EBook for Check Point assignment

As humans, we are fundamentally social beings whose connections to others are vitalto our health and happiness. As we have noted in many places throughout this book,the evidence connecting well-being to relationships is overwhelming (see Chapters 3and 5). David Myers referred to the contribution of relationships to health and happiness asa “deep truth” (1992, p. 154). The “truth” of the well-being/relationship connection appearsto be universal. Of the many factors that contribute to well-being, only social relationshipsCHAPTER OUTLINEDefining Close RelationshipsCharacteristicsExchange and Communal RelationshipsOn the Lighter SideTeasing and HumorFocus on Research: Sharing What Goes Right in LifeFriendship and Romantic LoveClarity of RulesComplexity of FeelingsExpectationsVarieties of LovePassionate versus Companionate LoveTriangular Theory of LoveCultural Context of Love, Marriage, and DivorceWhy Don’t Marriages Last?Increased Freedom and Decreased ConstraintsGetting Married and Staying Married: Is Love the Answer?Realism or Idealism?Satisfaction and ConflictWhat People Bring to Romantic RelationshipsAttachment StyleConflict and Communication SkillsFocus on Research: The Power of the “Bad”AttributionsImplicit Theories and ExpectationsFood for Thought: Contours of a Happy MarriageWhat Can Happy Couples Tell Us?Humor and Compatibility11Close Relationshipsand Well-Being239ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.240 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Beingconsistently predict happiness across widely differingcultures (Diener & Diener, 1995).Relationships are responsible for our greatestjoys and our most painful sorrows. Our physical andemotional well-being is enhanced as much by supportingand caring connections with others as it isjeopardized by social isolation and bad relationships.For physical health and longevity, the magnitudeof these effects rival those of well-establishedhealth risks such as smoking, obesity, diet, and lackof exercise (see Chapter 3). The quality of our relationshipshas equally powerful effects on mentalhealth and happiness. Healthy people have strong,supportive connections to others and happy peoplehave rich social lives, satisfying friendships, andhappy marriages (see Chapters 3 and 5).The importance of positive relationships iswidely recognized by psychologists and nonpsychologistsalike. People typically list close relationshipsas one of their most important life goalsand a primary source of meaning in life (Emmons,1999b). In one study, 73% of college studentssaid they would sacrifice another important lifegoal (e.g., good education, career) before theywould give up a satisfying romantic relationship(Hammersla & Frease-McMahan, 1990). In answer tothe “deathbed test” most people point to relationshipsas a major factor that contributes to a satisfyingand meaningful life (Reis & Gable, 2003; Sears,1977). A full appreciation of the value of close relationshipsis one of life’s more important lessons,often learned in the face of life-threatening events(see Chapter 4 on Posttraumatic Growth).We have also discussed the multiple ways thatrelationships contribute to well-being. Relationshipsprovide an important coping resource throughsocial support, fulfill needs for intimacy and sharingof life’s burdens through self-disclosure, and representan ongoing source of enjoyment and positiveemotions through interactions with others. Manypsychologists believe these positive effects are builton a biological foundation reflecting our evolutionaryheritage. Humans are not particularly imposingfigures compared to the other animals they confrontedin pre-historic times, and human infantsremain relatively defenseless for many years.Evolution may have selected for a geneticallyorganizedbonding process. Going it alone likelymeant the end of a person’s genetic lineage. Inshort, humans probably would not have survived ifthey did not have a built-in biological motive toform cooperative bonds with others and nurturingconnections with their own offspring. As we notedin Chapter 5, the evolutionary basis of human connections,together with the extensive literatureshowing the importance of human bonds, ledBaumeister and Leary (1995) to conclude thatbelongingness is a fundamental human need whichthey described as, “a pervasive drive to form andmaintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive,and significant interpersonal relationships”(p. 497). Food and water are essential supplies for ahealthy life. Similarly, caring relationships with othersalso appear to be essential to well-being.Recent studies have begun to explore some ofthe biological underpinnings of our need forbelonging. For example, oxytocin is a pituitary hormonethat has physiological effects that counter theflight-or-fight stress response. That is, this hormonereduces fearfulness and the physiological arousalassociated with stress by producing relaxation andcalmness (Carter, 1998; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, et al.,2000; Uvnas-Moberg, 1998). Oxytocin is sometimesreferred to as the “cuddle hormone” because closephysical contacts such as touching, hugging, andkissing stimulate its release (Hazan, Campa, & Gur-Yaish, 2006). Oxytocin is responsible for the releaseof milk in nursing mothers. The calm emotionalstate and feelings of safety produced by the hormoneare thought to contribute to infant–maternalbonds. For both men and women, oxytocin levelsare at their highest during sexual orgasm (Uvnas-Moberg, 1997). These findings suggest that ourdesire for intimate connections with others and thecomfort these connections provide are at least partiallymediated by biological responses. Obviously,there’s more to a hug than just biology, but that hugmight not feel quite as good if it weren’t for biology.The connection of satisfying relationships towell-being is clear. What is not so clear is how peopledevelop and maintain good relationships. In thischapter, we will explore what psychologists havelearned about close, intimate relationships thataddresses the following sorts of questions: What isthe difference between close relationships and morecasual acquaintances? How does an intimate connectiondevelop between two people? What does itmean to be someone’s friend? To be in love? Whatcharacterizes good and bad relationships? Given thewidely shared belief in the importance of close relationships,why do half of all marriages end indivorce? Why is it so difficult to sustain a satisfyingISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 241long-term marriage? Can “happy” couples tell ussomething about the ingredients of a successfulmarriage?DEFINING CLOSE RELATIONSHIPSCharacteristicsWe encounter many people each day as we shop,talk on the phone, keep appointments, visit, work,go to school, go to church, and relax with familymembers, friends, or spouses at the end of theday. While all the relationships involved in theseencounters are potentially significant, researchershave spent most of their time studying our closestrelationships—specifically friendship, romantic love,and marriage. Our best friends, lovers, and spousesare the most important people in our lives and havethe most impact on our overall well-being across thelife span.Close relationships can be distinguished frommore casual acquaintances in a number of ways,but the degree of intimacy seems most central tothe distinction. In everyday language, intimacyoften implies a sexual and romantic relationship.We may be more likely to describe a good friend asa best friend or a close friend, rather than an intimatefriend. However, relationship researchers usethe term “intimacy” to capture mutual understanding,depth of connection, and degree of involvement,whether or not the relationship is sexual. Theterm “intimacy” can apply both to friends and tolovers. It is in this sense that our closest relationships,sexual or not, are the most intimate ones.Although some researchers believe that close relationshipsand intimate relationships are distinct andindependent types (see Berscheid & Reis, 1998), wewill use the term “intimate” to describe our closestrelationships.Based on an extensive review of the literature,Miller, Perlman, and Brehm (2007) suggest that bothlay-persons and psychologists seem to agree on sixcore characteristics that set intimate relationshipsapart from more casual relationships: knowledge,trust, caring, interdependence, mutuality, and commitment(see also Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Harvey &Weber, 2002).Brief descriptions of these six characteristicsare given in Table 11.1.KNOWLEDGE Our closest friends and intimate partnersknow more about us than anyone else. Theyhave extensive knowledge of our personal history,deepest feelings, strengths, and faults. Intimateknowledge in close relations develops through themutual self-disclosure of personal information andfeelings. Self-disclosure means revealing intimatedetails of the self to others (Derlega, Metts,Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). These details have todo with our “true self” and the actual state of affairsin our lives, which is likely different than the publicself presented to less intimate others in everydayinteractions. That is, we share things with intimateothers that we typically keep private when we arein the company of strangers or casual acquaintances.Sharing of personal information, in turn,provides the basis for developing a deeper connectionthan is typical in casual associations. To havesomeone accept, like or love you, when they knowyou as you know yourself, is powerful affirmationof the essence and totality of self. This is one reasonwhy rejection by a good friend or romanticpartner may be so painful. The relatively completeself-knowledge shared with another may makerejection by that person feel profound. In contrast,the rejection of someone who has minimal and partialknowledge of us is likely to be less upsetting,TABLE 11.1 Characteristics of intimate relationshipsKnowledge—mutual understanding based on reciprocal self-disclosure.Trust—assumption of no harm will be done by the other. Keeping confidences.Caring—genuine concern for the other and ongoing monitoring and maintenance of relationshipInterdependence—intertwining of lives and mutual influence.Mutuality—sense of “we-ness” and overlapping of lives.Commitment—intention to stay in the relationship through its ups and downs.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.242 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Beingbecause only the more superficial aspects of theself are invested.Research suggests that self-disclosure both signifiesand enhances mutual liking and affection. Amajor review by Collins and Miller (1994) foundstrong empirical support for three disclosure-likingeffects. (1) We disclose to people we like. (2) Welike people who disclose intimate self-informationmore than those whose disclosures are less intimate.(3) We like people to whom we have disclosed.Research has also identified a strong tendency fordisclosure to beget disclosure, an effect calleddisclosure reciprocity (Derlega et al., 1993; Miller,1990; Reis & Shaver, 1988). People tend to bothreciprocate a disclosure and match its level of intimacy.The process often begins with non-intimateinformation and then moves on to more intimatefactual and emotional disclosures over time. If initialconversations are rewarding, then over time boththe breadth (diversity of topics) and the depth (personalsignificance and sensitivity) of topics that arediscussed increases (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Thismovement of communication from small talk to theexchange of more sensitive personal information isconsidered central to the development of relationships.Reciprocal self-disclosure captures theprocess of how we get to know someone. Theknowledge that results from disclosure describeswhat it means to know and be known by someone.The power of self-disclosure to produce feelingsof closeness is dramatically shown by a studythat manipulated the intimacy of two conversationpartners (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator,1997). Participants began their exchange as completestrangers. They were first instructed to talk for15 minutes about personal topics that were relativelylow in intimacy such as, “When did you lastsing to yourself?” During the second 15-minute interval,topic intimacy increased to include things like,“What is your most treasured memory?” During thefinal 15 minutes, conversation partners wereinstructed to talk about very personal topics invokedby questions such as, “When did you last cry in frontof another person? By yourself?” “Complete this sentence:‘I wish I had someone with whom I couldshare . . .’ ” Compared to a group of non-disclosingparticipants who engaged in 45 minutes of smalltalk (e.g., “What’s is your favorite holiday?”), participantsin the disclosure condition reported feelingvery close to their conversational partners by theconclusion of the experience. The researcherscompared closeness ratings for the group thatengaged in self-disclosure and the group that madesmall-talk. Surprisingly, the experimental subjectsreported feeling closer to their experimental partners,than one-third of the small-talk subjectsreported feeling to the person with whom theyshared the closest real-life relationship! This isstrong evidence for the importance of self-disclosureto the development of intimacy.Reciprocal disclosure is most evident at thebeginning of relationships and less so once relationshipsare well established (Altman, 1973; Derlega,Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). In a new friendship, weare likely to feel an obligation to reciprocate when aperson opens up to us with personal information. Ina budding romance, the disclosure may be quiterapid and emotionally arousing, which may add tothe passion we feel. Telling a romantic partner yourdeepest secrets and your innermost feelings is exciting,especially when it is reciprocated. One of theironies of romance is that the better we know ourpartners, the less we may experience the excitementof disclosure. Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999)argue that passion and deepening intimacy arestrongly linked. They believe one reason passionfades in long-term marriages is that spouses alreadyknow most everything about each other.In well-established relationships, intimacy issustained more by responsiveness than by reciprocity(Reis & Patrick, 1996). That is, in our interactionswith best friends, family members, and marital partners,it is less important to reciprocate and moreimportant to respond in a supporting, caring, andaffectionate manner (Laurenceau, Barrett, &Pietromonaco, 1998). If you tell your spouse all yourangry feelings about your boss after a bad day atwork, you aren’t looking for reciprocation. Youdon’t really want to hear about her or his bad day atthat moment. What you want is a sounding board, asympathetic ear, and expressions of care and empathyfor your feelings.TRUST Mutual trust is another vital ingredient ofintimate and close relationships. To trust someonemeans that you expect they will do you no harm.Chief among the harms we are concerned about isthe breaking of confidences. When we open up toother people we make ourselves vulnerable. It is abit like taking your clothes off and feeling selfconsciousabout the less than perfect shape ofyour body. In a network of friends or co-workers,ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 243sensitive information can have damaging consequencesif someone tells others how you “really”feel about someone—your boss, for example.Violation of trust is damaging to relationships andwill likely lead the betrayed person to be lessopen and more guarded in revealing personallysensitive information in the future (Jones, Crouch,& Scott, 1997). Trust is an essential ingredient inclose relationships, partly because it is a necessaryprecondition for self-disclosure. We don’t discloseto people we don’t trust.CARING Caring means concern for and attentionto the feelings of others. We feel more affectionand appreciation for our close partners than formost people. When we ask a casual acquaintance,“how are you doing?” we most often expect andreceive an obligatory and cliché response: “Fine,”“Hanging in there,” “Not bad,” and so forth.Neither person expects a deep revelation aboutpersonal feelings. At one level, in those passinggreetings, we aren’t actually asking for informationabout how the person is really doing. We’re justfollowing polite social rules for greeting andacknowledging people as we encounter them. Inour intimate relationships, the same question carriesdifferent expectations. We expect and want amore detailed and genuine response, especially ifthings are not going well. And the other person isexpected to be more honest in describing howthey really feel, and not to pass off the questionwith a stock answer used in low-intimacyexchanges. Caring also involves all the little thingswe do to express our appreciation and valuing ofa relationship: providing support in times of need;recognizing special occasions like birthdays, holidays,and anniversaries; inviting people for dinnerand other shared activities; and keeping in touchwith a phone call or an invitation to get togetherover coffee or lunch. All these things reflect thesimple fact that more intimate relationships takehigh priority in our lives. We have more invested,so we take care to maintain the quality of ourclose relationships.INTERDEPENDENCE The lives of people in intimaterelationships are deeply intertwined. The mutualinfluence of each person on the actions, feelings,and thinking of the other is, for some researchers, adefining characteristic of close relationships(Berscheid & Reis, 1998). We typically care moreand give greater weight to the advice and judgmentsour family members, friends, and spouses than wedo to people we know less well. This is particularlytrue regarding self-relevant personal issues andactions. We may consult an expert when ourcomputer malfunctions, but we are likely to seek thesupport and advice of spouses and friends in timesof personal challenge, such as interpersonalconflicts at work or caring for aging parents. Ourfeelings and actions are also intertwined. Theemotional ups and downs of our intimate partnersaffect our own emotional states and actions.Intimate partners share in each other’s emotionalexperiences. Compared to casual relationships, themutual influences characterizing close relationshipsare more frequent and involve more areas of ourlives. And they are long-term. For example, mostparents find that they never stop being parents, interms of showing concern, giving advice, and offeringhelp and support to their children. Childrenwould likely agree that the influence of parents doesnot end when they leave their parents’ home andbegin their own lives.MUTUALITY Mutuality is another distinctive featureof our closest relationships. Mutuality refers to feelingsof overlap between two lives—that is, theextent to which people feel like separate individualsor more like a couple. These feelings are revealed inthe language we use to describe our connection toothers. Plural pronouns (we and us) have beenfound to both express and contribute to close relationships(e.g., Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). People use“we” to signify closeness. In a developing relationship,shifting from singular pronouns (e.g., “sheand I”) to plural (“we” or “us”) contributes to feelingsof closeness and mutuality.Another way of capturing mutuality and feelingsof closeness is to ask people to pick amongpairs of circles that overlap to varying degrees (seeFigure 11.1). Called the Inclusion of Other in theSelf Scale, this measure has been found effective inassessing interpersonal closeness (Aron, Aron, &Smollan, 1992). Sample items from this scale areshown in Figure 11.1. People simply pick the circlepair that best describes a relationship partner specifiedby the researcher (e.g., closest relationship, bestfriend, spouse, etc.). The pictorial representation ofmutuality seems to be a direct and meaningful wayfor people to express their feelings of closeness foranother person.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.244 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingSelf OtherSelf Other Self OtherSelf Other Self OtherFIGURE 11.1 Sample Items—Inclusion of Other in the Self ScaleCOMMITMENT Commitment is a final component ofintimate relationships. Commitment is a desire orintention to continue a relationship into the future.Research suggests that people associate commitmentwith loyalty, faithfulness, living up to yourword, hard work, and giving your best effort (Fehr,1988, 1996). In short, commitment means persevering“through thick and thin.” This can be contrastedwith the lack of commitment shown by a “fairweather friend,” who is there when things are goingwell, but not when a supportive friend is neededmost. Successful friendships and marriages requiresome amount of work. This means spending timeand energy maintaining closeness and workingthrough the inevitable conflicts and problems thatarise in long-term relationships. Close relationshipsalso require some degree of personal sacrifice andcompromise of individual self-interests for the goodof the relationship. Mutual commitment helpsensure that relationship partners will do the workand make the sacrifices and compromises necessaryto sustain an intimate connection.Our most satisfying relationships will likelyinvolve all six characteristics: knowledge, trust, caring,interdependence, mutuality, and commitment(Miller et al., 2007). Both research and everyday personalexperience suggest that these characteristicsdo, indeed, capture the essential elements of what itmeans to be a close friend or intimate partner. If weview these six features as ideal standards, thendegree of intimacy and closeness might be evaluatedaccording to the relative prominence of eachcharacteristic. Fehr (1996) argues that the differencebetween a friend, a good friend, and a best friend islargely a matter of degree. With our best friends, weknow more, trust more, care more, are more deeplycommitted, and so forth.It is important to recognize the diversity ofrelationships. That is, close relationships are a bittoo complex to be captured by six ideal characteristics.Deep affection and caring can exist withoutpassing the six-feature test. For example, the movieGrumpy Old Men portrayed two elderly men(played by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon) whocompeted for a woman’s affection, constantly criticizedand insulted each other, and spent considerabletime planning and carrying out acts of revengethat stopped just short of mayhem. Yet their relationshipwas utterly endearing, caring, affectionate and,despite its peculiar nature, loving. Fitting this longtermfriendship to the six characteristics would be achallenge! In a similar vein, marriages come in allshapes and sizes, reflecting the unique needs andpersonalities of spouses. A marriage may “work”despite a lack of fit to the ideal. Both of your textbookauthors, for instance, know of a successfulmarriage based on high independence rather thaninterdependence. That is, a couple that takes pridein not exerting much influence on each other interms of careers, vacation travel, mutual friends, oreven shared activities at home. This may not seemto many of us like a recipe for a satisfying relationship,but they are both very happy with their marriageand wouldn’t have it any other way.It is worth keeping in mind that none of thesecharacteristics, in and of itself, guarantees an intimaterelationship. Self-disclosure, for instance, doesnot guarantee intimacy or deep affection. Sometimeswhen you really get to know a person, you find thatyou really dislike them! Perhaps this has happenedwith a relative or a co-worker with whom you’vehad frequent and long-term contact. In a similarvein, commitment might not signify a desire to workon or enhance a relationship. A married couple inISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 245an unhappy marriage might make a mutual commitmentto stay together because they believe it is bestfor their kids. In short, relationships are complex.The six features of intimate relationships should beconsidered general guidelines rather than hard-andfastcriteria.Exchange and Communal RelationshipsIn addition to the six characteristics that define intimaterelationships, such relationships also differ inhow we think about and evaluate them. Accordingto Clark and Mills, relationships come in two basicforms, exchange relationships and communal relationships(Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993).The two forms are related to different patterns ofthinking, evaluating and behaving in a relationship,and to different levels of intimacy and closeness.Clark and Mills provide evidence showing that, asintimacy increases, people’s relationships shift froman exchange form to a communal form.Exchange relationships are typically moreformal, less personal, and in the beginning stages ofdevelopment. They are built on fairness and mutualreciprocity. That is, in an exchange relationshipeach party is expected to return favors in a mutualfashion. I do something nice for you and you returnthe favor. Exchange relationships are evaluated bykeeping mental track of what we have done for othersin comparison to what they have done for us.We may feel satisfied if our exchange ratio is fairlyequal; conversely, resentment may build if we feelwe are putting ourselves out, but getting nothingback. A sense of indebtedness might result frombelieving we are “falling behind” in doing nicethings for another person.Communal relationships are more typicalwith our closer friends, romantic partners, and familymembers. In these relationships, the tit-for-tatreciprocation of exchange relationships would probablyfeel a bit funny and might even be damaging.What would you think if your best friend reciprocatedevery one of your favors, like an accountantwho keeps track of assets and liabilities on a ledgersheet? Clark and Mills (1979, 1993) found that whiletit-for-tat reciprocation of favors increased likingamong low-intimacy and formal relationships, thesame favor reciprocation decreased liking amongfriends and in more intimate relationships. With ourlong-term friends, family members, and spouseswe are in it for the long haul. We tend to pay moreattention to keeping track of others’ needs, ratherthan logging all the specific things we have done forthem and they have done for us. We are highlyresponsive to others’ emotional states and respondappropriately. In communal relationships, we sharean ongoing mutual concern focused on the overallquality of a relationship and the needs and welfareof the other. We do not expect to be repaid for eachpositive act.The distinction between exchange and communalrelationships is not hard-and-fast. All relationshipsprobably involve some kind of exchange anda close relationship does not necessarily mean thateach person takes a communal view (Clark & Mills,1993; Mills & Clark, 2001). Some married couplesundoubtedly do focus on what they put in versuswhat they get out of their marriage, although thisprobably signifies a less healthy and less maturerelationship. And, thinking about costs and benefitsseems entirely appropriate when close relationshipsbecome hurtful, conflicted, or dominated by oneperson’s self-centered needs.ON THE LIGHTER SIDELove and friendship are built on the same foundation.Knowledge, trust, caring, interdependence,mutuality, and commitment are the basic buildingblocks of all close relationships. As these basicingredients develop, our thinking shifts from anexchange perspective to a more communal perspective.One reason relationships are so stronglyconnected to health and happiness is that they representa sort of safety net to catch us when lifeknocks us off balance. The depth of knowledge,care, concern, and trust that characterize close relationshipsprovide confidence that we don’t haveto go it alone. Support from friends, family members,and intimate partners in times of trouble hasbeen consistently documented as one of ourstrongest coping resources (Berscheid & Reis,1998; Ryff & Singer, 2000; Salovey, Rothman,Detweiler, & Steward, 2000; Salovey, Rothman, &Rodin, 1998; Taylor et al., 2000). However, relationshipsalso enhance our well-being when thingsare going well. Most of the “good times” we havein life involve shared activities and fun with ourfamilies and friends. These good times translateinto more frequent positive emotional experiencesthat, in turn, allow us to reap the benefits of positiveemotions shown in research and described byISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.246 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingFredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positiveemotions (Chapter 3).Teasing and HumorAside from sex, which is arguably more intense, butfar less frequent (at least when you’re older), laughteris one of our most commonly experiencedsources of positive emotion. From childhood to oldage, laughter is a universal experience and it’salmost always social (Lefcourt, 2002). We may, onoccasion, laugh when we’re alone, but we have themost fun with others. We both enjoy and seek outpeople who make us laugh. Large-scale surveys findthat a sense of humor is one of the most valuedqualities that people seek in choosing opposite- andsame-sex friends, dating partners, and marriage partners(Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Certainly, humor canbe used for negative purposes, such as the humiliatingteasing of a schoolyard bully. However, in satisfyingrelationships, humor is typically prosocial andserves positive functions (Keltner, Young, Heerey, &Oemig, 1998). Teasing, playful banter, exchangingjokes, and contagious laughter are typical features ofclose relationships and one of the primary reasonswe enjoy them. Even serious occasions are oftenmarked by humor. For example, it is not uncommonfor people to tell humorous stories about thedeceased at a funeral reception, especially if theperson was elderly and lived a long, full life. Humoris a positive coping strategy in the face of loss(Bonanno & Keltner, 1997). Humor helps lighten upserious situations by replacing negative emotionswith more positive ones. Humor is widely regardedas an effective way to release stress-related tension,deal with sensitive issues, and help confront andresolve interpersonal conflicts (Argyle, 2001;Lefcourt, 2002; Martin, 2007). Laughter helps putboth the mind and body at ease.Humor is important in forming and maintainingsocial bonds. We like and feel closer to peoplewho make us laugh (e.g., Fraley & Aron, 2004),including teachers and professors. Studies show thatstudents believe a sense of humor is one of the mostdesirable teacher characteristics that contributes tomore classroom enjoyment, engagement, and learning(see Chapter 11 in Martin, 2007). Research alsoconsistently finds that humor contributes to satisfyinglong-term relationships (see Martin, 2007, for areview). The more married individuals value theirpartner’s sense of humor, the more satisfied theytend to be with their marriages. In short, high levelsof reciprocated humor are one mark of a happymarriage. In fact, humor may well be a key ingredientfor a successful long-term marriage, in partbecause it outlasts the pleasures of sex. When coupleswho had been married for over 50 years wereasked why their marriage had lasted so long, “laughingtogether frequently” was one of the top reasons(Lauer, Lauer, & Kerr, 1990). They didn’t say, “fantasticsex!” As the frequency and importance of sexualpleasure decline with age, humor may become amore significant source of enjoyment. In our lateryears of life, we may not want, or be able, to havesex on a regular basis, but there is no indication thatwe lose our ability to enjoy laughter, or our affectionfor people with whom we laugh.One of the more prominent humor-related featuresof close and developing relationships is playfulprosocial teasing. Flirtatious teasing is common in datingcouples (Keltner et al., 1998) and playful teasing isregarded by people across different cultures as a basic“rule of friendship” (Argyle & Henderson, 1984, 1985).In a large-scale survey of four different cultures,Argyle and Henderson found that teasing and jokingwere expected features of friendships. This is truedespite the fact that teasing is something of a paradox.As Keltner and his colleagues have noted, “Teasingcriticizes, yet it compliments, attacks yet makes peoplecloser, humiliates yet expresses affection” (Keltneret al., 1998, p. 1231). Despite its surface negativity,teasing says, “I like you well enough to tease you” and“I enjoy our good-natured fun together.” It signifiescloseness, trust, caring, and mutual understanding. Incontrast, teasing a casual acquaintance risks misinterpretation,because a good tease and a stinging putdownare