Insights Into the Psychology of Relationships

Introduction

It has been estimated that in the United States the divorce rate has already exceeded 50% and is continuing to climb, which brings the country back to the crisis of the 1980s. Such divorce statistics also mean that more than half of the children in the country have to experience the stress of a parental divorce, which inevitably affects their future ability to build committed relationships and enter a sustainable marriage (Bott & Spillius, 2014). Although a lot of research has been devoted to the immediate effects of family relationships on children’s psyche, the long-term impact on the quality of their future relationships remains poorly explored.

Furthermore, the effect of a modern environment created by globalization on relationships cannot be left unattended either. Social interaction in cyberspace is gaining popularity, which implies that social identity, interaction, and formation of relationships are changing rapidly.

Biological Foundations for Relationships and Mate Selection

It is impossible to have a closer look at human relationships neglecting their biological foundation since they are largely predetermined by the natural mating system, which varies widely not even across but also within the species. Biological aspects are essential to study since they impact courtship-related behavior, sexual differentiation, and variability in mate choice. Humans tend to have dedicated neurochemistry of attachment, which generally means that they have a monogamous mating system, presupposing romantic relationships, prolonged childhoods, and extended families (Buss & Barnes, 1986).

According to Charles Darwin’s model of mate selection, the whole population may be divided into more vigorous and better-nourished and less vigorous and healthy individuals. The higher quality females are supposed to couple with the same-quality males since both types are expected to produce more offspring. Thus, assertive mating in Darwin’s view proves the significance of biological factors in sexual choice (Buss & Barnes, 1986).

Yet, the major question to answer is to what extent biological factors may affect the process of mate selection as compared to conscious preferences. It is often assumed that mate preference equals mate choice (e.g. men prefer women with low waist-to-hip ratio since they see them as more reproductive) (Singh, 1993). However, the position that potential mates with higher market value as per their anatomy have higher chances to be chosen is arguable. This is supported by the fact that healthy-looking bodies and faces are less frequently selected by females than by males although both sexes describe them as the most preferable ones. This implies that the relationship between biological factors and mate selection is much more complex than Darwin’s theory suggests.

Biological and Evolutionary Factors in Maintaining Human Relationships

Despite the significance of the role of biological factors in mate selection, they cannot be viewed in separation from evolutionary factors. On the one hand (as it has been mentioned in the previous section) human beings show a tendency to opt for partners demonstrating physical health and reproductive potential. They simultaneously show a clear preference for fidelity (the assumption is also supported by Darwin’s theory of sexual selection) since this quality is beneficial for maintaining the relationships and consequently preserving the species.

However, on the other hand, the tendency towards promiscuous mating cannot be disregarded either. This is supported by such facts as an adaptation for sperm competition, specialized expressions of jealousy, adaptive timing of copulations, premarital sex, the desirability of extramarital sex with multiple partners, etc. (Buss, 2015).

Another argument evidencing that polygynous mating is also biologically possible for humans is that males and females have dimorphic life-history traits not typically observed in exclusively monogamous species like primates (e.g. men are more aggressive, they mature later and live shorter lives–this may mean that their organism is designed to inseminate several women) (Cartwright, 2016).

Such findings seem contradictory and it is rather debatable if they could be reconciled. It seems logical here to take the position of evolutionary psychologists who believe that human beings have adapted for numerous mating strategies in order to be equipped both for long-term and short-term mating. This does not imply that both potentials have to be materialized although this variant is not excluded. The strategies may alternate to obtain maximum reproductive benefits and to effectively respond to a number of suggested contexts.

However, it would again be a simplification to state that the development of human relationships entirely relies on the outcomes of evolution. There are other perspectives that have to be taken into account to be able to evaluate them in their full complexity.

Social-Psychological Theoretical Perspectives that Seek to Explain Relationships

Stepping aside from the assumption that human preferences are based on natural selection, it is possible to identify other approaches that explain relationships from social-psychological perspectives.

Attachment theory proposes that human relationships are based on an attachment behavior system determining how closely they approach others. The functioning of the system heavily relies on the perception of the attachment figure or a primary caregiver (Ogilvie, Newman, Todd, & Peck, 2014).

