Week 5 Journal

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

This text was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative

Commons Attribution -NonCommercial -ShareAlike 3.0 License without

attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensee .

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Chapter 8

Liking and Loving

Britain’s Longest Married Couple Celebrate a Quiet 80th Anniversary

Frank and Anita Milford are in some ways your average couple: They met in 1926 at a YMCA dance,

married in 1928, had two children, and lived together in the same a three -bedroom house their entire

lives. But unlike many other couples, Frank and Anita’s marriage lasted —in fact, it really lasted. I n May of

2008, the pair equaled the record for being Britain’s longest married couple —80 years of marriage.

To celebrate their 80th wedding anniversary, Frank (100 years old), and Anita (99 years old) spent a quiet

weekend together —pretty typical of most of their days.

“At our age that’s all you need,” said Mr. Milford. “Just us together, no big fuss.”

Frank and Anita indicated that one of the secrets to a successful marriage was to “share a little kiss and

cuddle every night before bed. It’s our golden ru le.”

The Milfords believe that making time for one another is vital to keeping the relationship healthy. They

claimed that respect and a process of “give and take” are great ways to sustain a relationship.

“We do everything together even after nearly 80 ye ars.”

Like most couples who have been together for a number of years, there are still some cross words and

everyday squabbles. Regardless, their relationship remains one that is loving and healthy.

Source: Miller, V. (2008, 24 May). Britain's longest marri ed couple celebrate a quiet 80th

anniversary. The Telegraph . Retrieved

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk news/2020233/Britains -longest -married -couple -celebrate -a-

quiet -80th -anniversary.html .

In prior chapters, we have considered the basic processes of person perception. In doing so, we have

focused primarily on our perceptions of people we do not know very we ll and with whom we do not have

many social connections. But people also desire and need to develop close relationships with others,

particularly those others who help us engage in reproduction and child rearing and who

provide social support —the approval, assistance, advice, and comfort that we receive from those with

whom we have developed stable positive relationships (Taylor, 2007). [1] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Close relationships are relationships between people that are characterized by loving, caring,

commitment, and intimac y—such as those between adult friends, dating partners, lovers, and married

couples (Clark & LeMay, 2010; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2000). [2] These relationships are determined by

biological, evolutionary, individual, and cultural factors. Successful close rel ationships involve the positive

influence of cognitive variables, including perceptions of similarity with the other, interdependence,

commitment , and the incorporation of other into the self -concept, as well as affective variables,

including attachment, intimacy, and commitment . Our close relationships help us meet the goals of self -

concern and other -concern.

In this chapter, we will consider the benefits that come from our close relationships, the principles that

lead people to become attracted to others, and the variables that help create stable, healthy, and happy

close relationships. In addition to being vitally important to us in an evolutionary sense (effective child

rearing requires committed and effective parents), close relationships bring us health and happiness when

we are able to create successful ones; they may produce a profound sense of loneliness and sadness when

we are not.

People are well aware of the importance of having other people in their lives. When they are asked what

makes them happy , people of all ages indicate that having friendships and good relationships with others

is what they care about the most (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). [3]And our self -esteem is in large part

determined by how much we feel that we are accepted by others (Lea ry, 2005). [4] Self -esteem rises when

we feel accepted and valued by others and falls when we do not (Leary & Cox, 2008). [5] People who do not

feel that they are able to develop the types and quality of social relationships that they would prefer to

have are lonely —a highly unpleasant and potentially unhealthy state (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). [6]

Close relationships also keep us healthy. People who do not have adequate social support in the form of

friends and family have more physical and mental health problems than do those with adequate social

relationships (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Bernston, 2003; Cacioppo et al., 2002). [7]

In summary, our close relationships make us happy and healthy, and the lack of them leaves us lonely and

hurting. We experience high er self -efficacy, self -esteem, and positive mood when we believe that our

friends and partners are responding to us supportively and with a concern for our needs and our own

welfare. Our relationships with others help us buffer the negative effects of stre ss, avoid unhealthy Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

behaviors, and cope with serious physical illness. And our close relationships allow us to express our

fundamental desires to reach out and respond to other people.

[1] Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social support. In H. S. Friedman & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Foundations of health psychology (pp.

145 –171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[2] Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898 –940). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; Hendrick, C.,

& Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[3] Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal atta chments as a fundamental

human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 497 –529.

[4] Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self -

esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16 , 75 –111.

[5] Leary , M. R., & Cox, C. B. (Eds.). (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action . New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

[6] Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection . New York,

NY: W. W. Norton.

[7] Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., & Bernston, G. G. (2003). The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12 (3), 71 –74; Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H.,

Kowalewski, R. B,…Berntson, G. G. (2002). Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine,

64 (3), 407 –417.

8.1 Initial Attraction

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Summarize the variables that lead to initial attraction between people.

2. Outline the variables that lead us to perceive someone as physically attractive, and

explain why physical attractiveness is so important in liking.

3. Describe the ways that similarity and complementarity influence our liking for others.

4. Define the concept of mere exposure, and explain how proxim ity influences liking.

When we say that we like or love someone, we are experiencing interpersonal attraction —the strength of

our liking or loving for another person . Although interpersonal attraction occurs between friends, family Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

members, and other people in general, and although our analysis can apply to these relationships as well,

our primary focus in this chapter will be on romantic attraction —for instance, between boys and girls,

between men and women, and between people in same -sex relationships. The re is a large literature on the

variables that lead us to like others in our initial interactions with them, and we’ll review the most

important findings here (Sprecher, Wenzel, & Harvey, 2008). [1]

Physical Attractiveness

Although it may seem inappropriat e or shallow to admit it, and although it is certainly not the only

determinant of liking, people are strongly influenced, at least in initial encounters, by the physical

attractiveness of their partners (Swami & Furnham, 2008). [2] Elaine Walster and her c olleagues (Walster,

Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966) [3] arranged a field study in which college boys and girls were

randomly paired with one another at a “computer dance.” After the partners had danced and talked for a

couple of hours, they were interv iewed separately about their own preferences and characteristics as well

as about their perceptions of their date. Walster and her colleagues found that the only important

determinant of participants’ liking for their date was his or her physical attractiv eness. None of the other

characteristics —even the perceived intelligence of the partner —mattered.

Perhaps this finding doesn’t surprise you too much, given the importance of physical attractiveness in our

culture. Movies and TV shows feature attractive peo ple, TV ads use attractive people to promote their

products, and we spend millions of dollars each year to make ourselves look more attractive. Even infants

who are only a year old prefer to look at faces that adults consider attractive rather than at unat tractive

faces (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn 1991). [4]

People who are attractive are also seen as having a variety of positive characteristics, and these traits are

activated quickly and spontaneously when we see their faces (Olson & Marshuetz, 200 5; van Leeuwen &

Macrae, 2004). [5] Attractive people are seen as more sociable, altruistic, and intelligent than their

unattractive counterparts (Griffin & Langlois, 2006). [6] Attractive people also have more choices of sex

partners (Epstein, Klinkenberg, Scandell, Faulkner, & Claus, 2007), [7] are more likely to be offered jobs

(Dubois & Pansu, 2004), [8] and may even live longer (Henderson & Anglin, 2003). [9]

Although it is sometimes said that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” (i.e., t hat each person has his or

her own idea about what is beautiful), this is not completely true. There is good agreement among people,

including children, and within and across cultures, about which people are most physically attractive Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

(Berry, 2000; Ramsey, Langlois, Hoss, Rubenstein, & Griffin, 2004). [10] If your instructor asked the

students in your class to rate each other on their attractiveness, there would be general agreement among

them on which students are most and least attractive. This agreement is in part due to shared norms

within cultures about what is attractive, but it is also due to evolutionary predispositions to attend to and

be influenced by specific characteristics of others.

Leslie Zebrowitz and her colleagues have extensively studied t he tendency for both men and women to

prefer facial features that have youthful characteristics (Zebrowitz, 1996). [11] These features include large,

round, and widely spaced eyes, a small nose and chin, prominent cheekbones, and a large forehead.

Zebrowit z has found that individuals who have youthful -looking faces are more liked, are judged as

warmer and more honest, and also receive other positive outcomes. Parents give baby -faced children

fewer chores and punishments, and people with young -looking faces are also required to pay lower

monetary awards in courtroom trials (Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991). [12] On the other hand, baby -faced

individuals are also seen as less competent than their more mature -looking counterparts (Zebrowitz &

Montpare, 2005). [13]

The preference for youth is found in our perceptions of both men and women but is somewhat stronger

for our perceptions of women (Wade, 2000). [14] This is because for men, although we do prefer youthful

faces, we also prefer masculine faces —those with low, broad jaws and with pronounced bone ridges and

cheekbones —and these men tend to look somewhat older (Rhodes, 2006). [15] We may like baby -faced

people because they remind us of babies, or perhaps because we respond to baby -faced people positively,

they ma y act more positively to us.

Some faces are more symmetrical than others. People are more attracted to faces that are more

symmetrical in comparison with those that are less symmetrical. This may be in part because of the

perception that people with symmet rical faces are more healthy and thus make better reproductive mates

(Rhodes, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2001) [16] and in part because symmetrical faces seem more familiar and

thus less threatening to us (Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001). [17] The attraction to symm etry is not limited

to face perception. Body symmetry is also a likely indicator of good genes, and women favor more

symmetrical men as sexual partners (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997). [18] If you would like to see what your

own face would look like if it we re perfectly symmetrical, check this

website: http://www.symmeter.com/symfacer.htm . Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Although you might think that we would prefer faces that are unusual or unique, in fact the opposite is

true (Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman, 1994). [19] Langlois and Rodman (1990) [20] showed college

students the faces of men and women. The faces were composites made up of the average of 2, 4, 8, 16, or

32 faces. The researchers found that the more faces that w ere averaged into the stimulus, the more

attractive it was judged (see Figure 8.2 "Facial Averageness" ). As with the findings for facial symmetry,

one possible explanation for our liking of average faces is that because they are more similar to the ones

that we have frequently seen, they are thus more familiar to us (Grammer, Fink, Juette, Ronzal, &

Thornhill, 2002). [21]

Other determinants of perceived attractiveness are healthy skin, good teeth, a smiling expression, and

good grooming (Jones et al., 2004; Rhodes, 2006; Willis, Esqueda, & Schacht, 2008). [22] These features

may also have evolutionary significance —people with these characteristics probably appear to be healthy.

