History of relationships research  Pre1960s Festinger, Schachter, & Bach, 1950  1960s-70s Newcomb, 1961 Byrne, 1961 Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966 Dutton & Aron, 1974  1980s Love, Investment model  1990s Evolutionary psych  2000s “Real” relationships  People say that physical attraction isn’t that important, but research shows that it is

Predictors of attraction (target)  Physical attractiveness (similar across cultures)  Females: large lips, high cheekbones, big eyes, small nose  Men: strong jaw, big eyes, large smile  Facial symmetry

“Averaged” faces are more symmetrical  age age  Similarity to early “hard to get” research—we like those that are hard for others to get, but easy for us to get!

And it doesn’t just matter for romantic relationships  Physically attractive children are punished less  Physically attractive defendants get lighter sentences  Plain people make 5-10% less than average-looking people, who make about 4% less than very physically attractive people (controlling for gender, education, occupation, etc.)  Strong consensus across cultures  Why?

What is beautiful is good stereotype (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1978)  Physically attractive seen as more SociableExtraverted HappyPopular FriendlyMature Sexually warmLikeable Well-adjustedPoised  In US/Canada, also strong, assertive, and dominant  In S. Korea, also sensitive, honest, empathic, trustworthy, generous

Other factors that increase attraction (target)  Waist-to-hip ratio of.7 for women,.1 for men  Being liked  Similarity  Familiarity (mere exposure and propinquity)  Having pratfalls  Scent and fertility (ovulation, genetic similarity)

Fertility effects on women  Women prefer the smell of symmetrical and genetically dissimilar men when they are ovulating (and similar men otherwise)  Women dress more fashionably  They buy sexier clothing  They make more money if they use attractiveness to make money  They are attracted to more masculine men (e.g., strong jaw, deep voice, tall)  They flirt more

Fertility effects on men  When a man’s partner is ovulating, he is More attentive More jealous Sees other men as more of a threat

Predictors of attraction (perceiver or both)  Sex differences  Comparisons  Physiological arousal  Mood  Self-disclosure  Keeping relationship secret  Similarity  Scarcity  Proximity

Major theoretical approaches  Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)  Equity theory (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978)  Interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)  Investment model (Rusbult, 1990)  Attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)  Evolutionary psychology (Buss, Kenrick)  Communal vs. exchange relationships (Clark)

Investment Model (Rusbult)  Commitment (whether you stay in a relationship) is predicted by Satisfaction ○ Rewards – costs ○ What you expect in a relationship (comparison level) Alternatives (comparison level for alternatives) Investments

Investment model  Predicts 50-90% of commitment in relationships of all types (dating, marriage, domestic abuse, homosexual, jobs)  Predicts willingness to accommodate  Predicts when people will derogate alternatives  EVLN  How does it differ from equity?

Love (80s)  Rubin’s love scale love-scale-and-rubins-liking-scale/000792http://psychcentral.com/lib/rubins- love-scale-and-rubins-liking-scale/  Companionate vs. passionate love (Berscheid & Walster, 1978)  Sternberg’s triangular theory (intimacy, passion, commitment)  Love styles (Henrick & Henrick) eros, ludus, storge, mania, agape, pragma selfmeasures/Different_Types_of_Love_LOVE_ATTITUD ES_SHORT.pdf selfmeasures/Different_Types_of_Love_LOVE_ATTITUD ES_SHORT.pdf  Sternberg’s love as a theory (scripts)  How can love be best conceptualized?

Passionate vs. companionate love  Passionate: intense longing with arousal. I would feel deep despair if X left me. My thoughts are often on X. I would rather be with X than anyone else. X always seems to be on my mind.  Companionate love: intimacy and affection. I have confidence in the stability of my relationship with X. I am committed to X. I expect my love for X to last the rest of my life.

Sternberg’s triangular theory

Attachment  Bowlby  Ainsworth “Strange Situation”  Secure, Avoidant, Anxious-ambivalent  Hazan & Shaver, 1987  Avoidance vs. Ambivalence as separate dimensions Secure Preoccupied Fearful avoidant Dismissive avoidant

Secure I find it relatively easy to get close to others an am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close.

Avoidant  I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I feel it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets close and often romantic partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Anxious/ambivalent  I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

Attachment theory (Bowlby, Hazen & Shaver, Feeney, Simpson)  Our experiences with parents and later partners can affect how we view relationships  Views of others vs. views of self  What is the problem with looking at these categorically?  When does someone become an attachment figure?

Diathesis-stress model (Simpson & Rholes, 2012)  What characterizes secure vs. anxious vs. avoidant adults?  What threats activate which orientations?  Acute vs. chronic stressors  How does each orientation react to stress?  Review of studies on acute external, acute internal, and chronic stress effects  Moderators—degree of dependence, commitment  Parenting studies

 Can attachment orientations change?  How do they relate this theory to culture?  To evolution?  Issues with this approach?

