Discuss the human need to build bonds and relationships. Do we have an innate need to belong? If so, why?

 

For this assignment, please address each of the items below:

1.   Describe the factors of attraction. What attracts us to one another? Why are we less likely to befriend someone from another culture than someone from a similar background with a similar physical aesthetic? Be sure to identify and describe all six factors in attraction.

2.   Discuss the human need to build bonds and relationships. Do we have an innate need to belong? If so, why? How is this need attached to our emotions, our social bonds, and our fear of deprivation?

3.   Explain the three types of love: companionate, passionate, and compassionate.  What are the differences and similarities among them? What is an example of each type? How does Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love distinguish romantic love, from empty love or infatuation? Please thoroughly address each of the components in Figure 14.1.

Include an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. Your completed assignment must be three to four pages in length (excluding title and reference pages).  It must include a minimum of two to three references, formatted according to APA guidelines, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

13.1

Factors in Attraction

Many of us meet a variety of people each day. Sitting in the train station you would likely meet a variety of people. Some we become friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a romantic relationship with one person but refuse to even date another. What attracts us to some people and not others? Throughout this chapter we investigate a variety of factors related to attraction.

We Like Those Who Are Close to Us

Surprisingly, simple proximity has a lot to do with who we meet and become friends with. First-year students were more likely to develop a friendship with someone they sat next to during an introductory session than those they were not sitting near (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). In a student apartment building, individuals were more likely to make friends with those living in apartments next to theirs, as opposed to those down the hall or up the stairs. The one exception to this was for those living near the mailboxes. The people in the apartments by the mailboxes saw individuals from all areas of the building frequently and thus became friends with those on different floors or farther down the hall (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; also Cadiz Menne & Sinnett, 1971). The most important factor in our liking of those who are close to us is repeated exposure. Exposure does not need to be in a face-to-face context. When we frequently interact with someone online, such as in a chat room or online classroom, we show greater liking for that person (Levine, 2000).

Repeated exposure to objects and people is related to greater liking for that person or object (Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968). A piece of modern art, for example, that you thought was merely interesting the first time you saw it may, with repeated exposure, become well loved. This tendency to have greater liking for things we see often is the mere-exposure effect. In one study of mere exposure women who attended more class sessions were better liked by their classmates, even when they did not interact with those classmates (Moreland & Beach, 1992).

One interesting byproduct of the mere-exposure effect is our tendency to prefer mirror images of ourselves, while our friends prefer our true image. Because most people see themselves in a mirror more than they see their true image, they come to like their mirror image more than their true image. Friends and family rarely see our image in the mirror, so they prefer the true image (Mita, Dermer, & Knight, 1977).

We Like Those Who Are Attractive

Imagine you are beginning school at a large university and have signed up to be part of a welcome week dance. For the dance you are paired with another student of the opposite sex by a computer based on your answers to some questionnaires. You meet your date and the two of you try to get to know each other over the course of the evening. As part of this dance you are asked to evaluate your partner and are asked whether you would like to date him or her again. What might influence your answer? Would how intelligent your date is matter? His or her sincerity? Other personality factors? When researchers did this study they found none of these predicted evaluations of the date. The only predictor of the evaluation students gave of their partner was how physically attractive the date was. The partners of more-attractive dates liked them more and showed a greater desire to go out with them again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). All other things being equal, we prefer highly attractive individuals as dates, as friends, and to interact with in a general situation (Black, 1974; Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1967). For example, in a study of speed daters the strongest predictor of attraction for both men and women was attractiveness of the partner (Luo & Zhang, 2009). In another study involving third and eighth graders, physical attractiveness was an important factor in a desire for friendship with a peer (Zakin, 1983).

Attractiveness appears to be most important for initial phases of a relationship. In a study of newlyweds, attractive individuals were not any more satisfied with their marriage than those who were less attractive. In fact, more attractive husbands were less satisfied. Partners behaved best when the wife was more attractive than her husband and worst when the husband was more attractive than his wife (McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008). Physical attractiveness has been found to have no effect on established friendships (Johnson, 1989).

We Like Those Who Match Us

While individuals might desire a relationship with an attractive other, the attractive person might not desire a relationship with the not-so-attractive individual. Most people, therefore, expect to and tend to end up with someone who is close to them in physical attractiveness (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971; Montoya, 2008). This tendency to have relationships with those who match us is called the matching hypothesis. The next time you have a chance to observe couples, perhaps at a party, look around and notice whether the couples are about the same in attractiveness.

We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us

Do the values or interests of a potential relationship partner make a difference in our liking of that person? In general, we like and want to interact with those who are similar to us in values and interests (Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1967; Johnson, 1989). Among those who are already our friends, researchers find, the intensity of friendship is greater among those who perceived similarity (Selfhout, Denissen, Branje, & Meeus, 2009).

