Social relationships - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

the sociology and psychology of relationships...

Description

Social relationships Psychologists use the term affiliation to describe how individuals seek out interaction with other people in order to form social relationships. Social interaction is considered one of the basic needs of an individual. This essay explores the social influences and issues surrounding the formation, maintenance, and dissolution of social relationships and how it affects human attitudes and behaviour. One way psychologists explain interpersonal attraction is with the reward theory. They believe that individuals are attracted to people whose presence is the most rewarding. Research has shown that a number of factors influence initial attraction through their reward value, these factors are proximity, exposure and familiarity, similarity and physical attractiveness. Edward T. Hall (16.04.1914) looks at how personal space relates to proximity. He identifies that there are four zones of personal space and each zone has different cues of touch, smell, hearing and seeing. However it is important to take into account that there are cultural differences in regards to the proximity rules “Hall stressed that differing cultural frameworks for defining and organizing space, which are internalized in all people at an unconscious level, can lead to serious failures of communication and understanding in cross-cultural settings. For instance, ‘Germans sense their own space as an extension of the ego.” (Notes on Intercultural Communication, 2018). The four zones in an individual's personal space are, public domain (limited interaction), social zone (business and social gatherings), personal zone (some intimacy), intimate zone (loved ones/partners). Proximity increases exposure and interaction which leads to an increase in familiarity. Psychologists believe that the more interaction people have the more familiar with each other they become. This allows their attitudes towards each other to become more polarised and so they tend to start to like each other more. According to Zick Rubin (1973) similarity is rewarding for many reasons. It allows joint activity and boosts individuals self esteem by allowing them to feel confident about their own opinions. “Through operant conditioning people may reward us directly by meeting psychological needs such as the need for love, sex and friendship. Individuals that are helpful, cheerful, attentive and supportive may also provide this direct reinforcement and therefore are liked more. Alternatively we may be rewarded indirectly through classical conditioning as relationships with some individuals may provide pleasant circumstances or pleasant events occur around them. This could be compliments they provide or other positives the individual brings with them resulting in pleasant feelings becoming associated with the person themselves.” (Devshi, 2018) According to the attractiveness stereotype (Dion,  Berscheid, and Walster (1972) individuals tend to perceive people who are physically attractive as having an attractive personalities as well. Different cultures often have different ideas for

judging physical attractiveness however. Traditionally, facial beauty has been generally regarded as more important for men. Whereas women tend to focus on bodily features such as height and weight. From a sociological perspective, attractive facial features may signal sexual maturity and fertility. According to Charles Darwin (1871) theories of human selection, men and women select partners who will increase their chances of reproduction in order to ensure their genes survive. “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection explains that traits less adapted to particular conditions of life will not endure in a population because organisms with those traits tend to have lower rates of survival and reproduction. Sociobiologists model the evolution of human behaviors in much the same way, using various behaviors as the relevant traits.” (ThoughtCo, 2018) The matching hypothesis, is where individuals are more likely to be become romantically involved if they are closely matched in their ability to reward one another. (Walster et al. 1996) also states that people are attracted to others who are on a similar level of attractiveness physically and intellectually. Individuals are satisfied when they find a partner they feel won’t reject them, rather than one they positively desire. “During a study 752 student participants were rated on physical attractiveness by four independent judges, as a measure of social  desirability. Participants were told to fill in a questionnaire for the purposes of computer matching based on similarity. Instead, participants were randomly paired, except no man was paired with a taller woman. During an intermission of the dance, participants were asked to assess their date. People with higher ratings were found to have more harsh judgment of their dates. Furthermore, higher levels of attractiveness indicated lower levels of satisfaction with their pairing, even when they were on the same level. It was also found that both men and women were more satisfied with their dates if their dates had high levels of attractiveness. Physical attractiveness was found to be the most important factor in enjoying the date and whether or not they would sleep with them when propositioned. It was more important than intelligence and personality.” (En.wikipedia.org, 2018). However Roger Brown (1986) argues that the matching hypothesis results from a learnt sense of what's fitting rather than a fear of rejection. Self -esteem also affects this process, individuals who have a low self esteem are more likely to target someone who is less likely to reject them. Research consistently demonstrates that people are more likely to be attracted to those who have similar personality traits and although this is not always the case long term relationships in particular tend to follow the similarity rule. According to (Byrne, Clone and Smeaton 1986) there are two stages in the formation of relationships. Firstly people avoid individuals whose personalities appear too different from their own, then they will seek out those who are closer in similarity. This model emphasizes similarity and the importance of personalities and attitudes. Research also suggests that a process of ‘attitude alignment’ often occurs in order for the relationship to develop from its initial stages.

