Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx

Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-62178-578-1
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
· 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.

12.1 Factors in Attraction
Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become
friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
·
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?
2.2 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
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

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
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
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
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 Your Knowledge: Loneliness Scale
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
· 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?
2.2 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
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
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
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
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
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 Your Knowledge: Loneliness Scale
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
· 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?
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
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
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
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 Knowledge: 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-
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
·
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?
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
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 Divorce
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
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
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
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
· 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
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.
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
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 Divorce
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
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
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
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
· 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
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.
Korgen, K. O., & Atkinson, M. P. (2019). Sociology in action
(1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chapter 3
Culture and Gender
Comstock Images/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
·
Explain how culture allows large groups of people to live with o
ne another
·
Differentiate how independent and interdependent cultures defin
e the self and affect cognition, emotion, andmotivation
·
Describe the cultural dimensions of power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity versus femininity,and short-
term versus long-term orientation
· Describe some possible sources of cultural differences
·
Differentiate sex and gender, gender role, and gender stereotype
·

Explain what gender differences researchers have found regardi
ng for math ability and aggression
·
Explain what gender differences researchers have found regardi
ng acceptance of casual sex, desired numberof sexual partners, r
easons for jealousy in a romantic relationship, and qualities desi
red in a romanticpartner and a possible explanation for this grou
p of differences
Chapter Outline
3.1 Culture
· Independent Versus Interdependent Cultures
· Cultural Dimensions
· The Source of Cultural Differences
3.2 Gender
· Gender Differences: Source and Method
· Gender Differences: What Are They?
Chapter Summary
* * *
The 7 billion people on planet Earth inhabit the approximate 57,
500,000 square miles of land surface. Gathered into groups,they
make up around 196 countries and speak approximately 6,800–
6,900 languages, depending on the definition of countryand lang
uage. As groups of people have organized themselves, differenti
ations have developed. For instance, with some groupsan activit
y begins at a specific time, while for others the starting time is
more fluid and the activities begin whenever everyonearrives. S
uch things as views of time are developed by people, but some d
ifferences are inborn; for instance, roughly half of theworld pop
ulation is male and half is female. In this chapter we explore so
me ways in which people are differentiated from oneanother on
a large scale, first investigating cultural differences and then lo
oking at possible gender differences.
3.1 Culture

Pantheon/SuperStock
Many Western stories, like The Adventures ofHuckleberry Finn,
center on an independentindividual.
One challenge for people living in large social groups such as e
xtended families, clans,tribes, states, and nations is organizatio
n. The human brain with all its complexity andability to organiz
e enables large social groups to live together with some degree
ofharmony (Adolphs, 2009; Dunbar, 1998). Groups must be able
to get along and nothurt one another, to feed and shelter themse
lves, and to take care of offspring. Culture—
shared beliefs, attitudes, values, and norms for behavior—
allows large groups tomaintain social order and avoid chaos by
developing and passing down standard waysof living together. F
or example, when everyone in a culture shares an understanding
ofexpected and appropriate greetings, everyone knows what to
do when they meetfriends and strangers. By having standard rul
es for shared and private space, groupsknow where to keep reso
urces, engage in intimate acts, or deal with bodily needs.
Culture is visible in a variety of ways and also influences the str
ucture of our brains.How people engage in daily interactions wit
hin a culture influences the way the brainis built (Kitayama & P
ark, 2010). As people meet and collaborate with one another,the
y learn how to engage in rewarding interactions and how to avoi
d unpleasant orpotentially dangerous interactions. This learning
strengthens neural pathways,influencing future meetings as well
as the general way in which the individualapproaches the world
. Each of our brains is uniquely qualified to engage in culturean
d specifically tuned to our own culture.
Independent Versus Interdependent Cultures
Our sense of self is developed and continues to change over our
lifetimes (Greve,Rothermund, & Wentura, 2005). Culture has a l
arge impact on the development of ourself-
concepts. Cultures vary greatly in many ways, one large differe
nce being the waycultures view the self and connections with ot
hers. In independent cultures (orindividualistic), people are vie

