1 2 3 Because of Because of how Because of how the person's the person makes the person attributes you feel makes you feel (your mood) (your self-esteem)

Examples of Liking Others Because They Enhance Our Self-Esteem 1.Evidence for reciprocity of liking – “you like me, I like you.”

Examples of Liking Others Because They Enhance Our Self-Esteem 1.Evidence for reciprocity of liking – “you like me, I like you.” 2.Early research in interpersonal attraction on similarity of attitudes and liking.

Relationships and Psychological and Physical Well-Being

The anatomy of relationships And the rules and skills needed to manage them successfully Michael Argyle and Monika Henderson (1984)

Goodwin (1987) This study examined the relation between being in a relationship and physical well-being by comparing currently married or currently unmarried patients who had cancer. The information was contained in the hospital records of over 27,000 patients

Results 1.Stage of cancer at diagnosis: earlier for married sample

Results 1.Stage of cancer at diagnosis: earlier for married sample 2.Treatment: more likely for married sample

Results 1.Stage of cancer at diagnosis: earlier for married sample 2.Treatment: more likely for married sample 3.Survival: longer for married sample

Types of Social Support 1.Emotional 2. Appraisal 3. Informational 4. Instrumental

Social Support as a Direct Predictor of Psychological and Physical Distress Social Support Negatively Related to Psychological Distress and to Physical Distress

Social Support as a Buffer between Life Stressors and Psychological and Physical Distress Social Support ! Stressors Psychological and physical distress This is an illustration of social support as a moderating variable.

Antonovsky(1987) Unraveling the mystery of health Central Concept: Sense of Coherence Components: 1. Comprehensibility: the surrounding world makes sense, is predictable.

Antonovsky(1987) Unraveling the mystery of health Central Concept: Sense of Coherence Components: 1. Comprehensibility: the surrounding world makes sense, is predictable. 2.Manageability: ability or perception that one can cope, meet challenges.

Antonovsky(1987) Unraveling the mystery of health Central Concept: Sense of Coherence Components: 1. Comprehensibility: the surrounding world makes sense, is predictable. 2.Manageability: ability or perception that one can cope, meet challenges. 3.Meaningfulness: life is worthy of commitment and engagement.

1.Studies have found a negative relation between sense of coherence and psychological and physical distress, that is, the greater the sense of coherence, the lower the distress levels. 2.In addition, consistent with the moderating role of social support, sense of coherence has been found to moderate the influence of stressors on psychological and physical distress.

Sense of coherence ! Stressors Psychological and physical distress This is an illustration of sense of coherence as a moderating variable.

Read (2005) In Finland, found a relation between marital status and sense of coherence, but for males only.

Some other results are consistent with the relationship-sense of coherence hypothesis Olsson (2006) 1.In Swedish samples, group of parents not in therapy had higher sense of coherence compared to couples in therapy. 2. With parents, closeness in the family predicted sense of coherence beyond depression.

The Role of Attributions Regarding Positive and Negative Behaviour of Your Partner in Happy and Unhappy Relationships

Happy in Your Relationship ! Expect Positive Behaviour Positive Behaviour Negative Behaviour (consistent) (inconsistent) ! ! Causal Attributions Causal Attributions Internal External Stable Unstable Global Specific Responsibility Responsibility Attributions Attributions Intentional Unintentional Unselfish Unselfish Praise No blame

Unhappy in Your Relationship ! Expect Negative Behaviour Positive Behaviour Negative Behaviour (inconsistent) (consistent) ! ! Causal Attributions Causal Attributions External Internal Unstable Stable Specific Global Responsibility Responsibility Attributions Attributions Unintentional Intentional Selfish Selfish No praise Blame

Longitudinal study Participants were married females Time 1 (12 month interval) Time 2 Variables Level of positive Level of positive attribution attribution activity Satisfaction in marriage

Time 1 (12 month interval) Time 2 Variables Variables Level of positive Level of positive attribution attribution activity Satisfaction in marriage 1.What was relation between attribution activity, Time 1 and satisfaction, Time 2? 2.What was the relation between satisfaction, Time 1 and attribution activity, Time 2?

Results 1.What was relation between attribution activity, Time 1 and satisfaction, Time 2? positive association 2.What was the relation between satisfaction, Time 1 and attribution activity, Time 2? no association

Results 1.What was relation between attribution activity, Time 1 and satisfaction, Time 2? positive association 2.What was the relation between satisfaction, Time 1 and attribution activity, Time 2? no association These results suggest what: a)Attribution activity drives satisfaction ? b) Or satisfaction drives attribution activity?

Another Bias in Interpersonal Relationships Murray (1996) Married couples and dating couples independently completed three versions of a questionnaire containing 20 trait- adjectives

Male Partner Female Partner Ratings of partner Ratings of self Ratings of "ideal" partner partner

Results 1.Ratings of partner using self-rating as criterion. Correlation coefficients around +.35 Therefore, there was considerable discrepancy, or error, in how judges rated their partners.

