Sociology 319 Sociological Approaches to Social Psychology (Carr) Thursday March 26, 2009: Close Relationships II.

Close Relationships A. Liking vs. Loving (Rubin) 1. Zick Rubins study of liking and loving was among the first to attempt to operationalize, or precisely and scientifically define and measure the vague concepts of love and like Early studies of human relationships generally believed love to be a more intense form of liking. Rubin counters that loving and liking are qualitatively different. An initial assumption of Rubins scale is that loving (and liking) are general attitudes held by one person towards another person. Three main concepts are used to understand liking and loving: affiliative/dependent need, predisposition to help, and exclusiveness/absorption. Different questions assess these different components a. Affiliative and dependent need: If I could never be with_______, I would be miserable. This concept is similar to attachment, or ones desire to be with and to be cared for by the other. b. Predisposition to help: I would do almost anything for____________. This is related to caring or the desire to make the others needs as important as ones own. c. Exclusiveness and absorption: I feel that I can confide in ___________ about anything; I feel very possessive toward ____________. This concept is related to dyadic intimacy, or the desire to be very close with and have ones life intertwined with the life of the other. 2. Love is defined as not only more intense than liking, but as distinct from Astrong liking; it refers to the attachment to and caring about another person. Attachment refers to the powerful desire to be with and be cared about by another person. Caring involves making the satisfaction of another persons needs as significant as the satisfaction as ones old. 3. Liking refers to how much one respects, admires, and has confidence in the other person. Liking is generally a pre-requisite for loving, but it need not be. 4. How do we know that these constructs define what Rubin hoped for them to measure? a. The Rubin scale was given to a sample of college students, asking them to reply to questions first for their romantic partner; and next for a close friend. The study results confirmed Rubins prediction that scores would be high on BOTH the loving and liking scale for ones romantic partner, and scores would be high on liking but low on loving for the platonic friend. b. Critiques of Rubins scale. The components of Rubins love scale are not equally important as indicators of love. An overall average score on the scale might mean very different things, based on which subscores are high and low. For example, one pattern might be that the person responding to the scale had agreed strongly with the need items and only mildly with the care items. Another pattern suggested that a different person had strongly agreed with the care items and only mildly with the need items. The two patterns would yield the same score on the love scale - though the scores may represent very different kinds of relationships. B. Sternbergs taxonomy of love relationships. Sternbergs taxonomy builds further upon the idea that there is not one kind of love. He devises

a scheme where there are eight types of love, based on their combination of three attributes: intimacy, passion, and commitment. He argues that these three components are distinct, though related. 1. Intimacy is emotional closeness and a feeling of bondedness to the other person. a. Intimacy generally develops slowly and gradually. It begins with self-disclosure, or the process of discussing and revealing person issues and topics. Norms of reciprocity say that if one person opens up to another, than that other will restore balance in the relationship by revealing equally personal pieces of information in roughly equal amounts. This pattern begins the process of building intimacy. 2. Passion refers to the arousal of physical attraction and sexual drives. According to Sternberg, passion is a very intense aspect of relationships. 3. Commitment involves the short-term decision that one loves the other person and the long-term promise to maintain the relationship. It is demonstrated by making plans to stay together, and the efforts made to sustain a relationship through difficult times. In general terms, commitment is the extent to which a person is likely to stick with something or someone and see it through to the finish. 4. Based on these dimensions, Sternberg has developed his triangular theory of love. a. Nonlove, or the absence of love, occurs when all three basic components are absent, as is the case in casual interactions between acquaintances. b. Liking, which characterizes many close friendships, involves relatively high levels of intimacy but low levels of passions and commitment. c. Infatuation is experienced when passion is high but intimacy and commitment are low in the relationship. Love at first sight as an example of infatuation. d. Empty love is characterized by high commitment in the absence of passion and intimacy. A marriage in which children stay together for the sake of the children exemplifies this category. e. Romantic love is the combination of intimacy and passion without the commitment. This type of romance is generally experienced by younger persons who do not want to make a long-term commitment. f. Companionate love consists of intimacy and commitment without passion, such as long-term marriages in which the passion has declined over time, yet emotional intimacy remains high. g. Fatuous love involves commitment and passion without intimacy. Intimacy takes a long time to develop and thus these relationships are often unstable. Whirlwind or Hollywood romances would fall here according to Sternberg. A couple meets, falls madly in love, and quickly marries or moves in together. However, they are virtual strangers who have not had time to develop intimacy. h. Consummate love involves all three components. 5. Sternbergs theory of love offers a more nuanced approach to understanding love, in contrast to Rubins liking-loving dichotomy.. He argues that relationships need not be such all or nothing propositions. The triangulation theory stresses that love consists of several ingredients and that these can be combined in different proportions to produce different experiences of love. Sternbergs research indicates that when there is a good match between the partners love, the two tend to feel satisfied with the relationships. When there is a mismatch, dissatisfaction is more likely. For example, relationships problems are likely if both partners feel the same level of passion for each other, but one wants more intimacy and commitment than the other. However, when the two parties have different ideas of what they want, the relationship may be doomed.

i. Secure - Feels that the partner is responsive and accessible. Items used to assess this type are: 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 to me. ii. Anxious/Ambivalent - not sure whether the partner will be responsive and accessible. Results in anxiety about whether the partner will be there for them and intense reactions to separation. Items used to assess this type are: 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 want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away. iii. Avoidant - The person has learned that people tend to reject and rebuff them, so they become defensive and avoidant. Items used to assess this type are: 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 too close, and often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

C. Equity in Relationships 1. Hatfield and Rapson argue that equity is difficult to assess in long-term relationships. 2.Rewards are varied and interchangeable D. Predictors of relationship dissolution 1. Demographic/social structural a. young age at marriage b. low socioeconomic status c. low educational attainment d. parental divorce e. more recent birth cohort f. older children, daughters g. some occupations (military, law enforcement) 2. Interpersonal/dyadic predictors (Gottman model) a. criticism b. contempt c. defensiveness d. stonewalling (withdrawal)