wed as separate, unique individuals whose qualities are indepen
dent of their social connections. In interdependent cultures (or c
ollectivistic), people are viewed as enmeshed within social conn
ections such that the person cannot bedescribed adequately with
out social context and connections (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Some of the differences between these culturesare summarized i
n Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Characteristics of independent and interdependent cu
ltures
Independent/Individualistic
Interdependent/Collectivistic
Tend tobe foundin . . .
United States, Western Europe
Asia (e.g., Japan, Korea, China), Central and SouthAmerica
The self isseen as . ..
unique, not dependent on social context
flexible, varies with context
Internalattributesare . . .
expressed through interactions withothers; others allow for an e
xpression ofinternal attributes
meaningful and complete only in interactionswith others
Behavioris . . .
largely determined by the self and one'sinternal attributes
a result of the situation and social roles; internalattributes of th
e self are not powerful inregulating behavior

When individuals from an interdependent culture are asked to w
rite down statements in response to the question "Who am I?" th
ey tendto include more role-
specific and concrete information (Cousins, 1989). For example,
a Korean student might write that she is silly whenwith friends.
People from independent cultures respond with more trait or att
ribute characterizations. An American might write that he isartis
tic. Notice how the individual from an interdependent culture in
cluded context (with friends) when describing herself, but the p
ersonfrom an independent culture did not. This is not to say that
people in an independent culture never take into account the co
ntext or referto themselves in relation to others or that people in
an interdependent culture never describe themselves according
to traits; individualsfrom each culture are simply more likely to
use each description (Kashima, Koval, & Kashima, 2011).Test
Yourself
·
Arnold offers to stay late at work to finish a project. How might
explanations of his behavior be different inindependent and int
erdependent cultures?
·
When answering the question "Who am I?" for themselves, how
do people in independent and interdependent culturesdiffer?Figu
re 3.1: Conceptual representations of the self
Researchers have discovered that participants withindependent c
ultures (like North Americans) tend to focusmore on the self, w
hile those with interdependent cultures(like Chinese) tend to foc
us more on relationships.
From Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the sel
f: Implications forcognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycholo
gical Review, 98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224 Copyright © 1991 by the American Psychologica
lAssociation. Reprinted with permission.
Different cultural constructions of the self will impact people's

reactions to the environment. For instance, individuals in interd
ependentcultures pay much more attention to the setting or the s
urroundings in all sorts of circumstances, while those from inde
pendent culturesfocus on the main object or person, largely igno
ring the setting. In a study that illustrates this difference, partici
pants were asked towatch an animated scene of fish, seaweed, a
nd other aquatic objects. Both the American (independent cultur
e) and Japanese(interdependent culture) participants noted the m
ain fish, but the Japanese participants were much more likely to
also make statementsabout the environment ("there was a pond"
). Their judgments in later tasks were affected if the background
was changed, though thebackground change made no difference
for the American participants (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzay
an, 2001).
This tendency also plays out in relationships and view of self. B
ecause independent cultures focus on the unique self, people ha
ve a largeand elaborate body of knowledge about the self and a l
ess elaborate body of knowledge about others (Markus & Kitaya
ma, 1991). On theother hand, interdependent cultures focus mor
e on relationships—
something evidenced in the way categories are formed (see Figu
re 3.1).When a group of Chinese children were asked to group c
ards containing pictures, they put women and babies into one ca
tegory becauseof their relationship. American children tended to
put the adults together because of shared category membership
(i.e., they were bothadults) (Chiu, 1972).
The expression of emotions also differs depending on culture. I
ndividuals in interdependent cultures tend to express more other
-
focusedemotions, emotions like shame or sympathy that are cent
ered on other people (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Ego-
focused emotions, orthose emotions that express a person's attri
butes and are centered on the individual, are more often express
ed by those in independentcultures. Anger and pride are ego-
focused emotions. Expressing an emotion like anger is consider
ed childish in interdependent culturesbut is more accepted in in