It seems that the major disadvantage of the theory is oversimplified classification: It divides all people into groups based only on scores in two dimensions–their perception of themselves and others. However, even if various combinations of those factors produce only the basic types of attachment.

Social exchange theory is concentrated on the outcome of the relationships that can be both positive (social and material rewards) and negative (opportunity costs). Thus, people can evaluate their relationships based on comparison level and comparison level for alternatives. This theory can be criticized by bringing the relationships down to receiving profits, which ignores attachment aspects. Moreover, alternatives are defined too broadly and include also the alternative to being in relationships at all (Fletcher, & Fitness, 2014).

Social learning theory places behavior in the focus of attention, which means that the major aspect of relationships is the exchange of behaviors. Coercion theory and escape conditioning are subsets of social learning theory, the essence of which is that people practice behaviors to provoke or to avoid certain reactions of their partners. Like all the previous theories, it tends to disregard the importance of other factors (Smith, 2015).

As it is evident from the analysis, all the models highlight only one aspect of relationships disregarding the others. Furthermore, the common mistake is that they do not consider the effect of early experiences received in a family. Still, social bonds children predetermine not only their attachment level but also predisposition to measure relationships by social outcomes, the ability to demonstrate positive behavior, and cope with stress factors.

Approaches to Understanding Social Bonds in Children (Parenting Styles)

Since couples are not similar in their perception of relationships, the way they interpret social bonds in their children is also quite different. There are several basic approaches to parenting (Steinberg, Blatt‐Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006):

1. Authoritarian parents have all the power in the family and make decisions for their children without any discussions.
2. Indulgent parenting presupposes sharing power without setting strict boundaries.
3. Indifferent parenting does not focus on the child’s needs and is parent-centered. It is often inconsistent.
4. Authoritative parenting allows some power for children but within the defined limits.
5. Abusive parenting involves physical, emotional, sexual, or other abuse.

Evaluating the approaches, it is crucial to bear in mind that they are rarely consistent within one family. Parents may have different styles, which may be either balanced or not. Sometimes, they are unwilling to cooperate. This makes it challenging to assess the effectiveness of each of their methods since they hinder each other. The ability of parents to reach a compromise on upbringing determines whether their child will develop prosocial or antisocial behavior.

Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior is the one that brings benefits to those from the person’s immediate surroundings and the society as a whole. The common understanding suggests that this kind of behavior is voluntary since prosocial actions are altruistic. However, there is another view, claiming that this can be an automatic response to the situation, which means that there are subconscious factors that provoke it. Thus, there are two major theories: One explains prosocial behavior as coming by nature; the other attributes it to nurture (Beilin, 2013).

According to the biological approach, prosocial behavior is innate. Humans naturally seek chances to assist one another in any type of relationship in order to protect their shared gene pool. This implies that children only need conditions to demonstrate prosocial conduct. The second theory suggests that prosocial behavior is not inborn but is learned through socialization and conditioning (both classical and operant) (Prot et al., 2014).

Both approaches fail to provide substantial grounding for the interpretation provided. That is why it is reasonable to view them in combination: The tendency for prosocial behavior may be inborn, but it fails to reveal itself unless required conditioning is present.

Antisocial behavior is the one doing harm to the person’s immediate surroundings or the society in general. It can be hostile (impulsive) and instrumental (deliberate) (Haller, Harold, Sandi, & Neumann, 2014).

Those supporting biological explanations of it see aggression as generic since human beings, as all other species, instinctively protect themselves and try to win the best part of limited resources. Proponents of the environmental approach believe that this behavior is not genetic but is formed due to negative conditioning (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).

Yet, it seems to be more reasonable to view antisocial conduct as a result of both innate qualities and failures in socialization. This in-between position allows hypothesizing that both social and aggressive behavior can be modulated to a certain extent within the boundaries set by the natural predisposition. For this purpose, it is crucial to understand what the key determinants of the two types of conduct are.

