Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  Whilst such experimental studies produce findings that might be considered artificial, more naturalistic field studies also suggest that similarity is a strong predictor. For example, researchers have studied naturally occurring friendships (for example, between schoolchildren) and have found that the more similarity present (for instance, in terms of factors such as age, religion, family circumstances, academic capability, attitudes, values, interests, etc.), the stronger the friendship; this could be measured in terms of ratings of ‘best friends’. Unfortunately, it is not only positive similarities that predict liking and friendship formation – similarity in antisocial traits, such as aggression, can also lead to relationship formation.

  In terms of romantic relationships, the ‘matching hypothesis’ predicts that individuals tend to choose potential partners based on the social desirability of appearance. For instance, in one study researchers used pictures of couples, either dating or newly-wed, and asked people to rate the individuals on a numerical scale (separately) for attractiveness. They found that there was a very strong similarity in the independent ratings of physical attractiveness for the couples; that is ‘6s’ tended to marry ‘6s’, but rarely did ‘4s’ marry ‘8s’! Other studies have confirmed that whilst we might choose a very physically attractive partner for a one-off date (in our dreams, perhaps), when it comes to a long-term relationship, we are much more likely to choose someone of a comparable level of attractiveness to ourselves. Whilst this is a robust finding, as with most rules, there are exceptions. For example, individuals with very low levels of self-esteem tend to avoid people who they think are similar to them.

  Key idea: The ‘matching hypothesis’

  Individuals are more likely to form relationships with other people who are of a similar level of physical attractiveness to themselves.

  There are also many other factors which can affect whether or not we like, and thus form a friendship with, another person. For example, we tend to like people who express a liking for us (‘reciprocal liking’), and we like even more the people who start off disliking us but who then come to like us. There is also a tendency to like those people who we perceive as competent, whether it is in terms of intelligence or social skills, and dislike those who are incompetent. Of course, if someone is too competent, this might actually prevent liking.

  Other personal characteristics that have been found to be related to liking and friendship formation include personality and self-disclosure. For example, individuals are attracted to other individuals who exhibit personality traits such as kindness and warmth. Also, the degree to which individuals are prepared to ‘open up’ about themselves (referred to as self-disclosure) was also found to be a good predictor of long-term relationship formation. However, too little or too much self-disclosure may be a barrier, and there have also been found to be some gender differences with respect to self-disclosure: women tend to be greater self-disclosers than men.

  Case study: A study of friendship formation in a housing complex

  Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) studied the relationship formation of married students living in the Westgate housing complex (a former navy barracks converted for the use of married couples who were students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology); the housing complex consisted of a number of different buildings, some comprising flats on two different floors. The people who moved in to this housing complex had very little prior acquaintance with one another and this allowed Festinger and his colleagues to observe how and when relationships formed between the residents. One of the interesting things about this study was that there was already a high degree of similarity between the residents – they were all veteran married engineering students. This enabled the research to tease out what other factors might affect friendship formation beyond similarity of background.

  A number of interesting findings emerged from the study. Friendships were about ten times more likely to form between those who lived in the same building than those who didn’t. Those who lived on the same floor were more likely to form friendships than those who lived on different floors. Also, those who lived closer to the staircases between floors, and hence were encountered more often, were the most popular people with whom friendships formed. Overall, Festinger found that those who we come into contact with more frequently are the people with whom we are more likely to form friendships.

  Theories of relationship formation and maintenance

  There are many theories which look beyond individual factors when attempting to explain why friendships form and relationships thrive (or fail). These include social exchange theory and equity theory.

  Social exchange theory views relationships in terms of rewards and costs. If the benefits outweigh the costs of staying in a friendship, a romantic relationship or even a marriage, then the relationship is likely to endure. According to this theory, the most enduring and fulfilling relationship is likely to be one in which the rewards are relatively high whilst the costs are comparatively low.

  Key idea: Social exchange theory

  The weighing up of costs and benefits before making a decision that will maximize benefits and minimize costs

  However, it is not always straightforward to define simply what constitutes a reward and what constitutes a cost. In their most basic form, rewards can be anything that makes a person feel happy, or that a person defines as being valuable to them – these can range from compliments to physical gifts. Costs can be anything that an individual finds undesirable – these can range from having to do household chores to fierce arguments or physical abuse. Rewards and costs will vary from person to person and from relationship to relationship, for instance, rewards in a friendship may not be seen as such in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships are likely to last much longer if the rewards are higher.

