Chapter 10 Interpersonal Attraction From First Impressions to

Chapter 10 Interpersonal Attraction: From First Impressions to Close Relationships Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

What Predicts Attraction? 10. 1 How do people decide whom they like and want to get to know better?

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect (1 of 5) �One determinant of interpersonal attraction is proximity. �Sometimes also called propinquity Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect (2 of 5) �Propinquity Effect �The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect (3 of 5) � 41% of the next-door neighbors indicated they were close friends � 22% of those who lived two doors apart �Only 10% of those who lived on opposite ends of the hall Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect (4 of 5) �Functional distance refers to certain aspects of architectural design that make it more likely that some people will come into contact with each other more often than with others Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect (5 of 5) � The Propinquity Effect occurs due to Mere Exposure Effect The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Figure Your social life likely has more to do with floor plans than you think! The physical layout of a building can play a surprising role in relationship formation. Research indicates that in a residential building like the one pictured here, the closer two people’s apartments are, the more likely they are to become friends. And those residents who live near the stairs or elevator are more likely to make friends with people who live on other floors of the building. Source: Shutterstock Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Similarity �“Birds of a feather flock together” (similarity) �What about “opposites attract” (complementarity)? �Research overwhelmingly supports �Similarity �Not complementarity Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Opinions and Personality �Greater similarity leads to more liking �Newcomb (1961): College men became friends with those who were similar in �Demographics �Attitudes �Values Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Interests and Experiences �Situations you choose to be in expose you to others with similar interests. �Then, when you discover and create new similarities, they fuel the friendship. �Close friendships are often made in college, in part because of prolonged propinquity. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Cartoon: A Snail’s Pledge of Love “I don’t care if she is a tape dispenser. I love her. ” Source: Sam Gross/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Similarity in Appearance �Seek physical proximity to those similar in appearance �Seek others with similar degree of physical attractiveness Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Similarity in Committed Relationships Versus “Flings” �For committed relationship �Choose a similar partner �Relationships based on differences can be difficult to maintain �Perceived similarity more important than actual similarity �Low level of commitment (fling) �Choose dissimilar partners Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Reciprocal Liking �We like people who like us �For initial attraction, reciprocal liking can overcome �Dissimilarity in attitudes �Attentional biases to attractive faces Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Always Looking One indicator of just how important physical appearance is in attraction is our nearly chronic tendency to shift visual attention to attractive others in our immediate vicinity. Source: Radius Images/Getty Images Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Physical Attractiveness �Gender differences? �Differences are larger when attitudes are measured �Men more likely than women to report attraction is important �Gender similarities in behaviour Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Physical Attractiveness (3 of 3) �The finding that we like people who like us suggests that the strategy of “playing hard-to-get” can sometimes backfire. �Recent research suggests that the strategy tends to decrease how much another person likes you, all the while potentially increasing how much that person wants to be with you. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Female Faces—What Is Attractive? �High attractiveness ratings are associated with: �Large eyes �Small nose �Small chin �Prominent cheekbones �High eyebrows �Large pupils �Big smile Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Male Faces—What Is Attractive? �High attractiveness ratings are associated with: �Large eyes �Prominent cheekbones �Large chin �Big smile Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Cultural Standards of Beauty �Facial attractiveness perceived similarly across cultures �Symmetry is preferred �Size, shape, and location of the features on one side match the other side of face �“Averaged” composite faces preferred �Lost atypical or asymmetrical variation Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Averaging for Beauty Physical attractiveness of composite faces. Langlois and Roggman (1990) created composites of faces using a computer. Pictured here is the first step in the process: The first two women’s photos are merged to create the “composite person” at the far right. This composite person has facial features that are the mathematical average of the facial features of the two original women. Source: Dr. Judith Langlois Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Power of Familiarity (1 of 2) �Familiarity may be crucial variable for interpersonal attraction. �People prefer faces that most resemble their own. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Power of Familiarity (2 of 2) �Propinquity �Gain familiarity through mere exposure �Similarity �If similar will also seem familiar �Reciprocal liking �People who we like and get to know become familiar Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Assumptions About Attractive People (2 of 3) �Physical beauty affects attributions �Halo Effect: �A cognitive bias by which we tend to assume that an individual with one positive characteristic also possesses other (even unrelated) positive characteristics Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Assumptions About Attractive People (3 of 3) �“What is beautiful is good” stereotype �The beautiful are thought to be more: �Sociable �Extraverted �Popular �Sexual �Happy �Assertive Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