Similarity may be a more long-term relationship factor than a short-term factor. Speed daters showed no greater attraction to those who were similar (Luo & Zhang, 2009). As we discovered above, it was attractiveness that was more important. Even when we desire similarity in our friendships, we may not actually be friends with similar people if our options are limited. Friends in the United States tend to show greater similarity than friends in Japan. Researchers found that this was because of a difference in the ability of individuals within those cultures to form new relationships. With fewer opportunities for new friendships to form, we tend to stick with friends who are not necessarily similar to ourselves but are close in geographic proximity (Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009).

We Like Those We Have Equitable Relationships With

Have you ever had a relationship where you felt you were giving more than you were getting from the other person? If so, you were part of an inequitable relationship. Equity involves receiving benefits proportional to what one provides (Hatfield, 1983). According to equity theory, it is not the overall amount one receives from a relationship that is important, it is whether or not what one gives and what one gets are equal. A partner who gives more than he or she receives in a relationship is underbenefited in the relationship. A partner who receives more than she or he gives in a relationship is overbenefited. As you might imagine, underbenefiting is more distressing to individuals. If you have ever invested in a relationship and have not gotten rewards proportional to your input, you were likely unhappy with that relationship. This theory also predicts that overbenefiting is problematic. When one relationship partner overbenefits, that person gains rewards he or she knows are undeserved, causing distress (Sprecher, 1986; 1992; Stafford & Canary, 2006).

Although there is some support for this theory, some have suggested the overall amount of benefits in a relationship is more important than equity (Cate, Lloyd, Henton, & Larson, 1982; Cate, Lloyd, & Long, 1988). If one is in an equitable relationship, but is neither giving nor receiving much from that relationship, it is unlikely to be a relationship for very long. Some people may expect fairness and pay attention to equity; others may be satisfied with an unbalanced relationship (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003). There may also be certain domains where equity is more important. Housework and childcare often fall inequitably to married women, creating problems within the relationship (Davis, Grenstein, & Marks, 2007). Equitability in these areas may, therefore, be more important to relationship success for married couples than equity in other domains (Gottman & Carrere, 1994).

We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get

The idea of playing hard to get is part of our culture. A variety of websites give advice on how to play hard to get (wikiHow.com; Dahlstrom, 2011). But does it work? Are individuals who play hard to get liked better? Individuals who play hard to get are selective in their social choices. Much of the advice about playing hard to get, and therefore the research on the idea, focuses on women playing hard to get in their potential romantic relationships.

In an impressive series of studies, Elaine Walster and colleagues (Walster, Walster, Piliavin, & Schmidt, 1973) investigated whether those who were more selective in their romantic interactions were liked more than those who were less selective. They found no greater liking for someone who was selective when they asked students to read a story about a woman who was not all that interested in a potential romantic partner (Studies 1 and 2) nor when male college students called up a woman who was hesitant about accepting his invitation to go out (Studies 3 and 4). Using a unique confederate, a prostitute, the researchers found that her clients seemed to like her less and were less likely to call her in the future when she played hard to get (Study 5). Finally, they discovered that targeted selectivity is what is most attractive (Study 6). Women who appeared to like and wanted to date the man in question, but not other men, were more attractive than women who were uniformly hard to get or who were willing to date anyone. The men were most likely to report wanting to date the women who liked them but no one else, liked her most, and expected fewer problems in dating. Interacting with someone who likes you but not other people may provide a boost in self-esteem (Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephan, 1979). Others have expanded this finding of selectively hard-to-get individuals being most liked to include both men and women and within actual dating situations (Wright & Contrada, 1986).

13.2

Need to Belong

There are a variety of reasons why we might pursue relationships with some people but not others, but the question remains of why we would pursue relationships at all. Our desire for relationships is, arguably, a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Within the need to belong are two parts (1) the need for frequent positive contact with others and (2) the need for enduring connections marked by mutual concern for the welfare of the other.

Social Bonds

This need to belong can be seen in the ease with which we form social bonds and the trouble we have breaking those bonds. Waiting at the train station you might find yourself chatting with the person sitting next to you, easily forming a friendship. After a short stay at summer camp as a child you may have promised your bunk mate or the other kids in your cabin that you would be friends forever. Humans quickly, and relatively easily, form social bonds. Research evidence of this can be found in the ease to which the boys in Sherif’s study of conflict and superordinate goals made friends with the boys in their own group (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Recall from Chapter 6 on prejudice that within a week these boys were a close-knit group. Ingroup favoritism quickly developed when participants were placed into groups, even when these groups were based on something as unimportant as the number of dots they estimated was on a slide (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1970).

Emotion

We generally view social connections as a source of positive emotions. In other words, our friends and family generally make us happy. When children say they made a friend at school, parents usually rejoice. New relationships are greeted with joy. We celebrate births and marriages (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). One predictor of happiness and satisfaction with life is social relationships (Myers, 1992).