Although the preferences for youth, symmetry, and averageness appear to be univer sal, at least some

differences in perceived attractiveness are due to social factors. What is seen as attractive in one culture

may not be seen as attractive in another, and what is attractive in a culture at one time may not be

attractive at another time. To consider one example, in modern Western cultures, “thin is in,” and people

prefer those who have little excess fat and who look physically fit (Crandall, Merman, & Hebl, 2009;

Hönekopp, Rudolph, Beier, Liebert, & Müller, 2007; Weeden & Sabini, 2005). [23]

However, the norm of thinness has not always been in place. The preference for women with slender,

masculine, and athletic looks has become stronger over the past 50 years in Western cultures, and this can

be seen by comparing the figures of female mov ie stars from the 1940s and 1950s with those of today. In

contrast to the relatively universal preferences for youth, symmetry, and averageness, other cultures do

not show such a strong propensity for thinness (Anderson, Crawford, Nadeau, & Lindberg, 1992) . [24]

Gender Differences in Perceived Attractiveness

You might wonder whether men and women find different mates attractive. The answer is yes, although

as in most cases with gender differences, the differences are outweighed by overall similarities. Overall,

both men and women value physical attractiveness, as well as certain personality characteristics, such as

kindness, humor, dependability, intelligence, and sociability; this is true across many different cultures

(Berry, 2000; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). [25] For men, however, the physical attractiveness

of women is most important; women, although also interested in the attractiveness of men, are relatively Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

more interested in the social status of a potential partner. When they are fo rced to choose one or the

other, women from many different cultures have been found to prioritize a man’s status over his physical

attractiveness, whereas men prioritize a woman’s attractiveness over her status (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, &

Linsenmeier, 2002). [26]

The differences between the preferences of men and women for opposite -sex romantic partners have been

demonstrated in archival research that has analyzed the ads placed in the classifieds of U.S. newspapers.

The personal ads that men place when they ar e searching for women tend to focus on the preferred

physical appearance of the desired partner. Personal ads placed by women seeking men, on the other

hand, are more likely to specify the preferred partner’s status and material resources (Harrison & Saeed ,

1977; Wiederman, 1993). [27] Furthermore, women actually respond more to men who advertise their

(high) income and educational levels, whereas men are less interested in this information in women’s ads

(Baize & Schroeder, 1995). [28] These findings seem to be due to universal preferences of men and women,

because similar patterns have been found across cultures, and even in ads seeking same -sex partners

(Buss, 1989). [29]

Age also matters, such that the preference for youthful partners is more important f or men than for

women. Women have been found to be more likely to respond to personal ads placed by relatively older

men, whereas men tend to respond to ads placed by younger women —men of all ages (even teenagers) are

most attracted to women who are in the ir 20s. Younger people (and particularly younger women) are

more fertile than older people, and research suggests that men may be evolutionarily predisposed to like

them for this reason (Buunk, Dijstra, Kenrick, & Warntjes, 2001; Dunn, Brinton, & Clark, 20 10; Kenrick &

Li, 2000). [30]

Another research finding consistent with the idea that men are looking for cues to fertility in their

partners is that across many cultures, men have a preference for women with a low waist -to-hip ratio (i.e.,

large hips and a small waist), a shape that is likely to indicate fertility. On the other hand, women prefer

men with a more masculine -appearing waist to hip ratio (similar waist and hip size; Singh, 1995; Swami,

2006). [31] Recent research, however, has suggested that th ese preferences, too, may be in part due to a

preference for averageness, rather than to a specific preference for a particular waist -to-hip ratio

(Donohoe, von Hippel, & Brooks, 2009). [32] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Men are much more willing to have casual sex than are women, and t heir standards for sex partners is

lower (Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Saad, Eba, & Sejan, 2009). [33] And when asked about their regrets in life,

men are more likely to wish they had had sex with more partners, whereas women wish they had tried

harder to avoid getting involved with men who did not stay with them (Roese et al., 2006). [34] These

differences may be due to differential evolutionary -based predispositions of men and women.

Evolutionary arguments suggest that women should be more selective than men in their choices of sex

partners because they must invest more time in bearing and nurturing their children than do men (most

men do help out, of course, but women simply do more; Buss & Kenrick, 1998). [35] Because they do not

need to invest a lot of time in child rearing, men may be evolutionarily predisposed to be more willing and

desiring of having sex with many different partners and may be less selective in their choice of mates.

Women on the other hand, because they must invest substantial effort in r aising each child, should be

more selective.

But gender differences in mate preferences may also be accounted for in terms of social norms and

expectations. Overall, women have lower status than men, and as a result, they may find it important to

attempt t o raise their status by marrying men who have more of it. Men who, on average, already have

higher status may be less concerned in this regard, allowing them to focus relatively more on physical

attractiveness. Some studies show that women’s preference for men of high status, rather than for

physically attractive men, is greatest in cultures in which women are less well educated, poorer, and have

less control over conception and family size (Petersen & Hyde, 2010). [36]

Why Is Physical Attractiveness So Imp ortant?

You might find yourself wondering why people find physical attractiveness so important when it seems to

say so little about what the person is really like as a person. If beauty is really only “skin deep,” as the

proverb goes, why are we so concern ed with it?

One reason that we like attractive people is because they are rewarding. We like being around attractive

people because they are enjoyable to look at and because being with them makes us feel good about

ourselves. Attractiveness implies high st atus, and we naturally like being around people who have it.

Furthermore, the positive features of attractive people tend to “rub off” on those around them as a result

of associational learning (Sigall & Landy, 1973). [37] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

We may also like attractive peopl e because they are seen as, and in fact may actually be, better friends and

partners. The physical attractiveness stereotype refers to the tendency to perceive attractive people as

having positive characteristics, such as sociability and competence , and met a-analyses have found

substantial support for it (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). [38] Physically attractive people are seen as

more dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than are physically

unattractive people (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). [39] One outcome of the physical

attractiveness stereotype is that attractive people receive many social benefits from others. Attractive

people are given better grades on essay exams, are more successful on job interviews, and receive lighter

sentences in court judgments in comparison with their less attractive counterparts (Hosoda, Stone -

Romero, & Coats, 2003). [40] We are all of course aware of the physical attractiveness stereotype and make

use of it when we c an. We try to look our best on dates, at job interviews, and (not necessary, we hope!)

for court appearances.

As with many stereotypes, there may be some truth to the physical attractiveness stereotype. Research has

found at least some evidence for the ide a that attractive people are actually more sociable, more popular,

and less lonely in comparison with less attractive individuals (Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita, 1995; Langlois et

al., 2000). [41] These results are probably the result of self -fulfilling propheci es. Because people expect

attractive others to be friendly and warm, and because they want to be around them, they treat attractive

people more positively than they do unattractive people. In the end, this may lead attractive people to

develop these positi ve characteristics (Zebrowitz, Andreoletti, Collins, Lee, & Blumenthal,

1998). [42] However, as with most stereotypes, our expectations about the different characteristics of

attractive and unattractive individuals are much stronger than the real differenc es between them.

Similarity: We Like Those Who Are Like Us

Although it is a very important variable, finding someone physically attractive is of course only the first

stage in developing a close relationship with another person. If we find someone attracti ve, we may want

to pursue the relationship. And if we are lucky, that person will also find us attractive and be interested in

the possibility of developing a closer relationship. At this point, we will begin to communicate, sharing our

values, beliefs, an d interests, and begin to determine whether we are compatible in a way that leads to

increased liking. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Relationships are more likely to develop and be maintained to the extent that the partners share values

and beliefs. Research has found that people tend to like and associate with others who share their age,

education, race, religion, level of intelligence, and socioeconomic status. It has even been found that taller

people tend to like other tall people, that happy people tend to like other happy people, and that people

particularly enjoy others who have the same birthday and a similar sense of humor (Jones, Pelham,

Carvallo, & Mirenberg, 2004; Pinel, Long, Landau, Alexander, & Pyszczynski, 2006). [43] One classic study

(Newcomb, 1961) [44] arranged for mal e undergraduates, all strangers, to live together in a house while they

were going to school. The men whose attitudes were similar during the first week ended up being friends,

whereas those who did not initially share attitudes were significantly less lik ely to become friends.

Why Does Similarity Matter?

Similarity leads to attraction for a variety of reasons. For one, similarity makes things easier. You can

imagine that if you only liked to go to action movies but your girlfriend or boyfriend only liked to go to

foreign films, this would create difficulties in choosing an evening activity. Things would be even more

problematic if the dissimilarity involved something even more important, such as your attitudes toward

the relationship itself. Perhaps you wa nt to have sex but your partner doesn’t, or perhaps your partner

wants to get married but you don’t. These dissimilarities are going to create real problems. Romantic

relationships in which the partners hold different religious and political orientations o r different attitudes

toward important issues such as premarital sex, marriage, and child rearing are of course not impossible —

but they are more complicated and take more effort to maintain.

In addition to being easier, relationships with those who are sim ilar to us are also reinforcing. Imagine

you are going to a movie with your very best friend. The movie begins, and you realize that you are

starting to like it a lot. At this point, you might look over at your friend and wonder how she is reacting to

it. One of the great benefits of sharing beliefs and values with others is that those others tend to react the

same way to events as you do. Wouldn’t it be painful if every time you liked a movie, your best friend

hated it, and every time she liked it, you hat ed it? But you probably don’t need to worry too much about

this, because your friend is probably your friend in good part because she likes the same things you like.

Odds are that if you like the movie, your friend will too, and because she does, you can f eel good about

yourself and about your opinions of what makes a good movie. Sharing our values with others and having

others share their values with us help us validate the worthiness of our self -concepts. Finding similarities Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

with another makes us feel go od and makes us feel that the other person will reciprocate our liking for

them (Singh, Yeo, Lin, & Tan, 2007). [45]

Status Similarity

We all naturally want to have friends and form relationships with people who have high status. We prefer

to be with peopl e who are healthy, attractive, wealthy, fun, and friendly. But our ability to attract such

high -status partners is limited by the principles of social exchange. It is no accident that attractive people

are more able to get dates with other attractive peopl e, or that men with more money can attract more

attractive women. The basic principles of social exchange and equity dictate that there will be general

similarity in status among people in close relationships because attractiveness is a resource that allow s

people to attract other people with resources (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986; Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, &

Young, 2008). [46] You can do the test for yourself. Go to a movie or a concert, and watch the couples who

are together. You’ll find that the attrac tive people are together, as are the less attractive ones. It seems

surprising to us when one partner appears much more attractive than the other, and we may well assume

that the less attractive partner is offering some type of (perhaps less visible) socia l status in return.