All Princesses Are Beautiful in Children’s Movies It’s no coincidence that in children’s movies, the hero is traditionally attractive and the villain ugly. In addition to finding it pleasing to look at attractive others, we also tend to assume that “what is beautiful is good. ” Source: WALT DISNEY PICTURES/Album/Newscom Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Table 10. 1 Culture and the “What Is Beautiful Is Good” Stereotype Traits Shared in the Korean, American, and Canadian Stereotype sociable extraverted likable happy popular well-adjusted friendly mature poised sexually warm/responsive Additional Traits Present in the American and Canadian Stereotypes strong assertive dominant Additional Traits Present in the Korean Stereotypes sensitive empathic honest trustworthy generous The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype has been explored in both individualistic cultures (e. g. , North America) and collectivistic cultures (e. g. , Asia). Male and female participants in the United States, Canada, and South Korea rated photographs of people with varying degrees of physical attractiveness. Responses indicated that some of the traits that make up the stereotype are the same across cultures, while other traits associated with the stereotype are different in the two cultures. In both cultures, the physically attractive are seen as having more of the characteristics that are valued in that culture than do the less physically attractive. (Based on Eagly, Ashmore, Makhhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992 b; Wheeler & Kim, 1997) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Attractive People and the Self. Fulfilling Prophecy (1 of 2) �Highly attractive people: �Do develop good social interaction skills �Report having more satisfying interactions with others �Self-fulfilling prophecy �The beautiful receive a great deal of social attention �Helps them develop good social skills Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Attractive People and the Self. Fulfilling Prophecy (2 of 2) �Can a “regular” person be made to act like a “beautiful” one via the self-fulfilling prophecy? �Yes! �If men talking to women on the phone believe she is attractive �Elicit warmer, friendlier responses �Same for women Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Evolution and Mate Selection (1 of 4) �Evolutionary Psychology �The attempt to explain social behavior in terms of genetic factors that evolved over time according to the principles of natural selection Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Evolution and Mate Selection (2 of 4) �Evolutionary approach to mate selection �Men and women are attracted to different characteristics in each other that maximize reproductive success �Women are attracted by men’s resources � Reproductive � Greater success: raising offspring to maturity resources increases chances of survival �Men are attracted by women’s appearance � Reproductive � Symmetrical success: maximize number of offspring faces indicates positive health and “good genes” Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Evolution and Mate Selection (3 of 4) �Evidence for evolutionary approach: �Asked more than 9, 000 adults in 37 countries desirable marriage partner characteristics (Buss, 1989; Buss et al. , 1990) �Women: valued ambition, industriousness, and earning capacity more than men �Men: valued attractiveness more than women �Top characteristics for both the same: �honesty, trustworthiness, pleasant personality Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Alternate Perspectives on Sex Differences �Gender differences are status differences �Women often have less power and wealth �Difficult to disentangle “nature” from “nurture” �“Evolved” gender differences due to dating paradigms where men approach and women are approached (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Making Connections in the Age of Technology 10. 2 How have new technologies shaped attraction and social connections?