Cavallo, Murray, & Holmes, 2013  Commitment insurance system  Seek connection vs. avoid rejection  Consider: Self char, partner char, dyad char  Confidence in partner’s love leads to commitment; Doubt to self-protection  Relate to sociometer  How does this build on attachment theory? How do anxious vs. avoidant regulate risk?

Moderators of risk regulation  Whether immediate or distant (not tied to certain relationship) threats  Chronic trust in the partner  Self-esteem  Attachment anxiety  How do these factors relate to anxious vs. avoidant attachment and their reactions?  How does this affect initiation of relationships?

Dual process approach to risk regulation  Is it automatic or controlled?  What does attachment theory say?  Do relationships have a personality?

 Self-esteem effects—are they the only moderators?  Is this conscious?  Differences in collectivist cultures  If = ptr, then ptr committed Find similar mate value Maintain match Comparisons change commitment (like Swann) ○ Doubt of self leads low SE to doubt ptr ○ High SE to think ptr loves them more ○ Laundry list study affected both

 If exchange concerns, promote dependence Coin study  If ptr dependent, then = ptr  If ptr committed, pursue connectedness Low SE responds to rejection w/ withdrawal  How different from attachment? Is low SE = anxious attachment? Avoidant attachment?  From Rusbult?  Cognitive load effects  What are implications of this approach for relationships?

Harden, 2012  Age at first intercourse and outcomes  How did this study improve on previous research?  Any issues with measures? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using archival data?  How did her findings qualify previous research?  Why might late initial sexual experience be related to happier relationships later?

Gottman research  NcLIH0 NcLIH0  4 horsemen of the apocalypse Contempt Stonewalling Defensiveness Criticism  fTAKtDB8fY fTAKtDB8fY

How to have a good relationship  Surprise as important (Berscheid, 1983)  Novel, exciting activities (Aron)  Positive attributions  Assume they love you and make them feel loved (Murray)  Remember the positive  Think you’re better than other couples  Be accurate but positive (Fletcher)

Measurement issues, etc.  IOS (Aron)  Experimental induction of closeness (Aron)  RCI (Berscheid) Frequency, strength, diversity  Are we accurate vs. enhancing about our relationships?

Evolutionary psych  Parental investment model (Trivers)  What is attractive  Long vs. short term strategies  Jealousy  Scent  Rape  Avoiding temptation  Warding off rivals

Evolutionary arguments for these effects  Parental investment model  For women, good genes and status should be important in a man  For men, good genes, age, and fertility cues (e.g., waist-to-hip ratio) should be important  Cultural/situational effects as well (in most cultures men have more resources and are the “approachers” in relationships

 T-rex didn’t evolve for romance

Jealousy effects  Imagine your partner having sex with someone else.  Imagine your partner sharing his/her deepest secrets with someone else.  Which would bother you more?

 Men—more sexual jealousy  Women—more emotional jealousy  But: Does one imply the other? Are men just more affected by thinking about sex? Or are men just more avoidant? Hard to test in the real world

Issues with ev psych  Adaptations vs. by-products vs. noise Examples?  Article is different from early ev psych Modules Ultimate and proximate both important  Can ev psych be falsified? Or are they just HARKing? Is there an ultimate test?

 Isn’t it just rationality? Sexual vs. emotional jealousy  Isn’t socialization important? Influence of peers  How does culture fit in? Evoked culture Transmitted culture  How do recent environmental changes affect evolution? (how long does it take, and why are we still on the Pleistocene fields?)

 How do genes figure into evo?  How can evo be applied? Depression treatment  What can it not explain? Homosexuality Suicide Adoption  Is ev psych too beaten down or too girded up?

Breakups  Who falls in love first?  Who says it first?  Who does hearing it make happiest?  Who falls out of love faster?  Who initiates more breaksups?  Who is more interested in staying friends?

Gottman research  NcLIH0 NcLIH0  4 horsemen of the apocalypse Contempt Stonewalling Defensiveness Criticism  fTAKtDB8fY fTAKtDB8fY

How interconnected are we?  Six degrees of Kevin Bacon  It also only takes about 6-7 steps to get to another person in the same country by mail  Or to anyone among the millions of people on the internet ( study and Microsoft messenger project)

So can the internet help you find love?  By 2005, 37% of single people who used the internet used it to date online (higher today)  By , more relationships began online than any other method other than meeting through friends

Does it make for better relationships?  Not necessarily. No evidence that match algorithms actually help  ing for too long before meeting can be bad for the relationship—you can’t find out some important things online  When people have more choices, they tend to make worse decisions  People are often deceptive (height, weight, age)  Pictures are often misleading (32% in one study, though they didn’t realize it)

More deceptive ads  Use fewer “I” and “me”  Use more negative phrases (e.g., “not judgmental” instead of “open-minded”)  Use fewer words overall

Speed dating  KtyQMZeE KtyQMZeE

Friends with benefits  ome/2012/3/2/are-you-a-booty-call-or-a- friend-with-benefits.html ome/2012/3/2/are-you-a-booty-call-or-a- friend-with-benefits.html