dependent cultures because these emotions come out of and help
distinguish the self. For example, in order forpeople to express
anger, they must feel some sort of injury or offense to the self,
and they must also believe that it is all right for them toexpress
that injury to the self.
In other studies on emotions, culture researchers found that inde
pendent cultures tend to focus more on positive feelings than ne
gativefeelings. Because independent cultures view emotions as a
n expression of the self, it makes sense that people would encou
rage theirpositive emotions and suppress or avoid negative emot
ions. Emotions as expressions of the self are less important in in
terdependentcultures since the self is more clearly defined by ot
hers. Emotions, positive or negative, therefore receive less atten
tion (Kitayama,Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000). People in independ
ent cultures generally report feeling emotions longer and more i
ntensely than those frominterdependent cultures (Mastumoto, K
udoh, Scherer, & Wallbott, 1988). For interdependent cultures s
uch as Japan, such expressionsdisrupt social relationships and th
e harmony in the group, so they are less acceptable than interper
sonally engaged emotions (e.g.,friendly feelings) (Kitayama, Ma
rkus, & Kurokawa, 2000). For this reason, the Japanese have a s
eries of emotions that involve relying onothers that do not have
counterparts in English. For example, amae refers to a dependen
ce on others, feeling or hoping to feel cared forby someone (Ma
rkus & Kitayama, 1991).Social Psychology in Depth: Personal S
pace
Each person on our planet requires a certain amount of space. T
he space needed to feel comfortable when interacting withothers
varies from culture to culture. Personal space is the bubble of s
pace around an individual over which a person feelssome kind o
f ownership. Because of this sense of ownership, individuals fee
l a sense of discomfort when their personalspace is violated by s
omeone being too close physically. If someone invades our spac
e, we do not get more comfortable overthe short term; our high l
evel of discomfort remains (Hayduk, 1981). To prevent such inv
asions, we often erect barrierssuch as placing personal objects i

n a space near to us (Fisher & Byrne, 1975). When someone doe
s invade our space, wemay do nothing, move personal belonging
s away from them, leave, say something to the invader, or strike
up a conversation(Skolnick, Frasier, & Hadar, 1977).
Some space universals exist. Across cultures all people have a p
ersonal space. We begin to develop our sense of personalspace a
round 3 years old, and it continues to enlarge until about age 21
(Hayduk, 1983).When strangers encounter oneanother, they lea
ve space between them, though how that space is used will vary
depending on situational factors (Høgh-
Olesen, 2008; Pedersen & Heaston, 1972; Mazur, 1977).
In some cultures personal space is small. Such cultures are often
called contact cultures and include Southern Europeancountries
, Latin American countries, and Arabian countries. Cultures
with larger personal space are called no contactcultures. No con
tact cultures can be found in the countries of Northern Europe a
nd North America (Remland, Jones, &Brinkman,
1995). Even greater distance for interacting dyads can be found
in Asian cultures such as Japan (Beaulieu, 2004;Sussman & Ros
enfeld, 1982).
Gender differences also exist for personal space. Women genera
lly expect less personal space than men, particularly whenintera
cting with other women (Skolnick, Frasier, & Hadar, 1977; Suss
man & Rosenfeld, 1982). When space is invaded andthey are tou
ched with no justification for the contact, men react negatively t
o the intrusion. Women, on average, do notreact negatively (Sus
sman & Rosenfeld, 1978).
Researchers have found physiological reactions to space invasio
n. When seated close to one another on a train, peopleshowed an
increase in stress hormones (Evans & Wener, 2007). Within the
brain the amygdala seems to be important in thereaction to inva
sions of personal space. The amygdala is part of the brain's limb
ic system and plays a role in emotionalreactions, particularly ag
gression and fear. A patient with severe damage to her amygdal
a felt no discomfort even whenstanding nose-to-
nose with another person (Kennedy, Gläscher, Tyszka, & Adolp