Technology Shapes Attraction and Social Connection �How are attraction and social connection affected by modern technology? �Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Tinder, text, virtual reality �Example: Field experiment of 100 real-life interactions �Pairs with mobile device rated connectedness and empathy lower than pairs without devices Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Don’t Bother Me, Can’t You See I’m Texting? As amazing as the technologies are, mobile devices like smartphones can also impair our feelings of social connectedness to others during the course of faceto-face interaction. Source: nyul/Fotolia Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Attraction 2. 0: Mate Preference in an Online Era �Propinquity �In Internet world, not that many degrees of separation �Similarity �People seek others with similar “popularity” in online dating sites �Familiarity �Liking decreased after meeting (compared to liking based on online profile) �Inaccuracy of online information Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The New World of Internet Dating One question surrounding attraction is how tendencies regarding mate preference that have evolved over generations play out in the modern era of Internet dating, speed-dating events, and Facebook. Source: Peter Scholey/Super. Stock Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Promise and Pitfalls of Online Dating (1 of 2) �Benefits �Aggregates a large number of profiles �Provides opportunity for communication �Matching users based on analyses of compatibility �But success rate not higher than other “old-fashioned” methods Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Promise and Pitfalls of Online Dating (2 of 2) � 81% provide inaccurate information in their profile for at least one characteristic �Lies about weight, age, height �No gender differences �Deceptive, misleading photos Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Cartoon: Where Nobody Knows You’re a Dog Source: Peter Steiner/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Love and Close Relationships 10. 3 What is love and what gives people satisfaction in close relationships?

