by Paul Seager
4 Grave-dressing phase (tidying up): it is now no longer possible to save the relationship, and every attempt will be made to leave the relationship with their reputation intact. Every attempt is made to ensure that as little blame as possible is attached to the individual for the break-up; it is incredibly unlikely that one of the couple will attempt to take responsibility for its demise.
5 Resurrection phase: this phase is about each partner preparing themselves for any future relationship. The focus will be on learning from the mistakes of the previous relationship and figuring out how to use this knowledge to ensure the success of future ones.
One of the positive points of this model is its practical applications; it can be used to identify ways in which relationships can be repaired during the different phases of breakdown. It is certainly difficult to gain empirical support for such models as this due to ethical reasons; for example, any attempt to study a dissolving relationship may in fact sabotage any attempts to save it, and similarly, attempting to investigate a relationship when problems appear may bring about an end to the relationship which otherwise may not have occurred. Much of the time, second-hand reports are relied on to construct such models, and such reports may suffer with accuracy problems thus affecting the validity of the model.
Summary
As if we didn’t know it already, relationships are complex and difficult to study. What we do know is that we can’t function successfully without them. The formation stages are characterized by frequent contact, but this proximity is tempered by other factors such as similarity and individual differences. Various models have attempted to explain the formation and maintenance of relationships, and when friendship blossoms into romance, researchers have characterized the different types of love that might ensue. Finally, even though it is a challenging task, researchers have also constructed models to account for how relationships end. The life cycle of a relationship is most certainly a fascinating process to observe.
Food for thought
If you were setting up a dating agency, how would you apply the information in this chapter to ensure that your clients had the best possible chance of meeting the ‘person of their dreams’? Consider the ethics of applying the theories in such a way.
Dig deeper
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). ‘The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachment as a Fundamental Human Motivation’. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Feingold, A. (1988). ‘Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique’. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226–235.
Jackson-Dwyer, D. (2014). Interpersonal Relationships. London: Routledge.
Sternberg, K. (2013). Psychology of Love 101. Springer Publishing Co.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). ‘Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories’. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 331–345.
Fact-check
1 Which of the following factors contribute towards our need to affiliate with another person:
a The need for positive experiences
b Avoidance of long-term health problems
c The need for emotional support
d All of the above
2 According to Leon Festinger and his colleagues in their study of the Westgate Student housing complex, which of the following factors played the most important role in the formation of relationships?
a Individual differences
b Shared background
c Proximity
d Similarity
3 In the above study, it was found that friendships between people living in the same building were:
a Very unlikely to occur
b Twice as likely to occur
c Four times more likely to occur
d Ten times more likely to occur
4 In relation to friendship formation, the principle of ‘Similarity’ suggests that:
a Fools seldom differ
b Birds of a feather flock together
c Opposites attract
d A rolling stone gathers no moss
5 The ‘matching hypothesis’ states that we are more likely to form a relationship with:
a Someone who is of a similar level of physical attractiveness as ourselves
b Someone who shares our interests
c Someone who has the same personality traits as ourselves
d Someone who comes from the same background
6 The most enduring and satisfying relationship is likely to be one in which the rewards are relatively high whilst the costs are comparatively low. This is according to:
a Equity theory
b Social exchange theory
c Sternberg’s ‘triangle of love’ theory
d Duck’s model of relationship dissolution
7 Which of the following is not a component of Sternberg’s ‘triangle of love’ theory?
a Intimacy
b Desire
c Passion
d Commitment
8 According to Sternberg’s theory, if ‘intimacy’ and ‘commitment’ are present, then we should feel what type of love?
a Romantic
b Companionate
c Fatuous
d Infatuation
9 In Lee’s ‘colours of love’ typology, if we mix the primary love types of ‘Eros’ and ‘Ludus’, then we get which type of secondary love?
a Storge
b Agape
c Pragma
d Mania
10 Duck’s theory of relationship dissolution claims that, at some stage, one or both partners will reach a point at which they decide that they would be justified in leaving the relationship. This is characteristic of which phase?
a The Intrapsychic phase
b The Dyadic phase
c The Social phase
d The Grave-dressing phase
6
Social influence: conformity and obedience
This chapter looks at the topic of social influence. It is an important topic given that hardly a day goes by (if ever) without someone trying to get us to do something – sometimes we want to do it, and sometimes we don’t. Likewise, we try to get other people to do things that we want them to do, and which they might not want to do. Sometimes the influence is relatively harmless, e.g. trying to persuade a friend to see the film that you want to see and not the one they want to see; but sometimes it is far more sinister, e.g. when a soldier carries out an act of torture on a prisoner of war because he is told to do so by his commanding officer.