just a step apart. Interestingly, the absenceof teasing and taking teasing literally are probablysigns that a relationship is in trouble. If our best friendstopped teasing us, or took offense at our own wellintentionedteasing, we would clearly take notice andwonder what was wrong. And it goes without sayingthat if teasing turns aggressive or hurtful, this is alsodamaging to relationships (Keltner, Capps, Kring,Young, & Heerey, 2001).Focus on Research: Sharing What GoesRight in LifeBecause caring relations increase our experience ofpositive emotions, they enhance our well-being onan ongoing basis. Consistent with the direct effectsISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 247hypothesis of social support, close relationshipscontribute to health and happiness even when weare not facing stressful life events (see Chapter 3).The basic idea here is that positive emotions havebeneficial effects that are both independent of, andbeyond those of negative emotions. That is, in additionto offsetting the ill-effects of negative affect,positive emotions independently enhance the qualityof our lives. In line with the direct effects hypothesis,Shelly Gable and her colleagues have recentlyshown that it is just as important to receive supportiveresponses to our positive life experiences, as it isto receive support when we’re having trouble(Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). When peopleshare or celebrate a positive life event with others,they derive additional benefits beyond the effectof the event itself. Drawing from earlier work,Gable and colleagues refer to this process ascapitalization (i.e., capitalizing on a positive eventto receive additional benefits). The benefits of capitalizationmay occur because sharing a positiveevent with others causes us to relive its emotionaleffects. A partner’s enthusiastic response, indicatinggenuine pleasure at our good fortune, also enhancesour positive feelings. In four separate studies, Gableand her colleagues examined the individual andinterpersonal well-being benefits of sharing positiveevents.In the first study, participants kept a daily diaryin which they recorded their positive and negativeemotions and their life satisfaction over an averageperiod of 5 days. For each day, participants alsorecorded their most important positive event andwhether they had shared that event with someoneelse. Results showed that on 70% of the days, peoplehad shared their most positive event. Analysis ofdaily positive affect and daily life satisfaction ratingsrevealed that well-being was enhanced on “sharing”compared to “non-sharing” days.In the second and third studies, dating andmarried couples were recruited to examine whethera partner’s perceived responsiveness to positivesharing enhanced the quality of relationships.Various measures of relationship quality were completedindependently by each partner (e.g., commitment,satisfaction, trust, and intimacy). An importantfeature of these studies was the development anduse of a newly developed Perceived Responses toCapitalization Attempts scale. This scale measuredthe degree and nature of a partner’s responsivenessto a positive event by asking people to answer thefollowing question: “Please take a moment to considerhow your partner responds when you tell himor her about something good that has happened toyou” (Gable et al., 2004, p. 233, emphasis in original).Examples of positive events were given, suchas a promotion at work, a positive conversation witha family member, winning a prize or doing well atschool. Each participant rated his or her partner’sresponse using rating items describing four types ofreactions to sharing a positive event: (1) activeconstructive(e.g., “I sometimes get the sense thatmy partner is even more happy and excited than Iam”); (2) passive-constructive (e.g., “My partner triesnot to make a big deal out of it, but is happy forme”); (3) active-destructive (e.g., “He/she points outthe potential downside of the good event”); (4) andpassive-destructive (e.g., “My partner doesn’t paymuch attention to me”) (Gable et al., 2004, p. 233).Both studies found that only active-constructiveresponses to the sharing of positive life events wererelated to enhanced relationship quality. The threeother response types were associated withdecreased relationship quality, making it clear thatcapitalization is dependent on an active, enthusiastic,and supporting reaction from one’s partner. In afinal 10-day diary study, Gable and her colleaguesexamined the individual benefits of capitalization.Would sharing a positive event and receiving anactive-constructive response also increase the subjectivewell-being (SWB) of the person who shared?Answer: yes. On days when people told othersabout a positive event, both life satisfaction and positiveaffect increased. The more people they told,the more their well-being increased, especially if theresponses received were supportive and enthusiastic.Altogether, these four studies provide strongsupport for the value of capitalizing on the goodthings that happen to us by sharing them with others.They also suggest another basis for the connectionbetween relationships and well-being. Thewell-being enhancing effects of positive emotionscan be relived and extended through our connectionswith caring others.FRIENDSHIP AND ROMANTIC LOVELiking and loving, friendship and romance overlapconsiderably (Rubin, 1973). We love our goodfriends and like our romantic partners. When peoplewere asked to write about their romantic relationships,the dominant theme was friendship—nearlyISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.248 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingTABLE 11.2 Rules of friendshipBeing supportiveVolunteer help in time of needShow emotional supportStand up for the other person in their absenceBeing a trustworthy confidantRespect the friend’s privacyTrust and confide in the otherKeep confidencesDon’t criticize each other in publicDisclose personal feelings or problems to a friendBeing a source of enjoyment and humorStrive to make him/her happy while in each other’scompanyEngage in joking or teasing with a friendShare news of success with the otherBeing tolerant and acceptingDon’t be jealous or critical of each other’s relationshipsBe tolerant of each other’s friendsAsk for personal adviceDon’t naghalf the participants said their romantic partner wasalso their closest friend (Hendrick & Hendrick,1993). Though we use “love” to describe many ofour closest relations, “in love” seems to have a morespecific meaning related to sexual desire and attraction.Meyers and Berscheid (1997) had people sorttheir relationships into categories of love, in love, andsexual attraction/desire by naming people who fitinto each. The love category was the largest, followedby sexual attraction/desire. The in love classificationcontained the fewest names and showedoverlap with names in the sexual attraction category.In short, being in love means romantic love,involving strong sexual desire and attraction. This iswhere friendship and love part company. Telling aromantic partner “let’s just be friends” or “I love you,but I’m not in love with you” usually signals the endof a romance because sexual attraction and desireare weak or absent. Romantic love includes fascination,passion, infatuation, sexual desire, and a moretotal absorption in the relationship. We seldom usethe language of romance to describe our goodfriends, which are most often of the same sex (oppositesex for homosexual individuals). Our friendshipsare less emotionally intense partly because they donot typically involve sexual intimacy.In addition to emotional intensity, friendshipand romantic love are also distinguished by differencesin the clarity of rules governing the relationship,the complexity of feelings, and the expectationsconcerning the emotional consequences of therelationship.Clarity of RulesA seminal study by Argyle and Henderson (1984)suggests some universality in people’s understandingof what it means to be someone’s friend. Theseresearchers presented participants from differentcultures (England, Italy, Hong Kong, and Japan)with a large set of rules for friendship and askedthem which ones they endorsed. Interestingly, anumber of these rules, described in Table 11.2 werewidely endorsed across cultures.You can think of these rules as a kind of test,apparently widely shared, that people use to evaluatetheir friendships. Friendship involves a set ofobligations and rules defining what friends are supposedto do. If you fulfill these obligations and liveby the rules, you pass the test for friendship, and ifyou don’t, you fail. Argyle and Henderson found thatpeople did, in fact, think of past failed friendships interms of their friends or themselves failing to followone or more of these rules.Do these rules also apply to romanticinvolvements? Is there a set of rules governinglove? Certainly, between Oprah Winfrey andDr. Phil and the self-help section of your localbookstore, there is no shortage of advice for developingand maintaining marriage and romance. Andrelationship researchers have described generalguidelines for maintaining healthy relationships(e.g., Gottman & Silver, 1999; Harvey & Omarzu,1997, 1999). However, we are unaware of empiricalstudies describing reasonably clear and sharedrules that people possess for romantic love likethose for friendship (although see Baxter, 1986).Consistent with the idea that “all’s fair in love andwar,” the complexity and emotionally volatilenature of romance and passion would seem to precludeclear rules. In fact, given the importance ofspontaneity, passion, and exclusivity, some mightargue that if you are following rules, you probablyaren’t in love. Compared to friendship, love seemsmore varied in its particular form of expression andISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 249individual meaning, as we shall see in our discussionof the varieties of love.Complexity of FeelingsRomantic love involves more complex feelings, morestringent demands, and higher expectations thanfriendship. The complexity of love is reflected inresearchers’ inability to define it and in the dominanceof love-related themes in music, movies, and popularculture. Harvey and Weber (2002) note that prominentrelationship researcher Ellen Berscheid probably had itright when she commented (in Sternberg & Barnes,1988, p. 362) that “. . . love is a huge and motley collectionof many different behavioral events whose onlycommonalities are that they take place in a relationshipwith another person . . . .” As for music, movies, andpop culture, no aspect of love’s many-faceted mysteryand no detail of celebrities’ love-life intrigues are leftunexplored. Love for hire, love for money, love forpower, love for life, fatal attractions, tragedies of love,love conquering all, losing all for love, hate turnedto love, love turned to hate, etc . . ., — all “in the nameof love.” Our fascination with love does not have acounterpart in friendship. How many songs and moviesexplore the “mysteries” of friendship?Further, we do not demand the same level ofloyalty, faithfulness, and exclusivity of our friendsthat we do of our romantic partners (Miller et al.,2007). Being someone’s good friend does not precludeyou or your friend from being good friendswith someone else. Hearing that a good friend wentout for dinner and a movie with another friend isnot a cause for alarm. Among romantic and maritalpartners it is obviously a different story. Finding outthat your spouse went out on a dinner-movie “date”would probably be upsetting or at least requireexplanation. Suspicions of infidelity are raised if oneparty in a romantically-involved couple pursues anopposite-sex friendship without his or her partnerpresent. In a similar vein, showing strong interest in,or talking and joking with another person is not typicallyan affront to a good friend. But, if the samebehaviors are interpreted as flirtation, they may wellget you in trouble with your romantic partner.ExpectationsA final difference between friendship and love concernsemotional expectations. A number of socialobservers have noted that we demand a good dealmore emotional fulfillment from marriages andromantic relationships today than in the past, andcertainly more than we expect from our friendships(e.g., Myers, 2000b; Phillips, 1988). Historically, marriageswere built more on practical matters having todo with finances, family connections, and raisingchildren. Romantic love was important, but it wasnot the exclusive or most significant foundation formarriage. Today, large-scale surveys indicate thatbeing in love is the primary basis for getting marriedand that maintaining love is an important requirementfor staying married (Simpson, Campbell, &Berscheid, 1986). More so today than in the past, weexpect marriage to fulfill our deepest emotionalneeds, to be exciting, and to make us happy.Marriage is expected to be personally fulfilling, lifelong,and romantically and sexually satisfying. Asmany researchers have noted, this is a tall order,perhaps destined for disappointment. The pointhere is that we do not hold our friends responsiblefor our personal fulfillment and happiness. Certainlyour friends contribute to our enjoyment of life, butpersonal fulfillment and life satisfaction are ourresponsibility—not theirs. Friends give us room tomaneuver through life on our own terms, pursuingour own unique talents and interests. In contrast, astrong mutual expectation of emotional fulfillmentin a marriage intertwines each person’s happinesswith the other’s. Given the many contributors tohappiness, from genetics to life choices, expecting amarriage to make you happy may be expecting toomuch, and assuming responsibility for another’shappiness may be too great a burden.VARIETIES OF LOVEPassionate versus Companionate LoveLove comes in many shapes and sizes. One of themost basic distinctions is between passionate orromantic love and companionate love (Berscheid &Walster, 1978; Hatfield, 1988; Walster & Walster,1978). This distinction parallels our discussion of theoverlapping, yet different meanings of love andfriendship. Passionate or romantic love typicallyinvolves strong sexual attraction, infatuation, totalabsorption, exclusivity (nobody but you), and emotionsthat run the full gamut from ecstasy to anguish.Specific components of passionate love include,preoccupation with our lover, idealization of his orher personal attributes, physiological arousal whenISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.250 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Beingin the person’s company, desire for physical closeness,and a strong need for reciprocity (to be lovedin return) (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). As you mightguess, passionate love describes romance in its earlystages. Your first author has been married for40 years, and guarantees that his wife does not idealizehim, is not particularly aroused in his presence(other than humor or irritation), and is certainly notpreoccupied or infatuated with their relationship.Companionate love, on the other hand, builton a special kind of loving friendship, woulddescribe your first author’s marriage. Some yearsago, my wife and I gave each other identicalHallmark cards for our anniversary. The cards celebrateddeep and abiding friendship and not romanticor passionate love. We had both started feeling abit awkward about the passionate, “can’t wait to getin bed,” “you make my life complete,” and “withoutyou I’m nothing” sayings, in what we came toregard as “syrupy” anniversary cards. We love eachother dearly, but it is not the hot fire of passion, butthe warm glow of affection and appreciation thatcome from having spent four decades in thetrenches of life together that make our marriage satisfying.This slower-developing companionatelove is less emotional, calmer, and more serene thanpassionate love. It reflects the fact that your spousehas become your best friend and soul mate in yourjourney through life. After decades of marriage, whoelse knows you as well? Who else have you sharedso much of your life with? If nothing else, the sheeramount of years together is not replaceable. For me,at 60 years old, I will never have another 40-yearmarriage. I know I’m not living to 100! It should benoted that, despite the similarities between companionatelove and close friendships, there is a difference.A warm hug from your wife is different than aheartfelt hug from a good same-sexed friend. Bothfeel good, but you can’t get sex out