Defining Love (1 of 2) �Companionate Love �The intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person �Do not experience passion or arousal in the person’s presence. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Defining Love (2 of 2) �Passionate Love �An intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied by physiological arousal �When our love is reciprocated, we feel great fulfillment and ecstasy �When it is not, we feel sadness and despair Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Companionate Love �Nonsexual relationships �Close friendships �Sexual relationships �Psychological intimacy without “heat” and passion Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Passionate Love �Intense longing for another person, characterized by: �The experience of physiological arousal �The feeling of shortness of breath �Thumping heart in loved one’s presence Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Table 10. 2 Cross-Cultural Evidence for Passionate Love Based on Anthropological Research in 166 Societies Cultural Area Passionate Love Present Passionate Love Absent Mediterranean 22 (95. 7%) 1 (4. 3%) Sub-Saharan Africa 20 (86. 9%) 6 (23. 1%) Eurasia 32 (97. 0%) 1 (3. 0%) Insular Pacific 27 (93. 1%) 2 (6. 9%) North America 24 (82. 8%) 5 (17. 2%) South and Central America 22 (84. 6%) 4 (15. 4%) (Based on data from Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Passionate and Companionate Love Across Cultures �Americans value passionate love more than the Chinese �The Chinese value companionate more �Taita of Kenya value both equally Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Culture and Love (1 of 3) �Love is a universal emotion �Cultural differences about love �Think about �Define �Experience �Example: �Romantic love viewed as more crucial in individualistic cultures compared to collectivistic ones Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Culture and Love (2 of 3) �Japanese amae �Totally passive love object, indulged and taken care of by one’s romantic partner �Chinese gan qing �Achieved by helping and working for another person �Korean jung �Connection that ties people together Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Culture and Love (3 of 3) �Romantic love universal �Cultural rules alter: �Experience �Expression �Memory Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Weddings Across Cultures Although people all over the world experience love, how love is defined varies across cultures. Source: (left) image. BROKER/Alamy; (right): vario images Gmb. H & Co. KG/Alamy Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Attachment Styles in Intimate Relationships � Attachment Styles �The expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationship they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants � There are three styles of attachment: �Secure �Anxious/Ambivalent �Avoidant Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Permanence of Attachment Styles Attachment theory predicts that the attachment style we learn as infants and young children stays with us throughout life and generalizes to all of our relationships with other people. Source: Ian Hooton/DK Images Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Three Styles of Attachment (1 of 3) �Secure Attachment Style �Trust, a lack of concern with being abandoned �View that one is worthy and well-liked Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Three Styles of Attachment (2 of 3) �Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Style �Concern that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for intimacy �Results in higher-than-average levels of anxiety Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Three Styles of Attachment (3 of 3) �Avoidant Attachment Style �Suppression of attachment needs, because attempts to be intimate have been rebuffed �People with this style find it difficult to develop intimate relationships Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Table 10. 3 Measuring Adult Attachment Style Secure style 56% “I find it relatively easy to get close to others and 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 style 25% “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets close, and often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. ” Anxious style 19% “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. ” As part of a survey of attitudes toward love published in a newspaper, people were asked to choose the statement that best described their romantic relationships. The attachment style each statement was designed to measure and the percentage of people who chose each alternative are indicated. (Adapted from Hazan & Shaver, 1987) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Early Attachment Styles Stay With Us �Key assumption of attachment theory: �Attachment style learned in infancy becomes schema for all relationships Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Attachment Style Is Not Destiny �If people had unhappy relationships with their parents, they are not doomed to repeat this! �People’s experience in relationships can help them learn new and more healthy ways of relating to others. �People may develop more than one attachment style over time. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This is Your Brain… in Love �Recruited college students in love �IV: Participants brought in two pictures �Beloved and acquaintance �DV: Images on f. MRI scanner �Results? When looking at their beloved �Participants who self-reported higher levels of romantic love showed �Greater activation in the brain’s ventral tegmental area (VTA) and caudate nucleus � Reward and motivation brain circuits o Also fires when people eat chocolate! Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Theories of Relationship Satisfaction �Social Exchange Theory �People’s feelings about a relationship depend on perceptions of rewards & costs, the kind of relationship they deserve, and their chances for having a better relationship with someone else �Is an economic model of costs and benefits! Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Social Exchange Theory (1 of 3) �Basic concepts �Rewards �Positive, gratifying aspects of relationship �Costs �Negative aspects of relationship �Outcome �Comparison of rewards versus costs �Comparison level �Expectations Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Social Exchange Theory (2 of 3) �Relationship satisfaction depends on your comparison level. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Social Exchange Theory (3 of 3) �Relationship satisfaction also depends on your perception of the likelihood that you could replace it with a better one! Comparison Level for Alternatives People’s expectations about the level of rewards & punishments they would receive in an alternative relationship Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Investment Model of Commitment �People’s commitment to a relationship depends not only on their satisfaction �Also depends on investment and what would be lost by leaving it Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Figure 10. 1 The Investment Model of Commitment People’s commitment to a relationship depends on several variables. First, their satisfaction with the relationship is based on their comparing their rewards to their costs and determining if the outcome exceeds their general expectation of what they should get in a relationship (or comparison level). Next, their commitment to the relationship depends on three variables: how satisfied they are, how much they feel they have invested in the relationship, and whether they have good alternatives to this relationship. These commitment variables in turn predict how stable the relationship will be. For example, a woman who feels her relationship has more costs and fewer rewards than she considers acceptable would have a low satisfaction. If she also felt she had little invested in the relationship and a very attractive person had just asked her for a date, she would have a low level of commitment. The end result is low stability; most likely, she will break up with her current partner. (Adapted from Rusbult, 1983) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Figure 10. 2 A Test of the Investment Model This study examined the extent to which college students’ satisfaction with a relationship, their comparison level for alternatives, and their investment in the relationship predicted their commitment to the relationship and their decision about whether to break up with their partner. The higher the number, the more each variable predicted commitment and breakup, independent of the two other variables. All three variables were good predictors of how committed people were and whether or not they broke up. (Adapted from Rusbult, 1983) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Will People Stay in Love? �To predict whether people will stay in an intimate relationship, we need to know: 1. Their level of satisfaction in the relationship 2. What they think of the alternatives 3. The degree of their investment in the relationship Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Theories of Relationship Satisfaction �Equity Theory �Equitable relationships are the happiest and most stable �Rewards and costs are roughly equal Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Equity Theory �In inequitable relationships, one person feels: �Over-benefited �Lots of rewards, few costs �Devote little time or energy to the relationship �Under-benefited �Few rewards, high costs �Devote a lot of time and energy to the relationship �Inequity is more important to person who is under-benefitted Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Equity in Long-Term Relationships �Does equity operate the same way in long-term versus new relationships? �Not exactly �The more we get to know someone �More reluctant to believe that we are simply exchanging favors �Less inclined to expect immediate compensation for a favor Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