hs, 2009).
The tendency toward contextualization can create problems for
counterfactual thinking, "what-
if" types of thinking, or abstract reasoning.When participants in
Taiwan and Hong Kong were asked to decide which parenting t
echnique was most appropriate based on aparagraph explaining
why a particular technique would be most helpful, many of them
chose incorrectly. Their responses were not due toa lack of inte
lligence but rather a reluctance to answer something in a way th
at went against their own experience. They did not want tosugge
st parenting behavior to others that they believed would not wor
k. American participants may have disagreed with the conclusio
nof the paragraph based on their own experiences, but they were
willing to answer in the abstract and choose the option suggeste
d by theparagraph (Bloom, 1981; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Motivations differ for those from different cultures. In independ
ent cultures, motives are internal and individual. Examples of m
otivesmight include achievement, self-
actualization, or enhancing self-
esteem. A student in an independent culture may enter a writing
contestwith the goal of showing how great a writer he is and to
receive praise for his abilities. Motives for those in interdepend
ent cultures, onthe other hand, restrain the self and focus on oth
ers. These motives might include affiliation, nurturance, or defe
rence (i.e., respect orsubmission) (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
A student in an interdependent culture may join the chess club p
rimarily as a way of gainingfriends or honoring a teacher who a
sked her to join, rather than showing her abilities in competition
s. When a student in interdependentcultures engages in actions
because of a need for achievement, that achievement is not focu
sed on achieving for the self but ratherachieving to bring honor
or meet expectations of one's in-
group (Yang, 1982). Motivations for actions in the two cultures
certainly dooverlap, but in each type of culture, each type of mo
tive will be more dominant.
A motivation for people in Western (independent) cultures is no

t to fit in but to show their own traits, preferably in a favorable
light.People from Western cultures take pride in their positive a
ttributes to a greater degree than they are remorseful about their
negativeattributes. A great basketball player may take great pri
de in that attribute and be motivated to work to improve basketb
all skills evenmore. A lack of cooking skills probably will not b
other him or her, so that person will not focus time and energy o
n improving thoseskills. For interdependent cultures, there is les
s of a discrepancy between ratings of positive and negative attri
butes, as well as lessemphasis on positive attributes. Individuals
from interdependent cultures also desire to improve their negati
ve attributes rather thantheir positive attributes (Lo, Helwig, &
Chen, 2011).Test Yourself
For each of the following, decide whether you'd be more likely t
o see it in an independent or an interdependent culture.Click on
each phrase below to reveal the answer.
· Expression of anger
· Accurate assessment of control in a situation
· More intense emotions
· Counterfactual thinking
· Categorization based on relationships between objects
· Sympathy
· Achievement to better one's own situation
Cultural Dimensions
There is more than one dimension of cultural differences. Hofst
ede (2001) explored cultural variability beyond differences in in
dependentand interdependent cultures by surveying thousands of
employees at multinational corporations, covering 72 different
countries andmany different languages. His early work was with
the large, multinational
company IBM, but he found similar results within particularcult
ures when he surveyed people in other organizations. To determ
ine how cultures differ, he examined individualism versus colle
ctivism(independent and interdependent), but also looked at po
wer distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus feminin

ity, and long-termversus short-
term orientation (see Figure 3.2).Figure 3.2: Hofstede's cultural
dimensions
Hofstede surveyed various countries and discovered differing ra
nges between cultures on dimensions such asmasculinity, long-
term orientation, individualism, power distance, and uncertainty
avoidance.
Based on Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comp
aring values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across n
ations (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Power Distance
Digital Vision/Thinkstock
Employees from large power distance countries might be lesslik
ely to openly disagree with business executives.
Power distance has to do with the acceptance and promotion of
adistance between those at different levels of power. In some co
untries,people are differentiated based on their position in a hier
archy, and rightsand benefits come with positions of power that
are not afforded to thoselower on the hierarchy. Japan, for insta
nce, has a large power distance. Astrong respect for the hierarch
y is evident in the Japanese language. Theway individuals refer
to themselves, for instance, changes depending onwhether they
are talking to a peer or to someone with power over them,like a
teacher or a boss (Hamamura & Heine, 2008). Other countries hi
ghin power distance include Malaysia, Guatemala, and Panama.
In cultures with low power distance, such as Israel, Denmark, A
ustria,New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, rules and rit
uals thatmaintain status and power differences are rarer. Often t
he people withinthese cultures demand justification for inequalit
y and work to equalizepower. In countries with lower power dist
ance, an employee might makesuggestions or disagree with the s
upervisor. Rituals, like having the bosssit at the head of the tabl
e, may not be as rigidly adhered to, and leadersmay use differen

