2. pertemuan 6-hubungan interpersonal Matakuliah: pengantar psikologi sosial Tahun: 2010

3. Thought Frequency As Pie Charts Men thrash ing Aging Havin g to pee Things we shouldn ’t have eaten Fo od Pe ts Se x The relationshi p Wom en Spor ts The relations hip Sex Me n Goin g bald Agin g Strange ear & nose hair growth Career

4. "Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction." --- Antoine de Saint-Exupery It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but few have seen it. --- La Rochefoucauld "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.“ --- George Bernard Shaw Quotes

5. ALVY'S VOICE OVER: I THOUGHT OF THAT OLD JOKE, YOU KNOW, THIS GUY GOES TO A PSYCHIATRIST AND SAYS, "DOC, MY BROTHER'S CRAZY. HE THINKS HE'S A CHICKEN." AND, THE DOCTOR SAYS, "WHY DON'T YOU TURN HIM IN?" AND THE GUY SAYS, "I WOULD, BUT I NEED THE EGGS." WELL, I GUESS THAT'S PRETTY MUCH HOW I FEEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TOTALLY IRRATIONAL AND CRAZY AND ABSURD AND...BUT, I GUESS WE KEEP GOING THROUGH IT BECAUSE, UH, MOST OF US NEED THE EGGS. ---ANNIE HALL

6. CECILIA: I JUST MET A WONDERFUL NEW MAN. SURE, HE'S FICTIONAL BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING. ---THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO IKE: WELL, I'M OLD-FASHIONED. I DON'T BELIEVE IN EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD MATE FOR LIFE, LIKE PIGEONS OR CATHOLICS. ---MANHATTAN CLIFF: WENDY AND I FINALLY DECIDED TO CALL IT QUITS, YOU KNOW, AND EVEN THOUGH THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE BEEN TERRIBLE, THIS KIND OF THING MAKES ME FEEL SAD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY. BABS: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU TOLD ME? YOU TOLD ME IT'S BEEN PLATONIC FOR A YEAR. AND I SAY, ONCE THE SEX GOES, IT ALL GOES. ---CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

7. ARTHUR: I HAD DROPPED OUT OF LAW SCHOOL WHEN I MET EVE. SHE WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL. VERY PALE AND COOL IN HER BLACK DRESS...WITH NEVER ANYTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE STRAND OF PEARLS. AND DISTANT. ALWAYS POISED AND DISTENT. BY THE TIME THE GIRLS WERE BORN...IT WAS ALL SO PERFECT, SO ORDERED. LOOKING BACK, OF COURSE, IT WAS RIGID. THE TRUTH IS...SHE'D CREATED A WORLD AROUND US THAT WE EXISTED IN WHERE EVERYTHING HAD ITS PLACE, WHERE THERE WAS ALWAYS A KIND OF HARMONY. OH, GREAT DIGNITY. I WILL SAY...IT WAS LIKE AN ICE PALACE. THEN SUDDENLY, ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE...AN ENORMOUS ABYSS OPENED UP BENEATH OUR FEET. AND I WAS STARING INTO A FACE I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE. ---INTERIORS

8. Early Attraction Factors Proximity (physical distance, repeated exposure) Anxiety Affiliation Link (Dr. Zilstein study) General Emotional Arousal Attraction Link

9. Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study” 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Nonanxiou s subjects Anxious subjects # of Subjects Choose to wait alone Choose to wait with others Schachter (1959) manipulated the anxiety levels of female subjects by having them anticipate either painful or innocuous shock. The dependent variable was subjects’ choice to wait with others or to wait alone. The results indicated that anxious subjects chose to wait with others more than non-anxious subjects. Also, a follow-up study found that anxious people preferred to wait with other anxious people rather than those who were not anxious

10. Attitude similarity and attraction 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00.00.20.40.60.80 1.00 Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14) Proportion of similar attitudes held by other person Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked to rate how much they liked a stranger after learning he agreed with varying proportions of their attitudes expressed on a questionnaire. (Higher numbers indication greater liking.) As the graph shows, the greater the proportion of attitudes subjects shared with the stranger, the more subjects liked him.