Determinants of Social and Aggressive Behavior

There are four major factors that may foster prosocial behavior (Paulus, 2014):

1. Situation. When there is a clear need for assistance, people are more likely to render aid. If the situation is ambiguous, they tend to restrain from interference. People from rural settings are more responsive to other peoples’ needs that those living in urban areas.
2. Social norm. Prosocial behavior relies on reciprocity principle (act towards others as they act towards you) and responsibility norm (providing help to those in need).
3. Personal characteristics. Some helpers have more empathy, feel in the proper mood to assist, or just have more competence to do it.
4. Altruism. Such behavior presupposes deep concern for other peoples’ needs.

Antisocial behavior is determined by (Byrd, Loeber, & Pardini, 2014):

1. Situation (the same as with prosocial behavior).
2. Bystander effect. The more people are present–the less likely it is that they will render help.
3. Deindividualization. People tend to behave antisocially when their personality is unknown.
4. Aggression. Aggressive behavior may be caused both by natural predisposition and the effects of failed socialization.

Antisocial behavior attracts more attention from researchers since it typically indicates psychological and socialization problems. It can be detected at rather an early age and reveals itself in the form of bullying.

Bullying

Bullying is one of the forms of aggression practiced by children and teenagers and typically intended to shift the focus of attention from one’s own drawbacks to other people’s “defects”. In order to be classified as bullying, the behavior must involve an imbalance of power and repetition (Salmivalli, 2014). There exist the following types of bullying (Juvonen & Graham, 2014):

1. Verbal assaults:

   1. name-calling;
   2. sexual comments;
   3. teasing;
   4. taunting;
   5. threatening to cause physical harm.
2. Social bullying:

   1. telling others not to talk with the person;
   2. spreading rumors;
   3. leaving someone out;
   4. confusing a person in public.
3. Physical bullying:

   1. hurting, pinching, bruising or hitting;
   2. tripping;
   3. spitting;
   4. breaking possessions;
   5. making threatening gestures.

The major problem that most of the research on bullying focuses on the classification of its types and reasons whereas it is much more important to figure out ways to deal with it since it may lead to serious relationship problems in adult life. The ability of children to socialize during their early years is the key factor that determines the quality of their future interactions.

While bullying is an environmental factor, there are also internal factors hindering social integration. They include various psychological deviations such as Autism Spectrum Disorder and Williams Syndrome.

ASD

It has long been believed that children suffering from ASD are deficient in terms of socialization, which impacts their intellectual abilities. However, they may range from totally detached to high-functioning, bright individuals. The major problem that has to be solved with such patients is that they fail to consider other people’s perspectives in relationships (Jawaid et al., 2012).

Thus, according to a new theory, the Expertise Hypothesis, which seeks to explain autistic behavior, such people do not have any particular brain problems that hinder socialization. The only deviation they have is that they have not managed to develop social skills due to their lack of interest in others’ praise, rewards, and acceptance.

The traditional approach to socialization of autistic children presupposes spending huge amounts of time trying to produce desired reactions and social activity. Children are given rewards for eye contact, verbal feedback, or any social initiative. Yet, this approach can be criticized for the lack of practical applicability: In real life, such people are not going to be praised for the social efforts they require so much of their energy and often cost them stability. Since they do not intrinsically need interaction, modern specialists restrain from forcing communication upon them. This approach can be supported by the fact that most patients with autism do not report feeling loneliness or lack of socialization (Tager-Flusberg, Skwerer, & Joseph, 2006).

Williams Syndrome

Unlike children with ASD, those with William syndrome have disorders that affect all systems of the organism: They have physical disfigurements, intellectual disabilities, heart problems, etc. However, they do not experience a lot of socialization problems due to their outgoing personality and eagerness to communicate. Although they often suffer from increased anxiety and phobias, they exhibit highly impressive social, facial recognition, and linguistic skills. Their speech is rich and eloquent, high in prosody, and features a lot of metaphors. They are empathetic, kind, caring, forgiving, and communicative (Tager-Flusberg et al., 2006).

The relationship problem they experience is completely the opposite: Their level of predisposition to interaction is inappropriate for the context. As a result, they feel lonely and frustrated. Since such children are sensitive to rejection, it is recommended to socialize them early in life. This must be done by controlling their hyperactivity, impulsivity, and overreaction (Jawaid et al., 2012).