There is still one other type of similarity that is important in determining whether a relationship will grow

and continue, and it is also based on the principles of social exchange and equity. The finding is rather

simple —we tend to pr efer people who seem to like us about as much as we like them. Imagine, for

instance, that you have met someone and you are hoping to pursue a relationship with them. You begin to

give yourself to the relationship by opening up to the other person, telling him or her about yourself and

making it clear that you would like to pursue a closer relationship. You make yourself available to spend

time with the person and contact him or her regularly. You naturally expect the same type of behaviors in

return, and i f the partner does not return the openness and giving, the relationship is not going to go very

far.

Relationships in which one person likes the other much more than the other likes him or her are

inherently unstable because they are not balanced or equitable. An unfortunate example of such an

imbalanced relationship occurs when one individual continually attempts to contact and pursue a

relationship with another person who is not interested in one. It is difficult for the suitor to give up the

pursui t because he or she feels passionately in love with the other, and his or her self -esteem will be hurt if

the other person is rejecting. But the situation is even worse for the person who is being pursued because Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

they feel both guilty about rejecting the s uitor and angry that the suitor continues the pursuit (Baumeister

& Wotman, 1992). [47] Such situations are not uncommon and require that the individual who is being

pursued make it completely clear that he or she is not interested in any further contact.

There is a clear moral to the importance of liking similarity, and it pays to remember it in everyday life. If

we act toward others in a positive way, this expresses liking and respect for them, and the others will likely

return the compliment. Being liked , praised, and even flattered by others is rewarding, and (unless it is

too blatant and thus ingratiating) we can expect that others will enjoy it.

In sum, similarity is probably the most important single determinant of liking. Although we may

sometimes pr efer people who have different interests and skills from ours (Beach, Whitaker, Jones, &

Tesser, 2001; Tiedens & Jimenez, 2003), [48] when it comes to personality traits, it is similarity that

matters —complementarity (being different from the other) just d oes not have much influence on liking.

Proximity

If I were to ask you who you might end up marrying (assuming you are not married already), I would

guess that you’d respond with a list of the preferred personality traits or an image of your desired mate.

You’d probably say something about being attractive, rich, creative, fun, caring, and so forth. And there is

no question that such individual characteristics matter. But social psychologists realize that there are

other aspects that are perhaps even more i mportant. Consider this:

You’ll never marry someone that you never meet!

Although that seems obvious, it’s also really important. There are about 7 billion people in the world, and

you are only going to have the opportunity to meet a tiny fraction of those people before you marry. This

also means that you are likely to marry someone who’s pretty similar to you because, unless you travel

widely, most of the people you meet are going to share your cultural background and therefore have some

of the values that you hold. In fact, the person you marry probably will live in the same city as you, attend

the same college, take similar classes, and be pretty similar to you in most respects (Kubitschek &

Hallinan, 1998). [49]

Although meeting someone is an essential f irst step, simply being around another person also increases

liking. People tend to become better acquainted with, and more fond of, each other when the social

situation brings them into repeated contact. This is the basic principle of proximity liking . Fo r instance,

research has found that students who sit next to each other in class are more likely to become friends, and Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

this is true even when the seating is assigned by the instructor (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff,

2008). [50] Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1 950) [51] studied friendship formation in people who had

recently moved into a large housing complex. They found not only that people became friends with those

who lived near them but that people who lived nearer the mailboxes and at the foot of the stairw ay in the

building (where they were more likely to come into contact with others) were able to make more friends

than those who lived at the ends of the corridors in the building and thus had fewer social encounters with

others.

Mere exposure refers to the tendency to prefer stimuli (including, but not limited to, people) that we have

seen frequently . Consider the research findings presented in Figure 8.3 "Mere Exposure in the

Classroom" . In this study, Moreland and Beach (1992) [52] had female confederates attend a large lecture

class of over 100 students 5, 10, or 15 times or not at all during a semester. At the end of the term, the

students were shown pictures of the confederates and asked to indicate if they recognized them and also

how much they liked th em. The number of times the confederates had attended class didn’t influence the

other students’ recognition of them, but it did influence their liking for them. As predicted by the mere -

exposure hypothesis, students who had attended more often were liked more.

Figure 8.3 Mere Exposure in the Classroom

Richard Moreland and Scott Beach had female confederates visit a class 5, 10, or 15 times or not at

all over the course of a semester. Then the students rated their liking of the confederates. The mere -

exposure effect is clear. Data are from Moreland and Beach (1992). [53] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

The effect of mere exposure is powerful and occurs in a wide variety of situations (Bornstein,

1989). [54] Infants tend to smile at a photograph of someone they have seen before more than they smile at

someone they are seeing for the first time (Brooks -Gunn & Lewis, 1981). [55] And people have been found

to prefer left -to-right reversed images of their own faces over their normal (nonreversed) face, whereas

their friends prefer th eir regular face over the reversed one (Mita, Dermer, & Knight, 1977). [56] This also is

expected on the basis of mere exposure, since people see their own faces primarily in mirrors and thus are

exposed to the reversed face more often.

Mere exposure may we ll have an evolutionary basis. We have an initial and potentially protective fear of

the unknown, but as things become more familiar, they produce more positive feelings and seem safer

(Freitas, Azizian, Travers, & Berry, 2005; Harmon -Jones & Allen, 2001). [57] When the stimuli are people,

there may well be an added effect —familiar people are more likely to be seen as part of the ingroup rather

than the outgroup, and this may lead us to like them even more. Leslie Zebrowitz and her colleagues

showed that we like people of our own race in part because they are perceived as familiar to us (Zebrowitz,

Bronstad, & Lee, 2007). [58]

It should be kept in mind that mere exposure only applies to the change that occurs when one is

completely unfamiliar with another pe rson (or object) and subsequently becomes more familiar with him

or her. Thus mere exposure applies only in the early stages of attraction. Later, when we are more familiar

with someone, that person may become too familiar and thus boring. You may have exp erienced this

effect when you first bought some new songs and began to listen to them. Perhaps you didn’t really like all

the songs at first, but you found yourself liking them more and more as you played them more often. If

this has happened to you, you h ave experienced mere exposure. But perhaps one day you discovered that

you were really tired of the songs —they had become too familiar. You put the songs away for a while, only

bringing them out later, when you found that liked them more again (they were n ow less familiar). People

prefer things that have an optimal level of familiarity —neither too strange nor too well -known (Bornstein,

1989). [59]

Affect and Attraction

Because our relationships with others are based in large part on emotional responses, it will come as no

surprise to you to hear that affect is particularly important in interpersonal relationships. The relationship

between mood and liking is pretty straightforward. We tend to like people more when we are in good Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

moods and to like them less wh en we are in bad moods. This prediction follows directly from the

expectation that affective states provide us with information about the social context —in this case, the

people around us. Positive affect signals that it is safe and desirable to approach t he other person, whereas

negative affect is more likely to indicate danger and to suggest avoidance.

Moods are particularly important and informative when they are created by the person we are interacting

with. When we find someone attractive, for instance , we experience positive affect, and we end up liking

the person even more. However, mood that is created by causes other than the other person can also

influence liking. Alice Isen and her colleagues (Isen & Levin, 1972) [60] created a variety of situations

designed to put people in good moods. They had participants unexpectedly find a coin in a phone booth,

played them some soothing music, or provided them a snack of milk and cookies at an experimental

session. In each of these cases, the particip ants who had been provided with the pleasant experience

indicated more positive mood in comparison with other participants who had not received the positive

experience —and they also expressed more liking for other things and other people. The moral of the story

is clear —if you want to get someone to like you, put them in a good mood. Furthermore, it is pretty easy to

do so —simply bringing flowers, looking your best, or telling a funny joke might well be enough to be

effective.

Research Focus

Arousal and Att raction

Although the relationship between mood and liking is very simple, the relationship between our current

state of physiological arousal and liking is more complex. Consider an experiment by Gregory White and

his colleagues (White, Fishbein, & Rutsein , 1981) [61] in which the participants, male college students, were

asked to complete a number of different tasks in a laboratory setting. In one part of the study, the men

were asked to run in place for either a short time (15 seconds) or a longer time (1 20 seconds). Then the

men viewed a videotape of either an attractive or an unattractive woman who was supposedly a

sophomore at the college. In the video, she talked about her hobbies and career interests and indicated

that she was interested in meeting pe ople and did not have a boyfriend. The men, who thought that they

would soon be meeting the woman, rated how romantically attracted they were to her.

Confirming that the experimental manipulation had created high and low levels of arousal, White and his

co lleagues found that the heart rate and other signs of physiological arousal were higher for the Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

participants who had exercised longer. They did not find that the arousal created by running in place for 2

minutes increased or decreased liking directly, but they did find an interaction between arousal level and

the attractiveness of the woman being judged. As you can see in the following figure, the men who had

been aroused by running in place liked the attractive woman more and the unattractive woman less th an

the men who were less aroused.

Figure 8.4

Arousal polarizes judgments. In this experiment, male college students rated an attractive or an

unattractive woman after they had run in place for 15 seconds (low arousal) or for 120 seconds

(high arousal). The judgments under arousal are polarized. Data are from White, Fishbein, and

Rutstein (1981). [62]

In another interesting field study, Dutton and Aron (1974) [63] had an attractive young woman approach

individual young men as they crossed a long, wobbly suspension bridge hanging over 200 feet above the

Capilano River in British Columbia. The woman asked each man to help her fill out a questionnaire for a

class project. When he had finished, she wrote her name and phone number on a piece of paper and

invit ed him to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. Over half of the men who had been

interviewed on the bridge later called her. In contrast, men who were approached on a low solid bridge by

the same experimenter or who were interviewed on the sus pension bridge by men called the woman

significantly less frequently. One interpretation of this finding is that the men who were interviewed on

the bridge were experiencing arousal as a result of being on the bridge but that they misattributed their

arous al as liking the interviewer. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

What these studies and many others like them demonstrate is that arousal polarizes liking (Foster,

Witcher, Campbell, & Green, 1998). [64] When we are aroused, everything seems more extreme. This effect

is not unexpected becau se the function of arousal in emotion is to increase the strength of an emotional

response. Love that is accompanied by arousal (sexual or otherwise) is stronger love than love that has a

lower level of arousal. And our feelings of anger, dislike, or disgu st are also stronger when they are

accompanied by high arousal.

