Relationships

& The
Relationship
Imperative
MSc (Conversion) Psychology – Social Psychology

Dr Glen Jankowski
g.jankowski@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
With thanks to Dr Jess Drakett for help
 Learning objectives

Familiarize yourself with This lecture & reading

attraction, love and relationship
work in psychology

Evaluate this work in light of the This lecture & reading

relationship imperative

Content note: Content relating to

sexism, racism, homophobia & explicit
sexual references
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Mainstream approach
to relationships

Interpersonal
e.g., social influence, group
processes, close
b en
efit
s relationships
at
Wh us,
do ogamo a
mon ght s h ould
at e
i
stra onshi
ps Wh on do/b
ti
rela ide for pers in a
? e ?
to b onship
v
pro iduals
in d i
v Individual rela
ti
e.g., social cognition,
attitudes
Mainstream Psychology
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Attraction overview
• Attraction definition: wanting to know or spend time with another
person
• Physical attractiveness = initial attraction often associated with
appearance (Hogg & Vaughan, 2011)
Key research questions for attractiveness researchers
• How do key relationships (e.g., Friendships & Romantic relationships)
form and how are they different to one another?
• What makes one person feel positively about another?
• What makes people attractive?
Physical Attractiveness: Aesthetic Capital
Langlois et al. (2000) highlights
physical attractiveness correlates:
• Achieve higher grades
• More success at work
• Better liked
• Go on more dates
• More sexually experienced
• More self-confidence / self-
esteem
• Higher intelligence
• Better mental health Source:
https://www.thelawproject.com.au/insights/attractiveness-bias-
in-the-legal-system
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of
beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological bulletin, 126(3), 390.
Physical Attractiveness: Aesthetic Capital
Finel (2015)
• “beauty…yields a wide array
of social, cultural, physical and
economic privileges and
wealth” (pg. 572)
• Some beauty penalties linked
• Cost of accruing capital
(beauty labour) may
imbalance this.

Finel Honigman, A. (2015). A known beauty: Models-turned-artists challenge beauty privilege. Fashion
Theory, 19(5), 617-636
 Theories of Attraction:
Evolutionary Social Psychology (sociobiology)
• Pavlou (pg. 132) sociobiology assumes that: “love is [a
mechanism] to ensure reproductive success”

• Buss (2003) - Attraction driven by mate selection/ Seek out

‘good genes’ – reproductive fitness

• Confer, Perrilloux and Buss (2010) - Short vs Long-term

mating strategies influence determinants of attractiveness

Pavlou, Kety. ‘An Investigation of the Conceptualisation of Romantic Love across South Africa : A Cross-Cultural Study’.
University of Johannesburg, 5 July 2010.
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/esploro/outputs/doctoral/An-investigation-of-the-conceptualisation-of/9910473607691.
 CRITIQUES: Theories of Attraction:
Evolutionary Social Psychology (sociobiology))
• Attraction = mate selection…
• Is reproduction the only reason for sex?
• What about same sex attraction?
• Neglects cultural constructions of
beauty
• Socialization and beauty ideals
• How beauty differ historically
• How beauty differ according to cultural
values – e.g., ‘thin ideal’
• Is sexist
• Upholds a sexual double standard https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/
women-rights-money-timeline-history
• Ignores sexism’s impact on attraction e.g.,
Women’s only avenue of acquiring
resources was their relationships with men
Theories of Attraction: Social Cognitive Approaches

Similarity:
• Attitudes and values
• Matching
• Byrne (1971) and Clore (1976) - law
of attraction
Balance Theory:
• Agreement is affirming
• Leads to positive affect
• BUT…
• Broome (1983) –constructive
differences can be beneficial

Curry, T. J., & Emerson, R. M. (1970). Balance theory: A theory of interpersonal attraction?. Sociometry,
216-238.
Theories of Attraction: Social
Exchange Theories

• Interpersonal Approach
• Behaviourist underpinnings – reinforcement
• Exchange of Resources (e.g., status, money, love)– Foa &
Foa (1975)
Theories of Attraction: General Social Factors

