There are three basic methods for testi
ng hypotheses: theobservational method, the correlational metho
d, and the experimental method. Which one to use depends on th
e question asked.
Observational Method: What Is Happening?
Belinda Images/SuperStock
Observational studies allow researchers to observe people andth
eir behavior in naturalistic settings.
When a researcher simply wants to know what is happening wit
hin asituation or with a particular phenomenon, observational m
ethods aremost appropriate. For example, while watching one of
those longcommercials on late-
night television called an infomercial, a researchermight wonder
how many include a “free bonus gift." An observationalmethod
can help to answer this question. When using observationalmeth
ods, a researcher simply observes a behavior or situation andrec
ords what is happening.
Observational methods are systematic in nature. Before conducti
ng theobservation, a researcher most often decides exactly what
constitutes thebehavior being studied. For example, in investiga
ting how manyinfomercials offer a free gift, the researcher migh

49. t specify that the freegift must come with the purchase and not r
equire separate shipping andhandling charges. Decisions must al
so be made about when to sample thebehavior. A researcher cou
ld decide to sample infomercials occurringbetween 12:00 p.m. a
nd 3:00 a.m. on network television or between 1:00p.m. and 6:0
0 p.m. on weekends on cable television. Depending on the resea
rch question, observational research might take place in awide v
ariety of settings. An interest in children's aggressive behavior
might lead to observations in a day care setting. For a researchq
uestion about the actions of people sitting in waiting rooms, dat
a collection could take place at a local dentist's office.
Observational methods are helpful in describing if or how often
something might happen. Many observational studies take place
innaturalistic settings, so people's behaviors are generally the sa
me as in their everyday lives. One drawback of this method is th
atrelatively rare or private behaviors, such as sexual activity, ar
e difficult or unethical to observe. Scientists using this method
also need tobe careful to not allow their presence to affect the b
ehavior being observed.Test Yourself
Click on the question below to reveal the answer.
·
Describe several research questions that would best be answered
using the observational method.
Correlational Method: What Might Happen?
Researchers often want to be able to predict if one behavior (or
feeling or thought) will occur as a result of another behavior. In
thesecases, they use the correlational method. If a researcher w
as interested in whether the age of people is associated with thei
r likelihoodof buying an infomercial product, the correlational
method would be used. To apply this method, people's ages wou
ld need to berecorded, as well as how many infomercial product
s they had purchased within a specified period, for instance, wit
hin the last month. Inresearch, the entities assessed when using
a correlational method are called variables. A variable is literall
y something that varies or canvary. In this study, two variables

50. are assessed: age and purchases. Researchers are interested in w
hether there is a relation between thetwo variables they are com
paring. Does knowing a person's age tell us anything about the n
umber of advertised products bought lastmonth? Are these varia
bles co-related?
Correlational research often involves the use of survey methods.
Surveys help researchers gather information about people by as
kingindividuals to answer a question or a series of questions ab
out themselves and what they think, feel, or do. Surveys may be
conducted ina wide variety of ways. Sometimes researchers do
face-to-
face interviews, or talk to people on the telephone to collect inf
ormation. Othertimes a paper-and-
pencil survey is sent to potential participants or people sit in a g
roup setting, like a classroom, to fill out a survey.Surveys are al
so administered online. Surveys can be helpful in collecting a lo
t of information in a relatively short period, but researchersmust
be careful of the wording of questions within a survey so they d
o not lead people to a desired answer.
Another concern of survey research is the reliability of the surv
ey. A reliable survey is one that provides consistent information
. Forexample, if an individual was surveyed about his or her reli
gious beliefs one week and then again 2 weeks later, the answer
s on thesurvey should be similar both times, unless, of course, t
he person surveyed experienced a religious conversion in that ti
me. If twoadministrations of a survey provided very different re
sults and there is no alternative explanation for the lack of consi
stency, the survey isunreliable and should not be used in researc
h. Surveys are often used in correlational research but may also
be used in experiments tofind out how people think, feel, or beh
ave.
Beyond the survey method, other methods can be used when col
lecting data on variables, combining more than one research met
hod. Forexample, if the researcher was interested in whether chi
ldren's aggressive behavior was related to the number of teacher
s observing thechildren's play, the children could be observed o

51. n the playground, and the number of teachers watching could als
o be recorded. If aresearcher wanted to know if the number of a
ggressive acts by children was related to parental attitudes towa
rd violence, observationsmight be paired with a survey of parent
al attitudes toward violence. Data might also be obtained from o
ther sources. A research questionabout the relation between age
and purchasing from infomercials might be answered with a sur
vey of individuals but could also beaddressed if the researcher r
eceived permission to look at people's credit card purchases of i
nfomercial products, as well as the creditcard company's data co
ncerning their clients' ages. Note that with the correlational met
hod, the researcher is not manipulating theenvironment or attem
pting to change people's behavior, but rather, looking at what pe
ople are naturally doing, specific attributes, or whatthey are thi
nking or feeling.Expand Your Knowledge: Participate inResearc
h
Want to see what social psychological research is reallylike? Pa
rticipate in online research. One clearinghouse forstudies can be
found at the Social Psychology Networkwebsite: http://www.so
cialpsychology.org/.
The correlational method can be very useful, but it must be used
withcaution. If knowledge of one variable (age) helps predict a
nother(buying), does that mean that one causes the other? Not n
ecessarily. Itis possible that the first variable caused the second,
or that the secondvariable caused the first, or that some other v
ariable caused bothvariables. Without further research we canno
t know which possibilityis true. For example, a researcher might
find a negative correlation inschools between the number of tea
chers monitoring hallway behaviorand the number of acts of agg
ression in the hallway. It is possible thatmore teachers in the hal
lway caused lower aggression, but it is alsopossible that there w
ere fewer teachers in the hallway in the face of aggression beca
use they had left to avoid it. Knowing that there is acorrelation
between two events does not tell us which, if either, is the cause
. In fact, it is quite common to have a third variable cause acorr
elation between two other variables. For example, sunburn and