of the equation.Even older couples still “do it,” even if not as frequentlyas when they were first married!Triangular Theory of LoveThe varieties of love are captured in Sternberg’sthree-part theory of love’s essential ingredients(Sternberg, 1986, 1987). In Sternberg’s model, intimacy,passion, and commitment each represent oneside of a triangle describing the love shared by twopeople. Intimacy refers to mutual understanding,warm affection, and mutual concern for the other’swelfare. Passion means strong emotion, excitement,and physiological arousal, often tied to sexualdesire and attraction. Commitment is the consciousdecision to stay in a relationship for the longhaul. It includes a sense of devotion to the relationshipand a willingness to work on maintaining it. Byputting together different combinations of the threeingredients, Sternberg’s model describes severalvarieties of love and the specific components ofromantic and companionate love discussed above.ROMANTIC LOVE (INTIMACY PASSION) High intimacyand passion describe romantic love inSternberg’s model. It may seem strange not toinclude commitment, but Sternberg argues that commitmentis not a defining feature of romantic love. Asummer romance, for example, may involve intimatemutual disclosure and strong passion, but nocommitment to continue the relationship at summer’send.COMPANIONATE LOVE (INTIMACY COMMITMENT)As we have noted, companionate love is a slowdevelopinglove built on high intimacy and strongcommitment. When youthful passions fade in a marriage,companionate love, based on deep, affectionatefriendship provides a solid foundation for alasting and successful relationship.FATUOUS LOVE (PASSION COMMITMENT) ANDINFATUATED LOVE (PASSION ONLY) Both of thesetypes might be regarded as forms of immature, blindor unreasonable love built on passion. Fatuous lovecombines high passion and commitment with anabsence of intimacy. This would describe peoplewho hardly know each other, but are caught up in awhirlwind passionate romance. Their commitment isbased on passion and sustained solely by passion.Because passion is likely to fade with time, fatuouslove relationships are unlikely to last. The same canbe said for infatuated love, based only on passion,without intimacy or commitment. This mightdescribe a teen romance in which sexual passion istaken for love, or a one-night sexual affair betweenpeople who barely know each other, and have nointentions of developing a relationship. Infatuatedlove may also describe the sense of awe, adoration,and sex-related feelings that some people have fortheir favorite Hollywood movie or music celebrity.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 251EMPTY LOVE (COMMITMENT ONLY) No passion, nointimacy, just a commitment to stay together.Appropriately called empty love, this would describean emotionally “dead” relationship that both membersfind some reason to continue. Reasons might includethings such as convenience, financial benefits, keepingup appearances, or a sense of obligation or duty.CONSUMMATE LOVE (INTIMACY PASSION COMMITMENT)Consummate or complete love is markedby high intimacy, passion, and commitment. It is aform of love that many people desire, but Sternbergis doubtful that it can be sustained. As in romanticlove, the passionate component typically decreasesover time. Yet as Hacker (1979) points out, most ofus know a couple that seems to epitomize this typeof love: “We all know couples who have been marriedtwenty or thirty years and still seem passionatelyattached to each other. A few look as if theyjust came away from bed, or can’t wait to get backthere. We see them at restaurant tables for two, chatteringtogether—and not about the children. Or theyprefer to stay home by themselves, perhaps eachengrossed in a book, so long as they are across fromeach other” (p. 27).Sternberg’s three-component model of love hasreceived good empirical support. People’s understandingof love’s primary features and the differencesamong various types of relationships appear tofit well with the intimacy/passion/commitment conception(Aron & Westbay, 1996; Sternberg, 1998b).For example, an ideal lover was rated high on allthree components; friendship was rated high on intimacyand commitment, but low on passion; and asibling relationship scored high on commitment, butlow on intimacy and passion. Other taxonomieshave also been developed and found empiricallyuseful in capturing the richness of love and lovestyles (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993, 2003;Lee, 1988). Of love’s many varieties, romantic andcompanionate love, involving varying degrees andcombinations of romance/passion and friendship,seem the most basic and widely applicable way tothink about differences in our closest relationships.Cultural Context of Love, Marriage,and DivorceIn the remainder of this chapter, we will concentrateon one of our most important intimate relationships,namely marriage. Marriage and well-being arestrongly connected. A successful marriage is one ofthe more powerful contributors to enhanced individualhealth and happiness (see Chapter 5).Unhappy marriages have an equally strong connectionto unhappiness and diminished health. AsDavid Myers remarked, “. . . a bad marriage is worsethan no marriage at all” (1992, p. 158). Since mostpeople marry, the level of well-being within societyas a whole would also seem to be influenced by theoverall quality and state of individual marriages. U.S.Census Bureau statistics show that about 90% of uswill eventually marry at some time during our lives(Goldstein & Kenney, 2001; Noller & Feeney, 2006).U.S. census data for 2002 showed that 60% of menand 57% of women were currently married at thetime they completed the survey. Statistics also tell ussomething about the state of marriage today comparedto the past. Most of the news is not good.Despite its potential for contributing to lasting happiness,the ratio of successful to failed marriages isnot high. Major reviews of census data, national attitudesurveys, and longitudinal studies of marriedcouples paint a rather dismal picture of the currentstate of marriage compared to the past (e.g.,Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Bryant, Bolland, Burton,Hurt, & Bryant, 2006; Goldstein & Kenney, 2001;Miller et al., 2007; Myers, 2000b; Popenoe &Whitehead, 2004).Starting in the mid-1960s through the 1970s,dramatic changes occurred in marriage and thesehave been sustained to the present. Most of us arefamiliar with the most significant change: marriagesno longer last. The divorce rate can be computedin several ways, but the basic conclusionremains the same. In today’s America, some 50%of all new marriages will end in divorce or separation(Myers, 2000b; Popenoe & Whitehead, 2004).Other Western societies, such as Netherlands,Sweden, Canada, and England, have also seenincreases in divorce, but U.S. divorce rates arenearly double those of other developed countries.Divorce rates have always been higher within thefirst 5 to 7 years of marriage, consistent with theconventional wisdom about the “7-year itch.”However, today many longer-term marriages alsofail (i.e., 10 years and up). There appears to be no“safe” point beyond which all marriages last,although after 15 years, the divorce rate does dropsubstantially. And while most people will eventuallyremarry after divorce, second and third marriagesfail at higher rates than first-time marriages.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.252 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingOther statistics seem to signal a retreat frommarriage (data from reviews by Bryant et al., 2006;Miller et al., 2007; Myers, 2000b; Noller, 2006).Compared to the 1950s and 1960s, people are marryinglater (in their early 20s then, versus later 20snow), with more than 33% of people now remainingsingle into their middle 30s. A retreat from marriageis also suggested by the facts that more people arechoosing to remain single; the remarriage rate afterdivorce has declined, particularly among women;and the cohabitation rate has increased. The percentageof people who live together before marriagehas increased dramatically. Nearly a third ofAmerican households are made up of unmarriedmen and women living together. An estimated 50%of college students live with a romantic partnerwithout being married. Does cohabitation increasethe success of a future marriage? The idea that a“trial” marriage may help couples know if they are“right” for each other is undercut by the fact thatcouples who cohabitate before marriage havehigher divorce rates than non-cohabitating couples,unless they cohabitate after getting engaged tobe married. It appears that cohabitation beforemarriage attracts people with less commitment tomarriage and less willingness to work at dealingwith the inevitable conflicts that long-term relationshipsentail. Cohabitation may also make marriageseem less desirable and easier to dissolve if it is considereddissatisfying. Is cohabitation an alternativeform of a stable marriage? Apparently not. Noller(2006) cites evidence that cohabitating couples partways at rates of 50% within 2 years and 90% by five.Why Don’t Marriages Last?Cultural changes are clearly implicated in our country’shigh divorce rate. If the divorce rate were 1% insteadof 50%, then a failed marriage would suggest individualizedcauses of divorce. We could ask the fewdivorced couples, “Why didn’t your marriage make itwhen almost everyone else’s does?” And we couldstudy what is unique and different about divorcingcouples. However, a 50% divorce rate suggests twothings. First, there must be commonalities in the reasonsfor divorce. There are about 1 million divorcesper year in this country. Can there be 1 million differentreasons for failed marriages? Second, the highprevalence of divorce suggests it is successful marriages,not failed ones that are becoming unique. Thatis, it seems increasingly appropriate to ask happy,long-term married couples, “How has your marriagemade it when so many others don’t?”INCREASED FREEDOM AND DECREASEDCONSTRAINTS A number of researchers have notedthe interplay between internal and external factorsin people’s decisions to stay or leave a relationship(e.g., Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Levinger,1976; Levinger & Levinger, 2003; Myers, 2000b).Both Levinger (1976) and Rusbult (1983), for example,have developed models focusing on how commitmentto marriage is affected by a couple’s levelof satisfaction, by the costs and barriers related toleaving the relationship, available alternatives, andthe extent of accumulated personal investment inthe marriage. If you consider the cultural/historicalchanges relevant to these factors over the last40 years or so, one explanation for the rise indivorce seems clear. It is simply easier today than inthe past to get out of an unhappy marriage and withfewer costs. In short, more freedom and fewer constraintsmeans more divorce.In the past, unhappy married couples consideringa divorce faced a number of barriers to dissolvingtheir relationship (see Bryant et al., 2006;Harvey & Weber, 2002; Miller et al., 2007; Myers,2000b, for reviews). First, before the women’smovement and two-career families, many stay-athomewomen were dependent on their husbandsfor their financial livelihood. Divorce often meant adramatic drop in income, a relatively bleak future inproviding for their children, and the prospect ofentering the workforce with few job skills and littleor no experience. Second, divorce at one time carrieda significant cultural stigma for both men andwomen. Prominent politicians, for example, neededto keep their marital difficulties private so as to preservea good family image because divorce could bevery damaging to a political career. Third, theimportance of staying together “for the sake of thekids” was a common belief. Sacrificing one’s ownhappiness for the well-being of one’s children was astronger expectation in the past. Fourth, beliefsabout the sanctity of marriage—that it should bepreserved at all cost—were reflected in social normsand in the laws governing divorce. For example, awoman seeking advice about marriage difficultiesfrom a friend, parent, counselor, or minister wasmore likely told to “kiss and make-up” (that is, tofind ways to make the marriage work), rather thanconsider a divorce. The legal system also upheld theISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 253importance of marriage by permitting a divorce onlywhen relatively serious offenses or prolonged conflictcould be shown. In the past, even if theyweren’t particularly happy, married couples couldfind a number of reasons for maintaining a commitmentto their marriage. This may have led somecouples to work out their difficulties and developsatisfying marriages. For others, it may have meantbeing trapped in an emotionally empty or conflictriddenrelationship.The direction of cultural change since the1960s has been toward a reduction in the barriers to,and costs of, divorce. Marriages between two peoplewith professional careers are now quite common.Each spouse can make it on her or his ownif the marriage ends. Within the United States,women’s increasing participation in the workforce isstrongly correlated with the rise in divorce rates.And, a woman who brings in significantly moremoney than her husband has a higher risk of futuredivorce than a woman whose income is equal to, orless than, her husband’s (Miller et al., 2007).Increased financial independence allows greaterfreedom to leave an unhappy marriage. Spouseswho do divorce are less likely to face social disapproval.Divorce, in large measure because it is socommon, is not stigmatized as strongly as in thepast. Politicians, corporate executives, and otherprominent people no longer cover up their failedmarriages and seem to suffer few, if any, consequences.Surveys show that staying together for thesake of the kids is also less of a barrier to divorcetoday. Thornton (1989) found that by 1985 only 20%of women in his survey believed that unhappilymarried couples should stay together because theyhad children. A common belief today seems to bethat a stable and conflict-free single-parent family isa better environment for kids than a two-parent familywith emotional problems.Finally, the courts and conventional wisdomhave also accommodated the changing cultural contextof marriage. Many states now have no-faultdivorce laws that grant divorces because of “irreconcilabledifferences,” which would seem to includeeverything from boredom and unhappiness to, “Ithink I can do better with someone else.” Becausedivorce is commonly accepted, the advice and helpcouples in troubled marriages receive from others islikely to be more accepting of divorce as well. Insummary, compared to the past, more people todayseem to believe that divorce is a reasonable andviable solution to marital problems. The increasedfreedom to dissolve a marriage, like the constraintsthat held marriages together in the past, may be adual-edged sword that cuts both ways. On onehand, freedom means the possibility of a better life,rather than being trapped in an unhappy marriage.On the other hand, increased freedom may makeending a marriage too easy an option. That is, ratherthan making a commitment to do the hard work thatmight resolve marital difficulties, people may viewdivorce as the simplest and easiest solution.GETTING MARRIED AND STAYING MARRIED: IS LOVETHE ANSWER? More so today than in the past, marriageis not a prerequisite for having sex, for havingchildren, or for a woman’s financial well-being. Sexoutside marriage is widely accepted (Myers, 2000b);a third of children are born out of wedlock (Milleret al., 2007); and many women enjoy financial independence.A man’s ability to provide for his family isless important to women when they can provide forthemselves. In addition, people used to believe thata pre-marital pregnancy meant the couple “had toget married.” If they didn’t, we had the image of the“shotgun” wedding, in which the bride’s father compelledthe groom to take responsibility for the childand to maintain the social respectability of hisdaughter. Today, marriage is more of a choice—freer of the constraints, social norms, and practicalnecessities of the past. Survey research suggestsmarriage is a choice that is increasingly and moreexclusively based on love.Think about the following question: If a personhad all the other qualities you desired, wouldyou marry this person if you were not in love? WhenAmerican college students were surveyed in 1967,35% of men and 