As with mood states, arousal may sometimes come directly from the partner. Both very attractive and very

unattractive people are likely to be more arousing than are people who are more average in attractiveness,

and this arousal may create strong feelings of like or dislike. In other cases, the arousal may come from

another source, such as from exercising, walking across a high bridge, or a roller -coaster ride.

The strong feelings that we exper ience toward another person that are accompanied by increases in

arousal and sexual attraction are called passion , and the emotionally intense love that is based on passion

is known as passionate love —the kind of love that we experience when we are first getting to know a

romantic partner . Again, there is a clear take -home for you: If you like a person and think that the person

likes you in return, and if you want to get that person to like you more, then it will be helpful to create

some extra arousal in t hat person, perhaps by going to a scary movie, doing in -line skating, or even

meeting for a workout at the gym. On the other hand, you need to be sure that the other person is initially

positively inclined toward you. If not, arousing experiences could mak e matters even worse.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

 Particularly in initial encounters, people are strongly influenced by the physical

attractiveness of the other person.

 We prefer people who are young, who have symmetrical facial features and bodies, and

who appear average. These preferences may be because these features suggest to us

that the person is healthy.

 Although men and women agree on many aspects of what they find attractive, women

are relatively more focused on the social status of their romantic partners, whereas men

are more focused on the youth and attractiveness of their partners.

 We tend to like people who share our values and beliefs, both because similarity makes

things easier and because similarity reinforces our own values and beliefs. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

 Proximity an d the principle of mere exposure are two important determinants of

interpersonal attraction.

 We tend to like people more when we are in good moods.

 Our current state of physiological arousal tends to polarize our liking.

E X E R C I S E S A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Con sider some people that you find most attractive. Do they match the characteristics

that social psychologists have found to be important?

2. Describe a time when you saw or knew a couple in which one person was much more

attractive than the other. Do you think this was an exception to the rule of status

similarity, or was there a reason for it?

3. Consider some features that your culture finds attractive. Why do you think these

features make people look attractive?

4. Describe a time when you experienced the mere exp osure effect or polarization of

arousal.

[1] Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Handbook of relationship initiation . New York, NY: Psychology

Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008 -09972 -

000&loginpage=Login.asp&site= ehost -live

[2] Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction . New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor &

Francis Group.

[3] Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508 –516.

[4] Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for

attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27 , 79 –84.

[5] Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5(4), 498 –502; van

Leeuwen, M. L., & Macrae, C. N. (2004). Is beautiful always good? Implicit benefits of facial attractiveness. Social

Cognition, 22 (6), 637 –649.

[6] Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good

or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187 –206. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[7] Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Scandell, D. J., Faulkner, K., & Claus, R. E. (2007). Perceived physical

attactiveness, sexual history, and sexual intentions: An internet study. Sex Roles, 56 (1–2), 23 –31.

[8] Dubois, M., & Pansu, P. (2004). Facial attractiveness, applicants’ qualifications, and judges’ expertise about

decisions in preselective recruitment. Psychological Reports, 95 (3, Pt. 2), 1129 –1134.

[9] Henderson, J. J. A., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 24 (5), 351 –356.

[10] Berry, D. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selecti on: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and

function of physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32 , 273 –342; Ramsey, J. L.,

Langlois, J. H., Hoss, R. A., Rubenstein, A. J., & Griffin, A. M. (2004). Origins of a stereotype: Ca tegorization of facial

attractiveness by 6-month -old infants. Developmental Science, 7(2), 201 –211.

[11] Zebrowitz, L. A. (1996). Physical appearance as a basis of stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M.

Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotypin g (pp. 79 –120). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[12] Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’ baby -facedness and attractiveness on

adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15 (6), 603 –623.

[13] Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2005). Appearance does matter. Science, 308 (5728), 1565 –1566.

[14] Wade, T. J. (2000). Evolutionary theory and self -perception: Sex differences in body esteem predictors of self -

perceived physical and sexual attractiveness and self -esteem. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (1), 36 –45.

[15] Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 , 199 –226.

[16] Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 , 199 –226;

Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and

symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (1), 31 –46.

[17] Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence

that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989 –1000.

[18] Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psycho logy of extra -pair sex: The role of fluctuating

asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18 (2), 69 –88.

[19] Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about

attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5(4) , 214 –220.

[20] Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1(2), 115 –

121. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[21] Grammer, K., Fink, B., Juette, A., Ronzal, G., & Thornhill, R. (2002). Female faces and bodies: N-dimensional

feature space and attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary,

cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 91 –125). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

[22] Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., Penton -Voak, I. S., Tidde man, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). The

relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 25 (1), 24 –30; Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Rev iew of

Psychology, 57 , 199 –226; Willis, M. S., Esqueda, C. W., & Schacht, R. N. (2008). Social perceptions of individuals

missing upper front teeth. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106 (2), 423 –435.

[23] Crandall, C. S., Merman, A., & Hebl, M. (2009). Anti -fat prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,

stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 469 –487). New York, NY: Psychology Press; Hönekopp, J., Rudolph, U., Beier,

L., Liebert, A., & Müller, C. (2007). Physical attractiveness of face and body as ind icators of physical fitness in

men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28 (2), 106 –111; Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and

health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131 (5), 635 –653.

[24] Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross -

cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13 (3), 197 –227.

[25] Berry, D. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexua l selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and

function of physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32 , 273 –342; Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M.,

Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the

tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 947 –955.

[26] Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate

preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 947 –955.

[27] Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let’s make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulation in lonely hearts

advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 , 257 –264; Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved

gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14 (5),

331 –351.

[28] Baize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary

preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 (3), 517 –536.

[29] Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37

cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 (1), 1–49. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[30] Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D. T., & Warntjes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as related to gender,

own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (4), 241 –250; Dunn, M. J., Brinton, S., & Clark,

L. (2010). Universal sex differences in online advertisers age preferences: Comparing data from 14 cultures and 2

religious groups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31 (6), 383 –393; Kenrick, D. T., & Li, N. (2000). The Darwin is in the

details. American Psycho logist, 55 (9), 1060 –1061.

[31] Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist -to-

hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (6), 1089 –1101; Swami, V. (2006). The

influence of body weight and shape in determining female and male physical attractiveness. In M. V. Kindes

(Ed.), Body image: New research (pp. 35 –61). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

[32] Donohoe, M. L., von Hippel, W., & Brooks, R. C. (2009). Beyond wais t-hip ratio: Experimental multivariate

evidence that average women’s torsos are most attractive. Behavioral Ecology, 20 (4), 716 –721.

[33] Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta -analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality,

1993 –2007 . Psychological Bulletin, 136 (1), 21 –38; Saad, G., Eba, A., & Sejean, R. (2009). Sex differences when

searching for a mate: A process -tracing approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision making, 22 (2), 171 –190.

[34] Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., Coleman, J., Janicki, M., Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex differences in

regret: All for love or some for lust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (6), 770 –780.

[35] Buss, D., & Kenrick, D. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982 –1026). Boston, MA: McGraw -Hill.

[36] Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta -analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality,

1993 –2007. Psycholog ical Bulletin, 136 (1), 21 –38.

[37] Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive partner on person

perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (2), 218 –224.

[38] Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 24 (3), 285 –290.

[39] Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta -

analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110 (1), 109 –128.

[40] Hosoda, M., Stone -Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job -related

outcomes: A meta -analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psy chology, 56 (2), 431 –462. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[41] Diener, E., Wolsic, B., & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well -being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (1), 120 –129; Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam ,

M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta -analytic and theoretical review. Psychological

Bulletin, 126 (3), 390 –423.

[42] Zebrowitz, L. A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M. A., Lee, S. Y., & Blumenthal, J. (1998). Bright, bad, baby -faced boys:

Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self -fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75 (5), 1300 –1320.

[43] Jones, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Mirenberg, M. C. (2004). How do I love thee? Let me count the Js:

Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (5), 665 –683; Pinel, E.

C., Long, A. E., Landau, M. J., Alexander, K., & Pyszczynski, T. (2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal

connectedness. Journ al of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (2), 243 –257.

[44] Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

[45] Singh, R., Yeo, S. E. L., Lin, P. K. F., & Tan, L. (2007). Multiple mediators of the attitude similarity -attraction

relationship: Dominance of inferred attraction and subtlety of affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29 (1),

61 –74.

[46] Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Soc ial

Psychology, 51 (4), 673 –682; Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you

hot or not? Physical -attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one’s own

attractiveness. Psychological Scie nce, 19 (7), 669 –677.

[47] Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love . New York, NY:

Guilford Press

[48] Beach, S. R. H., Whitaker, D. J., Jones, D. J., & Tesser, A. (2001). When does performance feedback prompt

complementarity in romantic relationships? Personal Relationships, 8(3), 231 –248; Tiedens, L. Z., & Jimenez, M. C.

(2003). Assimilation for affiliation and contrast for control: Complementary self -construals. Journal of Personality

and Social Psycholo gy, 85 (6), 1049 –1061.

[49] Kubitschek, W. N., & Hallinan, M. T. (1998). Tracking and students’ friendships. Social Psychology Quarterly,

61 (1), 1–15.

[50] Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19 (5), 439 –

440. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[51] Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups . New York, NY: Harper.

[52] Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among

students. Jou rnal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (3), 255 –276.

[53] Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among

students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (3), 255 –276.

[54] Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta -analysis of research, 1968 –

1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 265 –289.

[55] Brooks -Gunn, J., & Lewis, M. (1981). Infant social perception: Responses to pictures of parents and

strangers. Developmental Psychology, 17 (5), 647 –649.

[56] Mita, T. H., Dermer, M., & Knight, J. (1977). Reversed facial images and the mere -exposure hypothesis. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (8), 597 –601.

[57] Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Travers, S., & Berry, S. A. (2005). The evaluative connotation of processing fluency:

Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (6), 636 –

644; Harmon -Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from

psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (7), 889 –

898.

[58] Zebrowitz, L. A., Bronstad, P. M., & Lee, H. K. (2007). The contribution of face familiarity to in-gro up favoritism

and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25 (2), 306 –338. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.2.306

[59] Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta -analysis of research, 1968 –

1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 265 –289.

[60] Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 21 , 384 –388.

[61] White, G. L., Fishbein, S., & Rutsein, J. (1981). Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (1), 56 –62.