When asked to think about the topic of social influence, many people tend to produce sinister examples. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that social influence is usually a good and necessary thing in order to keep life functioning smoothly. For example, what would happen if one morning we woke up and decided that, just because everyone else stops at a red traffic light, and goes at a green light, today we are not going to do what everybody else is doing; today we will go on red and stop on green. In short, society needs a good degree of successful social influence on a daily basis.
Key idea: Social influence
An attempt by one or more people to modify the behaviour, perceptions, attitudes or beliefs of another individual or group.
For example, a boss might tell his employee that things have to be done a certain way; a cult leader might recruit followers by informing them that if they join his group they will be saved, but damnation will surely follow if they don’t; a politician urges a group of undecided voters to back his party in an election.
Social psychologists study why people are influenced by others and the mechanisms responsible. They also investigate what factors might affect people’s tendency to be influenced. Generally speaking, three types of social influence exist: conformity, obedience and compliance. This chapter will look at the first two and the next chapter will address the third.
Conformity
As has been suggested, doing something simply
because everyone else is doing it is generally not a bad strategy – it is sometimes the best way to get on in life. Social psychologists refer to this type of behaviour as ‘conformity’ or ‘majority influence’.
Key idea: Conformity
An individual will change their attitudes or behaviour in order to adhere to existing social norms.
One of the earliest studies in this area was conducted by Muzafer Sherif, and utilized the autokinetic effect. Participants were seated alone in a dark room, a light was switched on, and they were asked to report how far they perceived the light had moved. They did this a number of times before the session was completed, and an average was recorded as to the distance that they perceived the light had moved (although it had actually remained stationary the entire time).
Key idea: The autokinetic effect
An optical illusion occurring whereby a stationary light appears to move in a completely dark room.
They were asked to return at a later time when they were again seated in the dark room, but this time two other participants (who had also previously taken part in the solitary condition) were also seated in the room. The light was switched on a number of times and the three participants were asked to report aloud as to how far the light had moved. They took it in turns to answer first, second or third.
Given that it was a fairly ambiguous task based on a quirk of our optical system, Sherif was interested to find out whether each of the three participants would remain independent in their distance judgements (as found when they were tested alone) regardless of what the other two participants said, or whether they would allow themselves to be influenced by the judgements of the others.
The results of the study clearly showed that, over a series of trials in three sessions, the judgements of the three participants converged on a distance different from all of their original independent judgements. For example if, in the independent conditions, participant A judged the mean movement of the light to be 7 inches, participant B judged 1 inch and participant C 3 inches, then by the end, all three participants would likely agree on an average movement of about 2 inches.
These findings suggest that when we are asked to do something of which we are uncertain, we look to other people to help us complete the task; we allow ourselves to be influenced by them. This is referred to as informational influence.
Key idea: Informational influence
An individual will change their behaviour to fit in with what everyone else is doing because they are unsure of the correct way to act in a given situation.
However, this is not the only reason that we allow ourselves to conform to the actions of other people. We may sometimes go along with the majority for a quiet life, even though we know what they are doing is wrong. Solomon Asch, in a famous experiment (referred to as the ‘Line Judgement Task’), showed this to be the case.
Participants in a group of seven were asked to make judgements about which line out of a choice of three matched a target line (see below). Unbeknownst to the real participants, the other six people in their group were confederates (see Chapter 1) of the experimenter who were instructed to give incorrect answers in 12 out of the 36 trials. The naïve (real) participant was always situated in seat 6, therefore five confederates gave their answers before them. In the 24 control trials, all was well and the participant simply gave the correct answer in line with everyone else. However, in the 12 experimental trials, the participant was confronted with five other people who were giving an obviously incorrect answer. Asch was interested to see what they would do: would they remain independent, or would they conform to the majority and give an answer that they knew to be incorrect?