76% of women said yes to thisquestion (Simpson et al., 1986). Men evidently hadmore romantic notions for the basis for marriage,whereas women were more practical-minded. Forwomen, desirable qualities trumped love. However,nearly three decades later, “no” was the overwhelminganswer to the same question by both men andwomen (86% of men and 91% of women said no)(Allgeier & Wiederman, 1991, cited in Hatfield &Rapson, 2006). In current American culture, being inlove appears to be the major reason to get married.The ability of love to prevail over differences in people’ssocial status, religion, backgrounds, and lifecircumstances is a prominent theme in romanticmovies. Think of the classic love story in the movieISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.254 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingPretty Woman. Why would a rich, powerful attorneymarry a prostitute? Answer: He fell in love.Is the importance of romantic love a peculiarfeature of Western individualistic cultures? For atime, historical investigations suggested that romanticlove was a Western cultural invention that wasnot prominent in non-Western societies. More collectivistcultures—especially those in which parentsarranged marriages—were thought to emphasizemore practical considerations, such as endowments,social status, and religious compatibility. However,more extensive and detailed recent work by anthropologistshas shown that passionate romantic loveappears to be nearly universal in cultures aroundthe world, with few exceptions (Jankowiak, 1995).Culture shapes its prominence and particularexpressive form, but passionate love is not uniqueto Western individualistic societies.Large-scale survey studies affirm the universalityof passion and romance as bases for marriage. In hismonumental study of mate selection, Buss (1994)asked over 10,000 people from 37 different countriesto rate 18 characteristics according to their desirabilityin choosing a mate. Participants varied widely in theirlevels of affluence, language, religion, ethnic/racialbackground, and political beliefs. Despite these differences,the number-one desirable trait, chosen by menand women across all the countries, was love/mutualattraction. After love, cultures did vary in the particularqualities viewed as desirable. For example, amongChinese, Indonesians, Iranians, and Israelis, chastitywas important. For French, Norwegian, and Swedishindividuals, this was not an important trait and someeven considered it a disadvantage.Cross-cultural studies that ask, “If a person hadall the other qualities you desired, would you marryhim/her if you were not in love?” also find strongsupport for the love–marriage connection (e.g.,Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1995; Sprecheret al., 1994). Among diverse cultures around theglobe, few people endorse a loveless marriage. Basedon their review of cultural differences and historicalchanges in passionate love, Hatfield and Rapson concludedthat the differences between Western andEastern cultures appear to be “fast disappearing.”“. . . Young people in a variety of traditional culturesare increasingly adopting ‘Western’ patterns—placinga high value on ‘falling in love,’ pressing for genderequality in love and sex, and insisting on marrying forlove (as opposed to agreeing to arranged marriages)”(2006, p. 240).Passion and romance have much do with whypeople marry. What do they have to do with whypeople divorce? If you recall our discussion of thedifference between friendship and romantic love,you can probably anticipate the answer. First, manysocial observers believe that the increased emphasison passion/romance is linked to the increased emotionalexpectations for marriage (Miller et al., 2007;Myers, 2000b; Phillips, 1988). As practical reasons formarriage have faded, expectations of personal satisfactionand fulfillment seem to have taken theirplace. A marriage today seems to depend more andmore on the “sweetness of its contents” (Berscheid &Campbell, 1981). Why should you stay married ifyou’re marriage is not happy, satisfying, exciting,and sexually/emotionally fulfilling? In the past,answers might have included children, finances, andsocial respectability. Today, the answer seems to bethat if you’re not happy and fulfilled there is somethingwrong with your marriage. The concern here isthat these expectations are simply too high and setpeople up for disappointment when the realities ofmarriage start to sink in. Disillusionment may thenlead to divorce. Clearly, saying that people expecttoo much of marriage is a judgment call related tothe scope and degree of expectations. A good marriagecertainly is a significant source of personal happinessand no one expects or wants an unhappymarriage. But the exact point at which expectationsbecome unreasonable is difficult to pinpoint.However, a second problem with the romanticlove–marriage connection helps clarify the issueof reasonable versus unreasonable expectations.Here, the evidence is fairly clear. One significantdifficulty with passionate romance is that it doesnot last. Marrying for romance is one thing, but stayingmarried only if passionate romance continuesis quite another. Evaluating a marriage primarily onthe strength of romantic and passionate emotionsseems a recipe for disillusionment and divorce.Longitudinal studies consistently find a decline inmen and women’s ratings of satisfaction with theirmarriages, ratings of overall marriage quality, andthe frequency of expressions of positive affection(Bradbury, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kurdek,1999). As you can see in Figure 11.2 based onKurdek’s (1991) data, the decline in marital satisfactionis steepest in the first few years of marriage, thenlevels off to remain somewhat stable, and thenshows another drop at 8 to 10 years. Studies of longtermmarriages (20 years and more) do show moreISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 255Year of AssessmentMean Marital QualityWifeHusband1111121131141151161171181191201211221231241 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10FIGURE 11.2 Decline in Marital Satisfaction for Husbands and Wives Over 10 YearsSource: Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality forhusbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283–1296. CopyrightAmerican Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.stable levels of satisfaction and there is some debateabout whether there is an upswing in satisfaction invery long-term marriages (Berscheid & Reis, 1998).These data do not mean that couples typically gofrom newlywed bliss to misery. The declines are relativeto where most marriages start. The number ofcouples describing their marriages as “very happy” ishigh at the beginning, but much lower as the lengthof marriage increases. At one time, the decline inmarriage satisfaction was thought to be associatedwith having children and assuming the challengesassociated with parenthood. However, more recentresearch shows similar declines occurring amongcouples without children (Berscheid & Reis, 1998).Research by Huston and his colleagues providesan instructive example of how these changes arerelated to divorce (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, &George, 2001; Huston, Niehuis, & Smith, 2001). Thisstudy is also known as the PAIR Project, whichstands for The Process of Adaptation in IntimateRelationships. This is an ongoing longitudinal study of168 couples that were married in 1981. Results for thefirst 13 years showed that 35% of the couples haddivorced, another 20% were unhappy with theirmarriages, and only 45% were considered happilymarried. Even the happily married couples were lessaffectionate and less satisfied than they had been atthe beginning of their marriages. PAIR Projectresearchers found strong support for a disillusionmentmodel of marital satisfaction and divorce. The couplesat greatest risk for divorce were those who experiencedthe steepest declines in marital satisfaction andfeelings of love and romance. Ironically, couples thatdivorced after 7 years began their marriages withhigher levels of both affection and romance. “Asnewlyweds, the couples who divorced after 7 or moreyears were almost giddily affectionate, displayingabout one-third more affection than spouses whowere later happily married. However, consistentwith the disillusionment model, the intensity of theirISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.256 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Beingromance dissipated over the 1st year of marriage,reflected in a dramatic drop in how affectionatethey were with each other and declines in theirviews of each other’s responsiveness” (Huston et al.,2001, p. 249).REALISM OR IDEALISM? Most couples seem to gothrough a period of disillusionment, as the realitiesof marriage sink in and the idealization of one’spartner and one’s relationship begin to fade. Doesthis mean that the happy couples are those whobegan their marriages with more realistic views andavoided disillusionment? Or might it be that happycouples began with the same illusions, but foundways to maintain them? The research literature doesnot provide a definitive answer to these questions.The value of both realism and idealization are supported.Studies by Murray and her colleagues suggestthat some degree of idealization contributes toa couple’s happiness and satisfaction (Murray,Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). Couples who hadthe most positive views of each other’s personalqualities were not only happier, but were less likelyto break up. Murray and her colleagues believe thatthe tendency to view our partners more positivelythan they see themselves means that we overlook orput a positive spin on our partners’ shortcomings.This is the view that mothers often have of theirchildren. They see the best in their kids and downplayor ignore faults. To the extent that this idealizationis mutual, it is easy to see how each person’sself-esteem and satisfaction with a relationshipwould be enhanced.Self-verification theory posits that peopledesire evaluations that affirm or verify their ownself-views (Swann, 1983, 1987). Specifically, peoplewant positive feedback about positive qualities andnegative evaluations of their less desirable qualities.We each want verification of our own self-view. AsSwann (1990) put it, people want to be “known”—not necessarily “adored.” Relationships areenhanced when your partner affirms your own selfviewbecause this means that she or he knows youas you know yourself. The authenticity of your partner’sunderstanding of “who you really are” createsstrong feelings of intimacy.The opposing nature of idealistic and realisticappraisals may be more apparent than real: (a)because the effect of each may depend on thelength and developmental stage of a relationship,and (b) because both probably co-exist in healthyrelationships. Research suggests that idealized andpositive views of the partner contribute to satisfactionand feelings of intimacy in short-term datingrelationships and at the beginning of marriage.However, as relationships mature, more accurateinformation becomes important and contributesmore to satisfaction and intimacy (Campbell,Lackenbauer, & Muise, 2006; Swann, De La Ronde, &Hixon, 1994). Too much idealization may actuallyget a longer-term relationship in trouble. It is importantto know with some degree of accuracy yourpartner’s strengths and weaknesses. Imagine ifexcessive drinking were given a positive spin or ifyou glossed over your partner’s lack of financialplanning and checkbook balancing ability. Probablyboth realism and a degree of positive idealizationco-exist in healthy longer-term relationships.Realism about specific traits and abilities wouldseem to contribute both to feelings of intimacy andto more effective assignment of relationship rolesand responsibilities according to each partner’sstrengths and weaknesses.On the other hand, some idealization isundoubtedly important in making people feel anoverall sense of positive regard and acceptance. Thatis, we need to feel that, despite the reality of ourimperfections, we are loved, appreciated, and positivelyviewed. A recent longitudinal study of marriedcouples by Neff and Karney (2005) affirmed the dualimportance of accuracy and global adoration.Feelings of mutual and global adoration (“you’re thegreatest”) were widely shared among newlyweds.However, the benefits of this adoration depended onwhether it reflected an accurate understanding ofpartners’ specific traits. Adoration alone was notenough. Neff and Karney concluded that “Globaladoration lacking in specific accuracy not only leavesspouses vulnerable to disappointment as their partners’faults surface over the course of the relationshipbut also may lead partners to doubt thecredibility of their spouses’ love” (2005, p. 495).SATISFACTION AND CONFLICT As if the picturewere not gloomy enough already, studies suggestthat married couples today experience more conflictand somewhat less marital satisfaction than in thepast. Family life appears more complicated andhectic today, in part because both husbands andwives typically work and have less time to spendtogether (Amato & Previti, 2003; Rogers & Amato,2000). Managing family concerns, from childcare andISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 257paying bills, to getting older kids to their many afterschoolactivities, may take a toll on a marriage.National surveys show some drop (5% or so) inthe percentage of married couples describing theirmarriage as very happy today compared to the 1970s(Glenn, 1991; Glenn & Weaver, 1988). The cause ofthis decline is unclear. Does it reflect an actualdecline in marital happiness, perhaps due to theincrease in conflict? Or might it be the exaggeratedexpectations of marital happiness that are disappointedby the realities of marriage, or some combinationof both? Whatever the case, it is worthremembering two facts: (1) married people are stillconsistently found to be significantly happier thannever-married singles; and (2) there is a strong tendencyfor very happy people to report that their marriagesare also happy and satisfying (Myers, 2000a).The question is, “What are the ingredients of a happymarriage?” Some of the answers are suggested bystudies of what people bring to a marriage.WHAT PEOPLE BRING TO ROMANTICRELATIONSHIPSExperts seem to agree that cultural changes havemade happy long-term marriages somewhat moredifficult to achieve today than in the past. The successor failure of marriage also depends on theparticular mix of the two spouses’ characteristics.People bring a diversity of personality traits andbeliefs to their romantic relationships (Fitness, 2006;Vangelisti, 2006). Some people are better suited tointimate relationships than others. For example, theemotional instability and negative emotionality ofpeople high in the personality trait of neuroticismmake satisfying relationships difficult for them toachieve, and we know that drug abuse, alcoholism,and physical abuse are frequent causes of divorce(see Miller et al., 2007). Some amount of failureundoubtedly also occurs because the wrong peoplegot married. As they try to build a life together, amarried couple’s differences may cause too muchconflict, making love difficult to sustain. One of themore important things people bring to a marriage istheir particular style of relating to intimate partners.Attachment StyleThink for a minute about your first close and intimaterelationship. When did you: first learn abouttrusting someone and having your emotional needsattended to and cared for; first reveal your deeperfeelings, fears, and needs; first feel that no one elsecould replace this person in your life; first displaylots of mutual affection, like hugging, kissing, andholding; first know that this relationship was for life?For most of us, our first “love” experiences werewith parents—often our moms. Nearly all of usdevelop an intense attachment bond with our primarycaretakers—most frequently our biologicalparents. Attachment theory raises the intriguingpossibility that some of our most basic, and perhapsunconscious, emotional responses to intimacy areshaped by the kind of relationship we had with ourparents. If this seems a bit far-fetched, consider this:Think of a romantic involvement in which you gotto know your partner extremely well, including allhis or her little quirks and peculiarities. Then, thinkof the first time you met your partner’s family. Didyou have any “aha” experiences such as, “Now I seewhy you avoid emotionally charged issues in ourrelationship. Your whole family does!” Or, “No wonderyou say whatever is on your mind, even if it’snegative and critical. Your family is like the showBrothers and Sisters on TV—absolute honesty inexpressing feelings, no matter who it might offend!”How early relationships might affect later onesbegins with studies of infants and young children.Infant AttachmentsPsychiatrist John Bowlby was one of the first todescribe different types of attachment between childrenand their parents. During World War II, manyBritish parents sent their children to the countrywhere they would be safer from Germany’s nightlybombings of London. Bowlby observed that children’sreactions to separation from their parentswere quite varied and seemed to reflect differentkinds of parent–child bonds or attachments (seeBowlby, 1988, for a current review). Ainsworth andher colleagues developed a more formal assessmentof attachment styles using what became known asthe “strange situation test” (Ainsworth, Blehar,Waters, & Wall, 1978). Paralleling Bowlby’s earlierwork, these researchers found three distinct attachmentpatterns between infants and mothers (or anycaretaker to whom an infant is attached). Thestrange situation test involves observing an infant, itsmother, and an adult stranger in an unfamiliar roomwith toys available. The mother and stranger movein and out of the room according to a set sequence.