1. Chapter 10 Interpersonal Attraction:
From First Impressions to Close Relationships

2. The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect
The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends

3. The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect
Functional distance = certain aspects of architectural design that make it more likely that some people will come into contact with each other more often than with others

4. The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect
Mere Exposure Effect = more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it
The more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it. We see certain people a lot, and the more familiar they become, the more friendship blooms. Of course, if the person in question is an obnoxious jerk, then, not surprisingly, the more exposure you have, the greater your dislike (Swap, 1977). But in the absence of such negative qualities, familiarity breeds attraction and liking (Bornstein, 1989; Griffin & Sparks, 1990; Moreland & Zajonc, 1982; Lee, 2001).

5. Figure Your social life likely has more to do with floor plans than you think! The physical layout of a building can play a surprising role in relationship formation. Research indicates that in a residential building like the one pictured here, the closer two people’s apartments are, the more likely they are to become friends. And those residents who live near the stairs or elevator are more likely to make friends with people who live on other floors of the building.
Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) tracked friendship formation among the couples in various apartment buildings.
Residents had been assigned to their apartments at random. Most were strangers when they moved in.
The researchers asked the residents to name their three closest friends in the entire housing project.
Just as the propinquity effect would predict, 65% of the friends mentioned lived in the same building, even though the other buildings were not far away.
For example, consider the friendship choices of the residents of apartments 1 and 5. Living at the foot of the stairs and in one case near the mailboxes meant that these couples saw a great deal of upstairs residents. Sure enough, apartment dwellers in apartments 1 and 5 throughout the complex had more friends upstairs than dwellers in the other first-floor apartments did.
Source: Shutterstock

6. Similarity “Birds of a feather flock together” (similarity)
What about “opposites attract” (complementarity)?
Research overwhelmingly supports
Similarity
Not complementarity
Propinquity increases familiarity, which leads to liking, but something more is needed to fuel a growing friendship or a romantic relationship. (Otherwise, every pair of roommates would be best friends!)
That “fuel” is similarity—a match between our interests, attitudes, values, background, or personality and those of another person.
But folk wisdom also has another saying, “Opposites attract” (the concept of complementarity, or that we are attracted to people who are our opposites).
Luckily, we don’t have to remain forever confused by contradictory advice from old sayings.
Research evidence proves that it is overwhelmingly similarity and not complementarity that draws people together.
(Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne, 1997; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001)

7. Opinions and Personality
Greater similarity leads to more liking
Newcomb (1961): College men became friends with those who were similar in
Demographics
Attitudes
Values
(e.g., Byrne & Nelsonk 1965)
It’s not just attitudes or demographics that are important. Similar personality characteristics also promote liking and attraction. For example, in a study of gay men’s relationships, men sought men with similar personalities. Those who scored high on a test of stereotypical male traits desired a partner who was most of all logical—a stereotypical masculine trait. Gay men who scored high on a test of stereotypical female traits desired a partner who was most of all expressive—a stereotypical feminine trait (Boyden, Carroll, & Maier, 1984). Similar personality characteristics are important for heterosexual couples and for friends as well (Aube & Koestner, 1995; Caspi & Harbener, 1990; Martin & Anderson, 1995).

8. Interests and Experiences
Situations you choose to be in expose you to others with similar interests.
Then, when you discover and create new similarities, they fuel the friendship.
Close friendships are often made in college, in part because of prolonged propinquity.
You’re sitting in a social psychology class, surrounded by people who also chose to take social psychology this semester. You sign up for salsa dance lessons; the others in your class are there because they too want to learn Latin dancing. Thus we choose to enter into certain types of social situations where we then find similar others. For example, in a study of the patterns of students’ friendships that focused on the effects of “tracking” (grouping students by academic ability), researchers found that students were significantly more likely to choose friends from their track than from outside it (Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998). Clearly, propinquity and initial similarity play a role in the formation of these friendships.

9. Similarity in Appearance
Seek physical proximity to those similar in appearance
Seek others with similar degree of physical attractiveness
Finally, similarity also operates when it comes to more-superficial considerations. Sean Mackinnon, Christian Jordan, and Anne Wilson (2011) conducted a series of studies examining physical similarity and seating choice. Without even realizing it, you are often drawn to those who look like you, to the point where people are even more likely to ask out on dates others who are similar to them in terms of attractiveness level (Taylor et al., 2011; Walster et al., 1966).