Threats to relationships are associated with negative emotions. The loss of a loved one is very stressful (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Even the possibility that an important relationship might end is met with sadness (Leary, 1990; Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995) or jealousy (Pines & Aronson, 1983). Our reactions to discrimination may, in part, be rooted in our need to belong (Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). When ostracized from a social group, we feel pain, anger, and sadness (van Beest & Williams, 2006; Williams, 2001) though initially we may feel numbness (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). The status of our relationships and our emotions are closely linked.

Social Psychology in Depth: Ostracism and Aggression

On April 20, 1999, Erick Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students and one teacher and wounded 23 other people at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Since then there have been over 45 other school shootings around the world (Information Please Database, 2010). Many of the perpetrators of these school shootings had been ostracized by their classmates (Gibbs & Rocher, 1999; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).

Ostracism is something most people experience and use to control others. Ostracism can be used for a variety of purposes. Individuals with high self-esteem ostracize to end relationships while those with low self-esteem use ostracism as a defense against the expected rejection or criticism by others (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Ostracism has positive effects for the group as it increases group cohesion (Gruter & Masters, 1986).

Ostracism interferes with our need to belong, particularly when we are unsure of the cause of our ostracism (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Ostracism might also affect our self-esteem. Recall from Chapter 2 the sociometer theory, the idea that acceptance and rejection are important for self-esteem. Ostracism tells us that others do not value us as much as we value them (van Beest & Williams, 2006). To get back in the good graces of those around us, we often act in compliant or prosocial ways when we have been ostracized (Cater-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Williams, 2007). For example, an ostracized teen might buy gifts for the friends who ostracized her in an attempt to secure entry back into the group and demonstrate that she is a valuable member of the group.

When we are ostracized, life seems to lose meaning (Stillman et al., 2009) and we feel out of control (Williams, 1997). Ostracism that affects our sense of purpose or control is more likely to result in antisocial behavior (Williams, 2007). The interaction of ostracism and control may be particularly important for aggression. Warburton, Williams, and Cairns (2006) used a game of toss to ostracize research participants and then exposed them to an unpleasant blast of noise. Some of the participants were able to control the noise and others were not. Participants were then asked to decide how much hot sauce to put in the food of a stranger, knowing that the individual did not like spicy foods but would be required to eat all of the food. Participants who had no control over the noise wanted to put four times more hot sauce in the stranger’s food than those who had control over the noise. Placing hot sauce in the food of someone who does not like it is an aggressive act, an act made more likely when people felt they were ostracized and had no control over their circumstances.

The fact that school shooters have often been ostracized by their classmates does not excuse their behavior. Knowing about the effects of ostracism can, however, help us understand the behavior and provide us with a potential area for intervention.

Deprivation

What happens if we are deprived of belonging? Consider this startling statistic: For all causes of death in the United States, rates are higher for individuals who are divorced, widowed, or single than those who are married (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Sorlie, Backlund, & Keller, 1995). A variety of factors may be behind that statistic, but one is likely the long-term affective bond, normally accompanied by frequent contact, that marriage provides. In other words, married people are more likely than those in the other groups to fulfill the need to belong. It is not necessarily marriage that is key here, but fulfillment of the need to belong. Individuals with limited social ties, including family and friendships, had poorer physical health (Berkman, 1995; House, Robins, & Metzner, 1982). Individuals who do not fulfill the need to belong are also more vulnerable to mental illness (Broadhead et al., 1983; Thoits, 1995).

Loneliness is the feeling of being without desired social connections. It is possible to fulfill one piece of the need to belong, frequent contacts, without fulfilling the second, ongoing relationships involving mutual caring. Loneliness involves a problem with the second part of the need to belong. Someone can be lonely, therefore, even when that person has frequent contacts with others. Loneliness may be understood and experienced differently in different cultures. Cultures have different ways of understanding the nature of relationships, so, while loneliness appears to be common across cultures, it is understood differently depending on the culture (Rokach, 2007; van Staden & Coetzee, 2010). Lonely people have the physical and mental health issues discussed above. One major issue with loneliness is that it can lead to depression (Cacioppo, Huges, Waite, Hawlkey, & Thisted, 2006).

Bullying may, in part, be due to a deprivation and desire for acceptance from other children. Boys involved in bullying desired acceptance from other boys involved in the types of antisocial activities they were involved in (other bullies) and from other boys in general (Olthof & Goossens, 2008). Nearly all student perpetrators of school shootings felt they had been rejected and excluded by their classmates (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003). Not fulfilling the need to belong is dangerous for our own physical and mental health and may potentially be harmful to those around us.

Conclusion

We like those we interact with often, those who are attractive, those who match us, those who are similar to us, and those we have equitable relationships with. We also like those who like us exclusively. We form relationships quickly and easily and are happier and healthier because of these relationships. Our need for interaction and close bonds is a need, not just a want, in our lives.