t strategies and styles to influence their workers(Jackson, Meyer
, & Wang, 2013; Pasa, 2000). Cultures with a lower powerdistan
ce, as well as more independent cultures, also tend to show mor
einnovative ideas and products (Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 20
12).
Uncertainty Avoidance
Different cultures have different ways of dealing with the uncert
ainties of life. Some cultures prescribe specific behaviors in spe
cificsituations as a way to avoid life's uncertainties. In many sit
uations, new, different, or unorthodox ideas are unwelcome and
viewed aspotentially dangerous. In Guatemala, for example, app
ropriate rituals for greeting and saying good-
bye are expected, and people havefairly rigid rules for acceptabl
e behavior in various social situations. Attempts to change these
rituals or disregard them will lead tonegative interactions and l
oss of trust. Countries high in uncertainty avoidance include Gr
eece, Guatemala, Uruguay, Portugal, Belgium,and Japan.
Other cultures are more relaxed when it comes to ambiguity, wit
h few rules or rituals. Rather than being rigid, these cultures ten
d to beflexible and easygoing. In Jamaica, for instance, greeting
s may be quite informal, and few rituals are followed in everyda
y interactions. Incultures like Jamaica, wearing unusual clothing
or engaging in non-
normative behavior will have few social consequences. Countrie
s lowin uncertainty avoidance are Singapore, Sweden, Jamaica,
and Denmark.
Masculinity Versus Femininity
Masculine cultures are those in which men and women are expe
cted to exhibit different qualities—
men are expected to be assertive, andwomen are expected to be t
ender and caring. Some of the most masculine countries in the w
orld are Japan, Austria, Venezuela, Italy, andSwitzerland. In ma
sculine cultures, men are socialized to be tough and focused on
success, while women are to be modest. These culturesseek to f

oster and maintain differences between men and women through
different norms for men/boys and women/girls (e.g., boysdon't
cry), and by teaching men and women different things (e.g., wo
men learn to cook). Masculine cultures tend to be more driven b
yqualities that are more often associated with men, such as achi
evement and success.
Feminine cultures are those where both men and women are soci
alized to be modest and tender (Hofstede, 2000). Feminine cultu
res tendto focus more on caring for their citizens and overall qu
ality of life, investing more in human development programs (R
odrigues &Blumberg, 2000). For such cultures, some success m
ay need to be sacrificed for the good of the people, rather than t
he people sacrificingto help the society succeed as would be do
ne in a more masculine culture (van den Bos et al., 2010). Count
ries with more of a feminineculture include Sweden, Norway, th
e Netherlands, Denmark, and Costa Rica. The United States is cl
oser to the masculine than feminineend of the spectrum but has
elements of both.
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation
Some cultures encourage delay of gratification and forward-
thinking. These cultures are considered to have a long-
term orientation andare focused on preparing for future events t
hrough saving and persistence in the present. For example, indiv
iduals in these culturesshould show a higher savings rate and lo
wer debt, since current wants or needs will receive lower priorit
y than having resources for thefuture. Asian cultures often have
a long-
term orientation, with Japan, China, and Taiwan having the high
est prevalence of this view.
Other cultures with a short-
term orientation are more focused on the present and past. In th
ese cultures, there is a greater emphasis onquick results, spendi
ng now instead of saving for the future, as well as a respect for
past traditions. Cultures with short-
term orientationinclude Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Spain, Ph

ilippines, Spain, Canada, and the United States. One's orientatio
n also influences theculture's view of truth. For those with more
of a short-
term orientation, truth is absolute whereas with a long-
term orientation, truth ismore dependent on the situation (Hofst
ede, 1993).Test Yourself
Click on the question below to reveal the answer.
·
Where does U.S. culture stand on power distance, uncertainty av
oidance, masculinity versus femininity, and long-
termversus short-term orientation?
The Source of Cultural Differences
Where do these cultural differences originate? Pointing to just o
ne source is difficult because such differences arise from many
places.One theory about the source of differences points to expl
oration of new frontiers. For example, when we compare the cul
ture of thosewho migrated to new territories to those cultures w
ho stayed put, differences in focus on the individual emerge. Eu
ropean Americans inthe United States tend to be more individua
listic than Europeans (Kitayama, Park, Sevincer, Karasawa, & U
skul, 2009). Greaterindividualism is also found within Japan am
ong those who migrated from their original homes to new island
s (Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida,2007). Researchers should find S
panish-speaking people in Latin America and Portuguese-
speaking people in Brazil versus theircounterparts in Spain or P
ortugal to be more individualistic (Kashima et al., 2011).
Cultural Context for our Behavior
00:00
00:00
Culture and its influence on our behavior.Critical Thinking Que
stions
· Why is it so important to consider culturalcontext?