10. Similarity in Committed Relationships Versus “Flings”
For committed relationship
Choose a similar partner
Relationships based on differences can be difficult to maintain
Perceived similarity more important than actual similarity
Low level of commitment (fling)
Choose dissimilar partners

11. Reciprocal Liking We like people who like us
For initial attraction, reciprocal liking can overcome
Dissimilarity in attitudes
Attentional biases to attractive faces
Liking is so powerful that it can even make up for the absence of similarity. For example, in one experiment, when a young woman expressed interest in male research participants simply by maintaining eye contact, leaning toward them, and listening attentively, the men expressed great liking for her despite the fact that they knew she disagreed with them on important issues (Gold, Ryckman, & Mosley, 1984). Whether the clues are nonverbal or verbal, perhaps the most crucial determinant of whether we will like person A is the extent to which we believe person A likes us (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Kenny, 1994b; Kenny & La Voie, 1982; Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998).
Just how powerful is reciprocal liking? According to recent research, it is powerful enough to neutralize our basic tendency to pay more attention to attractive faces. Nicolas Koranyi and Klaus Rothermund (2012) used a computer program to present a series of opposite-sex faces to German research participants.

12. Always Looking One indicator of just how important physical appearance is in attraction is our nearly chronic tendency to shift visual attention to attractive others in our immediate vicinity.
Source: Radius Images/Getty Images

13. Playing hard to get…
The finding that we like people who like us suggests that the strategy of “playing hard-to-get” can sometimes backfire.
strategy tends to decrease how much another person likes you, all the while potentially increasing how much that person wants to be with you.

14. Female Faces—What Is Attractive?
High attractiveness ratings are associated with:
Large eyes
Small nose
Small chin
Prominent cheekbones
High eyebrows
Large pupils
Big smile
Michael Cunningham (1986) designed a creative study to determine these standards of beauty. He asked college men to rate the attractiveness of fifty photographs of women, taken from a college yearbook and from an international beauty pageant program. Cunningham then carefully measured the relative size of the facial features in each photograph.

15. Male Faces—What Is Attractive?
High attractiveness ratings are associated with:
Large eyes
Prominent cheekbones
Large chin
Big smile
(Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990)

16. Cultural Standards of Beauty
Facial attractiveness perceived similarly across cultures
Symmetry is preferred
Size, shape, and location of the features on one side match the other side of face
“Averaged” composite faces preferred
Across cultures throughout the world, consensus emerges:
Perceivers think some faces are just better looking than others. Even infants prefer photographs of attractive faces to unattractive ones, and infants prefer the same photographs adults prefer.
Attractive faces for both sexes are those whose features tend to be the arithmetic mean—or average—for the species and not the extremes.
(Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn, 1991; Langlois, Roggman, & Rieser-Danner, 1990; Langlois et al., 1987)
This does not mean a composite “average” face has all the physical qualities that people cross-culturally agree are highly attractive, though.

17. Averaging for Beauty Physical attractiveness of composite faces
Averaging for Beauty Physical attractiveness of composite faces. Langlois and Roggman (1990) created composites of faces using a computer. Pictured here is the first step in the process: The first two women’s photos are merged to create the “composite person” at the far right. This composite person has facial features that are the mathematical average of the facial features of the two original women.
Source: Dr. Judith Langlois

18. The Power of Familiarity
Familiarity may be crucial variable for interpersonal attraction.
People prefer faces that most resemble their own.
Crucial variable that explains interpersonal attraction may be simple familiarity.
When research participants rate attractiveness of faces, they prefer faces that most resemble their own.
The researchers also computer-morphed a picture of each participant’s face (without the participant’s knowledge) into that of a person of the opposite sex. When they presented this photo to participants, they gave the photo of their opposite-sex “clone” even higher ratings of attractiveness (Little & Perrett, 2002).

