Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
Relationship factors
HOW WILL THIS COURSE HELP ME IN LIFE? 1. Frequency of
Understanding of relationships, both positive and negative contact
Exploration of findings on the topic that is most important in everyones life 2. Duration of contact
Longevity of relationships: Why do some relationship last and others end? 3. Diversity of
interactions
WHAT IS A RELATIONSHIP? 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 uni-
directional
Example: fMRI study women were scanned and strapped to an electric shocker (a small zap
randomly administered)
Coan et al. (2006)
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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 Experiments
For the most part, the relationship between variables is studied through Control
correlations
Random
Causality is hard to deduce from these methods
assignment
Questions: what is an example of Comparison
o Positive correlation?
o Negative correlation?
o No relationship?
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 (+/-)