PSY 3102: LECTURE 1

I N T E R P E R S O N A L R E L AT I O N S H I P S
Mo nda y, Jan uary 9, 20 17

HOW WILL THIS COURSE HELP ME IN LIFE?

Understanding of relationships, both positive and negative

Exploration of findings on the topic that is most important in everyones life
Longevity of relationships: Why do some relationship last and others end?

WHAT IS A RELATIONSHIP?

Relationship factors
1. Frequency of
contact
2. Duration of contact
3. Diversity of
interactions
4. Direction of
influence (uni- vs.

How do we know if people are in a relationship?

Interdependence is key: tend to depend on another person, and mutual ability to affect each others outcomes
o E.g. Student-professor relationship: actions affect each others outcomes, however it is more unidirectional

Wh at t ype s of re lat io ns hip s a re we go ing t o s t ud y?

Focus on close relationships

Close relationship: strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of
time
o Includes many relationship factors

What relationships do we classify as intimate?

o A feeling of more than just friends
o Includes a sexual charge (a potential of having sex)
o Feeling of exclusivity
Intimate relationship
o Partner is special and unique
o Desire, sexual desire, and lust for partner
o May include physical intimacy

Why int imat e re l at io ns hips mat t e r

1.
2.
3.

Universal
Powerful
Affect our health and physiology

Example: fMRI study women were scanned and strapped to an electric shocker (a small zap
randomly administered)

Paired with an intimate partner, with a stranger, or no one

Holding husbands hand reduced level of threat activation in brain

Correlation between quality of marriage and reduction of threat activation in

brain helped cope with environmental stressors

Spouse hand: negative correlation between dyadic pairs and percentage of

signal change in fMRI stronger intimate relationships can help one deal with
negatives of the environment

Imp o rt ant q ues t io ns

Longevity of relationships
o Divorce rates seem to be increasing in recent years
Why do relationships change?
o We fall madly in love, but this feeling does not always last. Why?

N e ed f o r A ffi l iat io n

Some argue that humans are wired to seek out others

Should be especially true during difficult times: fear, uncertainty

Vari ab le s a nd Re l at io ns hips

Variables: characteristics or conditions that change or have different values for different individuals
o Examples: weather, health status, gender, and age
Construct: an abstract idea (e.g. love, satisfaction) cannot physically measure directly
o How do we study love: operationalize the construct of love (operational definition)

Hypothesis:
o A statement that describes or explains a relationship between variables: best guess
o A hypothesis can lead to several different observable and measurable predictions
o Independent variable: what the researcher has full control over
o Dependent variable: gets manipulated, and is the result of the independent variable (the data that you
collect)

Examples

Operationalizing love: physiological measures (brain activity, physical reactions), questionnaires/scales

Measuring happiness: physiological measures (neurotransmitter levels like dopamine, norepinephrine,

serotonin), questionnaires/scales

Dile mm a

We often cannot directly measure or observe a construct

External stimulus construct external behaviour
E.g. give beer to certain students how beer affects brain students test performance

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

An approach to acquiring knowledge

o Involves formulating specific questions and then systematically finding answers

St e ps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Observe behaviour or other phenomena: read a report in media

Form a tentative explanation (a hypothesis)
Use your hypothesis to generate a testable prediction (rational method)
Evaluate the prediction by making systematic, planned observations (empiricism method)
Use the observations to support, refute, or refine the original hypothesis

The Re s e arch Pro ces s

Quantitative research: produces numerical scores

o Submitted to statistical analysis for summary and interpretation
Qualitative research: based on making observations
o Summarized and interpreted in a narrative report

THE NEED FOR AFFILIATION

Sch acht e r s Ex pe ri me nt ( Vid eo )

2 groups of subjects: high and low fear conditions (random)

Told them they were going to be shocked
2 conditions: mild vs. severe shock
2 choices: wait alone or with a stranger
Results:
o 2/3 chose to wit with others in severe shock condition
o 1/3 chose to wait with others in mild shock
Having fear/uncertainty in the future prompted people to want to
wait with another person rather than waiting alone (not all
students, but majority)

2nd Experiment: revisiting the hypothesis of people relying on others in

times of uncertainty

Schachter (1959) 2nd experiment grouped participants from

different conditions (mild vs. severe)

Results: people prefer those who share their fate

Kulik & M ahle r (1 98 9)

Coronary bypass surgery patients preferred the company of those who had survived the surgery and not the
company of those who were about to undergo the surgery: ratio 4 to 1
Seems that spending time with someone who survived such an ordeal helps us cope with the uncertainty

H o meo s t as is o f So cia l Co nt act

Affiliation motivation can be thought of as a homeostatic process

Sometimes we need the company of others, and sometimes we need to be alone

Too much of one will push people to seek the other, and vice versa

NEED FOR INTIMACY

Motivates us to seek out deeper relationships that are not driven by fear and uncertainty
People high on need for intimacy:
1. Put more emphasis on depth of few relationships compared to people high on need for affinity (having
a lot of friends)
2. Are more trusting and confiding in relationships
3. Happier with their jobs and more satisfied with their marriages than those low on this need (McAdams
and Vaillant, 1982)