19. Assumptions About Attractive People (2 of 3)
Physical beauty affects attributions
Halo Effect:
A cognitive bias by which we tend to assume that an individual with one positive characteristic also possesses other (even unrelated) positive characteristics

20. Assumptions About Attractive People (3 of 3)
“What is beautiful is good” stereotype
The beautiful are thought to be more:
Sociable
Extraverted
Popular
Sexual
Happy
Assertive
Meta-analyses have revealed that physical attractiveness has the largest effect on both men’s and women’s attributions when they are judging social competence. (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992b).

21. All Princesses Are Beautiful in Children’s Movies It’s no coincidence that in children’s movies, the hero is traditionally attractive and the villain ugly. In addition to finding it pleasing to look at attractive others, we also tend to assume that “what is beautiful is good.”
Source: WALT DISNEY PICTURES/Album/Newscom

22. Table 10.1 Culture and the “What Is Beautiful Is Good” Stereotype
Traits Shared in the Korean, American, and Canadian Stereotype
sociable
extraverted
likable
happy
popular
well-adjusted
friendly
mature
poised
sexually warm/responsive
Additional Traits Present in the American and Canadian Stereotypes
strong
assertive
dominant
Additional Traits Present in the Korean Stereotypes
sensitive
empathic
generous
honest
trustworthy
The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype has been explored in both individualistic cultures (e.g., North America) and collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asia). Male and female participants in the United States, Canada, and South Korea rated photographs of people with varying degrees of physical attractiveness. Responses indicated that some of the traits that make up the stereotype are the same across cultures, while other traits associated with the stereotype are different in the two cultures. In both cultures, the physically attractive are seen as having more of the characteristics that are valued in that culture than do the less physically attractive.
(Based on Eagly, Ashmore, Makhhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992b; Wheeler & Kim, 1997)

23. Evolution and Mate Selection
Evidence for evolutionary approach:
Asked more than 9,000 adults in 37 countries desirable marriage partner characteristics (Buss, 1989; Buss et al., 1990)
Women: valued ambition, industriousness, and earning capacity more than men
Men: valued attractiveness more than women
Top characteristics for both the same:
honesty, trustworthiness, pleasant personality

24. Love and Close Relationships
10.3 What is love and what gives people satisfaction in close relationships?

25. Defining Love (1 of 2) Companionate Love
The intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person, whose life we are intertwined with.
Do not experience passion or arousal in the person’s presence.
A researcher can’t randomly assign you to the similar or dissimilar “lover” condition and make you have a relationship! Feelings and intimacy associated with close relationships can be difficult to measure. Psychologists face a daunting task when trying to measure such complex feelings as love and passion.

26. Companionate Love Nonsexual relationships Sexual relationships
Close friendships
Sexual relationships
Psychological intimacy without “heat” and passion

27. Defining Love (2 of 2) Passionate Love
An intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied by physiological arousal
When our love is reciprocated, we feel great fulfillment and ecstasy
When it is not, we feel sadness and despair
A researcher can’t randomly assign you to the similar or dissimilar “lover” condition and make you have a relationship! Feelings and intimacy associated with close relationships can be difficult to measure. Psychologists face a daunting task when trying to measure such complex feelings as love and passion.

28. Passionate Love Intense longing for another person, characterized by:
The experience of physiological arousal
The feeling of shortness of breath
Thumping heart in loved one’s presence
(Regan, 1998; Regan & Berscheid, 1999)
When things are going well—the other person loves us too—we feel great fulfillment and ecstasy. When things are not going well—our love is unrequited—we feel great sadness and despair.

29. Passionate Love Present Passionate Love Absent
Table 10.2 Cross-Cultural Evidence for Passionate Love Based on Anthropological Research in 166 Societies
Cultural Area
Passionate Love Present
Passionate Love Absent
Mediterranean
22 (95.7%)
1 (4.3%)
Sub-Saharan Africa
20 (86.9%)
6 (23.1%)
Eurasia
32 (97.0%)
1 (3.0%)
Insular Pacific
27 (93.1%)
2 (6.9%)
North America
24 (82.8%)
5 (17.2%)
South and Central America
22 (84.6%)
4 (15.4%)
(Based on data from Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992)