[62] White, G. L., Fishbein, S., & Rutstein, J. (1981). Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (1), 56 –62.

[63] Dutton, D., & Aron, A. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high

anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 , 510 –517. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[64] Foster, C. A., Witcher, B. S., Campbell, W. K., & Green, J. D. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for

auto matic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1), 86 –101.

8.2 Close Relationships: Liking and Loving Over the Long Term

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Outline the factors that define close relationships.

2. Explain how people can best maintain their close relationships.

To this point in the chapter, we have focused upon the attraction that occurs between people who are

initially getting to know one another. But the basic principles of social psychology can also be applied to

help us understand relationships that last longer. When good friendships develop, when people get

married and plan to spend the rest of their lives together, and when families grow closer over time, the

relationships take on new dimensions and must be understood i n somewhat different ways. Yet the

principles of social psychology can still be applied to help us understand what makes these relationships

last. Although humans seem to be the only animals that are able to develop close relationships in which

partners st ay sexually faithful to each other for a lifetime (Barash & Lipton, 2002), [1] these relationships

do not come easily. About one half of contemporary marriages in the United States and Canada end in

divorce (CDC, 2010). [2]

The factors that keep people liking each other in long -term relationships are at least in part the same as

the factors that lead to initial attraction. For instance, regardless of how long they have been together,

people remain interested in the physical attractiveness of their partne rs, although it is relatively less

important than for initial encounters. And similarity remains essential. Relationships are also more

satisfactory and more likely to continue when the individuals develop and maintain similar interests and

continue to sha re their important values and beliefs over time (Davis & Rusbult, 2001). [3] Proximity also

remains important —relationships that undergo the strain of the partners’ being apart from each other for

very long are more at risk for breakup.

But what about pass ion? Does it still matter over time? Yes and no. People in long -term relationships who

are most satisfied with their partners report that they still feel passion for their partners —they still want

to be around them as much as possible, and they enjoy makin g love with them (Simpson, 1987; Sprecher,

2006). [4] And partners report that the more they love their partners, the more attractive they find them Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

(Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990). [5] On the other hand, the high levels of passionate love that are

exp erienced in initial encounters are not likely to be maintained throughout the course of a long -term

relationship (Acker & Davis, 1992). [6] Over time, cognition becomes relatively more important than

emotion, and close relationships are more likely to be ba sed on companionate love , defined as love that is

based on friendship, mutual attraction, common interests, mutual respect, and concern for each other’s

welfare . This does not mean that enduring love is less strong —it just has a different underlying struct ure

than initial love.

Closeness and Intimacy

Although it is safe to say that many of the variables that influence initial attraction remain important in

longer -term relationships, other variables also come into play over time. One important change is that as

a relationship progresses, the partners come to know each other more fully and care about each other to a

greater degree. In successful relationships, the partners feel increasingly close to each other over time,

whereas in unsuccessful relationships, closeness does not increase and may even decrease. The closeness

experienced in these relationships is marked in part by reciprocal self -disclosure —the tendency to

communicate frequently, without fear of reprisal, and in an accepting and empathetic manner.

When the partners in a relationship feel that they are close, and when they indicate that the relationship is

based on caring, warmth, acceptance, and social support, we can say that the relationship is intimate

(Sternberg, 1986). [7] Partners in intimate relationships are likely to think of the couple as “we” rather than

as two separate individuals. People who have a sense of closeness with their partner are better able to

maintain positive feelings about the relationship while at the same time being able to express negative

feelings and to have accurate (although sometimes less than positive) judgments of the other (Neff &

Karney, 2002). [8] People may also use their close partner’s positive characteristics to feel better about

themselves (Lockwood, Dolder man, Sadler, & Gerchak, 2004). [9]

Arthur Aron and his colleagues (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) [10] have assessed the role of closeness in

relationships directly, using the simple measure shown in Figure 8.6 "Measuring Relationship Closeness" .

You might try completing the measure yourself for some different people that you know —for instance,

your family members, your friends, your spouse, or your girlfriend or boyfriend. The measure is simple to

use and to interpret. If a person chooses a circle that repr esents the self and the other as more Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

overlapping, this means that the relationship is close. But if they choose a circle that is less overlapping,

then the relationship is less so.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Figure 8.6 Measuring Relationship Closeness

This measure is used to determine how close two partners feel to each other. The respondent simply

circles which of the figures he or she feels characterizes the relationship. From Aron, Aron, and

Smollan (1992). [11]

Although the closeness measure is simple, it has been found to be highly predictive of people’s satisfaction

with their close relationships and of the tendency for couples to stay together. In fact, the perceived

closeness between romantic partners can be a better predictor of how long a relationship will last than i s

the number of positive feelings that the partners indicate having for each other. In successful close

relationships cognitive representations of the self and the other tend to merge together into one, and it is

this tie —based on acceptance, caring, and s ocial support —that is so important (Aron, Aron, Tudor, &

Nelson, 1991). [12] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Aron and his colleagues (Aron, Melinat, Aron, & Vallone, 1997) [13] used an experimental design to test

whether self -disclosure of intimate thoughts to others would increase close ness. In a laboratory, they

paired college students with another student, one whom they did not know. Some of the students were

asked to share some intimate thoughts with each other by asking and answering questions such as “When

did you last cry in front of another person?” In comparison with control participants who only engaged in

small talk with their partners (answering questions such as “What is your favorite holiday?”), the students

who disclosed more intimate experiences reported feeling significant ly closer to each other at the end of

the conversation.

Communal and Exchange Relationships

In intimate close relationships, the partners can become highly attuned to each other’s needs, such that

the desires and goals of the other become as important as, or more important than, one’s own needs.

When people are attentive to the needs of others —for instance, parents’ attentiveness to the needs of their

children or the attentiveness of partners in a romantic relationship —and when they help the other person

me et his or her needs without explicitly keeping track of what they are giving or expecting to get in return,

we say that the partners have a communal relationship. Communal relationships are close relationships in

which partners suspend their need for equity and exchange, giving support to the partner in order to

meet his or her needs, and without consideration of the costs to themselves. Communal relationships are

contrasted with exchange relationships , relationships in which each of the partners keeps track of his or

her contributions to the partnership.

Suggesting that communal relationships can be beneficial, research has found that happier couples are

less likely to “keep score” of their respective contributions (Buunk, Van Yperen, Taylor, & Collins,

1991 ). [14] And when people are reminded of the external benefits that their partners provide them, they

may experience decreased feelings of love for them (Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980). [15]

Although partners in long -term relationships are frequently willing and ready to help each other meet

their needs, and although they will in some cases forgo the need for exchange and reciprocity, this does

not mean that they always or continually give to the relationship without expecting anything in return.

Partn ers do keep track of their contributions and received benefits. If one or both of the partners feel that

they are unfairly contributing more than their fair share, and if this inequity continues over a period of

time, the relationship will suffer. Partners who feel that they are contributing more will naturally become Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

upset because they will feel that they are being taken advantage of. But the partners who feel that they are

receiving more than they deserve might feel guilty about their lack of contribution to the partnership.

Members of long -term relationships focus to a large extent on maintaining equity, and marriages are

happiest when both members perceive that they contribute relatively equally (Van Yperen & Buunk,

1990). [16] People stay in relationshi ps longer when they feel that they are being rewarded by them

(Margolin & Wampold, 1981). [17] In short, in relationships that last, the partners are aware of the needs of

the other person and attempt to meet them equitably. But partners in the best relati onships are also able

to look beyond the rewards themselves and to think of the relationship in a communal way.

Interdependence and Commitment

Another factor that makes long -term relationships different from short -term ones is that they are more

complex. W hen a couple begins to take care of a household together, has children, and perhaps has to care

for elderly parents, the requirements of the relationship become correspondingly bigger. As a result of this

complexity, the partners in close relationships inc reasingly turn to each other not only for social support

but also for help in coordinating activities, remembering dates and appointments, and accomplishing

tasks (Wegner, Erber, & Raymond, 1991). [18] The members of a close relationship are

highly interde pendent , relying to a great degree on each other to meet their goals.

It takes a long time for partners in a relationship to develop the ability to understand the other person’s

needs and to form positive patterns of interdependence in which each person’s needs are adequately met.

The social representation of a significant other is a rich, complex, and detailed one because we know and

care so much about him or her and because we have spent so much time in his or her company (Andersen

& Cole, 1990). [19] Bec ause a lot of energy has been invested in creating the relationship, particularly when

the relationship includes children, breaking off the partnership becomes more and more costly with time.

After spending a long time with one person, it may also become m ore and more difficult to imagine

ourselves with anyone else.

In relationships in which a positive rapport between the partners is developed and maintained over a

period of time, the partners are naturally happy with the relationship and they become commit ted to

it. Commitment refers to the feelings and actions that keep partners working together to maintain the

relationship . In comparison to those who are less committed, partners who are more committed to the

relationship see their mates as more attractive than others, are less able to imagine themselves with Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

another partner, express less interest in other potential mates, are less aggressive toward each other, and

are less likely to break up (Simpson, 1987; Slotter et al., 2011). [20]

Commitment may in som e cases lead individuals to stay in relationships that they could leave, even

though the costs of remaining in the relationship are very high. On the surface, this seems puzzling

because people are expected to attempt to maximize their rewards in relations hips and would be expected

to leave them if they are not rewarding. But in addition to evaluating the outcomes that one gains from a

given relationship, the individual also evaluates the potential costs of moving to another relationship or

not having any r elationship at all. We might stay in a romantic relationship, even if the benefits of that

relationship are not high, because the costs of being in no relationship at all are perceived as even higher.

In short, when considering whether to stay or leave, we must consider both the costs and benefits of the

current relationship and the costs and benefits of the alternatives to it (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon,

2001). [21]

Although the good news about interdependence and commitment is clear —they help relatio nships last

longer —they also have a potential downside. Breaking up, should it happen, is more difficult in

relationships that are interdependent and committed. The closer and more committed a relationship has

been, the more devastating a breakup will be.

What Is Love?

Although we have talked about it indirectly, we have not yet tried to define love itself —and yet it is

obviously the case that close relationships are all about love. Social psychologists have studied the

function and characteristics of romantic love, finding that it has cognitive, affective, and behavioral

components and that it occurs cross -culturally. Romantic love is found in all cultures, although how it is

experienced may vary.