Atypical Social Development and Cyberpsychology

When the discussion concerns social and psychological disabilities, they must be viewed both from biological and social perspectives. Even inborn disorders can aggravate when the environment provokes them. The world of globalization and information spreading has created the necessity to establish relationships not only in personal communication but also via the Internet. Since even school children today use social networks, their influence on the flexible psyche cannot be ignored.

Cyberpsychology is the study of the human mind and conduct in online communication, which investigates interactions happening to vie the Internet, smartphones, virtual reality, and any other technologies that are capable of affecting natural human behavior. It also involves the study of dangerous symptoms in children’s development connected with the use of technologies. Atypical development encompasses all deviations from the normal course of psychological formation (Norman, 2017).

Since children’s psyche is not stable enough to be subjected to cyberbullying, aggression, conflicts, an excessive flow of information, deindividualization, and other features of online communication, their mental health may be severely affected, which will result in frustration, loneliness, depression, hysteria, impaired linguistic skills, developmental delays, etc. (Parsons, 2017).

In cyberpsychology, there coexist two extreme approaches to the role of the Internet in social and psychological development. The proponents of the first one view it as a panacea for all problems including the lack of parents and teacher’s attention. On the contrary, the second group of researchers believes that the Internet is to blame for the unhealthy development of children starting from their pre-school years (Norman, 2017).

In fact, the second approach has much more supporting evidence. First and foremost, it has been proven that the number of cases of clinical depression has increased dramatically among school children with the appearance of social networks (especially Facebook): The more time they spend there, the more frustrated they feel. Depression at an early age may result in mental delay since the child’s mind is easily subject to a negative influence.

Another issue deserving attention of cyberpsychology is low self-esteem created as a result of online interactions. Children spending a lot of time surfing the Internet start comparing themselves and their experiences with others. As a result, they underestimate their abilities, talents, appearance, and daily life while overestimating others. From an early age, they start seeing themselves as losers and outsiders. This leads to aggression and unwillingness to accept their personality and image. Such children show poor academic achievement and development delay since they lose interest in their own lives (Attrill, 2015).

While children spend time on the Internet, chatting with their virtual friends, they fail to spend time with a real friend, trying to build personal relationships. Online interaction is too brief and shallow to teach kids how to behave in real-life interactions. Thus, when they encounter challenges in personal communication, they feel unable to overcome them. This develops the feeling of isolation and leads to the appearance of autistic symptoms: the loss of interest in other people, social inactivity, and excessive concentration on oneself (Attrill, 2015).

Cyber communication may cause the emergence of the fear of missing out (FOMO) in older children. Teenagers become obsessed with checking their own and their friends’ statuses in networks. Their social development becomes limited by online updates (Attrill, 2015).

Finally, there is also evidence supporting the assumption that online communication results in sleep deprivation, anxiety, and eating disorders even in young users and contribute to the development of addictive behaviors, which produce a considerable impact on the intellectual level and socialization (Suler, 2017).

When these psychological problems are not dealt with, they persist in adult life and start to affect the quality of romantic relationships.

Impact of Social Interaction in Cyberspace on Adult Relationships

The 21^st century has promoted cyberspace and virtual reality to such an extent that their popularity has produced a dramatic effect on relationships. On the one hand, this way of building bonds is easier due to reduced social anxiety and predetermined pace. On the other hand, the level of responsibility is getting lower while the ability to establish a relationship outside the cyber world is significantly hindered. There are several key arguments supporting the idea that, despite some positive aspects of cyberspace, its influence on adult relationships is detrimental (Honeycutt & Cantrill, 2014):