30. Passionate and Companionate Love Across Cultures
Americans value passionate love more than the Chinese
The Chinese value companionate more
Taita of Kenya value both equally
Reviewing the anthropological research on 166 societies, William Jankowiak and Edward Fischer (1992) found evidence for passionate love in 147 of them.
Cross-cultural research comparing an individualistic culture (the United States) and a collectivistic culture (China) indicates that American couples tend to value passionate love more than Chinese couples do, and Chinese couples tend to value companionate love more than American couples do (Gao, 1993; Jankowiak, 1995; Ting-Toomey & Chung, 1996). In comparison, the Taita of Kenya, in East Africa, value both equally; they conceptualize romantic love as a combination of companionate love and passionate love. The Taita consider this the best kind of love, and achieving it is a primary goal in the society (Bell, 1995).

31. Culture and Love Japanese amae Chinese gan qing Korean jung
Totally passive love object, indulged and taken care of by one’s romantic partner
Chinese gan qing
Achieved by helping and working for another person
Korean jung
Connection that ties people together
Although love is a universal emotion, how we experience it (and what we expect from close relationships) is linked to culture. For example, the Japanese describe amae as an extremely positive emotional state in which one is a totally passive love object, indulged and taken care of by one’s romantic partner, much like a mother-infant relationship. Amae has no equivalent word in English or in any other Western language.
The closest English term is the word dependency, an emotional state that Western cultures consider unhealthy in adult relationships (K. K. Dion & K. L. Dion, 1993; Doi, 1988).
Similarly, the Chinese concept of gan qing differs from the Western view of romantic love. Gan qing is achieved by helping and working for another person; for example, a “romantic” act would be fixing someone’s bicycle or helping someone learn new material (Gao, 1996).
In Korea, a special kind of relationship is expressed by the concept of jung. Much more than “love,” jung is what ties two people together. Couples in new relationships may feel strong love for each other, but they have not yet developed strong jung—that takes time and many mutual experiences. Interestingly, jung can develop in negative relationships too—for example, between business rivals who dislike each other. Jung may unknowingly grow between them over time, with the result that they will feel that a strange connection exists between them (Lim & Choi, 1996).

32. Weddings Across Cultures Although people all over the world experience love, how love is defined varies across cultures.
Source: (left) imageBROKER/Alamy; (right): vario images GmbH & Co.KG/Alamy

33. Attachment Styles in Intimate Relationships
The expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationship they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants
There are three styles of attachment:
Secure
Anxious/Ambivalent
Avoidant
The key assumption of attachment theory is that the particular attachment style we learn as infants and young children becomes our working model or schema (as we discussed in Chapter 3) for what relationships are like. This early childhood relationship schema typically stays with us throughout life and generalizes to all of our relationships with other people (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hartup & Laursen, 1999; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; 2005). Thus people who had a secure relationship with their parents or caregivers are able to develop mature, lasting relationships as adults; people who had avoidant relationships with their parents are less able to trust others and find it difficult to develop close, intimate relationships; and people who had anxious/ambivalent relationships with their parents want to become close to their adult partners but worry that their partners will not return their affections (Collins & Feeney, 2000; 2004a; Rholes, Simpson & Friedman, 2006; Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996). This has been borne out in numerous studies that measure adults’ attachment styles with questionnaires or interviews and then correlate these styles with the quality of their romantic relationships.

34. Table 10.3 Measuring Adult Attachment Style
Secure style
56%
“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.”
Avoidant style
25%
“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 close, and often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.”
Anxious style
19%
“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 stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.”
As part of a survey of attitudes toward love published in a newspaper, people were asked to choose the statement that best described their romantic relationships. The attachment style each statement was designed to measure and the percentage of people who chose each alternative are indicated.
(Adapted from Hazan & Shaver, 1987)

35. Attachment Style Is Not Destiny
If people had unhappy relationships with their parents, they are not doomed to repeat this!
People’s experience in relationships can help them learn new and more healthy ways of relating to others.
People may develop more than one attachment style over time.
Attachment theory does not mean that if people had unhappy relationships with their parents, they are doomed to repeat this same kind of unhappy relationship with everyone they ever meet.
People can and do change; their experiences in relationships can help them learn new and more healthy ways of relating to others than what they experienced as children.
In fact, it may be that people can develop more than one attachment style over time, as a result of their various experiences in close relationships.
(Baldwin & Fehr, 1995).
At any given time, the attachment style people display is the one that is called into play by their partner’s behavior and the type of relationship that they’ve created as a couple. Thus people may respond to situational variables in their relationships, displaying a more secure attachment style in one relationship and a more anxious one in another (Fraley, 2002; Hammond & Fletcher, 1991; Simpson, Rholes, Campbell & Wilson, 2003).