Theories of
Attraction:
Social Factors
Proximity Reciprocity
Familiarity We like those who like us, and dislike those who
Availability dislike us
Dittes and Kelley (1954) – students more attracted to
Expected long-term interaction groups who they believed liked them than groups they
believed disliked them
Sprecher (1988) – reciprocal liking key determinant in
interpersonal attraction
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
 Theories of Love
• Pre 1950s = Minimal research - wew
exception e.g., Freud (1942) –
Striving for the ego ideal
1950s+: Love Theories
• Sternberg (1986) Triangle Theory of
Love
• Lee (1977; 1988) – ‘Love Styles’: Sets
of ideas, beliefs, expectations, and
assumptions
• Hendrick and Hendrick (1986)
Page 178 Pavlou, Kety. ‘An Investigation of the Conceptualisation of Romantic Love across
South Africa : A Cross-Cultural Study’. University of Johannesburg, 5 July 2010.
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/esploro/outputs/doctoral/An-investigation-of-the-conceptualis
ation-of/9910473607691
 Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Sternberg, R.J. (1986) `A Triangular Theory of

4 minutes 19 secs https://youtu.be/-Cxq7ZmnFLU Love', Psychological Review 93: 119-135.
 Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). A duplex theory of love. The new psychology of love, 184-199.
 Other Theories of Love
Lee’s Typology of Love Styles

Lee (1988) Hendrick & Hendrick (1986) Characteristics

Eros Romantic, passionate love All consuming love

Psychological
Ludos Love as a game Play for fun
Models
Storge of Companionate love Friendship and affection

Love
Mania Jealous love Dependent, obsessive, jealous

Agape Selfless love Altruistic, unconditional

Pragma Shopping-list love Conditional, requirements of partner

See Pavlou (2009) for further detail on Lee’s work including how it relates to attraction styles & how it has been studied alongside
personality and other psychological variables.
Pavlou, K. (2009). An investigation of the conceptualisation of romantic love across South Africa: A cross-cultural study (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Johannesburg).
Critiquing Love Theories: Ignores social construction of
love
Stainton-Rogers (2011)
• Love theories replicate cultural constructions of
love
• Cultural construction of love are powerful

A Critical Look
• Example 1: Only Romantic Love is counted. Other
forms of love ignored in favour of: “Romantic love
At Love
that says it's a special, rare feeling, reserved for
just a few people in your whole life… (Blanton,
2014)
• Example 2: Romantic Love = Eternal Happiness /
‘Happily Ever After’?

‘
Stainton Rogers, W. Social Psychology. 2 edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2011.
https://carsieblanton.tumblr.com/post/82149148832/casual-love Happily Ever After’ Trope (All The Tropes.com)
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
 Maintaining Relationships
• Focus on factors that maintain relationships in
heterosexual married couples:
• E.g. Adams and Jones (1997) found maintenance
factors include:
• Personal dedication
• Moral commitment
• Constraint commitment
• E.g., Other researchers have found maintenance relies
on:
• Spousal characteristics (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995)
• Support networks (e.g., Cotton, Cunningham, & Antill, 1993)

Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 72(5), 1177.
Relationship Breakdowns
Levinger (1980)
• New life is the only solution
• Alternative partners available
• Expectation that the relationship will fail
• Lack of commitment
Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) breakdown
responses:
• Loyalty, Neglect
• Voice behaviour, Exit behaviour
Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of experimental social
psychology, 16(6), 510-544.
Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic
involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of experimental social
psychology, 19(3), 274-293.
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Relationship imperative overview

Societal
e.g., racism, capitalism,
sexism etc.
Relationship
Interpersonal imperative
e.g., social influence, group
processes, close relationships

Researcher’s
focus

Individual
e.g., social
cognition,
attitudes
Relationship imperative: Hostetler (2009)
Hostetler (2009) - A shared cultural desire for
monogamous romantic relationships
• Imperative = crucial, necessary, required
The
“Relationship
Research:
Imperative”
• Topic: Long-term voluntary singlehood among gay men
• Research question: Is singlehood perceived as a long-term choice
vs a temporary status (between relationships)?
• Methods – questionnaires and follow up interviews with gay men
Relationship imperative: Hostetler (2009)
Questionnaires:
• Men tended to agree with statements about being single
by choice

Interviews:
• Men’s accounts devoid of talk around voluntary

Key Findings
singlehood.
• Singlehood not ideal, but a better choice than an
unfulfilling relationship