Robert Sternberg and others (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Ste rnberg, 1986) [22] have proposed

a triangular model of love , an approach that suggests that there are different types of love and that each

is made up of different combinations of cognitive and affective variables, specified in terms of passion,

intimacy, and commitment . The model, shown in Figure 8.7 "Triangular Model of Love" , suggests that

only consummate love has all three of the components (and is probably experienced only in the very best

romantic relationships), whereas the other types of love are mad e up of only one or two of the three

components. For instance, people who are good friends may have liking (intimacy) only or may have Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

known each other so long that they also share commitment to each other ( companionate love ). Similarly,

partners who are i nitially dating might simply be infatuated with each other (passion only) or may be

experiencing romantic love (both passion and liking but not commitment).

Figure 8.7 Triangular Model of Love

The triangular model of love, proposed by Robert Sternberg. Note that there are seven types of

love, which are defined by the combinations of the underlying factors of intimacy, passion, and

commitment. From Sternberg (1986). [23]

Research Focus

Romantic Love Reduces Our Attention to Attractive Others

Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that we experience romantic love to help increase our

evolutionary fitness (Taylor & Gonzaga, 2006). [24] According to this idea, love helps couples work together

to improve the relationship by coordinating and planning activities and by increasing commitment to the

partnership. If love acts as a “commitment device,” it may do so in part by helping people avoid being Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

attracted to other people who may pose a threat to the stability of the relationship (Gonzaga, Haselton,

Smurda, Davies, & Poore, 2008; Sabini & Silver, 2005). [25]

Jon Maner and his colleagues (Maner, Rouby, & Gonzaga, 2008) [26] tested this idea by selecting a sample

of participants who were currently in a committed relationship and manipulating the extent t o which the

participants were currently experiencing romantic love for their partners. They predicted that the

romantic love manipulation would decrease attention to faces of attractive opposite -sex people.

One half of the participants (the romantic love condition ) were assigned to write a brief essay about a

time in which they experienced strong feelings of love for their current partner. Participants assigned to

the control condition wrote a brief essay about a time in which they felt extremely happy. Aft er

completing the essay, participants completed a procedure in which they were shown a series of attractive

and unattractive male and female faces. The procedure assessed how quickly the participants could shift

their attention away from the photo they wer e looking at to a different photo. The dependent variable was

the reaction time (in milliseconds) with which participants could shift their attention.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Figure 8.8 Romantic Love and Attention to Faces

Activating thoughts and feelings of romantic love reduced attention to faces of attractive

alternatives. Attention to other social targets remained unaffected. Data are from Maner et al.

(2008). [27]

As you can see in the preceding figure, the participants who had been asked to think about their thoughts

and feelings of love for their partner were faster at moving their attention from the attractive opposite -sex

photos than were participants in any of the other conditions. When experiencing feelings of romantic love,

participants’ attention seemed repelled , rather than captured, by highly attractive members of the

opposite sex. These findings suggest that romantic love may inhibit the perceptual processing of physical

attractiveness cues —the very same cues that often pose a high degree of threat to the rela tionship.

Individual Differences in Loving: Attachment Styles

One of the important determinants of the quality of close relationships is the way that the partners relate

to each other. These approaches can be described in terms of attachment style —individual differences in

how people relate to others in close relationships . We display our attachment styles when we interact

with our parents, our friends, and our romantic partners (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). [28]

Attachment styles are learned in childh ood, as children develop either a healthy or an unhealthy

attachment style with their parents (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Cassidy & Shaver,

1999). [29] Most children develop healthy or secure attachment styles . These children perceive their

parents as safe, available, and responsive caregivers and are able to relate easily to them. For these Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

children, the parents successfully create appropriate feelings of affiliation and provide a secure base from

which the child feels free to explore and the n to return to. However, for children with unhealthy

attachment styles, the family does not provide these needs. Some children develop

an anxious/ambivalent attachment style , becoming overly dependent upon the parents and continually

seeking more affection from them than they can give. These children are anxious about whether the

parents will reciprocate closeness. Still other children become unable to relate to the parents at all,

becoming distant, fearful, and cold (the avoidant attachment style ).

The attachment styles that we develop in childhood remain to a large extent stable into adulthood (Caspi,

2000; Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002; Rholes, Simpson, Tran, Martin, & Friedman,

2007). [30] Fraley (2002) [31] conducted a meta -analysis of 27 st udies that had looked at the relationship

between attachment behavior in infants and in adults over 17 years of age and found a significant

correlation between the two measures.

The consistency of attachment styles over the life span means that children wh o develop secure

attachments with their parents as infants are better able to create stable, healthy interpersonal

relationships with other individuals, including romantic partners, as adults (Hazan & Diamond,

2000). [32] They stay in relationships longer and are less likely to feel jealousy about their partners. But the

relationships of anxious and avoidant partners are more problematic. Anxious men and women tend to be

less warm with their partners, are more likely to get angry at them, and have more diff iculty expressing

their feelings (Collins & Feeney, 2000). [33] Anxious types also tend to worry about their partner’s love and

commitment for them, and they interpret their partner’s behaviors more negatively (Collins & Feeney,

2004; Pierce & Lydon, 2001) .[34] Anxious partners also see more conflict in their relationships and

experience the conflicts more negatively (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005). [35]

On the other hand, people with avoidant personality types simply have trouble creating close relationships

at all (Gabriel, Carvallo, Dean, Tippin, & Renaud, 2005). [36] They have difficulty expressing emotions, and

experience more negative affect in their interactions (Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996). [37] They also have

trouble understanding othe r’s emotions (Fraley, Garner, & Shaver, 2000) [38] and show a relative lack of

interest in learning about their romantic partner’s thoughts and feelings (Rholes, Simpson, Tran, Martin,

& Friedman, 2007). [39] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

One way to think about attachment styles, shown in Table 8.1 "Attachment as Self -Concern and Other -

Concern" , is in terms of the extent to which the individual is able to successfully meet the important goals

of self -concern and other -concern in his or her close relationships. People with a secure attac hment style

have positive feelings about themselves and also about others. People with anxious/ambivalent

attachment styles feel good about themselves (the goal of self -concern is being met), but they do not have

particularly good relations with others. Pe ople with avoidant attachment styles are primarily other -

concerned. They want desperately to be liked, but they do not have a very positive opinion of themselves;

this lack of self -esteem hurts their ability to form good relationships. The fourth cell in t he table, lower

right, represents people who are not meeting goals of either self -concern or other -concern. We can call

this attachment style fearful -avoidant .

This way of thinking about attachment shows, again, the importance of both self -concern and other -

concern in successful social interaction. People who cannot connect with others do not make good

partners. But people who do not feel good about themselves also are not good partners —self -concern

goals must be met before we can successfully meet the goals of other -concern.

Table 8.1 Attachment as Self -Concern and Other -Concern

Other -concern

Self -concern Goals are met Goals are not met

Goals are met

Secure attachm ent

(Healthy feelings about the self and about

important others)

Avoidant attachm ent

(Healthy feelings about the self but fears about

connecting with others)

Goals are not

met

Anxious /am bivalent attachm ent

(Desires to reach out to others but also

anx ious about the self)

Fearful attachm ent

(Relationships with others are poor but so is the

self -concept)

Because attachment styles have such an important influence on relationships, you should think carefully

about your potential partner’s interactions with the other people in his or her life. The quality of the

relationships that people have w ith their parents and close friends will predict the quality of their

romantic relationships. But although they are very important, attachment styles do not predict everything.

People have many experiences as adults, and these interactions can influence, b oth positively and Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

negatively, their ability to develop close relationships (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Scharfe & Bartholomew,

1994). [40]

Social Psychology in the Public Interest

Internet Relationships

Most of us are spending more time connecting with others electronically, and online close relationships

are becoming more popular. But you might wonder whether meeting and interacting with others online

can create the same sense of closeness and caring that we experience through face -to-face encounters.

And you might wonder whether people who spend more time on Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet

might end up finding less time to engage in activities with the friends and loved ones who are physically

close by (Kraut et al., 1998). [41]

Despite these potential con cerns, research shows that using the Internet actually has a positive influence

on our close relationships (Bargh, 2002; Bargh & McKenna, 2004). [42] In one study, Kraut et al.

(2002) [43] found that people who reported using the Internet more frequently a lso reported spending

more time with their family and friends and indicated having better psychological health.

The Internet also seems to be useful for helping people develop new relationships, and the quality of those

relationships is as good as or better than those formed face -to-face (Parks & Floyd, 1996). [44] McKenna,

Green, and Gleason (2002) [45] found that many people who participated in news and users groups online

reported having formed a close relationship with someone they had originally me t on the Internet. Over

half of the participants said that they had developed a real -life relationship with people they had first met

online, and almost a quarter reported that they had married, had become engaged to, or were living with

someone they initi ally met on the Internet.

McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) [46] studied how relationships developed online using laboratory

studies. In their research, a previously unacquainted male and female college student met each other for

the first time either in what they thought was an Internet chat room or face -to-face. Those who met first

on the Internet reported liking each other more than those who met first face -to-face —even when it was

the same partner that they had met both times. People also report being better able to express their own

emotions and experiences to their partners online than in face -to-face meetings (Bargh, McKenna, &

Fitzsimons, 2002). [47] Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

There are probably a number of reasons why Internet relationships can be so successful. For one,

rel ationships grow to the extent that the partners self -disclose by sharing personal information with each

other, and the relative anonymity of Internet interactions may allow people to self -disclose more readily.

Another characteristic of Internet relationsh ips is the relative lack of physical cues to a person’s

attractiveness. When physical attractiveness is taken out of the picture, people may be more likely to form

relationships on the basis of other more important characteristics, such as similarity in va lues and beliefs.

Another advantage of the Internet is that it allows people to stay in touch with friends and family who are

not nearby and to maintain better long -distance relationships (Wellman, Quan Haase, Witte, & Hampton,

2001). [48] The Internet als o may be helpful in finding others with shared interests and values. Finally, the

major purpose of many Internet activities is to make new friends. In contrast, most face -to-face

interactions are less conducive to starting new conversations and friendships .

Overall, then, the evidence suggests that rather than being an isolating activity, interacting with others

over the Internet helps us maintain close ties with our family and friends and in many cases helps us form

intimate and rewarding relationships.

Hormones and Close Relationships

Because liking and loving are so central to human experience, they are determined in large part by

fundamental human biological mechanisms. And one important determinant of our responses to others is

the release of hormones . The one that is most directly involved in interpersonal attraction is oxytocin , a

hormone that is important in female reproduction and that also influences social behaviors, including

the development of long -term romantic attachments . Levels of oxytocin increase when mothers nurse

their infants, and its presence helps mothers and infants bond (Feldman, Weller, Zagoory -Sharon, &

Levine, 2007; Penton -Voak et al., 2003; Pedersen, 2006). [49] But oxytocin also binds us to others in adult

close relationships ( Floyd, 2006). [50] Oxytocin leads us to trust and cooperate with others (Kirsch et al.,

2005; Kosfeld, Heinriches, Zak, Fischbacker, & Fehr, 2005) [51] and, particularly, to respond positively to

others who are members of our ingroups. The experience of ro mantic love is also associated with the

release of oxytocin (Gonzaga, Turner, Keltner, Campos, & Altemus, 2006). [52]

The hormones that are released during the female menstrual cycle influence women’s attraction to men.

Women become more attracted to men, especially to those with symmetrical and particularly masculine

characteristics, during the times in their menstrual cycles when they are most likely to become pregnant Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

(Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver -Apgar, 2005; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006). [53] It is l ikely that these

preferences were selected evolutionarily because the men who have these characteristics are also more

genetically fit (Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2005). [54]

The male sex hormone testosterone a lso relates to liking, but particularly for passionate love.

Testosterone is related to an increased sex drive in both men and women. However, over the long term,

testosterone does not help people stay together. In comparison with men who are in short -term sexual

relationships, those in long -term relationships have relatively lower levels of testosterone, and people who

are married have lower levels of testosterone in comparison with people who are single (Dabbs & Dabbs,

2000; Gray et al., 2004). [55]

Makin g Relationships Last

Now that you have a better idea of the variables that lead to interpersonal attraction and that are

important in close relationships, you should be getting a pretty good idea of the things that partners need

to do to help them stay tog ether. It is true that many marriages end in divorce, and this number is higher

in individualistic cultures, where the focus is on the individual, than it is in collectivistic cultures, where

the focus is on maintaining group togetherness. But even in the West, the number of divorces is falling, at

least for the most educated segments of U.S. society (Marriage Project, 2011). [56] Successful relationships

take work, but the work is worth it. People who are happily married are also happier overall and have

better psychological and physical health. And at least for men, marriage leads to a longer life (Kiecolt -

Glaser & Newton, 2002).

In part, the ideas of Britain’s long -married couple Frank and Anita Milford about what made their

relationship so successful are probably correct. Let’s look at some of the things that they seem to have

done and compare them with what we might expect on the basis of social psychological research.

 Be prepared for squabbles. Every relationship has conflict. This is not unexpected

or always bad. Working through minor conflicts can help you and your partner improve

your social skills and make the relationship stronger (Pickett & Gardner, 2005). [57]

 Don’t be negative. Negative cognitions and emotions have an extremely harmful

influence on relationships (Gottman, 1994). [58] Don’t let a spiral of negative thinking

and negative behaviors get started. Do whatever you can to think positively. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

 Be fair in how you evaluate behaviors. People in close relationships, as do most

people in their eve ryday lives, tend to inflate their own self -worth. They rate their own

positive behaviors as better than their partner’s, and rate their partner’s negative

behaviors as worse than their own. Try to give your partner the benefit of the doubt —

remember that y ou are not perfect either.

 Don’t do something dumb. Relationships break up when one or both of the partners

betray the relationship. Of course sexual infidelities create a major strain, but women

are also concerned about emotional infidelity in their partn ers. (Men: Stop flirting; it

will make your partner jealous!) Marriages are happier when the partners focus on each

other and not on other potential mates (Maner et al., 2009). [59]

 Do things that please your partner. The principles of social exchange make it clear

that being nice to others leads them to be nice in return.

 Have fun. Relationships in which the partners have positive moods and in which the

partners are not bored tend to last longer (Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). [60]

 Stop fighting. Conflict in relationships leads to divorce (Birditt, Brown, Orbuch, &

McIlvane, 2010). [61] Learn to talk with your partner in positive, rather than negative,

ways.

Partners who are able to remain similar in their values and other beliefs are going to be more successful.

This seems to have been the case for Frank and Anita —they continued to share activities and interests.

Partners must also display positive affect toward each other. Happy couples are in positive moods when

they are around each other —they laugh together, and they express approval rather than criticism of each

other’s behaviors. Partners are happier when they view the other person in a positive or even “idealized”

sense rather than in a more realistic and perhaps more negative one (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,

1996). [62] Anita and Frank talked in their interview about how their time together was characterized by

positive feelings and romance, and perhaps that helped them stay together.

Next, the partners must share, in the sense that they are willing to express their thoughts about each

other. Successful relationships involve self -disclosure of one’s own needs and desires, which allows the

partner to become aware of the needs of the other and attempt to meet them if possible. If the partners Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

are not able to express their concerns, then the relationship cannot become more intimate. Successful

relationships have successful communication patterns.

Finally, but not least important, are social behaviors. Many people think (based in part on what they see

on TV and read about) that extramarital affairs are a common part of close relationships. But research

suggests that this is not the case. A survey by the Chicago Social Health and Life Survey (Chicago Health

and Social Life Survey, 2011) [63] found not only that 87% of married partners believe that extramarital sex

is wrong but that the partners also seemed to act in accordance with these values. In answering the

survey, 75% of the men and 90% of the women claimed to have been completely faithful to the ir partner

over their entire marriage. And extramarital affairs, when they do occur, are likely to be one -time events.

These data confirm that partners must refrain from engaging in behaviors that are harmful to the

relationship, such as cheating on a part ner, because these are naturally disruptive to a happy relationship.

Partners do not expect or tolerate cheating. “Open marriages” do not work; infidelity in relationships is

strongly associated with divorce (Wiederman, 1997). [64]

Even if a person does no t actually cheat by having sex with someone else, his or her partner may still be

jealous, and jealously can harm relationships. Jealousy is a powerful emotion that has been evolutionarily

selected to help maintain close relationships. Both men and women e xperience jealousy, although they

experience it to different extents and in different ways. Men are more jealous than women overall. And

men are more concerned than women about sexual infidelities of their partners, whereas women are

relatively more concer ned about emotional infidelities of their partners (Buss, Larsen, Westen, &

Semmelroth, 1992). [65] Men’s concern with sexual cheating is probably due in large part to evolutionary

factors related to kin selection: Men need to be particularly sure that the ir partners are sexually faithful to

them to ensure that the time they spend raising children is spent on raising their own children, not those

of others. And women’s concern with emotional fidelity fits with a focus on maintaining the relationship

intact. Flirting suggests that the man is not really committed to the relationship and may leave it.

When Relationships End

Inevitably, some relationships do break up, and these separations may cause substantial pain. When the

partners have been together for a lo ng time, particularly in a relationship characterized by

interdependence and commitment, the pain is even greater (Simpson, 1987). [66] The pain of a breakup is

in part due to the loneliness that results from it. People who lose someone they care about als o lose a Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

substantial amount of social support, and it takes time to recover and develop new social connections.

Lonely people sleep more poorly, take longer to recover from stress, and show poorer health overall

(Cacioppo et al., 2002). [67]

The pain of a loss may be magnified when people feel that they have been rejected by the other. The

experience of rejection makes people sad, angry, more likely to break social norms, and more focused on

self -concern. The ability to effectively self -regulate is lowered, and people are more likely to act on their

impulses (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). [68] But people who have been rejected are also

more motivated by other -concern; they are particularly likely to try to make new friends to help make up

for the rejection (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000). [69] Although people who have been rejected are

particularly hurt, people who have rejected others may feel guilty about it.

Breaking up is painful, but people do recover from it, and they usually move on to find new relationships.

Margaret Stroebe and her colleagues (Stroebe, Hansson, Schut, & Stroebe, 2008) [70] found that people

adjusted to the loss of a partner, even one with whom they had been together for a long time, although

many did have increased psychological difficulties, at least in the short term.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

 The factors that keep people liking each other in long -term relationships are at least in

part the same as the factors that lead to initial attraction.

 Over time, cognition becomes rela tively more important than passion, and close

relationships are more likely to be based on companionate love than on passionate love.

 In successful relationships, the partners begin to feel close to each other and become

attuned to each other’s needs.

 Part ners in close relationships become interdependent and develop a commitment to

the relationship.

 Attachment styles, formed in infancy, predict how people relate to others in close

relationships as adults.

 Close relationships are influenced by fundamental hu man biological mechanisms,

particularly the release of hormones, such as oxytocin.

E X E R C I S E S A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

1. Imagine that you are in a romantic relationship with someone you really care about and

that you would really like the relationship to last. List three strategies that you might use

to help keep the relationship happy and harmonious.

2. Analyze a well -known Hollywood romance that has lasted (or that has not lasted). Do the

variables that we have considered in this chapter seem to help explain the outcome of

the relationship?

[1] Barash, D. P., & Lipton, J. E. (2002). Gender gap: The biology of male -female differences . Piscataway, NJ:

Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2002 -

17744 -000&site=ehost -live

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marriage and divorce. Retrieved

from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

[3] Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81 (1), 65 –84.

[4] Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and

emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 683 –692; Sprecher, S. (2006). Sexuality in

close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 267 –

284). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK).

[5] Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms

involved in the mai ntenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1192 –

1201.

[6] Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of

the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(1), 21 –50.

[7] Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93 , 119 –135.

[8] Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Self -evaluation motives in close relationships: A model of global

enhancement and specific verification. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in

the study of couple interaction (pp. 32 –58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[9] Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sadler, P., & Gerchak, E. (2004). Feeling better about doing worse: Social

comparisons within romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (1), 80 –95. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[10] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of

int erpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596 –612.

[11] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of

interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psych ology, 63 (4), 596 –612.

[12] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (2), 241 –253.

[13] Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., & Vallone, R. D. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal

closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (4), 363 –377.

[14] Buunk, B. P., Van Yperen, N. W., Taylor, S. E., & Collins, R. L. (1991). Social comp arison and the drive upward

revisited: Affiliation as a response to marital stress. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21 (6), 529 –546.

[15] Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1980). Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards on liking and

loving . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (3), 453 –460.

[16] Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate

relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20 (4), 287 –309.

[17] Margolin, G., & Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential analysis of conflict and accord in distressed and

nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (4), 554 –567.

[18] Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (6), 923 –929.

[19] Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). “Do I know you?” The role of significant others in general social

perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 384 –399.

[20] Slotter, B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Fincham, F. D.

(2011, August 8). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of

relationship com mitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (in press); Simpson, J. A. (1987). The

dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 683 –692.

[21] Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance

mechanisms. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87 –

113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[22] Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of

relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (9), 1190 –1203; Sternberg, R. (1986). A

triangular theory of love . Psychological Review, 93 , 119 –135.

[23] Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review , 93 , 119 –135.

[24] Taylor, S. E., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2006). Evolution, relationships, and health: The social shaping hypothesis. In M.

Schaller , J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 211 –236). Madison, CT:

Psychosocial Press.

[25] Gonzaga, G. C., Haselton, M. G., Smurda, J., Davies, M. S., & Poore, J. C. (2008). Love, desire, and the

suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 (2), 119 –126; Sabini, J., &

Silver, M. (2005). Gender and jealousy: Stories of infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 19 (5), 713 –727.

[26] Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The

evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 (5), 343 –349.

[27] Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The

evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 (5), 343 –349.

[28] Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). The attachment system in fledgling relationships: An activating role for

attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Soc ial Psychology, 95 (3), 628 –647.

[29] Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of

the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum; Cassidy, J. E., & Shaver, P. R. E. (1999). Handb ook of

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[30] Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (1), 158 –172; Collins, N. L., Cooper, M. L., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002).

Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in

relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965 –1008; Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A.,

Tran, S., Martin, A. M., III, & Friedman, M. (2007). Attachment and information seeking in romantic

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (3), 422 –438.

[31] Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta -analysis and dynamic modeling of

developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123 –151.

[32] Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review of Gener al Psychology,

4(2), 186 –204. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[33] Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and

caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (6), 1053 –1073.

[34] Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support:

Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (3), 363 –

383; Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social

interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (4), 613 –631.

[35] Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in roma ntic

relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (3), 510 –531.

[36] Gabriel, S., Carvallo, M., Dean, K. K., Tippin, B., & Renaud, J. (2005). How I see me depends on how I see we:

The role of attachment sty le in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (11), 1561 –1572.

[37] Tidwell, M. -C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary

study. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho logy, 71 (4), 729 –745.

[38] Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the defensive regulation of attention

and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 79 (5), 816 –826.

[39] Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Tran, S., Martin, A. M., III, & Friedman, M. (2007). Attachment and information

seeking in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (3), 422 –438.

[40] Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2(3),

247 –261; Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns. Personal

Relationships, 1(1), 23 –43.

[41] Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox:

A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well -being? American Psychologist, 53 (9),

1017 –1031.

[42] Bargh, J. A. (2002). Beyond simple truths: The human -Internet interaction. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 1–8;

Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 , 573 –590.

[43] Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox

revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 49 –74.

[44] Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46 (1), 80 –97. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[45] McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., Gleason, M. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big

attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 9–31.

[46] McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., Gleason, M. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big

attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 9–31.

[47] Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression

of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 33 –48.

[48] Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or

supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral

Scientist, 45 (3), 436 –455.

[49] Feldman, R., Weller, A., Zagoory -Sharon, O., & Levine, A. (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological

foundation of human affiliation: Plasma oxytocin levels across pregnancy and the postpartum period predict

mother -infant bonding. Psychological Science, 18 , 965 –970; Penton -Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M.,

Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of

male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117 (3), 264 –271; Pedersen, C. A. (2006).

Biological aspects of social bonding and the roots of human violence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

1036 , 106 –127.

[50] Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context . New York, NY:

Cambridge Unive rsity Press.

[51] Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanti, S.,…Meyer -Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin

modulates neural circuitry for social cognition and fear in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 25 , 11489 –11489;

Kosfeld, M., Heinri ches, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacker, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in

humans. Nature, 435 , 673 –676.

[52] Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B., & Altemus, M. (2006). Romantic love and sexual desire in

close relationships. Emotion, 6(2), 163 –179.

[53] Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver -Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation: Implications for sexual

and social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (6), 312 –316; Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G.

(2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra -pair attraction and male

mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27 (4), 247 –258. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[54] Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (200 1). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for

hormone -mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (4), 251 –267; Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G.

(2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expe cted

duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70 (1), 38 –43.

[55] Dabbs, J. M., & Dabbs, M. G. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers: Testosterone and behavior . New York, NY:

McGraw -Hill; Gray, P. B., Chapman, J. F., Burnham, T. C., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2004).

Human male pair bonding and testosterone. Human Nature, 15 (2), 119 –131.

[56] University of Virginia. The National Marriage Project. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject

[57] Pickett, C. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The social monitoring system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an

adaptive response to social exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Th e social outcast:

Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 213 –226). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

[58] Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[59] Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Rouby, D. A., & Gail liot, M. T. (2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition of

romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 74 –87.

[60] Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years

late r. Psychological Science, 20 (5), 543 –545. doi: 10.1111/j.1467 –9280.2009.02332.x

[61] Birditt, K. S., Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & McIlvane, J. M. (2010). Marital conflict behaviors and implications for

divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (5), 1188 –1204. doi: 10.1111/j.1741 –3737.2010.00758.x

[62] Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the

construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Soc ial Psychology, 70 (1), 79 –98.

[63] University of Chicago. Chicago health and social life survey. Retrieved

from http://popcenter.uchicago.edu/data/chsls.shtml

[64] Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex

Research, 34 (2), 167 –174.

[65] Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution,

physiology, and psychology. Psy chological Science, 3(4), 251 –255.

[66] Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and

emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 683 –692. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

[67] Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., Kowalewski, R. B.,…Berntson, G. G.

(2002). Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64 (3), 407 –417.

[68] Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self -

regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (4), 589 –604.

[69] Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to

belong influences memo ry for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (4), 486 –496.

[70] Stroebe, M. S., Hansson, R. O., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2008). Bereavement research: Contemporary

perspectives. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, W. Stroebe, & E. Van den Blink (Eds.), Handbook of

bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and intervention (pp. 3–25). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

8.3 Thinking Like a Social Psychologist About Liking and Loving

There is no part of human experience that is more important to our survival than our close relationships

with others. Without close relationships, we could not successfully reproduce, and without the social

support provided by others who care about us, our lives would be l ess meaningful and we would be less

mentally and physically healthy. I hope this chapter has reminded you of the importance of your

relationships with others or perhaps taught you to think differently about those relationships.

Perhaps you are already in a happy close relationship, and this chapter may have given you some ideas

about how keep that relationship happy and healthy. Perhaps you are thinking more now about your

commitment to the relationship, the benefits and costs you receive from the relations hip, the equity

between you and your partner, and the costs or benefits you and your partner gain from the relationship.

Is your relationship a communal relationship or is it more of an exchange relationship? What can you do

to help ensure that you and you r partner remain together as one interrelated pair?

Or perhaps you are not currently in a relationship and are hoping to develop a new close relationship. In

this case, this chapter may have provided you with some ideas about how to get someone to like you and

to see you as an appropriate partner. Maybe you will think more about the important role of physical

attractiveness in initial liking, the influence of similarity and reciprocal disclosure on liking, and the role

of proximity in attraction. I hope tha t you have learned some new ideas about how to be more attractive to

others that you are interested in. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

In any case, I hope you can now see that even close relationships can be considered in terms of the basic

principles of social psychology, the ABCs of a ffect, behavior, and cognition, and the goals of self -concern

and other -concern. Close relationships are particularly interesting in terms of the latter because they are

one of the ways that we can feel good about ourselves by connecting with others.

8.4 Chapter Summary

Relationships between or among people that are characterized by loving, caring, commitment, and

intimacy, such as those between adult friends, dating partners, lovers and married couples, are known as

close relationships.

Our close relation ships make us happy and healthy. We experience higher self -efficacy, self -esteem, and

positive mood when we believe that our friends and partners are responding to us supportively and with a

concern for our needs and our welfare.

When we say that we like o r love someone, we are experiencing interpersonal attraction. People are

strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of their partners in initial encounters. On average, we

find younger people more attractive than older people, we are more attracted to faces that are more

symmetrical in comparison with those that are less symmetrical, and we prefer faces that are more, rather

than less, average. Although the preferences for youth, symmetry, and averageness appear to be universal,

there is evidence th at at least some differences in perceived attractiveness are due to social and cultural

factors.

Overall, both men and women value physical attractiveness. However, for men, the physical attractiveness

of women is more important than it is for women judgin g men, whereas women are relatively more

interested in the social status of men. These gender differences may have evolutionary origins.

The tendency to perceive attractive people as having positive characteristics, such as sociability and

competence, is k nown as the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Relationships are more likely to develop and be maintained to the extent that the partners share values

and beliefs. The basic principles of social exchange and equity dictate that there will be general simil arity

in status among people in close relationships. And we tend to prefer people who seem to like us about as

much as we like them. Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

Simply being around another person also increases our liking for them. The tendency to prefer stimuli

(including, but not l imited to, people) that we have seen more frequently is known as mere exposure.

We tend to like people more when we are in good moods and to like them less when we are in bad moods.

And it has been found that arousal polarizes our liking of others. The str ong feelings that we experience

toward another person that are accompanied by increases in arousal are called passion, and the

emotionally intense love that is based on arousal and sexual attraction is known as passionate love.

As partners stay together ov er time, cognition becomes relatively more important than passion, and close

relationships are more likely to be based on companionate love than on passionate love. As a relationship

progresses, the partners in the relationship come to know each other more fully and care about each other

to a greater degree —they become closer to each other. Intimacy is marked in large part by reciprocal self -

disclosure —that is, the tendency to communicate frequently and openly.

The partners in close relationships increasing ly turn to each other for social support and for other needs.

The members of a close relationship are highly interdependent and rely to a great degree on effective

social exchange. When partners are attentive to the needs of the other person, and when they help the

other meet his or her needs without explicitly keeping track of what they are giving or expecting to get in

return, we say that the partners have a communal relationship.

In relationships in which a positive rapport between the partners is develo ped and maintained over a

period of time, the partners are naturally happy with the relationship and they become committed to it.

The triangular model of love proposes that there are different types of love, each made up of different

combinations of the ba sic components of passion, intimacy, and commitment.

Children have been found to develop either a healthy or an unhealthy attachment style with their parents,

and individual differences in these styles remain to a large extent stable into adulthood. People with

secure attachment styles may make better partners.