·
What is an example of how culture is "dynamic" asopposed to "
monolithic"?
Physical environment is also a factor in defining culture. Greate
r independenceis needed in parts of the world where making a li
ving requires constantadjustment and movement. Among nomadi
c people and those who herd animals,we tend to find more indep
endent cultures. Greater interdependence tends todevelop when
people are living in close geographic proximity and have lowge
ographic mobility, such as those found in agriculturally based c
ommunities(Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). Additional differences ar
e found when agriculturalpractices that require vigilance and ha
rd work, such as those needed to growrice, lead to a different ap
proach to life than agricultural practices that rely onfactors like
the weather that are outside one's control, such as those needed
togrow wheat and other grains (Nisbett, 2003). Cultures with his
toric agriculturalpractices that require attention and diligent lab
or tend to see achievement asbased on those factors. Cultures wi
th historic agricultural practices that rely onwishes and prayers
tend to view achievement as at least partially outside oftheir co
ntrol.
Cultures are not static; they are constantly changing, affected b
y history,economics, and changes in the natural world. Some of
the current differences incultures come from events in history (
Kitayama, Conway, Pietromanaco, Park, &Plaut, 2010). Japan, f
or example, made a drastic change in its politicalorganization af
ter World War II, moving from an empire to a democracy(Kashi
ma, Koval, & Kashima, 2011). Yet on an individual level, cultur
e is passeddown from generation to generation and is changed b
y each generation.
A culture begins to exhibit cultural values with its children earl
y on. For example, children in independent cultures tend to slee
p in theirown beds in their own rooms rather than co-
sleeping, or sleeping in the same room or same bed as another f
amily member (Shweder,Jensen & Goldstein, 1995). Co-
sleeping is more common in interdependent cultures such as Chi

na (Huang, Wang, Zhang, Liu, 2010).Parents in the United State
s tend to direct their baby's attention to objects in the world, wh
ile parents in Japan direct their baby'sattention to themselves or
other people (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000)
. In these and hundreds of other ways, childrenlearn how to exis
t within their own culture and carry those patterns of behavior a
nd perception into adulthood.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock; iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Parents begin instilling different cultural values in their childre
n during infancy.
Because culturally appropriate responses to situations are learne
d early and feel natural, visiting or living in a place with a diffe
rentculture creates culture shock. Culture shock is the result of
a disparity between what feels natural or what one expects in a s
ituation andthe demands of that situation (Kitayama, Markus, M
atsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). The larger the difference bet
ween one's homecountry and the culture of the country one visit
s, the greater the culture shock (Zeitlin, 1996). Eating with one'
s fingers at a formaloccasion may feel wrong to an American bu
t might be expected from a guest at a wedding in India. People
who have more knowledgeabout cultural differences tend to enc
ounter less culture shock, perhaps because the differences betwe
en cultures are not as surprising(Chen, Lin, & Sawangpattanakul
, 2012). Although eating with a fork may always feel unnatural t
o someone who grew up eating withfingers, knowing that utensil
s are required will not come as a shock to a more culturally kno
wledgeable person. Awareness of cultureshock can also help so
meone living or traveling in a new culture to identify what they
are feeling and work through it (Zapf, 1991).
It is also important to remember that even though people are dif
ferent across cultures, there are also a great number of differenc
esbetween people within a culture. If you meet someone from a
culture that is different from your own, you might use the differ
encesbetween cultures described in this chapter as a starting poi
nt in learning about that person; however, it is important to rem

Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx

Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx

Similar to Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx (12)

More from mglenn3

More from mglenn3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Feenstra, J. (2013). Social Psychology. San Diego Bridgepoint.docx