Asch’s line judgement task
The results of Asch’s study showed that out of the 12 experimental trials, 28 per cent of participants gave eight or more incorrect answers, 37 per cent gave at least one incorrect answer, and only 25 per cent of participants did not conform at all (i.e. they gave the correct answer despite the disbelieving stares from the confederates).
Asch was understandably dismayed by his findings which indicated that supposedly intelligent people gave wrong answers just to avoid the social disapproval of others (this was confirmed through debriefing interviews with the participants after the experiment had concluded). Of course, another way of interpreting the results would be to laud the fact that 25 per cent of participants were able to remain resolute and resist majority pressure.
‘That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.
(Solomon Asch, 1955, p. 34
Overall, these findings suggest that when we are confronted with people who are obviously doing something wrong, or doing something that we disagree with, but who we want to impress (or who we don’t want to upset or to disapprove of us), then we will allow ourselves to be influenced by them. This is referred to as normative influence.
RESISTING THE MAJORITY
Other research has investigated the circumstances needed to resist conformity pressures. One study using the Asch line judgement paradigm found that when a second person also gave the same answer (the correct answer) as the participant, then conformity rates dropped as low as 12.5 per cent. A further study found that when a second person gave a different answer to the majority (but not the correct answer) then conformity rates also fell. It seems that anything that breaks the monopoly of the majority can help an individual to resist.
Key idea: Normative influence
An individual will change their behaviour to fit in with what everyone else is doing to ensure that they are liked, or to avoid social disapproval, by the others.
Researchers have also looked for other factors which might suggest a person is more likely to conform. Findings suggest that a lower IQ, an authoritarian personality, and high levels of anxiety or feelings of inferiority, might lead to more conforming behaviour. However, other evidence suggests this is not the case, which leads to the conclusion that situational factors might also affect conformity. Similarly, an effect for gender was found in early research, with women showing more conformity than men. However, this was probably an artefact of the task type (which tended to be more male-oriented), as later research (which used more gender neutral tasks) found no effect of gender.
PERSUADING THE MAJORITY: MINORITY INFLUENCE
The question has also been raised as to whether it is possible for a minority to influence the majority. This idea is an important one which obviously has real-world implications; for example, in the political arena, could a minority party ever change enough minds in the electorate (the majority) to become a winner in an election. Equally, anyone who has ever seen the classic 1957 film Twelve Angry Men will wonder whether it would really be possible for one juror (e.g. Henry Fonda) to change the minds of the other eleven members of the jury. Minority influence can be important to promote creativity and change in society.
A number of theories have been put forward to explain how a minority could have an effect; for example ‘conversion theory’ and ‘convergent-divergent theory’. To draw out the relevant elements from these different theories, we can say that in order for a minority to bring about change, they must:
1 Deliberately draw attention to themselves and promote an atmosphere of controlled conflict.
2 Be consistent in their message – express the same view over a period of time.
3 Be consistent in their group outlook – different members of the minority must agree with one another.
4 Not be too rigid – avoid being seen as dogmatic, but they should be more rigid on their core issues.
5 Not be too flexible – avoid being seen as inconsistent, but be prepared to be flexible on non-core issues (there is a fine line to be walked between achieving 4 and 5).
6 Show self-confidence – be firm and forceful wh
en promoting their message.
In addition to the above points, any minority should seriously consider establishing their ‘ingroup’ credentials before espousing their minority views. For example, Tony Blair and his followers firmly established themselves as staunch Labour supporters before putting forward their slightly radical ideas of ‘New Labour’. Had they not done this, but instead tried to change the party when still ‘junior’ members, they would likely have been marginalized, and the UK might now be quite a different place.
Having considered conformity, we now turn to another form of social influence where the two parties (the influencer and the target) are not on an equal footing i.e. one has more power than the other – namely obedience.
Obedience
Whether we like it or not, there are times when we simply need to obey a request from an authority figure – whether it is an edict from the Government to pay increased taxes, or a request from our boss to carry out a task. However, we would certainly like to think that we would only obey reasonable requests, and that we would know where we should draw the line.
Regrettably, there have been several well-documented cases throughout history where people have obviously not been able to draw the line, and for whatever reason, have carried out atrocities simply because they were told to do so by a superior (or leastways, that was their justification for their actions). Social psychologists have investigated the mechanisms behind obedience in the hope that they can prevent such events from reoccurring.