36. Theories of Relationship Satisfaction
Social Exchange Theory
People’s feelings about a relationship depend on;
perceptions of rewards & costs,
the kind of relationship they deserve,
chances for having a better relationship with someone else
Social exchange theory holds that how people feel (positively or negatively) about their relationships will depend on:
Their perception of the rewards they receive from the relationship,
(2) Their perception of the costs they incur, and
(3) Their perception of what kind of relationship they deserve and the probability that they could have a better relationship with someone else.

37. Theories of Relationship Satisfaction
Equity Theory
Equitable relationships are the happiest and most stable
Rewards and costs are roughly equal

38. Equity Theory In inequitable relationships, one person feels:
Over-benefited
Lots of rewards, few costs
Devote little time or energy to the relationship
Under-benefited
Few rewards, high costs
Devote a lot of time and energy to the relationship
Inequity is more important to person who is under-benefitted
Proponents of equity theory describe equitable relationships as the happiest and most stable.
In comparison, inequitable relationships result in one person feeling: Overbenefited (getting a lot of rewards, incurring few costs, having to devote little time or energy to the relationship), or Underbenefited (getting few rewards, incurring a lot of costs, having to devote a lot of time and energy to the relationship). According to equity theory, both underbenefited and overbenefited partners should feel uneasy about this state of affairs, and both should be motivated to restore equity to the relationship. This makes sense for the underbenefited person (who wants to continue feeling miserable?), but why should the overbenefited individual want to give up what social exchange theory indicates is a cushy deal—lots of rewards for little cost and little work? Some theorists argue that equity is a powerful social norm—people will eventually feel uncomfortable or even guilty if they get more than they deserve in a relationship. However, being overbenefited just doesn’t seem as bad as being underbenefited, and research has borne out that inequity is perceived as more of a problem by the underbenefited individual (Buunk & Schaufeli, 1999; Hatfield, Greenberger, Traupmann, & Lambert, 1982; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994; Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990).

39. Exchange and Communal Relationships
Exchange Relationships
Relationships governed by the need for equity (i.e., for an equal ratio of rewards and costs)
Communal Relationships
Relationships in which people’s primary concern is being responsive to the other person’s needs
According to Margaret Clark and Judson Mills, interactions between new acquaintances are governed by equity concerns and are called exchange relationships.
In comparison, interactions between close friends, family members, and romantic partners are governed less by an equity norm and more by a desire to help each other in times of need. In these communal relationships, people give in response to the other’s needs, regardless of whether they are paid back (Clark, 1984, 1986; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1994, 2001; Vaananen, et al., 2005).

40. Communal Family Relationships Close relationships can have either exchange or communal properties. Family relationships are typically communal.
Source: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

41. Figure 10.3 Exchange versus Communal Relationships
To test this model, Rusbult (1983) asked college students involved in heterosexual dating relationships to fill out questionnaires for seven months. Every three weeks or so, people answered questions about each of the components of the model. Rusbult also kept track of whether the students stayed in the relationships or broke up. People’s satisfaction, alternatives, and investments all predicted how committed they were to the relationship and whether it lasted. (The higher the number on the scale, the more each factor predicted the commitment to and length of the relationship.) Subsequent studies have found results similar to those for married couples of diverse ages, for lesbian and gay couples, for close (nonsexual) friendships, and for residents of both the United States and Taiwan (Kurdek, 1992; Lin & Rusbult, 1995; Rusbult, 1991; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). A further test of the model focused on couples’ willingness to make personal sacrifices for their partner or for the sake of the relationship (Van Lange et al., 1997). The researchers found that couples willing to make sacrifices for each other were strongly committed to their relationship, a commitment stemming from a a high degree of satisfaction and investment in the relationship and the low quality of alternatives to the relationship.