  Of course, the success of a relationship may not simply be down to rewards outweighing costs, but the availability, or lack of, alternative relationships may also play a part. If no other form of relationship is available, then individuals may be able to endure higher costs within a relationship. We may also be able to endure high costs if we compare it to what we have been used to in the past and find that it is actually better. Thus this ‘comparison level’ will have an effect on our decision to stay in, or leave, a relationship.

  Additionally, the amount of effort that we put into a relationship may also have an effect on whether or not we continue with it. The more we have previously invested, the less likely we are to leave it. It may therefore be easier to break a friendship, or end a romantic relationship, sooner rather than later. In short, the more commitment that an individual has already made, the more they are likely to endure in a relationship before ending it.

  Whilst social exchange theory can offer an insight into why relationships endure or not, there are limitations with research in this area in that it tends to be conducted mainly on short-term student relationships as opposed to marriages, for example. Similarly, the effect of the personality of individuals within the relationship has not been well researched. This theory also suggests that individuals act as rational accountants when it comes to their relationship – which quite clearly is not always the case! Finally, social exchange theory has more explanatory power than it does predictability power: that is, we can use it to explain why a relationship endures or ends, but not always successfully when it might end.

  EQUITY THEORY

  Equity theory is similar in many ways to social exchange theory but hinges more on using the ‘equity’ between what people put into a relationship with what they get out of it to predict whether or not a relationship will endure. Thus if an individual puts more into a relationship than the other person, then they would expect to get more out of the relationship than the other person. Equity is therefore not the same as equality. By looking at an individual’s input to, and output from, a relationship, it should be possible to predict whether or not a relationship will endure or end.

  Key idea: Equity
theory

  A relationship is only considered fair by an individual if what they get out of it approximately equals what they put into it.

  If, for example, John contributes too much to his relationship compared to what he is getting out of it, then it is likely that John will look to end the relationship. However, it is equally likely, according to this theory, that John will look to end the relationship if he is getting more out of it than he is putting in. The reasons for both scenarios might be slightly different (e.g. anger or frustration vs. embarrassment or shame), but the end result will probably be the same.

  Research has measured, through the use of questionnaires such as the ‘Hatfield Global Measure’, whether or not relationships are equitable, over-benefitted or under-benefitted. The more a relationship moves away from equity, the greater the psychological distress felt by an individual, therefore the less happy the relationship will be, and the more likely the relationship will end.

  There seem to be gender differences in matters of equity within a relationship. Women are typically more distressed by being over-benefitted whereas men are more distressed at being under-benefitted. There are also individuals who worry less about equity than others, and in these instances equity theory can lose its explanatory power as to whether or not a relationship will endure.

  Both social exchange theory and equity theory take a very calculating view about relationships. They assume that there is no space for unconditional love in a relationship, which many researchers believe does actually exist: and if it does, then these two theories do begin to weaken a little in terms of their validity.

  Love

  As friendships progress, there is a chance that they will turn from liking into loving. Whilst instinctively we might know the difference between liking and loving (though on occasion our instincts may well lead us into some fairly embarrassing situations), the two concepts are surprisingly difficult to define.

  One of the first researchers to try to determine the exact nature of love was Zick Rubin. He attempted to measure love definitively through the use of his ‘Love scale’ (he also devised a ‘Liking scale’ in an attempt to draw a distinction between the two). Participants in his study were dating couples who were asked to complete his two scales with regard to their romantic partner and a close friend (see Spotlight below).

  Whilst some researchers argue that it is impossible to measure love, Rubin’s scale does tend to have some face validity. For example, in an experimental situation, those who scored highly on the love scale were more likely to have greater eye contact with their partners than those who didn’t; they were more likely to say that they were in love; and they were much more likely to still be in the relationship six months later.

  Spotlight: Defining and measuring liking and love

  According to Zick Rubin (1970), a researcher who developed scales for measuring liking and love, love is:

  ‘… an attitude held by a person toward a particular other person, involving predispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways toward that other person’ (p. 265).

  Questions on his liking scale include:

  • ‘This person is one of the most likeable people I know.’

  • ‘I have great confidence in this person’s good judgements.’

  Questions on his loving scale include:

  • ‘I feel I can confide in this person about virtually anything.’

  • ‘I would do almost anything for this person.’

  The questions were answered on a 1 (not at all) to 10 (totally) scale.

  THEORIES OF LOVING

  Other researchers have attempted to develop more encompassing theories of love which deal with different types in different situations. Two of the main theories are Sternberg’s ‘triangle of love’ and Lee’s ‘colours of love’ typology.