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.258 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingInfants are sometimes with their mothers only,sometimes with the stranger only, and sometimesalone. A majority of infants tested in this situationshow a secure attachment style. In this style, theinfant explores the room and the toys confidentlywhen its mother is present, becomes mildly upsetand explores less when it is left by the mother(either alone or with the stranger), shows pleasureand reassurance when the mother returns, and thenresumes exploring the room. Home observationsshow that mothers of securely attached infantsresponded warmly and promptly to their infants’desires for contact comfort.A minority of infants show an avoidantattachment style. Here, infants do not show any visibledistress when separated from their mothers and,most tellingly, they actively avoid contact with theirmothers when the mothers re-enter the room. Athome, mothers of avoidant infants are consistentlynegative, rejecting, critical and often neglectful, inthe form of failing to provide comfort when theirinfants are upset.An even smaller minority of infants showed ananxious-ambivalent attachment style, in which theinfant does not explore much, even when its motheris present, becomes very upset when she leaves,and both seeks and simultaneously resists her comfortwhen she returns. Mothers of this style arefound to be unpredictable in their responses to theirinfants’ desires for comfort, sometimes showing apositive response and sometimes responding in arejecting or controlling manner.The nature of childhood attachment has beenshown to predict behavior in later relationships(e.g., Ainsworth, 1989; Schneider, Atkinson, &Tardiff, 2001). As you might expect, securelyattached infants generally go on to have healthierrelations with others. For example, longitudinal studiesfind that compared to insecure children, securelyattached children tend to be more socially skilledand competent and are more likely to have closefamilies, friendships, and longer-term romantic relations(e.g., Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004). Otherstudies find that attachment styles may be transferredfrom one relationship to the next, building uponearly attachment histories (Brumbaugh & Fraley,2006) and that a couple’s personal attachment stylesare predictive of how they perceive, feel about, andrelate to each other after the birth of their first child(Wilson, Rholes, Simpson, & Tran, 2007). In this latterstudy, anxious and avoidant styles were related toless supportive partner responses and more jealousyof the infant.Researchers do not believe that early childhoodexperiences represent adulthood destiny (seeHazan et al., 2006). Despite evidence of moderatelevels of stability in attachment style over the first19 years of life (Fraley, 2002), people’s orientationtoward relationships can be altered and changed bylife experiences. Divorce, death of a spouse or parent,new relationship experiences, and new partnerscan all influence our basic attachment style. In addition,studies that do show stability may be confoundedwith genetically-determined temperament.Some infants are constitutionally “laid back” or “highstrung,” making the infant’s temperament—not treatmentby parents—primarily responsible for thenature of the parent–child relationship.It also needs to be noted that the meaning andvalue of different attachment styles may be uniqueto Western individualistic societies like the UnitedStates. For example, Japanese parents appear to fosterinsecure attachment and “needy” children whenevaluated by Western attachment criteria(Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000).Japanese parents appear indulgent, permissive, andoverly protective to Western eyes. They do not seemto foster the secure base necessary for independenceand self-confidence that defines secure attachment.However, these judgments likely reflectWestern standards and biases. The Japanese and allother cultures have their own criteria for relationshipsand they raise their children accordingly. Theynurture healthy children who are well-adapted totheir culture. Rothbaum and his colleagues pointout that attachment theory and measurement, in itscurrent Westernized form, simply does not fit other,non-Westernized cultures.Despite these qualifications, the possibilityremains that that our childhood experiences, at leastin the West, may be significant. For example, a personwhose own childhood was marked by an absence ofwarmth and love might be strongly motivated to findan intense and all-absorbing romantic love relationshipas a teen or adult. And it makes sense that a personwho experienced harsh criticism and rejectionwhen she sought the love of her parents may be “gunshy” when it comes to developing intimate adult relationships.Finally, if you experienced a healthy, warm,and loving relationship with your parents, wouldn’tthis inform your ideas about desirable and undesirablerelationships in the future, perhaps even influencingISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 259the qualities you look for in a spouse? Setting aside allthe possible Freudian dynamics, why wouldn’t ayoung girl or boy think of marrying someone like Dador Mom if they loved, respected, and admired theirparents and experienced an enjoyable childhoodbecause their parents were good parents who werehappily married?With both the possibilities and qualifications inmind, researchers have found attachment styles tobe extremely useful in capturing adults’ cognitiveand emotional orientation toward romantic andother close relationships (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999).Measures of adult attachment styles have a gooddeal of face validity in the sense that we can often“see” ourselves or someone we know as typifyingone, or some combination of the different attachmentstyles.Adult Attachment StylesWhich of the following would best describe howyou think about close relationships? (from Hazan &Shaver, 1987):A. I am somewhat uncomfortable beingclose to others; I find it difficult totrust them completely, difficult toallow myself to depend on them. I amnervous when anyone gets too close,and often, others want to be moreintimate that I feel comfortable being.B. I find it relatively easy to get close toothers and am comfortable dependingon them and having them depend onme. I don’t worry about being abandonedor about someone getting tooclose to me.C. I find others are reluctant to get asclose as I would like. I often worrythat my partner doesn’t really love meor won’t want to stay with me. I wantto get very close to my partner, andthis sometimes scares people away.Shaver and his colleagues found that this simpleone-item test was sufficient for people to reliablyclassify themselves according to theirattachment style (A is avoidant, B is secure, and C isanxious-ambivalent) (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998;Hazan & Shaver, 1987).Over time, both the conceptualization andmeasurement of adult attachment styles have beenrefined. The current view is that attachment stylesare continuous rather than discrete categories andreflect two underlying dimensions: anxiety andavoidance (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller,1998; Hazan et al., 2006). The anxiety dimensiondescribes a fear of abandonment and rejection andis assumed to express low self-esteem and a negativeview of self. A lack of self-confidence and abelief in one’s inadequacy causes anxiety in closerelationships, perhaps because a person feels thather faults will be discovered or that he is not thekind of person that anyone would love. Conversely,people with a positive self-view are low in anxiety,do not fear abandonment, and are comfortable andconfident in their intimate relationships.The avoidance dimension describes thedegree of trust and comfort (or lack thereof)in becoming intimate with others. High intimacyavoidancepresumably stems from viewing otherswith a mistrustful and suspicious eye or dismissingintimate relationships altogether as unnecessarybecause of a strong belief in one’s own selfreliance(i.e., “I don’t need intimate relationships”).Conversely, people low in avoidance are moretrusting of others, enjoy intimacy, and do not worrythat they will be mistreated. Because people can behigh or low on the anxiety and/or the avoidancedimension, four different attachment styles can bedescribed. These styles are overlapping, but forpurposes of clarity they are described below asfour distinct styles. Included in these descriptionsare results from the multitude of studies that haveexamined the connection between individual differencesin attachment style and characteristics ofpeople’s close and romantic relationships (seeBartholomew, 1990; Collins & Feeney, 2000;Feeney, 1999; Hazan et al., 2006, for reviews).Figure 11.3 shows the four styles defined by thetwo dimensions of avoidance and anxiety.Secure attachment describes people with positiveself-images who are low on both relationshipanxiety and avoidance. These people are confident inthemselves and the ability of their relationships to satisfytheir needs. Compared to other attachment styles,the intimate and romantic relationships of peoplewith a secure attachment style are characterized bygreater trust and closeness, more positive than negativeemotions, lower levels of jealousy, higher levelsof marital satisfaction and adjustment, and more sensitiveand supportive responses to the needs of one’sISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.260 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingHighHighLowLowSecureDismissingAvoidantFearfulAvoidantPreoccupiedAvoidanceAnxietyFIGURE 11.3 Four Attachment Styles Defined by Levelof Anxiety and Avoidancepartner. Securely attached people are comfortableseeking support from others in times of distress.Surveys suggest that about 60% of people fit thisattachment style (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997).Overall, secure attachment is associated with longer,stronger, and more satisfying intimate relations.The preoccupied attachment style describespeople who are low on avoidance because theywant and enjoy intimacy, but are high in anxiety asa result of their low self-esteem. This style wasreferred to as anxious/ambivalent in previous classifications.The preoccupied style reflects a need forthe approval and affection of others to prop upone’s own lack of self-esteem. Such people might bedescribed as “needy,” “clingy,” or even “greedy” intheir need for intimacy and acceptance. While theymay appear to be sensitive, caring, and supporting,these behaviors stem more from their own selfcenteredneeds than from genuine concern for theirpartner. Their fear of abandonment may cause themto be highly controlling of their partners, to experiencewide mood swings, and to experience intensejealousy concerning their romantic involvements.Although an extreme example, one can’t help butthink about the neurotic lover portrayed by GlennClose in the movie Fatal Attraction as exemplifyingthe worst features of preoccupied attachment.People with a fearful avoidant attachmentstyle are high in avoidance and high in anxiety. Afear of rejection keeps people with this style fromgetting close to others, and their low opinion ofthemselves seems to be the major reason. If youdon’t like or love yourself you may assume otherswon’t love you either. A fear of being unlovableand, therefore, likely to be rejected when people getto know you well is strong motivation to avoid intimacy.People with this style view others as untrustworthyand likely to let them down. They feel thatrelying on others is too risky and are more pessimisticabout lasting love. As you might expect,fearful attachment is associated with a variety ofinterpersonal difficulties including less willingnessto provide comfort and support to others and beingperceived by others as emotionally distant and evenhostile.Dismissing avoidant attachment combineshigh avoidance with low anxiety. This styledescribes people who are confident, self-reliant,and take pride in their independence. They viewothers as essentially irrelevant. That is, whetherpeople like them or not is not a major concern,because they believe they can make it on theirown. Intimate involvements with others arethought to be fraught with problems and notworth the trouble. The relationships of peoplewith this style are marked by lower enjoyment,less commitment, and less intimacy compared tothose with secure and preoccupied styles. If yourecall our earlier discussion of the universal needfor human attachments, you may wonder if peoplewho dismiss the importance of relationships areexceptions to this general rule. A recent studytitled, “No man is an island: The need to belongand dismissing avoidant attachment style,” suggeststhat the answer is no (Carvallo & Gabriel,2006). In this study, people with a dismissive orientationwere found to experience more positivefeelings in response to feedback that others likedand accepted them than people with a low dismissiveview. Perhaps because dismissive types typicallyreceive less affirmation from others, they aremore affected when they do. Contrary to theirclaims, dismissive individuals do seem to careabout how people think of them. Carvallo andGabriel conclude that “. . . people with a dismissiveattachment style also have a fundamentalneed to feel connected to others but because theyhave buried it under denial and a hard shell ofindifference, it can only be glimpsed by givingthem a taste of what all people need and desiremost: inclusion and acceptance from others”(2006, p. 707).Overall, secure attachment is a strong foundationfor healthy and satisfying relationships, particularlyif this style is shared between romanticpartners. In their review of studies, Miller and hisISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 261colleagues (2007) provide a long list of positive outcomesassociated with this style. Compared to theother styles, secure people are more supportive oftheir partners, particularly in times of distress. Theyare more disclosing of intimate life details and havemore satisfying social lives with their friends andlovers. Secure people also enjoy higher levels ofemotional well-being and lower levels of emotionaldistress. Securely attached people seem to recapitulatethe health of their relationships with their parents,which built a strong foundation for the richand satisfying relationships that contribute so muchto a happy life.Research suggests that the majority (60%) ofus fit, moreso than less, into the secure attachmentstyle. However, it is important to remember thatthe four types are meant to be continuous—notdiscrete—categories. So, despite the virtues ofsecure attachment, most of us are probably a combinationof attachment orientations defined by ourdegree of anxiety and avoidance. The more problematicstyles are in the minority, although we canprobably think of someone who fits the preoccupied,fearful avoidant, or dismissive style. Thepoint here is to resist believing that, just becauseyou are not overly confident in