Conclusions:
• Contradictions between questionnaire and interview data
suggest a more complex picture
• Reflects value placed on relationships in American culture
• Driven by the desire to demonstrate ‘free choice’
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Relationship Imperative Implication:
Heteronormativity
Relationship
Imperative Implication:
Heteronormativity
 Heteronormativity starts
young and can be
institutionalized
 E.g., Heteronormative sex
education:
 Governmental websites (see
Riggs, 2013)
 US educational guidance (see
McNeill, 2013)
 UK education (Abbott et al.,
2015)
Relationship Imperative Implication: Heteronormativity

Disenfranchised grief: (a consequence of the RI?): “the

grief that persons experience when they incur a loss that is
not or cannot be openly acknowledged publicly mourned
or socially supported” (Doka 1989, 2008)

Disenfranchised
Grief

Doka, K. J. (2008). Disenfranchised grief in historical and cultural perspective.

Relationship Imperative Implication: Psychology’s
heteronormativity
 Historical psychology : ‘homosexuality =
curable disorder’
 Current psychology: <1% of published
research inc. LGBT (Lee & Crawford, 2007).
 Heteronormative research today:
 Studies on causes of homosexuality
 Studies aiming to show same sex couples are the
same as opposite sex ones
 Increased scrutiny on same sex parents (e.g.,
Vinjamuri, 2015)
 See exceptions:

Lee, I. C., & Crawford, M. (2007). Lesbians and bisexual women in the eyes of scientific
psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 109-127.
 Relationship Imperative Implication:
Heteronormativity in animals
UIO (2006) 1,500 animal species practice
homosexuality
Alaimo (2010)
• Observed in >1,500 species & well
documented in >500 (mostly vertebrates
but also shellfish & insects)
• Especially well known in Penguins &
Giraffes
• Zoologists and scientists have tended to
ignore this behaviour including
masturbation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo
Chapter 1 from Alaimo, S. (2010). Eluding capture: The science, culture,
and pleasure of ‘queer’animals. Queer ecologies: Sex, nature, politics, https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-ani
desire, 51-72. mal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
Relationship Imperative Implication: Heteronormativity in
animals

0 – 5.06 https://youtu.be/QCtzzfvE6v0
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
 Relationship Imperative Implication: Mono -
normative
Mononormativity: ‘the
relations of power that
stem from the belief that
the monogamous dyad is
a natural, morally correct
and essential aspect of
relating and being human’
(Finn, 2012)
 • Barker and Langdridge (2010)
Relationship • Societal level – “consensual non-monogamies are demonized, pathologized,
marginalized, and subject to the social regulation of ridicule”
Imperative Implication: • Unable to claim the rights bestowed upon monogamous couples e.g., legal

Mono - normative protections, child care, etc.

• Frames consensual non-monogamous relationships as abnormal
Relationship Imperative Implication: Mono-normative
Farvid and Braun (2013)

• Method: Analysed constructions of casual sex in

online texts written by ‘experts’

• Casual sex - ‘not a natural act’

• Assumption that casual sex has to be learnt, and

is therefore unnatural

• Conclusion: Supports and reinforces natural

(compulsory) monogamy

Farvid, P. & Braun, V. (2013). Casual Sex as ‘not a natural act’ and
other regimes of truth about heterosexuality. Feminism &
Psychology, 23(3), 359-378.
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Relationship Imperative Implication: Heteronormative
• Feminists (e.g., Adrienne Rich)
identify heterosexual marriage
as an institution
• Which women are socialized into
• That perpetuates sexism and
severs women from identity,
freedom & determinants of
equality
• See also Sexism lecture (and
household task divisions
research)

https://genderpressing.wordpress.com/
category/compulsory-heterosexuality/
Relationship Imperative Implication: Sexist / gendered

https://www.brides.com/story/feminist- https://genderpressing.wordpress.com/
alternatives-wedding-traditions category/compulsory-heterosexuality/
Relationship Imperative Implication: Sexism
• Relationship imperative pushes women
into ‘Madonna/Whore’ dichotomy
• Whore/ ‘Sluts’:
• Are openly sexual
• Have multiple sexual partners