11. WHY SUCH A POWERFUL EFFECT OF SIMILARITY? A) COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY (WE LIKE OURSELVES, THEREFORE WE LIKE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE US) B) SOCIAL COMPARISON (VALIDATION OF ONE'S BELIEFS) C) ANTICIPATE/PREDICT OTHER'S BEHAVIOR (e.g., LIKES/DISLIKES, INTERESTS) D) THEY WILL LIKE US ALSO (RECIPROCAL)

12. Basic premise : Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening REPULSION HYPOTHESIS “Lab” studies Avg. attraction score Similar attitudes 5.5 No information regarding attitudes 5.2 Dissimilar attitudes 2.1 (less attraction) No difference Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic) Description of person Democrat No party affiliation RepublicanDisliked No difference

13. D S S D S D S S D D D D D S S D D D S D D D S D D S D Reject those who are dissimilar S S S S S S S S End result is that we are left with similar people to interact with

14. Balance Theory Imbalance is motivating Congruity Theory Incongruity is motivating Dissonance Theory Dissonance is motivating Equity Theory Inequity is motivating The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other theories in social psychology: Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather than being given other’s attitudes is quite different Active search process

15. TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content % of men who called female back Misattribution of Emotional Arousal Bridge characteristics: Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled Low handrails (3 feet) 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids versus Higher scores and greater percent called back when on this bridge Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction

16. EATING LIGHTLY AND SELF-PRESENTATION Basic Premise: People are motivated to behave in ways to enhance their image Females have greater number of eating disorders and dieting than males (emphasis on thin as attractive) “Undesirable” Male “Desirable” Male Females ate less food when interacting with a desirable male Equal intake of candy by males and females

17. Conversation Style and Relationship Type Intimate Friend (versus Casual Friend) Voice Quality Feminine Babylike High pitch Relaxed Pleasant Trait Ratings Submissive Scatterbrained Approachable Sincere Much better than chance identification of who was being spoken to, a casual versus intimate friend. No difference in what was said (transcript analysis). Focus on how things were said, paralinguistic cues.

18. Physical Attractiveness Advantages: Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date) More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm, intelligent) Higher income Higher evaluation of work performance More lenient treatment in the legal system Better mental health Matching Length of relationship Short Long Couple is equal in physical attraction Often different in physical attraction

19. Misattributions of friendly behavior Routine Conversation Female Male Observers Female Male Viewed female as promiscuous; were attracted to the female; saw themselves as flirtatious and seductive Viewed males as behaving in a sexual manner; females as promiscuous Sexual Interaction

20. Attraction Communication/ consolidation Buildup Ending Deterioration and decline Relationship continues Triggering factors: Proximity, Similarity, Erotic love etc… Social-exchange and equity: Communication, Self-disclosure, Communal concern, External supports Social-exchange and equity/inequity: Relative attractiveness of alternatives, Barriers to dissolution Important variables influencing attraction Emotion Low: Relationship in stable state High: Heady feeling of romantic love High: Upset of deterioration and trauma of disruption The life cycle of a relationship

21. Costs (Inputs) Benefits (Outputs) Comparison Level (e.g., a standard) Comparison Level for Alternatives Loss of freedom, $, time, etc. Companionship, sexual fulfillment, etc. Other person in a relationship, yourself in the past, an ideal Evaluation of the value of other partners Social Exchange Theory

22. Gender and the Personal Columns MalesFemale s OfferSeek Offer Money Status Career Young Physicall y attractive Physical attractivenes s Money Job information Personality traits (e.g., sincerity)

23. Relationship Breakups About 50% “survival” rate; on average overall relationship satisfaction goes down across time Who identifies more problems? Who initiates most breakups? When are the partners most likely to remain friends, when the male of female initiates the breakup?

24. Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions Positive Event Relationship-Enhancing Attribution Distress-Maintaining Attribution My partner takes me out to an expensive dinner My partner is sweet and thoughtful My partner took me out to write the cost off on taxes Internal, stable, global Negative Event My partner forgot my birthday External, unstable, specific Something unexpected must have come up External, unstable, specific My partner is always uncaring and selfish Internal, stable, global

25. Sample Liking Scale Items When I am with _____, we are almost always in the same mood. I think that _____ is unusually well-adjusted. I would highly recommend _____ for a responsible job. In my opinion, _____ is an exceptionally mature person. I have great confidence in _____’s good judgment. I think that _____ is someone one of those people who quickly win your respect. _____ is one of the most likeable people I know. _____ is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be. I would vote for _____ in a class or group election.

26. Sample Love Scale Items I would do anything for _____. I feel responsible for _____’s well being. I feel very possessive toward _____. If I could never be with _____, I would feel miserable. If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek _____ out. I would forgive _____ for practically anything. In would greatly enjoy being confided in by _____. When I am with _____, I spend a good deal of my time just looking at him/her. I would be hard for me to get along without _____.

27. Liking & Loving for Dating Partners and Same-Sex Friends IndexWomenMen Love for Partner 89.589.3 Liking for Partner 88.784.6 Love for Friend 65.355.1 Liking for Friend 80.579.1

28. Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches Relationships Individual subjective reactions to cues in an interaction Active search/detection process for cues Timing and sequencing of cues (e.g., baking a cake example)

29. Thoughts about interpersonal interactions Evaluation of interaction as good, average, poor Future possibilities Strategies Narratives/stories about relationships Who is told? When they are told? What is said? Why they are told? Differences in perceptions; memory for facts Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches (cont.)