yourself or that youare somewhat cautious in opening up to others,this means you fit one of the negative styles andwill have relationship problems, or that this fullyexplains the problems you have. The distancebetween high self-esteem and low self-esteem andbetween caution and avoidance is large. Even if weare not “pure” secure attachment types, we can stillhave satisfying relationships.Conflict and Communication SkillsAttachment styles describe important features ofpeople’s global orientation toward intimate relationships.More specific behaviors and ways of thinkingthat enhance or damage relationships have alsobeen studied extensively. A great deal of researchhas focused on how relationship partners deal withconflict and interpret negative behaviors. This isbecause some amount of conflict is inevitable inour intimate relations. Married couples may confrontdifferences in their expectations and desiresregarding managing finances, spending habits, frequencyof sex, displays of affection, raising kids,dealing with in-laws, and keeping the house clean.Studies make clear that the success of a marriagedepends heavily on open communication aboutdisagreements and the ability to resolve them.Focus on Research: The Powerof the “Bad”A curious implication of relationship research isthat once a relationship is well established, its successseems to depend more on the absence of conflict(the bad) than it does on the presence ofaffection (the good) (Reis & Gable, 2003). A couple’ssatisfaction with their marriage is tied significantlymore strongly to the level of conflict than itis to the level of positive behaviors. A well-knowndaily diary study found that nearly two-thirds ofcouples’ marital satisfaction was related to theoccurrence (or lack) of negative behaviorsand conflict, and much less so to the occurrence(or lack) of positive behaviors (Wills, Weiss, &Patterson, 1974). In our intimate relationships, thebad seems much stronger than the good. A singlenegative act appears capable of “undoing” countlessacts of affection and kindness.The most extensive studies of marital conflicthave been conducted by John Gottman and his colleagues(Gottman, 1994, 1998, 1999; Gottman &Krokoff, 1989; Gottman & Levenson, 1992). Amonghis many studies were intensive observations ofmarried couples in his “love lab.” This was an apartmentset up to video-tape verbal, nonverbal, andphysiological responses of couples as they talkedabout topics posed by Gottman. Some topics concernedsources of conflict and how they viewedeach other’s strengths and weaknesses, but the mainpoint was to get couples to talk and to analyze theirstyle of communication. Both the husbands’ andwives’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors were carefullyrecorded. Observations captured both subtlenonverbal behaviors (like a faint frown or raisedeyebrows), and more obvious behaviors (such assmiling, one spouse interrupting the other, andexpressions of anger, resentment, affection, andsupport).Gottman and his colleagues consistently foundthat negative communication patterns were morepredictive of marital satisfaction level and overallrelationship quality than were displays of affectionand kindness. Patterns of negative interaction weresummarized as the “Four Horsemen of theApocalypse” because of their destructive effects onrelationships. The “Four Horsemen” are:ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.262 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being1. Criticism: A high percentage of negative ascompared to positive comments, remarks, andnonverbal communications.2. Defensiveness: Taking comments and criticismpersonally and responding to the feelings theycreated, rather than to the behavior theydescribe. This included rehearsing defensivethoughts such as “I’m not going to take it anymore,” or “Next time he/she says that, I amgoing to say . . . ”3. Stonewalling: Punishing a partner with the“silent treatment” by clamming up, refusing torespond and holding in anger, resentment,hurt feelings, and the real reasons for refusingto talk.4. Contempt: Showing scorn, anger, and rejectionthrough verbal and nonverbal means (e.g.,rolling of eyes) and generally condemning theactions, motives, or personality of the other.All marriages involve some amount of mutualcriticism and hurtful things said in the heat of argument.Gottman’s research found that it was not simplythe presence of negative behaviors thatdistinguished happy/stable couples from thoseheaded for divorce. Instead, what mattered was theratio of positive to negative behaviors and thedegree of reciprocation of negative behaviors (“negativeaffect reciprocity”). Somewhat amazingly, incounting up the positives and negatives in “love lab”observations, a ratio of 5 positive interactions to 1negative interaction was found to be the dividingline between successful and unsuccessful relationships.That is, in healthy relationships, likely to last,there were five times more positive than negativeinteractions. Troubled relationships had very lowratios, meaning that negatives and positives wereabout equal, or that negatives out numbered positives.The 5-to-1 ratio supports the general principlethat “bad is stronger than good.” Evidently, the harmdone by one bad thing needs to be offset by fivegood things for marriages to be satisfying. The 5-to-1 ratio suggests a fairly obvious approach to improvingthe quality of a relationship—namely, find waysto reward your partner! Gottman and Levenson(1992) argue that frequent and simple acts of kindness,concern, care, and affection can shift the ratiointo the positive range. This makes conflict lesslikely and easier to resolve when it occurs.Negative affect reciprocity may be one reasonunhappy couples have a low positive-to-negativeratio. This term describes a tit-for-tat exchange ofnegative expressions, both verbal and nonverbal, thatGottman and his colleagues found contributes to thedownward spiral of a relationship. If you think aboutyour own relationships, you know that it’s hard not toretaliate against a critical or hurtful comment made byan intimate partner. One partner’s negative criticalcomment invites reciprocation from the other, whichinvites further retaliation, which may then escalateinto a heated argument. As Gottman notes, anger,conflict, and disagreements can all be opportunitiesfor deepening mutual understanding and increasingfuture satisfaction. Successful couples find ways toturn disagreements into growth in their relationship,and ways to repair the damage of conflict. However,distressed couples seem stuck in this negative affectreciprocity pattern and are unable or unwilling torespond in more constructive ways.Demand/withdraw can be added to the list ofnegative interaction patterns described by Gottman’sresearch. This pattern reflects what seems to be afairly typical gender difference in response to conflict(Grossman & Wood, 1993). Women, who are oftenmore attuned to and concerned about the ongoingquality of close relationships, make more demands toresolve problems and to improve a marriage thanmen (Christensen & Heavey, 1993). Relationshipproblems raised by one partner are sensitive issuesbecause they directly or indirectly imply criticism ofthe other partner. In raising these issues, women aregenerally more emotionally expressive and reportmore intense emotions than men (Grossman &Wood, 1993). Men seem generally less sensitive torelationship problems and less comfortable talkingabout them. These differences may produce a patternof interactions in which the woman makes demandsto talk about a concern and the man withdraws orbecomes defensive and refuses to confront the issue(Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). This frustrates thewife, who then makes more demands, which maylead to more strident withdrawal on her husband’spart, like stomping off and slamming the door on theway out. This interaction pattern would likely frustrateboth husband and wife and decrease the oddsthat problems will be resolved.AttributionsIn addition to negative communication patterns,people’s characteristic style of explaining their partner’stransgressions and faults also has much to doISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 263with relationship satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham,1990). If your partner forgets to do a favor yourequested, or misses an important occasion like yourbirthday or anniversary, how do you explain it?Does it mean they really don’t care about you, or doyou give them the benefit of the doubt and assumethere must have been a good reason? As you probablyguessed, satisfied couples assume the best andunhappy couples assume the worst. Relationshipenhancingattributions are explanations for apartner’s faults and transgressions that “excuse” thebehavior because it is seen as determined by situations,rather than as a reflection of an enduring traitor lack of concern for the other partner. “Having abad day” or “just being forgetful because of preoccupationwith other things,” puts a positive spin onotherwise negative and potentially hurtful actions.Enhancing attributions also work on the positiveside. Positive behaviors are seen as stemming from apartner’s desirable qualities and from their care andconcern for the relationship. When good things happen,they are attributed to the person—not the situation.“He or she is so thoughtful and loving, lookwhat I got for our anniversary.” In contrast, unhappycouples show a distress-maintaining pattern ofattributions. Negative behaviors, hurtful comments,and forgetting special occasions are attributed topermanent characteristics of the individual. “Thisjust shows that you don’t really care, and nothing isgoing to change because that’s just the way youare!” It is little wonder that longitudinal studies havelinked distress-maintaining attributions to low maritalsatisfaction throughout the course of a marriage(Fincham, Harold, & Gano-Phillips, 2000; Karney &Bradbury, 2000).Implicit Theories and ExpectationsPeople come into relationships with differentimplicit or informal theories about how relationshipsare supposed to work. These general ideas mayshape the more specific ways people respond to,and evaluate, intimate relations. Knee and his colleagueshave identified two distinct implicit theories,defined either by a belief in romantic destiny orby a belief in relationship growth (Knee, 1998).The basic premise of the romantic destiny theory isthat two people are either compatible or they arenot. If a marriage runs into difficulty, this signals alack of compatibility—namely, an assumption that“we aren’t right for each other.” The growth theory,on the other hand, assumes relationships are challengingand will grow and develop over time. AsKnee and his colleagues described it, people followingthe growth theory “. . . are primarily interested indeveloping the relationship, and believe that relationshipsgrow, not despite obstacles, but ratherbecause of them” (Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003,p. 41). Sample items from their Implicit Theory ofRelationship Scale make the distinction between thetwo theories very clear. People who hold to theromantic destiny theory endorse items such as, “Asuccessful relationship is mostly a matter of findinga compatible partner right from the start,” and “Earlytroubles in a relationship signify a poor matchbetween partners.” Growth theory advocates wouldagree with items like the following: “Challenges andobstacles in a relationship can make love evenstronger,” and “It takes a lot of time and effort to cultivatea good relationship” (Knee et al., 2003, p. 41).Research by Knee and his colleagues suggeststhat these general beliefs influence many aspects ofa relationship—perhaps most importantly, the decisionto stay or leave (Knee, Nanayakkar, Vietor, &Neighbors, 2002; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkar, &Neighbors, 2002; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, & Neighbors,2004). A strong belief in romantic destiny leads to aninterpretation of conflict as a sign of incompatibilityover which couples can exert little control (i.e.,“We’re either right for each other or we’re not”).Attributions for problems are likely to focus on individualtraits (such as personality incompatibility)rather than circumstances. This makes relationshipproblems seem more stable and enduring and thus,unfixable. As marriages progress, a romantic destinyview may cause that typical drop in marital satisfaction(described earlier) to be seen as a sure sign of abad choice. In fact, research shows that people withstrong destiny beliefs are more likely to end a relationshipif they are not satisfied with how it goes atthe beginning (Knee, 1998).The work-it-out perspective of the relationshipgrowth theory is clearly a more hopeful and, manywould say, more realistic approach to marriage,unless of course there really is one “right” person foreach of us, and our job is to find that person for amarriage made in heaven. A belief in relationshipgrowth provides a more positive and acceptingperspective on the inevitable conflicts and disappointmentsmarried couples confront. From agrowth perspective, conflict is a natural part of allrelationships and does not mean that someone hasISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.264 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Beingto be at fault or that partners are incompatible.Instead, problems are seen as temporary and situationaland, thus, solvable and likely to pass.Therefore, effort and commitment can make the differencebetween failure and success.FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE CONTOURSOF A HAPPY MARRIAGETwo lessons of positive psychology that youhave hopefully learned by now are: (1) The absenceof the “bad” does not mean the presence of the“good.” (2) Positive and negative emotional experiencesare independent of one another. Appliedto marriage, this means that, while the negativerelationship behaviors we just reviewed make amarriage bad, their absence does not necessarilymake a marriage good. It also means that good relationshipbehaviors are not simply the opposite ofdestructive behaviors. As Reis and Gable put it,“Relating well is not the same thing as not relatingbadly” (2003, p. 152). What takes a marriage abovezero? Beyond just the absence of the bad to somelevel of enjoyment, contentment, and happiness?Studies of long-term and happily married couplesprovide some clues.What Can Happy Couples Tell Us?In a seminal study by Lauer and Lauer, 351 couples(married 15 years or more) were asked to selectfrom a list of 39 statements those that best explainedwhy their marriages had lasted (Lauer & Lauer, 1985;Lauer et al., 1990). Husbands and wives respondedseparately. The overwhelming majority of couples(300) described their marriages as happy ones. Andmen and women showed an amazing degree ofagreement as to why their marriages were happyand successful. The most frequently endorsed reasonsfor a happy and enduring marriage can begrouped into two general categories: friendship andcommitment.FRIENDSHIP Deep and abiding friendship was thetop reason couples gave for their lasting marriages.Both husbands and wives agreed, “My spouse ismy best friend.” Other statements clarified whatthey meant. “I like my spouse as a person.” “Myspouse has grown more interesting.” “I confide inmy spouse.” In response to the more open-endedquestions on the survey, one woman commentedthat she would want her husband as a friend evenif they weren’t married—that’s how much she likedhim. A man married over 30 years said it hadalmost been like being married to “a series of differentwomen” because he had watched his wifegrow and change over time (Lauer & Lauer, 1985,p. 24). He found his wife more interesting nowthan when they first married. Others shared thatthey thought liking was as important as loving in amarriage. These positive views of marriage partnerswere reflected in the enjoyment of sharedactivities. “We laugh together.” Men endorsed, “Weshare outside hobbies and interests” and women,“We have a stimulating exchange of ideas.” Sharedactivities that are fun, exciting, and arousing maybe very important in offsetting the boredom thatcan set in, in long-term marriages. This possibilityreceived experimental support from a study thatfound an increase in global marital satisfactionafter couples completed a novel and physiologicallyarousing activity (Aron, Norman, Aron,McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). In this study, marriedcouples traversed an