However research on similarity and the matching hypothesis has only looked at attitudes and personality similarity. Psychologist Yoshida (1972) noticed that this represents only a narrow view of factors important in relationship formation and it ignores other important factors such as self concept, economic level and physical health. One theory that explores the maintenance of relationships is the social exchange theory. This theory according to Thibaut and Kelly (1959) is about how human behaviour is a series of exchanges in order to maximise their rewards and minimise the cost. In society individuals will exchange resources with the expectation that they will earn a profit. Some rewards people may receive from relationships include being cared for, companionship and sex. Costs on the other hand may include effort, financial investment and time spent. Rusbult and Martz (1995) argue however that when investments are high and alternatives are low, this could still be considered a profit situation and so individuals may choose to remain in such a relationship. The social exchange theory however focuses on an individuals perspective too much whilst ignoring the social aspects such as communication and shared events in the relationship. Psychologist Steve Duck (1999) explores the dissolution of relationships and he suggests that a lack of social skills is one of the main causes in the breakdown of relationships. Poor social skills leads to poor conversations and this indicates that there is a poor level of interest in other people which is likely to be unrewarding. This lack of social skills may therefore allow others to perceive them as being uninterested in a relationship and so it breaks down in the early stages. Maintenance difficulties is also a cause of the dissolution of relationships. They become particularly strained when partners don’t spend enough time together due to other commitments such as work or university. Infidelity is another cause of relationship breakdowns. Boekout et al (1999) shows how affairs can be a direct reaction to lack of skills and stimulation in the current relationships. There are four phases in Ducks (1982) theory of relationship dissolution. Firstly there is the Intrapsychic phase, this is where as individual in the relationship. This phase focuses on their partners negative behaviour and individuals will assess the adequacy of their partners role performance. They will also start to evaluate the negative aspects of being in the relationship whilst also considering the costs of withdrawing from the relationships. The second phase of Ducks theory is the Dyadic Phase, this is where they will confront their partner and will start to negotiate during talks about their relationship. Sometimes during this stage couples will try to repair their relationship or they will assess joint costs of withdrawal from the relationship.

Couple counselors often use Ducks (1982) model in order to help individuals in a relationship to understand why their relationship has broken down and it can help to build their relationship back up again. The social phase, is the third stage in Ducks theory. Both partners will negotiate post dissolution and will discuss within their social network. They will each come up with face-saving/blame-placing accounts of what went wrong in the relationship. The Grave-Dressing phase is where both partners will distribute their own version of the break up whilst starting to move own. Some will also look back on the relationship thinking about all the negative and positive events that happened whilst together. “Duck (2001) break up involves not only the individual who creates the break up but the psychological sense of integrity of the person to whom it all happens… but a lot of what happens is done with an eye on the group that surrounds the person”. However Ducks theory doesn't look at why the dissatisfaction in the relationship has arisen in the first place and so it fails to give a complete picture of the dissolution. Also it is unlikely all four phases will apply to every relationship break down. (Devshi, 2018)

Bibliography Devshi, S. (2018). Duck's Phase Model Of Relationship Breakdown AQA Psychology. [online] Loopa Psychology Revision. Available at: https://www.loopa.co.uk/ducks-phase-model-relationship-breakdown-aqa-psychology / [Accessed 5 Mar. 2018]. Devshi, S. (2018). The Formation Of Relationships Psya3 AQA A2 Psychology. [online] Loopa Psychology Revision. Available at: https://www.loopa.co.uk/psya3-relationships-the-formation-of-relationships-a2-psych ology/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2018]. En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Matching hypothesis. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis [Accessed 5 Mar. 2018]. Notes on Intercultural Communication. (2018). E. T. Hall – Proxemics (Understanding Personal Space). [online] Available at: https://laofutze.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/e-t-hall-proxemics-understanding-person al-space/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2018]. ThoughtCo. (2018). What is Sociobiology?. [online] Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/sociobiology-3026631 [Accessed 5 Mar. 2018]....