Shows a need to seek out positive relationships, and not just because of negative stimuli in the environment
(need for affiliation)

ALTERNATIVES TO AFFILIATION AND INTIMACY

Need to belong (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004)
o Argue that we evolved to seek out relationships
Evidence
o Humans form relationships quite easily

Think of how you met your BFFs

o Infants imprint on the caregivers well before they know the benefits
o People are in distress when these bonds are broken
o People stay in abusive relationships

1 ) Sup po rt f o r Be lo ng ing ne ss

Many health benefits for being in relationships

o Marriage reduces stress-induced health problems (or positive long-term relationships)
o E.g. lower heart-attack incidence, fewer immune system problems, higher chance of survival from
cancer

Pars imo ny Pr in cip le

Simpler explanation is probably the correct one

Ie. If a simple theory can explain the phenomenon, then there is no need for a more complex theory or several
theories to explain it
Belongingness hypothesis seems to be the preferred of the 3, according to this principle
o Need for affiliation accounts for negative aspects
o Need for intimacy accounts for positive aspects
o Need for belongingness accounts for both positive and negative aspects

Pre d ict i ve po we r o f a hypo t he s is / t heo ry

Needs-based theories we reviewed so far are problematic

These theories (affiliation, intimacy, and belongingness) were developed through observing behaviour
(accounts for data found, but does not make predictions about new or future circumstances)
Their predictions are then about the same behaviours
The theories are circular in nature, which decreases their explanatory power

2 ) So cio lo g y ex p lan at io n
George Homans (1961) proposed that we form relationships based on 4 principles
1. People with equal status are more likely to interact
2. Over time, people interact with others who are similar to them
3. More interactions = more liking
4. More interaction and more liking = more likely to become a friendship

Is this explanation sufficient?

o (+) avoids circularity and predicts why we are more likely to form relationships with some but not
others
o (-) principles fail to take into account individual differences
o perhaps the best explanation for why we form relationships includes pieces from each of these
explanations

HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH

Till recently, an intimate relationship was defined as one between a heterosexual male and female, often in the
context of a marriage
Marriage: prior to industrial revolution, most families were a man and woman with 10-15 kids
o Industrial revolution: movement from farms to cities (division of labour between male being the
breadwinner and mother being the parental figure in the home)

o Recent decades: more equality between couples, more women in careers

Q: think of your family history what were the relationship dynamics of your grandparents; parents; peers?
How many women worked outside the home? Does your attitude differ from that of your parents in regard to
what a relationship is?

M arr iag e s t o d ay

More inclusive: gay rights movements in many countries have resulted in marriages being legalized for gay
men and women
People get married much later in life
Most families are dual-income
Increases in divorce have resulted in more stepfamilies

Sing le s

Since 1970, roughly 28% of people were divorcees, widowers, or were single
By 2002, roughly 40% of people were considered single (stats from US)

M od e rn re l at io ns hips

Are very different from the ones even 10 years ago

Advent of online dating has changed the playing field and poses new challenges for researchers who study
relationships

Why have re l at io ns hips cha nge d so much?

Levinger (1994) proposed several driving factors
1. Increased independence or autonomy and drive toward a consumerist society
2. Women breaking out of the owner-property relationship and expect more equality
3. Economic freedom has helped women choose to leave marriages more freely; more choice when you
are independent

The mo re t hing s chang e t he mo re t he y s t ay t he s ame

Need for love has not gone away

Intimate relationships unfold in very predictable ways
1. Sampling stage: look for compatibility with another
2. Bargaining stage: determine if longevity is possible
3. Commitment stage: marriage, children, house
4. Dissolution stage: breaking down of relationship

W e dne sda y, J anuary 11 , 2 01 7

DO WE NEED TO STUDY LOVE AND RELATIONSHIPS?

Why waste tax-payer money on common knowledge topics?

Regardless of opposition, it is useful to understand what causes formation and dissolution of relationships

Scie nt i fi c Me t hod

Q: How does one study something intangible? (e.g. love, being in love, jealousy, happiness, satisfaction, etc.)
o Compare with tangible things like weight, height, etc.
Intangible concepts are defined as constructs (i.e. humans have constructed these abstract ideas)

Ex e rcis e

Variables related to intimate relationships

o Love
o Jealousy
o Attraction
o Satisfaction
How would you study any one of these concepts?

N o o ne me t hod f o r s t ud yi ng re l at io ns hips

Intangible constructs are not unique to relationship research

Infinite number of ways to study each construct
Need to operationalize the construct: i.e., define it in a way that can be measured indirectly
Objectivity of measurement of variables increases as we operationalize them

Scie nt i fi c Me t hod

Tests hypotheses, which are predictions about relationship between variables

E.g. is there a relationship between height and weight?