42. Ending Intimate Relationships
10.4 What does research demonstrate about romantic breakups?

43. The Process of Breaking Up
Try to end it mutually.
Your experience will be less traumatic because you will share some control over the process (even if you don’t want it to happen).

44. The Process of Breaking Up
Four stages (Duck, 1982)
1) .Intrapersonal: thinks about dissatisfaction
2). Dyadic: discusses breakup with partner
3). Social: breakup announced to others
4). Intrapersonal: recover by thinking about why and how it happened

45. Figure 10.4 Steps in Dissolving Close Relationships
Steve Duck (1982) reminds us that relationship dissolution is not a single event but a process with many steps. Duck theorizes that four stages of dissolution exist, ranging from the intrapersonal (the individual thinks a lot about his or her dissatisfaction with the relationship) to the dyadic (the individual discusses the breakup with the partner) to the social (the breakup is announced to other people) and back to the intrapersonal (the individual recovers from the breakup and forms an account, or version, of how and why it happened). In terms of the last stage in the process, John Harvey and his colleagues (Harvey, 1995; Harvey, Flanary, & Morgan, 1986; Harvey, Orbuch, & Weber, 1992) have found that the version of “why the relationship ended” that we present to close friends can be very different from the official (i.e., cleaned-up) version that we present to co-workers or neighbors. Take a moment to examine the stages outlined in this figure; see if they mirror your experience.
(Adapted from Duck, 1982)

46. Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (1 of 4)
Destructive Behaviors
Actively harming the relationship
Abusing the partner
Threatening to break up
Actually leaving
(Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983) Caryl Rusbult’s identified four types of behavior that occur in troubled relationships.
Destructive behaviors
Actively harming the relationship
(e.g., abusing the partner, threatening to break up, actually leaving).
Passively allowing the relationship to deteriorate (e.g., refusing to deal with problems, ignoring the partner or spending less time together, putting no energy into the relationship).

47. Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (2 of 4)
Destructive Behaviors
Passively allowing relationship to deteriorate
Refusing to deal with problems
Ignoring the partner or spending less time together
Putting no energy into the relationship
(Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983) Caryl Rusbult’s identified four types of behavior that occur in troubled relationships.
Destructive behaviors
Actively harming the relationship
(e.g., abusing the partner, threatening to break up, actually leaving).
Passively allowing the relationship to deteriorate (e.g., refusing to deal with problems, ignoring the partner or spending less time together, putting no energy into the relationship).

48. Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (3 of 4)
Constructive behaviors
Actively trying to improve the relationship
Discussing problems, trying to change
Going to a therapist
(Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983) Constructive behaviors
Actively trying to improve the relationship (e.g., discussing problems, trying to change, going to a therapist).
Passively remaining loyal to the relationship (e.g., waiting and hoping that the situation will improve, being supportive rather than fighting, remaining optimistic).

49. Behavior in Troubled Relationships, Rusbult (4 of 4)
Constructive behaviors
Passively remaining loyal to the relationship
Waiting and hoping that the situation will improve
Being supportive rather than fighting
Remaining optimistic
(Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983) Constructive behaviors
Actively trying to improve the relationship (e.g., discussing problems, trying to change, going to a therapist).
Passively remaining loyal to the relationship (e.g., waiting and hoping that the situation will improve, being supportive rather than fighting, remaining optimistic).

50. The Experience of Breaking Up (1 of 3)
Responsibility for breakup important factor
“Breakers”: high level of responsibility
Least painful, upsetting, stressful
“Breakees”: low level of responsibility
Miserable—lonely, depressed, angry
“Mutuals”: same level of responsibility
Not as upset as “breakees” but more stressed than “breakers”
One key is the role people play in the decision to end the relationship (Akert, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; Lloyd & Cate, 1985). For example, Robin Akert asked 344 college-age men and women to focus on their most important romantic relationship that had ended and to respond to a questionnaire focusing on their experiences during the breakup.

51. Cartoon: The Love Trap “Somehow I remember this one differently.”
Steve Duenes/The New Yorker Collection/