Slut Shaming
• Acknowledge sexual feelings
• Act on sexual feelings
• Functions: The term ‘slag’ is a sexual
double standard used to control women’s
sexuality (Lees, 1997)
• Resistance: Sex-positive and Slut Pride
Movements
Lees, S., (1997). Ruling passions: Sexual violence, reputation and the
law (p. 190). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood stigma (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Relationship Imperative
Implication: Singlehood Stigma
• Stainton-Rogers (2011)
• Narrow categories of ‘Single’ or ‘In a Relationship’
• Singleness becomes ‘between relationships’ /
Singlehood as ‘not in a relationship’
• ‘Single’ is under- and misrepresented category (Cobb,
2012)
• Single people often portrayed as ‘unfortunate’ in
some way
• Heavily gendered (Stainton-Rogers, 2011)
• Bridgette Jones: desperate for a man, dreaming of
weddings, unlucky in love
• Single women are positioned outside of ‘normal’
family life and intimate relationships (Reynolds &
Taylor,
Stainton Rogers,2004; Reynolds
W. Social Psychology. 2 edition.and Wetherellm,
Maidenhead: 2003)
Open University Press, 2011.
Being Single

https://youtu.be/jxbfLozVXXs?t=174
Play 2.14-5mins section on worse stereotypes of childfree women
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown
factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood discrimination (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
Limits of relationship imperative
concept
• Does the relationship imperative go far enough?
• Does it imply that individuals have no free will or
ability to create relationships independent of external
forces?
• Does the relationship imperative sufficiently
acknowledge how racism, sexism, capitalism and
other societal forces influence
relationships/attraction?
 Limits of relationship imperative
concept: ignores racism
• Relationship imperative ignores racism’s
impact on relationships:
• E.g., Racism on dating profiles (see Callander
et al 2015)

• E.g. sociopolitical regulation of

interracial relationships
• Cultural constructions of beauty favour
white/western features (hooks, 1992)
Callander, D., Newman, C. E., & Holt, M. (2015). Is sexual racism really racism? Distinguishing
attitudes toward sexual racism and generic racism among gay and bisexual men. Archives of
sexual behavior, 44, 1991-2000.
hooks, B. Black Looks: Race and Representation. 1st Edition edition. Boston, MA: South End Press,
1992.
Overview
1. Attraction
a. Attraction Theories
b. Love Theories (4 min Sternberg video)
c. Relationships maintenance & breakdown
factors
2. Relationship Imperative
a. Overview
b. Implications of Relationship Imperative
a. Heteronormativity (5 min Animal video)
b. Mononormative
c. Sexism
d. Singlehood discrimination (4min Childfree video)
c. Limits
3. Summary
a. Reading
 Summary
• Mainstream theories of intimate relationships and attraction are
diverse & well studied
• Sometimes may rely on individualised and interpersonal
assumptions.
• Critical Social Psychologists argue that attraction, relationships,
and love are practices that are done and shaped within social,
historical, economic and political conditions.
• And that societal impacts like the ‘relationship imperative’ dictates
relations more than mainstream psychologists imagine
• If time permits: 7 question kahoots (note: some US cultural
examples)
Votes for statement: “‘People do not have to buy into the relationship imperative’”

Votes – Group 1
14

12

10

0
Before Debate After Debate

For Against Abstentions

Key Reading (available on ‘Reading List’)
• Hogg, M. A. & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social Psychology (8th Ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Chapter 14: Attraction and Close Relationships
• Stainton-Rogers, W. (2011). Social Psychology (2nd Ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Chapter 11: The Social Psychology of Relationships

Advanced Reading
•Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on
recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748-772.
•Farvid, P. & Braun, V. (2013). Casual Sex as ‘not a natural act’ and other regimes of truth about
heterosexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 23(3), 359-378.
•Reynolds, J. & Wetherell, M. (2003). The discursive climate of singleness: the consequences for women’s
negotiation of a single identity. Feminism & Psychology, 13(4), 489-510.
•Pavlou, Kety. ‘An Investigation of the Conceptualisation of Romantic Love across South Africa : A Cross-
Cultural Study’. University of Johannesburg, 5 July 2010.
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/esploro/outputs/doctoral/An-investigation-of-the-conceptualisation-of/9910473
607691
.