1. First and foremost, social interaction in cyberspace makes individuals replace the notion of real relationships for those that are only partially real. Such communication creates an illusion of knowing the interlocutor, which is impossible with the absence of personal interaction. Consequently, potential partners perceive their future relationships as those that have no life baggage–this leads to disappointment when relationships are transferred into reality (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006).
2. Cyberspace suggests oversimplified models for both friendship and romantic bonds. It is much easier to unfriend someone or to break up with the partner using social networks. As a result, adults start to view all connections as “easy come, easy go” and tend to enter and dismiss relationships without giving it much thought. This is another reason for an ever-increasing number of divorces and abandoned children. It might be argued that such a model of relationships gives partners more confidence since they believe that their independence is safe. However, this is merely perceived safety, which is, in fact, a form of responsibility avoidance and escapism.
3. Switching from real to cyber relationships, people lose interest in conflict and problem resolution. Although it may seem positive from the first sights (since a lot of conflicts are avoided due to the ability to delete an unfiltered opinion from comments or messages), this is far from being advantageous for close relationships. Nowadays more and more couples opt for online communication instead when they have to discuss relationships as they are unable to do it orally. Problems and tensions accumulate and may lead to an eventual break-up. Another aspect of this is cyberbullying, to which most children and teenagers are subject during their Internet sessions. Since any kind of comment can be produced with the identity hidden behind a nickname, it leads to open aggression and confrontations.
4. Finally, cyber relationships lead to the formation of abnormal relationship habits, which means that the person involved in them gradually loses the ability to handle complicated situations. Cyberspace does not require any self-control, filters, or limits. As a result, couples involved in online relationships are often unable to reach a compromise since it is easier for them to break up. Virtual reality gradually replaces the real world and the person loses the necessity to use skills required for personal communication. For instance, many modern couples are unable to decipher the non-verbal language and understand each other without verbal clarifications. Face expressions and gestures lose their significance. Consequently, even healthy people who did not have any inborn psychological diseases, have to encounter socialization problems typical of mental distortions.

Conclusion

Building relationships is a highly complex and multifaceted process that cannot be viewed from the perspective provided by a single theory. Although biological, evolutionary, social learning, and other approaches, seeking to explain relationship foundations have their grains of wisdom and bulk of evidence to support them, they still tend to oversimplify the process of mate selection and relationship maintenance.

Failures to establish effective connections are also explained differently by different scholars. While some view them as a result of genetic predisposition to antisocial behavior, others seek root causes in the family environment. It is yet unquestionable that the modern environment dominated by cyberspace produces an unprecedented impact on the quality of relationships and the effect of it is mostly detrimental.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 23-51.

Attrill, A. (2015). Cyberpsychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Beilin, H. (2013). The development of prosocial behavior. Cambridge: MA: Academic Press.

Bott, E., & Spillius, E. B. (2014). Family and social network: Roles, norms and external relationships in ordinary urban families. London, UK: Routledge.

Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. London, UK: Psychology Press.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559-570.

Byrd, A. L., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Antisocial behavior, psychopathic features and abnormalities in reward and punishment processing in youth. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17(2), 125-156.

Cartwright, J. (2016). Evolution and human behaviour: Darwinian perspectives on the human condition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self‐presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.

Fletcher, G. J., & Fitness, J. (2014). Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach. London, UK: Psychology Press.

Haller, J., Harold, G., Sandi, C., & Neumann, I. D. (2014). Effects of adverse early‐life events on aggression and anti‐social behaviours in animals and humans. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 26(10), 724-738.

Honeycutt, J. M., & Cantrill, J. G. (2014). Cognition, communication, and romantic relationships. London, UK: Routledge.

Jawaid, A., Riby, D. M., Owens, J., White, S. W., Tarar, T., & Schulz, P. E. (2012). ‘Too withdrawn’ or ‘too friendly’: Considering social vulnerability in two neuro‐developmental disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(4), 335-350.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(2), 159-185.

Norman, K. L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An introduction to human-computer interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ogilvie, C. A., Newman, E., Todd, L., & Peck, D. (2014). Attachment & violent offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 322-339.

Parsons, T. D. (2017). Cyberpsychology and the brain: The interaction of neuroscience and affective computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Paulus, M. (2014). The emergence of prosocial behavior: Why do infants and toddlers help, comfort, and share? Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 77-81.

Prot, S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Swing, E., Lim, K. M.,… Liau, A. K. (2014). Long-term relations among prosocial-media use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 25(2), 358-368.

Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286-292.

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293-307.

Smith, J. A. (Ed.). (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steinberg, L., Blatt‐Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), 47-58.

Suler, J. (2017). Psychoanalytic cyberpsychology. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 14(1), 97-102.

Tager-Flusberg, H., Skwerer, D. P., & Joseph, R. M. (2006). Model syndromes for investigating social cognitive and affective neuroscience: A comparison of autism and Williams syndrome. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(3), 175-182.