Steps in a scientific method

1. Observe behaviour or other phenomena: read a report in media
2. Form a tentative explanation (a hypothesis)
3. Use your hypothesis to generate a testable prediction (rational method)
4. Analyze results, form conclusion, accept or reject hypothesis
5. Use the observations to support, refute, or refine the original hypothesis

So urce s of Dat a fo r Re lat io ns hip Res e arc h

Archives
o Statistical records e.g. Statistics Canada (census data)
o Survey archives
o Written records: diaries, letters, etc.
o Mass communications: newspapers, radio transmissions, TV broadcasts, films, internet

An alys is of Arc hiva l Dat a

Example: we may choose to study how often divorce is depicted in popular media
Researcher must decide
o Sampling strategy and which medium is being sampled
e.g. go to libraries, look in certain set of years, look for mentions of divorce
o What kind of coding will be used
o Establish inter-rater reliability
o Analyze the data
e.g., review old TV shows and take a frequency count of divorces in the shows

Pros and Cons of archival data research

PROS: study naturally occurring phenomena

CONS:
o Little control over objectivity and accuracy of the data
o Data may be incomplete or missing
o Difficult to determine causality

N at ur alis t ic o bs e rv at io n

Advantage: participants are unaware of the researcher and thus behave naturally
o Good external validity
Problem: very little control of the environment or the variables, which reduces confidence in findings

L ab ob s e rvat io ns

Dyadic Interaction Paradigm (Ickes, 1982)

Example: videotape interactions between 2 people while waiting for study to start
o The interactions while waiting for researcher are of interest
o Involves deception
Ask participants to report on video of themselves

Pros and Cons of lab observations

PROS:
o Naturalness is persevered (if unaware that theyre being recorded)
o Control of environment

CONS:
o Causality cannot be established easily (cannot say that what was observed is a result of the
manipulation)

Int e rv ie ws and surve ys

Just asking people

Interviews
o Very rich data
o Very costly
Surveys
o Questionnaires, either structured or open-ended

Low cost; anonymity may result in more truthfulness

Disadvantages of both approaches

Psychological findings indicate that subjects are not very good at understanding their own behaviours

Hence, self-report data may be unreliable

Structure of interview or survey can result in a certain type of data

o How do you construct a questionnaire without influencing the results? (questions may be biased)

Extraneous influences on responses

Confounds
o E.g. weather has been shown to affect responses to questionnaires
o When its sunny, people tend to focus on positive experiences; vice versa with gloomy weather
o Schwartz and Clore: found that the difference in relationship satisfaction differed by 15% between the
2 weather conditions, with the sunny weather producing more satisfaction!
Wording of questions

Leading questions: what do you think of the crap that Trump has been saying vs. what do you think of the
great things that Trump has been saying

Halo Effect: answers to the first few questions can colour your responses to
Research designs
subsequent questions

Cross-sectional

Challenging task

Longitudinal
Interpretation of the Data

For the most part, the relationship between variables is studied through
correlations

Causality is hard to deduce from these methods

Questions: what is an example of

o Positive correlation?
o Negative correlation?
o No relationship?

Experiments

Control

Random
assignment

Comparison

Example: Does watching porn lead to dissatisfaction with ones love

partner?

Qs: who were the participants? Were they religious folk or typical
party animals? What were the conditions in the experiment?

Randomly assigning party animals and religious students into the

a) porn and b) national geographic video conditions ensures that
the outcomes of the manipulation (i.e. which video is watched) was
not influenced by the type of subject

Dat a co lle ct io n

In most experiments, a participant is a single person

In relationship research, a lot of data comes from dyads (= 2 people interacting)
Reconstructed experience: recalling events from memory (however, may not be completely reliable)
Exemplary experience: idealized responses (if I give you a scenario, how would you react in this situation?
e.g. what is your ideal partner? People often give their best/ideal image in these cases)
These methods are prone to producing poor-quality data
o
e.g., many factors affect recall
o Is it in a lab or natural environment?
o Persons mood affects responses (+/-)

Alt e rn at ive ap p ro ach: Ongo ing s oci al

int e r act io ns

Analogy: video-recording your every movement and

interaction

1.

Interval-contingent recordings: rely on a particular interval

interval when youre prompted to record your interactions
and experiences at predetermined times (e.g. at 5pm every
day, you stop and record your experiences)
2. Signal-continent recordings: can be done in a random way, e.g. participants wear beepers or receive a text to
tell you to stop and record everything that happened up to that point since the last prompt
3. Event-contingent recordings: if you know you have a date coming up or certain interaction, youre prompted
to record your experiences (like a diary experience)
Rochester Interaction Record (RIR): providing certain sets of data based on time, date, duration, etc. of
interactions
o use scales to indicate what happened see example on the right

N e w ap p ro ache s to st ud ying re lat io ns hip s

Speed-dating: controlled but realistic environments (increase external validity of experimental approach)

Online data collection tools: SurveyMonkey, Mechanical Turk (Amazon) database of potential participants
worldwide, labs websites host experiments
Meta-analysis: Essentially, review of current findings from many scientific articles
o Cohens d effect size will tell you if something is significant or not (may be important for research
paper)
o http://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/