🧠 Psychology of Human Relationships: Comprehensive Study Notes 📝
Hey there, future psychologist! Welcome to the fascinating world of relationships. This option is incredibly relevant because it helps us understand the most fundamental human experience: connection. Why do we fall in love? Why do relationships sometimes fail? We'll use the biological, cognitive, and sociocultural approaches to answer these questions, ensuring you’re ready for the exam!
Don't worry if complex theories like the Investment Model seem tricky at first. We will break them down into simple steps and real-life examples.
Section 1: The Formation of Relationships (Initial Attraction)
How do two people meet and decide they like each other? The factors involved are rarely conscious; they often involve chemistry, environment, and mental shortcuts.
1.1 Sociocultural Factors in Attraction
The environment and culture significantly influence who we meet and who we find attractive.
Key Concept: Proximity and Familiarity
Proximity simply means being physically close. We are far more likely to form relationships with people we interact with regularly (neighbors, classmates, co-workers).
- Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc): The more often we are exposed to a stimulus (like a person), the more positively we tend to evaluate it. We literally start to like what we know and see often.
- Example: A famous study by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) in married student housing found that residents were most likely to form friendships with those who lived closest to them—especially those living near staircases or mailboxes, increasing their exposure!
Key Concept: Similarity and the Matching Hypothesis
We tend to be attracted to people who are like us.
- The Matching Hypothesis: People tend to choose partners who closely match their own level of physical attractiveness and social desirability. This is often seen as a way to avoid rejection.
- Self-Verification Theory: We prefer partners who see us as we see ourselves (even if that self-view is negative). This affirms our identity and makes us feel secure.
1.2 Biological Factors in Attraction
Sometimes, attraction is purely instinctual, driven by hormones and genetics aimed at maximizing reproductive success.
Evolutionary Explanations
Evolutionary psychology suggests attraction preferences developed to increase the survival of offspring.
- Symmetry: Studies consistently show that facial symmetry is seen as highly attractive worldwide. This is a biological marker, signaling good health and strong genes.
- MHC Genes (Major Histocompatibility Complex): These genes are responsible for our immune system.
- Study: Wedekind's Sweaty T-Shirt Study (1995) showed that women preferred the scent of T-shirts worn by men whose MHC genes were most dissimilar to their own. Why? Dissimilar genes mean offspring will have a wider range of immunities, giving them a survival advantage. (Talk about genetic compatibility!)
1.3 Cognitive Factors in Attraction
Our thoughts, expectations, and how we interpret the world play a huge role.
Cognitive Dissonance and the Attributional Bias
If we invest a lot of time or effort into someone, we cognitively justify that effort by concluding that we must really like them (avoiding cognitive dissonance).
- The Pygmalion Effect (Self-Fulfilling Prophecy): If we expect someone to be friendly or romantic towards us, we might behave in ways that elicit that desired response, confirming our initial belief.
- Did you know? In relationship terms, if you believe your partner is kind, you treat them kindly, which makes them respond kindly back, proving your initial perception right.
Quick Review: Formation of Relationships
B-C-S Link: Biological (Symmetry, MHC), Cognitive (Attribution, Expectations), Sociocultural (Proximity, Similarity).
Section 2: The Maintenance of Relationships
Falling in love is easy; staying in love is the hard part. These theories explain why some relationships endure the test of time while others fizzle out.
2.1 The Social Exchange Theory (SET)
This is a cognitive/sociocultural model that treats relationships like a market exchange. We weigh the potential rewards against the potential costs.
- Rewards: Companionship, emotional support, fun, security.
- Costs: Time commitment, stress, conflict, missed opportunities.
- Outcome (Profit): Rewards minus Costs.
A relationship is maintained only if the Profit is judged to be satisfactory when compared against two cognitive standards:
- Comparison Level (CL): What we feel we deserve based on past relationships and media portrayals. If the current relationship's profit is below our CL, we are dissatisfied.
- Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt): What we feel we could get elsewhere (e.g., being single or finding a new partner). If the CLalt is higher than the current relationship's profit, we are likely to leave.
Analogy for SET: Think of a relationship like a small business. If the expenses (costs) outweigh the income (rewards), and you see a better job opportunity (CLalt), you shut the business down.
2.2 Equity Theory
Equity theory, proposed by Walster et al., refines SET by focusing not just on individual profit, but on fairness. Relationships are happiest when partners perceive a balance between what they put in (input) and what they get out (output).
- Equity ≠ Equality: It’s not about giving 50/50. It means that the ratio of your inputs to your outcomes should be equal to your partner's ratio of inputs to their outcomes.
- Inequity: This leads to dissatisfaction.
- Being Under-benefited (you put in more than you get out).
- Being Over-benefited (you get out more than you put in).
Accessibility Check: While being over-benefited sounds good, equity theory suggests this causes guilt and stress, which also undermines relationship stability.