obstacle course while holdinga cylindrical pillow between their bodies or heads.No hands, legs, or teeth were allowed to keep thepillow from falling to the ground. Couples foundthis activity, reminiscent of sack races at summercamp, to be fun and exciting. Evidently, the positiveemotion they experienced generalized to theirrelationship, resulting in a more favorable evaluation.One ingredient in a successful marriage seemsto be the ability to find exciting and fun things todo together.Husbands and wives in happy marriages alsoshare similar views on many of the potentiallycontentious issues within a marriage. “We agree onaims and goals.” “We agree on a philosophy oflife.” “We agree on how and how often to showaffection.” “We agree about our sex life.”Interestingly, fewer than 10% of these couplesbelieved that enjoyable sex kept their marriagestogether. Most couples were happy with their sexlives, but others, even if they weren’t, or hadstopped having sex altogether, were still happywith their marriages (Lauer, et al., 1990). Evidently,if you have an enjoyable intimate friend as aspouse, sex is not critical to the success of yourmarriage, at least after you have been married for15 years or more.COMMITMENT Happy couples recognized theimportance of strong commitment to making theirISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 265marriages work and agreed with the statement,“Marriage is a long-term commitment.” The basis oftheir commitment was also suggested by otherresponses (e.g., “Marriage is sacred.” “An enduringmarriage is important to social stability.” “I want therelationship to succeed.”). Consistent with Knee’swork on the growth theory of relationships, successfulcouples believed that all marriages run into troublesand that you just have to “take it” until you canfind ways to work it out. Agreement that “We discussthings calmly” suggests that happy couples take apositive approach to resolving conflicts.These results affirm our earlier discussion ofthe differences between friendship and passionateromance. The deep friendship, intense liking,respect, comfort, and enjoyment expressed by thehappy couples in the Lauer’s study stand in contrastto marriages based on the more tenuous and ficklenature of passionate romance. The stable solidarityof friendship makes passion look like a shaky basisfor a stable marriage. Many relationship researcherswould agree that companionate love built on friendshipis more enduring than romantic love built onpassion. Contemplating the future of marriage,Hendrick and Hendrick (2002) see hopeful signsthat companionate love and passionate love arebeing brought into better balance in young people’sthinking about intimate relationships. They point tostudies showing that college students frequentlyname their romantic partners as their closest friends.Hendrick and Hendrick conclude that “If one couldalso be good friends, perhaps even best friends withone’s passionate lover, then perhaps the relationshipcould survive the turbulent comings and goingsof passion” (2002, p. 473). Couples in the Lauerand Lauer study provided strong affirmation of thispossibility.Humor and CompatibilityOne final morsel of food-for-thought: Earlier in thischapter, we discussed the importance of teasing,humor, and laughter to all our close relationships.Social support, intimacy, and concern are all significant,but for sheer pleasure and enjoyment youcan’t beat having fun with people you care about.It’s no accident, then, that happy couples say theylaugh together and that a sense of humor is highon the list of desirable qualities people seek ina potential mate. We know that frequency ofsex declines even in good marriages, althoughHendrick and Hendrick (2002) argue that “sexualexpression” might show up as declining far less ifresearchers included hugs, kisses, and other physicaldisplays of affection as part of sexual behavior.Humor, however, apparently does not decline.Why else would 50-years-married couples saylaughing together is what made their marriages last(Lauer et al., 1990)? Humor is undoubtedly onemajor reason happy couples enjoy each other’scompany. Given the benefits of positive emotionsdescribed throughout this book, it’s no wondersuccessful couples enjoy enhanced health and happiness.In addition, as we mentioned earlier in thischapter, humor can detoxify conflict and relievestress in a relationship.The value of humor may go beyond its rolein making a couple’s life together more enjoyable.Husbands and wives who share a similar sense ofhumor may also share something deeper—namelya match of personalities and emotional orientations.The idea that what a person honestly findsfunny might be a window into his or her personalityis widely shared among humor theorists andresearchers (see Martin, 2007). The logic of theargument is that laughter is an emotional reactionthat most people cannot fake (accomplished actorsmay be an exception). An obligatory and forcedlaugh is easily distinguished from the real thing.Because it is less subject to conscious control, agenuine laugh is thought to an honest expressionof how a person really feels. This, in turn, isassumed to reflect significant and genuinelyexpressed aspects of personality. Both researchand everyday interactions affirm this possibility.Studies show that humor and personality are connectedand tend to reflect traits that are prominentin our personalities (see Martin, 2007, Chapter 7,for review). For example, aggressive people preferharsh and aggressive jokes; conservatives prefer“safe” jokes such as puns; and people who areintelligent risk-takers with a high tolerance forambiguity and openness to new experiences enjoymore bizarre and highly imaginative humor. In ourown experience, most of us have been in the companyof people who laugh heartily at a joke thatwe find personally offensive. This can be animmediate source of alienation. We may think, “Ifyou find that funny, you’re not my kind of person.”Shared humor can create an opposite feeling:“That’s my favorite kind of joke, so you’re mykind of person.”ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.The idea that humor is a window to thoughtsand feelings that lie beneath the surface of consciousawareness is exemplified in an engagingbook by Leon Rappoport titled, Punchlines: TheCase for Racial, Ethnic and Gender Humor (2005).Rappoport argues that racial, ethnic, and genderbasedforms of humor are typically viewed as insultingand prejudicial, which they certainly can be.However, at a deeper level such humor serves theimportant function of expressing those forbiddenthoughts and feelings that are buried deep beneaththe veneer of polite society and, more recently, theculture of political correctness. Comedians whomake fun of their own race, ethnicity, or genderopen the door to honest consideration of stereotypesand hostilities by reducing the anxieties, tensions,and guilt experienced by people who holdthem. Laughing releases the tension created by consciouslydenied, but honestly felt emotions andbeliefs, and brings them out in the open. Becausehumor detoxifies stereotypes and prejudices byholding them up for public ridicule, Rappoportargues that the net effect is to reduce—notincrease—their potency.Rappoport believes that humor may serve asimilar function in marriage (L. Rappoport, personalcommunication, April 20, 2007). Becausepeople differ in what they find funny, humorreflects something important about a person’s personality.Most intriguing is the idea that humor representsaccurate information about a personbecause genuine laughter is spontaneous and cannotbe produced on demand. Much of what peoplereveal to others is disingenuous, not necessarilybecause of manipulative intentions, but becausepeople are being polite, want to make a goodimpression, or are following their expectationsabout how to act in a particular kind of relationship.Compared to the similarities revealed in people’sconsciously controlled actions, responses tohumor may represent honest and deeper similaritiesbetween two people.Studies support the value of similarity as anessential foundation for successful close relationships(Noller & Feeney, 2006). Opposites may beinteresting, but they don’t seem to attract, as conventionalwisdom suggests. Significant differences,not similarities, cause spouses the most trouble.However, knowing if you are similar to someoneat a deeper level is difficult to determine. Howmany couples wonder after a year of marriage whytheir spouse seems so different from when theywere dating or first married? A shared sense ofhumor may increase the odds that when thedistorting effects of self-conscious impressionmanagement fade, some basic compatibility willremain.While there is not a large literature examiningthe relationship value of a shared sense humor,what there is provides some support (see Martin,2007, Chapter 5). Similarity in humor is affirmed asa basis for initial attraction. We like people whoshare our sense of what’s funny, in part becausewe assume we also share other beliefs and qualities.Married couples do tend to share a similarsense of humor. However, higher ratings of humorsimilarity do not reliably predict maritalsatisfaction. Part of the problem here may have todo with the limitations of self-report assessments ofshared humor. Because humor in real life is spontaneous,self-report questionnaires may not be thebest way to measure it, because they are farremovedfrom the moments of actual humor thatoccur in the context of everyday life. To this point,Gottman’s “love lab” observational studies do showthat happy couples’ interactions are characterizedby a good deal of humor and reciprocated laughter.Humor, marital harmony, and effective relationalproblem-solving were found to go together.Perhaps we need a “humor lab” to specificallyassess couples’ shared and non-shared humorousreactions to situations, issues, and problems thattypically occur in a marriage.Though the empirical jury is still out, ashared sense of humor is an intriguing way tothink about an index of basic compatibilitybetween intimate partners. Similarity in humormay be important in knowing whether someone is“right” for you, and in sustaining a mutually enjoyableand enduring future relationship. Our guesswould be that successful couples have humor incommon, whether or not they realized this at thebeginning of their relationships. As researchshows, we are attracted to people who laugh atthe same things we do.So there you have it. Friendship, humor, andcommitment. Three essential ingredients in the complexrecipe for a successful marriage. Looking for aromantic partner? Find yourself a best buddy/bestfriend who laughs at all the same things you do andyou should find it easier to make and sustain a longtermcommitment!266 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter Summary QuestionsChapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 2671. a. What evolutionary arguments support theconclusions that belongingness is a fundamentalneed?b. How does oxytocin figure into biologicalfoundations for relationships with others?2. How does disclosure reciprocity help buildclose relationships?3. How do trust and caring contribute to closerelationships?4. What does it mean to say that close relationshipsare characterized by high levels of interdependenceand mutuality?5. Why is commitment important to close relationswith others?6. How do the descriptions of exchange and communalrelationships describe the differencesbetween casual acquaintances and closerelationships?7. What does research suggest about the roleof teasing and humor in developing closerelationships, and in successful long-termmarriages?8. How does capitalization enhance individual andrelationship well-being, according to theresearch by Gable and her colleagues?9. How do clarity of rules, complexity of feelings,and differing expectations explain thedifferences between friendship and romanticlove?10. What are love’s three essential ingredients,according to Sternberg’s triangular theory oflove?11. Why doesn’t cohabitation increase the successof a future marriage?12. What evidence supports the importanceof increased freedom and decreased restraintsas explanations for our culture’s 50% divorcerate?13. Is romantic love as a basis for marriage uniqueto American culture?14. a. How might the increasing importance oflove as a basis for marriage contribute to highdivorce rates?b. How does research by Huston and his colleaguessupport a disillusionment model ofdivorce?15. How does the research by Neff and Karneyshow the importance of both realism and idealismin marital satisfaction?16. What arguments support a connection betweeninfant–parent relationships and adult romanticrelationships, according to attachment theory?17. How may the different adult attachment stylesreflect two underlying dimensions of anxietyand avoidance?18. In his “love lab” studies, what critical ratio didGottman find made the difference betweengood and bad marriages?19. What qualities characterize long-term happilymarried couples, according to the Lauers’study?20. What arguments and evidence suggest that ashared sense of humor may be an importantmeasure of compatibility between romanticpartners and may contribute to a satisfyingmarriage?Key Termsoxytocin 240self-disclosure 241disclosure reciprocity 242exchange versus communalrelationships 245direct effects hypothesis 246capitalization 247passionate love 249companionate love 250triangular theory of love 250intimacy 250passion 250commitment 250self-verification theory 256attachment theory 257secure attachment 259preoccupied attachment 260fearful avoidant attachment 260dismissing avoidant attachment 260negative affect reciprocity 262demand/withdraw 262relationship-enhancingattributions 263distress-maintaining attributions263romantic destiny 263relationship growth 263ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.268 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-BeingWeb ResourcesRelationship Research—Gottmanwww.gottman.com/research/about This is theGottman Institute site for the study of relationships.Links to an abundance of useful information, researcharticles, John Gottman’s love lab studies, and otherrelevant sites and articles.Love and Intimate Relationshipswww2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh This site by ElaineHatfield offers many research references as well ascommonly used measures of passionate and companionatelove.Triangular Theory of Lovepsychcentral.com/lib/2007/sternbergs-triangulartheory-of-love-scales This site for PsychCentral isrun by mental health professionals. It has a varietyof useful information. The address above is forSternberg’s triangular theory of love and a questionnairethat measures each of the three basic dimensionsof love.Attachment Theorypsychology.ucdavis.edu/labs/Shaver/measures.htmThis site is for the Attachment Lab of Phillip Shaverand R. Chris Farley. In addition to listing recent publications,many links to the labs and research ofother attachment theorists are listed.Suggested ReadingsBaumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need tobelong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529.Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R.(2004). What do you do when things go right? Theintrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positiveevents. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 87, 228–245.Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationshipbetween marital processes and marital outcomes.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., &Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysisand empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,229–248.Meyers, S. A., & Berscheid, E. (1997). The language oflove: The difference a preposition makes. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulleting, 23, 347–362.Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Brehm, S. (2007). Intimate relationships(4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (Eds.). (2006). Close relationships:Functions, forms and processes. New York: PsychologyPress.Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing:A positive health agenda for the new millennium.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 30–44.Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (Eds.). (1998) Attachmenttheory and close relationships. New York: GuildfordPress.Sternberg, R. J. (1998b). Cupid’s arrow: The course of lovethrough time. New York: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.

mcgraw hill connectPearson