2.Rating of actual partner was positively associated with rating of ideal partner, but, there was no association between rating of ideal partner and the partner’s self-rating. In other words, we tend to view our actual partner to be similar to our ideal partner, even though this is not necessarily the case.

3. This bias was found to be more typical of people who reported higher levels of satisfaction in their relationship. In other words, people who are more satisfied in their relationship are the ones more likely to view their partners like their ideal, even though this may not be accurate.

The possible role of companionate activities in psychological and physical well-being (in contrast to social support) Rook (1987) Data available from 1050 respondents to a prior survey concerning

The possible role of companionate activities in psychological and physical well-being (in contrast to social support) The variables were: 1. Psychological ill-being (e.g., ratings on emotions such as anxious, sad) 2. Major life stressors 3. Minor life stressors (daily hassles) 4.Social support: instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal 5.Companionate activities: frequency of occurrence and number of different people (e.g., going out to diner with someone,meeting someone in a park).

The possible role of companionate activities in psychological and physical well-being (in contrast to social support) Multiple regression analyses predicting psychological ill-being. Predictors variables were: major or minor stressors, social support, and companionate activities (frequency or number).

Analysis with major life stressors 1.Major life stressors positively associated with psychological ill-being 2.Companionate activities negatively associated with psychological ill-being 3.Social support unrelated to psychological ill-being in terms of main effect, 4.But, interaction, such that, at high levels of major life stressors, social support now negatively related to psychological ill-being

Analysis with minor life stressors 1. Minor life stressors positively associated with psychological ill-being 2. minor life stressors interacted with companionate activities such that : companionate activities were more highly negatively related to psychological ill-being when minor life stressors were higher.

Elliot (2006) Approach and avoidance motivation in interpersonal relationships Research primarily in the achievement area 1.predisposition to succeed 2.or predisposition to avoid failure

This idea has recently been applied to interpersonal relationships. Begins with two dispositional constructs: i) Hope for affiliation ii) or Fear of rejection.

And two corresponding lower level concepts: i) Approach social goals (e.g., trying to deepen one's relationships) ii) or avoidance social goals (e.g., trying to avoid conflict in one's relationships)

In one study participants were university students. The study used questionnaires to measure:

1.Approach goals in friendships and avoidance goals in friendships.

1.Approach goals in friendships and avoidance goals in friendships. 2.Level of relationship satisfaction

1.Approach goals in friendships and avoidance goals in friendships. 2.Level of relationship satisfaction 3.Level of loneliness

1.Approach goals in friendships and avoidance goals in friendships. 2.Level of relationship satisfaction 3.Level of loneliness 4.Reported frequency of relational events and their perceived importance (8 positive and 8 negative events in questionnaire). e.g., I had especially good interactions with friend(s) I felt left out or rejected by a friend or family member

Some results: 1.Friendship approach positively related to relationship satisfaction.

Some results: 1.Friendship approach positively related to relationship satisfaction. 2.Friendship approach negatively related to loneliness.

Some results: 1.Friendship approach positively related to relationship satisfaction. 2.Friendship approach negatively related to loneliness. 3.Friendship approach positively related to frequency of positive events.

Some results: 1.Friendship approach positively related to relationship satisfaction. 2.Friendship approach negatively related to loneliness. 3.Friendship approach positively related to frequency of positive events. 4.Friendship approach negatively related to frequency of negative events.

Some results: 1.Friendship approach positively related to relationship satisfaction. 2.Friendship approach negatively related to loneliness. 3.Friendship approach positively related to frequency of positive events. 4.Friendship approach negatively related to frequency of negative events. 5.Friendship avoidance positively related to negative events (particularly for males).

In a second study, approach and avoidance social goals were linked to psychological and physical well- being (over time). 1. Hope for affiliation was positively associated with psychological well-being. 2. Fear of rejection was positively associated with physical symptoms of illness.

DePaulo(1998) Telling lies in relationships Students kept a diary for seven days which included a social interaction record and a deception record. A lie was defined as any time you intentionally try to mislead someone. Later asked, among other things, was this lie ever discovered, and if you could relive this social interaction, would you tell the lie again.

Two major categories of lies: self-centered, and other-oriented.

Results 1.Participants told fewer lies per social interaction to those they were closer to and felt more uncomfortable in this regard

Results 1.Participants told fewer lies per social interaction to those they were closer to and felt more uncomfortable in this regard 2.Other-oriented lies more frequent that self-oriented lies to best friends and friends; the reverse to acquaintances and strangers.

Results 1.Participants told fewer lies per social interaction to those they were closer to and felt more uncomfortable in this regard 2.Other-oriented lies more frequent that self-oriented lies to best friends and friends; the reverse to acquaintances and strangers. 3.Lies told to close partners were more often discovered.

Adult Attachment Style Secure: I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I do not often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

Adult Attachment Style Secure: I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I do not often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. Avoidant: I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Adult Attachment Style Secure: I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I do not often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. Avoidant: I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often love 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 does not really love me or will not want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

Attachment Styles ! Jealousy ! Violence in Intimate Relationships