2.3 The Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983)
This model is an essential modification of SET and Equity theory, explaining why people sometimes stay in relationships even when satisfaction is low (when costs are high and rewards are low).
Rusbult added a third key factor: Investment Size.
Commitment = Satisfaction Level + Quality of Alternatives + Investment Size
- Investment Size: Resources that would be lost if the relationship ended (e.g., shared friends, children, mortgage, time spent, emotional memories).
- Key Takeaway: High satisfaction and poor alternatives lead to commitment (just like SET). But high investment size can override low satisfaction. If you invested 10 years and bought a house together, the commitment remains high regardless of current happiness.
Quick Review: Relationship Maintenance
The models move from simple economics (SET) to fairness (Equity) to acknowledging sacrifices and losses (Investment Model).
Section 3: The Role of Communication
Communication is the lifeblood of a relationship. How partners talk to and about each other often predicts longevity.
3.1 Attributional Styles and Relationship Satisfaction
Attribution theory explains how we interpret the causes of events or behaviors. In relationships, this is crucial when something goes wrong.
- Happy Relationships: Use Relationship-Enhancing Attributions (Constructive).
- Positive behavior: Attributed to the partner's stable, dispositional traits ("They brought me flowers because they are a thoughtful person").
- Negative behavior: Attributed to external, situational factors ("They forgot our date because they had a terrible day at work").
- Distressed Relationships: Use Distress-Maintaining Attributions (Destructive).
- Positive behavior: Attributed to external factors ("They only did the dishes because I nagged them").
- Negative behavior: Attributed to the partner's stable, dispositional traits ("They are late because they are lazy and don't care about me").
Study Connection: Fincham et al. (1993) found a strong correlation: the style of attribution used predicted marital satisfaction.
3.2 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman)
Psychologist John Gottman studied couples extensively and identified four specific types of negative communication that are highly predictive of divorce.
Mnemonic Aid: Think C-C-D-S
- Criticism: Attacking your partner's personality or character, rather than the specific behavior ("You are so lazy" instead of "I wish you had helped clean the kitchen").
- Contempt: Attacking your partner's sense of self with insults, mockery, or hostile humor. This is considered the single best predictor of divorce.
- Defensiveness: Protecting yourself by playing the victim, making excuses, or shifting blame.
- Stonewalling: Withdrawing from the interaction, shutting down, or refusing to communicate.
The magic ratio: Gottman suggests that healthy relationships have a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. You need five good interactions to cancel out one bad one!
Quick Review: Communication
Good communication uses constructive attributions and avoids the Four Horsemen.
Section 4: Relationship Dissolution (Breakdown)
When communication fails and costs outweigh rewards, relationships often break down. These models explain the process of ending a relationship.
4.1 The Fatal Attraction Theory (HATFIELD & BERSCHEID)
This cognitive theory suggests that the trait that initially attracted you to a person is the very trait that ultimately leads to the relationship's dissolution.
- Example: You loved that your partner was "spontaneous" (initial attraction). Later, you despise that they are "irresponsible" and "unreliable" (fatal flaw).
- Key Insight: This highlights the role of perception and changing attributions over time. What we initially saw as a positive disposition is later reinterpreted as a negative one.
4.2 Rollie and Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Dissolution (2006 update)
This sociocultural model views the breakdown as a structured, sequential process that moves through different phases, each triggered by reaching a certain "threshold" of dissatisfaction.
Don't panic if this seems like a long list—it just explains who the partner talks to at each stage!
- Intrapsychic Phase: The individual partner begins to experience dissatisfaction and internally reviews the relationship's costs and rewards. (Threshold: "I can't stand this anymore.")
- Dyadic Phase: The individual confronts the partner. Debates, arguments, and negotiations occur. The relationship problems are now made public between the couple. (Threshold: "I would be justified in withdrawing.")
- Social Phase: The distress is shared with friends and family. Social accounts are given (e.g., justifying the impending breakup). Support is sought. This solidifies the decision to end things. (Threshold: "It's now inevitable.")
- Grave Dressing Phase: The relationship is officially over. Both partners construct a public narrative (the "story") of why it ended to save face and manage their reputation. They emotionally detach.
- Resurrection Phase (Added in 2006): The individual focuses on personal growth, redefining their identity, and preparing for future relationships. (Threshold: "I learned from this experience and am stronger now.")
Accessibility Tip: The process moves outward: Internal -> Partner -> Social Circle -> Public Narrative -> New Self.
Quick Review: Key Takeaways for Relationships Option
- Relationship formation is governed by proximity (socio), symmetry (bio), and perceived similarity (cog).
- Relationship maintenance is determined by economic factors (SET), fairness (Equity), and invested resources (Rusbult).
- Relationship breakdown involves destructive communication patterns (Gottman) and structured stages of disengagement (Duck's Model).
Keep these models and studies separate in your mind, and you will be well-prepared to discuss the biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors affecting human relationships!