  STERNBERG’S TRIANGLE OF LOVE

  According to Sternberg (1986), love has three components:

  1 Intimacy: this is an emotional component, and adjectives associated with it include closeness and warmth.

  2 Passion: this is a motivational component, and is commonly associated with sexual desire and physical attraction.

  3 Commitment: this is a cognitive component and is associated with a resolve to maintain the relationship be it in the short-term or the long-term.

  Which combination of these three components are present, along with the strength of these components (high/low), allows us to determine the kind, and amount, of love that an individual is experiencing. At one end of the scale, if none of the three components are present, no love will be experienced; however if all three are present then Sternberg’s model predicts that the individual will experience ‘consummate love’ (see Case study below for Sternberg’s eight kinds of love).

  Key idea: Sternberg’s triangle of love

  Three central components of love (intimacy, passion and commitment) combine to give seven further distinct kinds of love.

  The model suggests that the more components that are present, then the more enduring the love. Consummate love is the strongest type of love, but also (perhaps regrettably) the rarest. Sternberg also suggested that each of the components differed from one another in terms of stability (intimacy and commitment are more stable than passion), controllability (commitment is more controllable than passion), and experiential salience (the extent to which we are consciously aware of how we feel: passion has more experiential salience than commitment).

  Case study: Sternberg’s eight kinds of love

  Sternberg’s model is good to the extent to which it identifies multiple types of love and offers predictions about each type; it probably chimes true with the experiences that most of us have had throughout our life, thus giving it good ‘face validity’. It also has good practical applications in that it could be used in relationship counselling by identifying which type of love each partner is showing and how changes can be made to bring them closer together. However, the model is not without its critics who claim that some of the components, for example commitment, are not clearly defined.

  LEE’S COLOURS OF LOVE

  Lee’s ‘colours of love’ typology relies on an analogy to colour mixing, whereby there are three primary colours, and if we mix them we get secondary colours. This approach to love classification claims that there are three primary styles of loving:

  1 Eros (romantic love): powerful physical attraction combined with a strong emotional experience.

  2 Ludus (game-playing love): a fun, strategic relationship, with low commitment, and usually short-lived.

  3 Storge (companionate love): characterized by a slow build-up of comfortable intimacy and gradual self-disclosure.

  These in turn, when combined, give us three secondary styles of love:

  4 Mania (Eros + Ludus): described as possessive/obsessive love.

  5 Pragma (Storge + Ludus): described as realistic/practical love.

  6 Agape (Eros + Storge): described as altruistic/selfless love.

  Key idea: Lee’s ‘colours of love’

  A colour analogy whereby three primary styles of loving (Eros, Ludus and Storge) combine to give three secondary styles of love (Mania, Pragma and Agape).

  There are certainly similarities with Sternberg’s types of love, though just fewer of them. For example, Eros would equate to romantic love, and Storge to compassionate love, though the names for Lee’s types of love are a little less accessible and descriptive. Research, however, does tend to suggest that these are indeed distinct types of love. It has also found that different styles of love are preferred across genders, with men showing more preference for ludic and erotic love, whereas women were more storgic and pragmatic in their love style.

  The breakdown of relationships

  Inevitably many relationships hit the rocks, and researchers have attempted to map out the processes involved in such relationship decline. One attempt by Steve Duck has modelled the processes involved in relationship breakdown.

  According to Du
ck’s model of relationship dissolution (e.g. 1982), it is a process that occurs over a period of time, and goes through a number of different phases; there were four in the original model but a subsequent revision added a fifth phase.

  1 Intrapsychic phase (partner focus): this phase is characterized by one or both partners reaching a point where they start to experience dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the other. At this stage, they say nothing to the other, and it may be that the other is not aware of their dissatisfaction;

  2 Dyadic phase (relationship focus): this phase is characterized by one or both partners reaching the point at which they think they would be justified in exiting the relationship. They will tell the partner of their decision and discussions will likely ensue covering important issues within the relationship (e.g. roles and commitments). These discussions will either fix or hasten the end of the relationship.

  3 Social phase (going public): if attempts to fix the relationship fail, then it becomes necessary to make public the dissolution of the relationship. Each partner will attempt to gather support from others (e.g. friends and relatives) with regard to their version of events. Whilst there is still a possibility of the relationship being saved at this point, each partner will go public with their ‘story’ in an attempt to portray themselves in the best possible light.