�https: //www. facebook. com/Impactful. Official/video s/1652424068116190/ Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Exchange and Communal Relationships �Exchange Relationships �Relationships governed by the need for equity (i. e. , for an equal ratio of rewards and costs) �Communal Relationships �Relationships in which people’s primary concern is being responsive to the other person’s needs Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Communal Family Relationships Close relationships can have either exchange or communal properties. Family relationships are typically communal. Source: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Figure 10. 3 Exchange versus Communal Relationships Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Communal Relationships and Equity �Communal relationships unconcerned with equity? �Not necessarily �Distress when intimate relationships inequitable �Equity takes different form in communal relationships �Partner more relaxed with what concerns equity at any given time �Feel imbalanced, then relationship may end Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Ending Intimate Relationships 10. 4 What does research demonstrate about romantic breakups?

Endings Are Common �American divorce rate is nearly 50% of the current marriage rate. �Romantic relationships between unmarried individuals end every day. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Process of Breaking Up (1 of 3) �Is the breakup moral? �If you find yourself in a romantic relationship and your partner seems inclined to break it off, try to end it mutually. �Your experience will be less traumatic because you will share some control over the process (even if you don’t want it to happen). Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Process of Breaking Up (2 of 3) �Relationship dissolution not a single event, but process with many steps �Four stages (Duck, 1982) �Intrapersonal: thinks about dissatisfaction �Dyadic: discusses breakup with partner �Social: breakup announced to others �Intrapersonal: recover by thinking about why and how it happened Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Process of Breaking Up (3 of 3) �Fatal Attraction � 30% of breakups �Qualities that attract are the qualities that are disliked the most at break up. �This phenomenon demonstrates importance of similarity. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

5 Ways NOT To Handle A Nasty Facebook Breakup Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Figure 10. 4 Steps in Dissolving Close Relationships (Adapted from Duck, 1982) Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (1 of 4) �Destructive Behaviors 1. Actively harming the relationship �Abusing the partner �Threatening to break up �Actually leaving Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (2 of 4) �Destructive Behaviors 2. Passively allowing relationship to deteriorate �Refusing to deal with problems �Ignoring the partner or spending less time together �Putting no energy into the relationship Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (3 of 4) �Constructive behaviors 3. Actively trying to improve the relationship �Discussing problems, trying to change �Going to a therapist Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (4 of 4) �Constructive behaviors 4. Passively remaining loyal to the relationship �Waiting and hoping that the situation will improve �Being supportive rather than fighting �Remaining optimistic Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Experience of Breaking Up (1 of 3) �Responsibility for breakup important factor �“Breakers”: high level of responsibility �Least painful, upsetting, stressful �“Breakees”: low level of responsibility �Miserable—lonely, depressed, angry �“Mutuals”: same level of responsibility �Not as upset as “breakees” but more stressed than “breakers” Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Experience of Breaking Up (2 of 3) �Other factors that affect experience of breakup: �Gender �Women report more negative reactions than men Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Experience of Breaking Up (3 of 3) �Do people stay friends after break up? �Heterosexual men not interested in friendship, regardless of role in breakup �Women more interested in remaining friends, especially if “breakee” �More interested in remaining friends if satisfaction and investment in the relationship were high Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Cartoon: The Love Trap “Somehow I remember this one differently. ” Steve Duenes/The New Yorker Collection/www. cartoonbank. com. Copyright © 2016, 2013, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved