Attraction (Intro)- From PRACTICAL

The penchant of forming and sustaining interpersonal relationships has been innately present among mankind. One of
the biggest concerns of human beings is the need to affiliate, which is also crucial to their overall well-being.
Affiliation from an evolutionary perspective also has an advantage as interaction with other individuals helps to make
our life more secure. Hence, social psychologists differ in their views from radical behaviorists and Freudians, where
the general view is that human beings are naturally driven towards maintenance of belongingness and
establishment. Interpersonal Attraction is defined as, “the evaluation one person makes of another along a dimension
that ranges from strong liking to strong dislike” (Baron & Byrne, 2000) Attraction refers to the positive and negative
evaluations or attitudes we form about people. Attraction is a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses a range of
emotional, cognitive, and behavioural responses. This concept plays a crucial role in understanding interpersonal
relationships and human social behaviour. Attraction can manifest in various forms, including physical, romantic,
sexual, intellectual, and social dimensions. Attraction plays a significant role in affiliation, shaping the dynamics of
human association. Interpersonal attraction, at the very core, plays the role of a catalyst, leading to the formation of
associations, prompting people to develop worthwhile connections with each other.

Interpersonal attraction is the force that draws one person to another. It is the subjective perception of the qualities in
another person that motivate a wish to interact with him or her. Attraction is an important as well as an interesting
topic because it marks the starting point for all romantic relationships and friendships.

These relationships are important for mental health because they meet the basic human need for affiliation and
provide protection against the negative effects of social isolation, such as feeling lonely and worthless.

Theories of attraction (Sanaa)

Uni-dimensional theory
Two-dimensional theory
Attraction occurs between P and O

Attraction theories are frameworks that try and explain the reasons people are drawn to one another, ultimately
forming interpersonal relationships. Understanding the principles underlying attraction helps in unraveling the
complex nature of human relationships. Several theorists have propounded theories to explain the attraction, some of
which are:

1. Social Exchange Theory

 • This theory sees relationships as forming a kind of marketplace in which we go looking for the best deal that
we can find.
• It suggests that whether we pursue or withdraw, following an initial attraction, is influenced by our assessment
of the potential rewards and costs.
• Rewards in this context are the positive qualities that can make a relationship worthwhile and enjoyable, such
as companionship, shared interests, emotional closeness and support, and even envy of friends.
• Costs can be anything in a relationship that can cause negative feelings, such as a partner who has a loud
voice, odd personal habits, or who is unreliable or unfaithful.
• According to the theory, we tend to pursue a “minimax” strategy in forming relationships. That is, we usually
try to obtain the maximum level of reward while at the same time minimizing any potential costs.
• When we have several possibilities to choose from, adopting a minimax strategy can help us to decide what to
do.
• Rewards and costs are not necessarily all apparent at the beginning of a relationship
• Social exchange theory also argues that our feelings of attraction are dependent on our ideas about what sort
of relationships we deserve or can realistically expect (the comparison level).
• Thus we may avoid expressing attraction towards someone we judge to be from a higher social class than
ourselves because we think it would be unrealistic to expect them to be interested in us.
• We also include a judgement about the likelihood of finding a better relationship with someone else (the
comparison level for alternatives) in our calculations.
• The less likely it is that we will find someone else, the more content we will be with a lower level of reward
and a higher level of cost.
• Social Exchange Theory can explain much of the research evidence about the role of proximity and
similarity.
• Festinger et al. (1950) tracked friendship formation among couples in university residences and found that the
closer together people lived, even within a building, the more likely they were to become close friends.
• This can be explained by the fact that proximity reduces one of the possible costs to a relationship, namely the
need to spend time looking for someone that you might find attractive.
• Similarity is also rewarding and therefore functions as an attractant because it promises a relationship with
fewer costs (such as disagreements) than might be the case if couples were less similar.
• It has been found for example that attraction correlates highly to personality similarity.
• Specifically, people look for romantic partners who are similar to themselves on such factors as agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, and openness to experience, (Botwin et al. 1997).
• Similarity also promotes relationship commitment. A study of heterosexual dating couples found that
similarity of values was linked to relationship commitment and stability (Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt, 1997).

Some strengths and limitations of social exchange theory

Possibly, social exchange theory is more realistic than reward theory since it includes the idea that there are costs as
well as rewards in all relationships. On the other hand, it implies that we are all “rational perceivers” who total up the
possible rewards, subtract the likely costs and act on the result. Relationship formation is probably much less rational
and more subject to purely emotional influences than this model suggests.

2. Equity Theory

In this scheme, Equity Theory explains mutual attraction. This says that once each person in a dyad has calculated
their rewards and costs and thinks the rewards are sufficient to outweigh the potential costs, then as long as each half
of the dyad stands to benefit to an approximately equal degree, mutual attraction stands a good chance of developing
into a relationship.

However, human behavior tends to be more complicated than this model suggests. Research suggests that we graduate
our expectations, that is, we expect higher levels of reward if a relationship is judged to be potentially high in costs.

3. The Evolutionary Approach/Theory

In the case of interpersonal attraction, evolutionary psychology takes the view that the biological purpose of attraction
is reproduction.

• It therefore argues that interpersonal attraction is driven by the human genome rather than by learning as in
the reinforcement-affect model or by rational calculation as in social exchange theory.
• Consequently, people will be attracted to potential partners who appear to be fertile with the potential to
produce healthy offspring.

Regan and Berscheid (1997) found that both sexes rated physical attractiveness as the most important characteristic in
assessing the desirability of another person as a romantic partner.

Dunbar and Waynforth examined 900 US lonely-hearts advertisements from four newspapers. They found that women
were more likely to advertise themselves as youthful and physically attractive while males tended to highlight their
economic status. From an evolutionary perspective this is because the sexes have different priorities in mate selection
that reflect their different contributions to the production and rearing of children.

• In evolutionary terms, what counts most towards attractiveness are the signs of health and fertility. Research
has found that women tend to be more attracted to men who have the indicators for good testosterone levels
such as height, narrow waist, broad shoulders and masculine facial features such as a broad forehead,
prominent chin and brow and well-defined cheekbones, (Schacht, 2005).
• It has also been found that women are looking for ability to contribute to the successful raising of any
offspring. They therefore show a preference for men who will be strong and supportive and who are able to
show social and economic advantages, such as having a good job with a steady income.
 • ‘Kind’ and humorous, men are more attractive, possibly because these are clues to an individual who will
form a strong relationship bond and will be able to cope with the demands of child-rearing, (Buss, 1989).
• Men on the other hand are more interested in women who possess the characteristics associated with health
and youth and reproductive capacity such as having a slim waist, good teeth, a clear unwrinkled skin. and the
classic “hourglass figure”.
• Facial symmetry is an indicator of “good genes” in both sexes, so they are also attracted by that and by
“juvenile features” including full lips, a high forehead, broad face, small chin, small nose, short and narrow
jaw, high cheekbones, and wide-set eyes. Long hair, and clear smooth skin, are also preferred, (Cunningham
et al., 1990).
• There is agreement among different cultures about what constitutes female attractiveness and this strengthens
the argument that interpersonal attraction is guided by the human genome.
• For example, Singh (1993) has shown that, across different cultures, men prefer woman whose waists are
about 7/10 of the circumference of their hips. He suggests that this is because a small waist is associated with
high levels of oestrogen and low levels of testosterone, both of which are linked to high fertility. A woman
with a small waist is also unlikely to already have experienced childbirth or to be pregnant. Both these factors
are likely to render a woman much less attractive.

Some strengths and limitations of evolutionary approach

This approach ties interpersonal attraction firmly to the reproductive function of conjugal relationships. This is both a
strength and a limitation because while attraction is the first step in finding a mate and producing a family for some
people, this approach ignores the fact that relationships have other functions, such as mutual support and
companionship. Nor, does it adequately explain how or why same sex couples are attracted to each other or why
people who do not wish to have children nevertheless experience interpersonal attraction.

Factors affecting Attraction (Sanskriti)

maintenance factors

There could be numerous factors which influence interpersonal attraction. his question has been well researched, to
identify several important factors that determine how we come to like people even more:

· Proximity
One of the simplest determinants of interpersonal attraction is propinquity (also known as proximity). The people
who, by chance, are the ones you see and interact with the most often are the most likely to become your friends and
lovers.

Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back (1950) tracked friendship formation among the couples in the
various apartment buildings. One section of the complex, Westgate West, was composed of 17 two- story buildings,
each having 10 apartments. Residents had been assigned to apartments at random, and nearly all were strangers when
they moved in. The researchers asked residents to name their three closest friends in the complex. Just as the
propinquity effect would predict, 65% of the friends mentioned lived in their same building, even though the other
buildings were not far away. Festinger and his colleagues (1950) demonstrated that attraction and propinquity rely not
only on actual physical distance but also on “functional distance,” which refers to aspects of architectural design that
determine which people you cross paths with most often.

Propinquity works because of familiarity, or the mere exposure effect: The more exposure we have to a stimulus, the
more apt we are to like it. One of the earliest and most famous demonstrations of the mere exposure effect was
conducted by Robert Zajonc (1968) who asked American participants to guess the meaning of a series of Chinese
characters. The more frequently a character was shown to them, the more positive a meaning people guessed for it,
demonstrating that mere exposure tends to predict positive attitudes.

· Similarity

Propinquity increases familiarity, which leads to liking. But more than that is needed to fuel a growing friendship or a
romantic relationship. That “fuel” is often similarity—a match between interests, attitudes, values, background, or
personality. Empirical support for the “similarity hypothesis” was gathered by Francis Galton, who obtained
correlational data on married couples and found that spouses resembled one another in many respects.

o Opinions & Personality

A large body of research indicates that the more similar someone’s opinions are to yours, the more you will like the
person. For example, in a classic study, Theodore Newcomb (1961) randomly assigned male students at the University
of Michigan to be roommates in a particular dormitory at the start of the school year. Men became friends with those
who were demographically similar (e.g., shared a rural background), as well as with those who were similar in
attitudes and values (e.g., were also engineering majors or also held comparable political views).

o Interests & Experiences

We choose to enter into certain social situations where we then find similar others. For example, in a study of
academic “tracking”, researchers found that students were significantly more likely to choose friends from inside their
track than from outside it. Clearly, propinquity and initial similarity play a role in the formation of these friendships.
However, the researchers add that similarity plays yet another role: Over time, students in the same academic track
share many of the same experiences, which are different from the experiences of those in other tracks. Thus, new
similarities are created and discovered, fueling the friendships. In short, shared experiences promote attraction.

o Appearance

Similarity also operates when it comes to more superficial considerations. Sean Mackinnon, Christian Jordan, and
Anne Wilson (2011) conducted a series of studies examining physical similarity and seating choice. In one study, they
simply analysed the seating arrangement of college students in a library computer lab, making observations multiple
times over the course of several different days. Results indicated that, for instance, students who wore glasses sat next
to other students with glasses far more often than random chance alone would predict. A second study found the same
pattern by hair colour. Without even realizing it, we are often drawn to those who look like
us, to the point where people are even more likely to ask out on dates others who are similar to them in terms of
attractiveness level

o Genetics

People also tend to be drawn to others who are genetically similar to them. That is, friends tend to have more similar
DNA than do strangers. This is the surprising conclusion of research conducted by Nicholas Christakis and James
Fowler (2014). Their study included close to 2,000 participants, some of whom were friends and some of whom were
strangers, and analysed close to 1.5 million markers of gene variation. Christakis and Fowler (2014) found that
participants shared more DNA with their friends than with strangers, to a degree that participants were as genetically
similar to their average friend as they would be to someone who shared a great-great- great grandparent.

Of course, these data do not prove that our genes cause friendships or that our DNA drives people toward certain
others. As noted previously, people tend to make friends with others who live near them, and individuals of similar
genetic ancestry may be more likely to share such geographical propinquity.

· Physical Attractiveness

physical appearance is a powerful factor in our liking for others , and even in our selection of prospective and actual
mates. Both in experiments and in the real world, physical appearance determines many types of interpersonal
evaluations. For instance, attractive defendants are found guilty by judges and juries less often than unattractive ones.
Studies have reported that men value attractiveness more than women do (Buss, 1989; Meltzer et al., 2014). A meta-
analysis of many studies found that although both sexes value attractiveness, men value it a bit more.

attractive people are viewed as possessing desirable characteristics such as intelligence, good health, kindness, and
generosity, to a greater extent than less attractive people. One possibility, first suggested by Dion, Berscheid, and
Walster (1972), is that we possess a very positive stereotype for highly attractive people—a physical attractiveness
stereo- type. Evidence for this interpretation has been obtained in many studies, and it has been the most widely
accepted view for many years. Certainly, it makes good sense: If we do possess a favourable stereotype for physically
attractive people, then, as is true with all stereotypes, this cognitive framework strongly shapes our perceptions of
others and our thinking about them. Recent findings (Lemay et al., 2010) indicate that one reason why we tend to
perceive “beautiful people as also good” (i.e., as having desirable characteristics), is that our own desire to form
relationships with them leads us to project similar feelings to them. We want to get close to them, so we project these
feelings onto them, and rate them more favourably.

Lemay et al. (2010) propose that three steps are involved. First, we desire to form relationships with attractive people.
Second, this strong desire leads us to perceive them as inter- personally responsive in return—as kinder, more
outgoing, and socially warmer than less attractive people. In other words, we project our own desire to form
relationships with these people to them, and it is this projection that generates very positive perceptions of them.

Fig 1: “What is Beautiful is Good” Effect

Appearance anxiety refers to social anxiety surrounding overall appearance, including body shape, and fear of
negative evaluation by others. It is apprehension or worry about whether ones physical appearance is adequate and
about the evaluations of other people.

· Reciprocal Liking

It refers to Attractions towards those who are attracted to us or liking those who like us. Liking is so powerful that it
can even make up for the absence of similarity. For example, in one experiment, when a young woman expressed
interest in male research participants simply by maintaining eye contact, leaning toward them, and listening
attentively, the men expressed great liking for her despite the fact that they knew she disagreed with them on
important issues. Whether the clues are nonverbal or verbal, per- haps the most crucial determinant of whether we like
person A is the extent to which we believe person A likes us.

Once two people discovered that they are sufficiently similar to be able to move towards establishing a friendship, one
step next each individual must somehow communicate liking and a positive evaluation of the other. Most of us are
pleased to receive positive feedback and displeased to received negative evaluations. A positive evaluation no matter
how inaccurate is very much welcome.
 · Affect

People’s emotional state (happy, sad, fearful etc) at any given moment influences interpersonal attraction. It has
impact upon perception, thinking, liking, disliking. The two most important characteristics of affect are: intensity- the
strength of the emotion and direction- whether emotion is positive and negative
Affect influences attraction in two ways;
Direct Affect – It occurs when another person says or does something that makes you feel good or bad. A likes B if B
makes A feel good. And we dislike someone who makes us feel bad.

Indirect Affect- a less obvious way. An associated effect occurs when another person is simply present at the moment
your emotional state is positive or negative, for reasons that have nothing to do with the person to whom we are
responding or evaluating. Though he or she was not the cause of how you feel, you nevertheless tend to evaluate the
other person on the basis of your own affective state.

Situational factors
Social context – norms
Perceived social norms

- Friendships across time/ stages from YOUTH NOTES

Love over Internet YOUTH NOTES

Sternberg triangle of love (Khushi)

Three Components
The triangular theory of love holds that love can be understood in terms of three components that together can be
viewed as forming the vertices of a triangle. These three components are intimacy (the top vertex of the triangle),
passion (the left-hand vertex of the triangle), and decision/commitment (the right-hand vertex of the triangle).
Each of these three terms can be used in many different ways, so it is important at the outset to clarify their meanings
in the context of the present theory.

The intimacy component refers to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships. It
thus includes within its purview those feelings that give rise, essentially, to the experience of warmth in a loving
relationship.
The passion component refers to the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and
related phenomena in loving relationships. The passion component thus includes within its purview those sources of
motivational and other forms of arousal that lead to the experience of passion in a loving relationship.
The decision/commitment component refers to, in the short term, the decision that one loves someone else, and in the
long term, the commitment to maintain that love. The decision/commitment component thus includes within its
purview the cognitive elements that are involved in decision making about the existence of and potential long-term
commitment to a loving relationship.
Kinds of Love
There are eight possible subsets of the various components of love. Each of these subsets differs in the kind of loving
experience to which it gives rise. Consider the limiting cases.

1. Nonlove. Nonlove refers simply to the absence of all three components of love. Nonlove characterizes the large
majority of our personal relationships, which are simply casual interactions that do not partake of love at all.

2. Liking. Liking results when one experiences only the intimacy component of love in the absence of passion and
decision/ commitment. The term liking is used here in a nontrivial sense, not merely to describe the feelings one has
toward casual acquaintances and passers-by in one's life. Rather, it refers to the set of feelings one experiences in
relationships that can truly be characterized as friendships. One feels closeness, bondedness, and warmth toward
the other, without feelings of intense passion or long-term commitment. It is possible for friendships to have elements
of passionate arousal or long-term commitment, but in such cases, the friendship goes beyond mere liking and is best
classified in one of the categories below. A test that can distinguish mere liking from love that goes beyond liking is
the absence test.

3. Infatuated love. Infatuated love is "love at first sight." Infatuated love, or simply, infatuation, results from the
experiencing of passionate arousal in the absence of the intimacy and decision/ commitment components of love.
Infatuations are usually rather easy to spot, although they tend to be somewhat easier for others to spot than for the
individual who is experiencing the infatuation. Infatuations can arise almost instantaneously and dissipate as quickly
under the right circumstances. They tend to be characterized by a high degree of psychophysiological arousal,
manifested in somatic symptoms such as increased heartbeat or even palpitations of the heart, increased
hormonal secretions, erection of genitals (penis or clitoris), and so on.

4. Empty love. This kind of love emanates from the decision that one loves another and has commitment to that
love in the absence of both the intimacy and passion components of love. It is the kind of love one sometimes finds
in stagnant relationships that have been going on for years but that have lost both the mutual emotional
involvement and physical attraction that once characterized them. Unless the commitment to the love is very strong,
such love can be close to none at all, because commitment can be so susceptible to conscious modification

5. Romantic love. This kind of love derives from a combination of the intimacy and passion components of love. In
essence, it is liking with an added element, namely, the arousal brought about by physical attraction and its
concomitants. According to this view, then, romantic lovers are not only drawn physically to each other but are
also bonded emotionally.

6. Companionate love. This kind of love evolves from a combination of the intimacy and decision/commitment
components of love. It is essentially a long-term, committed friendship, the kind that frequently occurs in marriages
in which the physical attraction (a major source of passion) has died down.
7. Fatuous love. Fatuous love results from the combination of the passion and decision/commitment components in
the absence of the intimacy component. It is the kind of love we sometimes associate with Hollywood, or with
whirlwind courtships, in which a couple meets on Day X, gets engaged two weeks later, and marries the next month. It
is fatuous in the sense that a commitment is made on the basis of passion without the stabilizing element of intimate
involvement. Although the passion component can develop almost instantaneously, the intimacy component cannot,
and hence relationships based on fatuous love are at risk for termination and, in the case of shot-gun marriages, for
divorce.

8. Consummate love. Consummate, or complete, love results from the full combination of the three components. It is
a kind of love toward which many of us strive, especially in romantic relationships. Attaining consummate love can
be analogous in at least one respect to meeting one's target in a weight-reduction program: Reaching the goal is often
easier than maintaining it. The attainment of consummate love is no guarantee that it will last. Indeed, its loss is
sometimes analogous to the gain of weight after a weight-reduction program: One is often not aware of the loss of the
goal until it is far gone.

Lee’s wheel of love (Sanaa)

John Lee presented this theory in 1973 and divided love into six types using different Greek words for love. It was
first presented in his book Colours of Love: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving. He has identified three
primary, three secondary and three tertiary types of love. He has described them with the help of a traditional color
wheel. According to him, the three primary type are eros, ludus and storge whereas the secondary ones are mania,
pragma and agape. (Lee, J. A. 1977)

Primary types of love

Eros (Romance)

is romantic and passionate love. It involves a strong physical and emotional attraction. It can be said that the term
being in love belongs to this type. It starts with the process of getting to know each other resulting in loving someone
in a long-term relationship. It is highly intense, sensual and passionate type of love. Erotic lovers choose their lovers
by intuition or "chemistry." They are more likely to saythey fell in love at first sight than those of other love styles.
Erotic lovers view marriage as an extended honeymoon.

Ludus (Conquest)

Means in Latin "game" is used by those who see love as a desiring to want to have fun with each other, to do activities
indoor and outdoor, tease, indulge, and play harmless pranks on each other. Refers to a love that is playful and
involves fun rather that a long-term commitment. Such type of lover is not interested in a long-term relationship. An
example of it would be the dating sites where people look for short-term relationships. Ludic lovers choose their
partners by playing the field, and quickly recover from break-ups, as they immediately look for replacements.
Storge (Friendship)

is a love based on friendship. Although it lacks passion in the begging, it gradually progresses from such to
commitment. A relationship lacking passion may also be defined as such type of love. Storge is familial love. There is
a love between siblings, spouses, cousins, parents and children. Storge necessitates certain familial loyalties,
responsibilities, duties and entitlements. The dwelling is to be sanctuary for its members and all members of a family
are to pull through together in difficult times.

Secondary types of love

Mania (Obsession= Eros+Ludos)

is an obsessive type of love. Such a person views his partner as something the “need”. They indulge in behaviors such
as stalking to try to reciprocate their obsessive love. Love is a means of rescue, or a reinforcement of value. Manic
lovers value finding a partner through chance without prior knowledge of financial, educational, or personality
dispositions. Insufficient expression of the love of mania by one's partner can cause one to perceive the partner as
aloof, materialistic and detached. In excess, mania becomes obsession or Co-dependency and could come about as
being very possessive and jealous

Pragma (Practicality=. Ludos+Storge)

is practical and mutually beneficial love. One looks for a partner with similar interests or for specific reasons, such as
producing children. It is somewhat unromantic. Pragmatic lovers have a notion of being of service which they
perceive to be rational and realistic. While they may be sincere about being useful themselves it also translates to also
having expectations in a partner and of the relationship. They tend to select and reject partners accordingly based on
what they perceive desirable, compatible traits. Pragmatic lovers want to find value in their partners, and ultimately
want to work with their partner to reach a common goal. The practicality and realism of pragmatic love often aides
longevity of the relationship, as long as common goals and values remain shared for the duration. Excessive thinking
along these lines causes a relationship to be seen for its utility or as a trade or exchange. The attitude can become
disdainful and toxic if one sees the other as a burden. Emphasis switches to earning, affordability, child care or home
service

Agape (Seflessness= Eros+Storge)

The purest form of love, derives its definition of love from being altruistic towards one's partner and feeling love in
the acts of doing so refers to truly selfless love. One experiencing it is more interested in giving rather than receiving.
This type is rare and is most likely to be experienced as a parent. Agapic lovers view their partners as blessings and
wish to take care of them. The agapic lover gets more pleasure from giving in a relationship than from receiving. They
will remain faithful to their partners to avoid causing them pain and often wait patiently for their partners after a
break-up. Agape requires one to be forgiving, patient, understanding, loyal, and willing to make sacrifices for their
partner. Agapic love believes itself to be unconditional, though lovers taking an agapic stance to relationships risk
suffering from inattention to their own needs. The advantage of agapic love is its generosity. A disadvantage is that it
can induce feelings of guilt or incompetence in a partner. There is the potential to be taken advantage of. In its deviant
form, agape can become Martyrdom. Martyrdom for principle may be acceptable; martyrdom to maintain a
relationship is considered psychologically unhealthy.

A study found that the love styles of a partner could be a good indicator of level of deception one would experience in
a relationship (Mehta et al., 2018). The highest was on Eros and Lowest on Storge. The reason stated was that because
Eros is when people fall in love with the other person’s physical attractiveness & they seek sexual adventures and
thrills. It is more of a passionate superficial love. On the other hand, Storge is when the relationship is based on
friendship, shared values, goals etc. and they don’t rank physical attractiveness as high. It is also a mixture of Pragma
i.e Practical Love- when people look for some things in particular for eg: financial status, religion or education. It is
more mature and compassionate. Thus, one of the most important causes of Deception are the different Love Styles.
[https://indianmentalhealth.com/pdf/2018/vol5-issue1/Original-Research-Article-22.pdf]

Types of relationships- platonic, friends, relationships (Khushi)

- exchange – cost – reward ratio
- communal – mutual love and concern
Communal and exchange relations

"Communal" relationships are distinguished from "exchange" relationships by rules governing the giving and
receiving of benefits in each.

Clark and Mills (1979; Mills and Clark, 1982) have distinguished between two types of relationships based on rules
governing the giving and receiving of benefits in each. One type is characterized by mutual feelings of
responsibility for the other's well-being. Benefits are given in response to the other's needs or simply to please the
other with no expectations of specific repayment) These communal relationships are often typified by family
relationships, romantic involvements, and friendships. In the second type, people do not feel a special responsibility
for each other's needs. Rather, benefits are given to repay debts created by benefits previously received or in
anticipation of receiving specific repayment in the future. These exchange relationships are often typified by
interactions between strangers, casual acquaintances, and business associates.

Behaviors in Accord with Exchange Norms

• Prompt Repayment for Specific Benefits Received

Prompt repayment should promote perceptions of justice in exchange relationships but may cause distress in
communal relationships.

• Giving and Receiving Comparable Benefits

Because repayment for specific benefits is appropriate in exchange but not in communal relationships, Clark (1981)
reasoned that any variable that causes benefits to appear to be repayment for a benefit previously received should
produce more positive reactions in exchange than in communal relationships.

• Requesting Repayment for Benefits" Given

Requesting repayment is another behavior that should be seen as appropriate in exchange but not communal
relationships

Behaviors in Accord With Communal Norms

Communal behaviors are those reflecting feelings of special obligation for the other's needs and expectations that the
other will feel a special obligation for one's own needs

• Giving Help

It demonstrates concern for the other's well-being, help-giving should be more expected and should occur more often
in communal than in exchange relationships.

• Feeling Good About Helping and Bad About Refusing to Help

The work just reviewed suggests that people desiring (or having) communal relationships have a greater motivation to
meet the other's needs than do those desiring (or having) exchange relationships.

• Keeping Track of the Other's Needs/Taking the Other's Perspective

Communal norms specify that benefits are given in response to the other's needs. Living up to these norms requires
taking the other's perspective and attending to indications of the other's needs. Research supports both ideas

Study by Clark and Mills -

Based on the distinction between communal and exchange relationships proposed by Clark and Mills (1979) and Mills
and Clark (1982), the study made the following predictions: (a) Individuals engaged in exchange relationships would
monitor individual contributions to joint tasks, while (b) those in communal relationships would not. These
hypotheses were tested across three studies where participants collaborated on a task with a partner, either desiring or
having a communal relationship (a) or desiring or having an exchange relationship (b). The task involved identifying
and encircling number sequences in a large matrix, with the color of pens used serving as the dependent measure. If
partners used pens of the same color, individual inputs were obscured; if different color pens were used, individual
inputs were clear. The proportion of subjects choosing different color pens was analyzed: if it exceeded 50%, it
suggested an effort to track individual inputs, and if it was below 50%, it indicated an attempt to avoid tracking
individual inputs.
Consistent with predictions, in all three studies, participants in exchange relationships were significantly more likely
to choose a different color pen, surpassing the 50% chance level. This pattern was significantly more prevalent in the
exchange conditions compared to the communal conditions, supporting the idea that those in exchange relationships
sought to monitor individual inputs. As anticipated, in no instance did the percentage exceed 50% in communal
conditions, affirming that individuals in communal relationships generally did not engage in tracking individual
inputs. Additionally, when participants anticipated, rather than had an existing, communal relationship (Study 1), the
proportion of communal subjects choosing a different color pen was significantly lower than 50%, reinforcing the
distinction between communal and exchange relationship dynamics.

Attachment styles (Sanskriti)

John Bowlby
John Bowlby , a British psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst, developed attachment theory, which focuses on the
importance of a secure and trusting mother-infant bond on development and wellbeing.
• He identified four phases of attachment.
• These stages reflect a process where each step builds upon the last, leading to a strong, secure attachment under ideal
circumstances.
• Bowlby believed that these attachments serve a crucial evolutionary function: they increase the infant’s chance of
survival by ensuring its safety and care

(1) Pre-attachment Stage

• Birth to 3 months
• The infant does not show any preferences for adults and will not fuss when being picked up by strangers.
• During those first few weeks the infant exhibits many actions to get the attention of the caregiver. This can include
crying and smiling, which will illicit immediate action from the primary caregiver.
• Although not fully and exclusively attached to the caregiver at this time, the bond is beginning to form. The
caregiver’s reactions to the infant’s signals, and the positive responses from the infant, begin to create a strong
emotional attachment between the two

(2) Indiscriminate Attachment

• 6 Weeks to 7 Months
• During this stage, infants develop a sense of trust in the people who respond to their needs.
• They start to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people, preferring familiar people, but they still accept care
from strangers. They don’t yet protest when separated from a parent

(3) Discriminate Attachment

• 7 to 11 months of age
• At this age, infants show a strong attachment and preference for one specific individual.
• They will protest when separated from the primary attachment figure (separation anxiety), and begin to be anxious
around strangers (stranger anxiety).
(4) Multiple Attachments
• 10 to 11 months or more
• Attachment behaviors are displayed towards several different people.
• This often includes a second parent, older siblings, and grandparents

Attachment styles are characterized by different ways of interacting and behaving in relationships. During early
childhood, these attachment styles are centered on how children and parents interact. In adulthood, attachment styles
are used to describe patterns of attachment in romantic relationships. The concept of attachment styles grew out the
attachment theory and research that emerged throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Ambivalent Attachment
• When infants or children receive love and affection sporadically from their parents or caregivers in infancy and
childhood, it can result in long-lasting challenges. This may include an anxious ambivalent attachment pattern.
• When the parent is inconsistent in their behavior and attitude towards a child, they may struggle to understand why
love and affection are randomly given or taken away.

Avoidant Attachment
• Children with an avoidant attachment tend to avoid parents or caregivers, showing no preference between a caregiver
and a complete stranger.
• This attachment style might be a result of abusive or neglectful caregivers. Children who are punished for relying on
a caregiver will learn to avoid seeking help in the future.

Disorganized Attachment
• The disorganized attachment style is characterized by demonstrating inconsistent behaviors and having a hard time
trusting others.
• This style develops in children whose caregivers were a source of perceived fear, instead of safety and connection

Secure Attachment
• The capacity to connect well and securely in relationships with others while also having the capacity for autonomous
action as situationally appropriate

Loving people who love themselves (NALLA TOPIX)

Erikson – identity crisis and then intimacy

1. Erik Erikson (1968) argues that identity versus identity confusion—pursuing who we are, what we are all about,
and where we are going in life—is the most important issue to be negotiated in adolescence.

2. In early adulthood, according to Erikson, after individuals are well on their way to establishing stable and
successful identities, they enter the sixth developmental stage, which is intimacy versus isolation.
3. Erikson describes intimacy as finding oneself while losing oneself in another person, and it requires a commitment
to another person. If a person fails to develop an intimate relationship in early adulthood, according to Erikson,
isolation results.

4. Development in early adulthood often involves balancing intimacy and commitment on the one hand, and
independence and freedom on the other.

5. Erikson (1950) said that people must resolve their identity crisis and know who they are before they are ready to
start working on intimacy.

Rogers (1961) focused on self-actualization (the global process of cultivating your talents and becoming a better
person all around) rather than self-love. He also thought that people needed to receive unconditional love before they
were ready to reach self-actualization.

Maslow (1968) likewise proposed that belongingness and love needs were more basic than self-esteem needs.

• Evidence is at best weak and inconsistent in terms of showing that loving yourself contributes to loving others.

SELF-ESTEEM:
• People with low self-esteem doubt that they are lovable, so they expect others to leave them.
• People with high self-esteem think they are lovable, so they think they can find a new partner relatively
easily.
• The net result may be that high and low self-esteem people break up at about the same rare, but for different
reasons.
• The other side of the coin is that people of all levels of self-esteem can have lasting, successful relationships.

NARCISSISM :
• Narcissists have high self-esteem and a strong though somewhat unstable self-love, but these qualities do not
make for good relationships. They seek out successful, beautiful, admired people to date, because they think
they are similar to them, and they believe that the glamour or prestige of their partners makes them look good
(Campbell, 1999).
• Narcissists tend to hog the credit when things go well but blame their partners when things go badly (Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001; Schütz, 2000,2001), which can certainly put a strain on a relationship.
• Narcissists tend to be less committed to love relationships than other people are (Campbell & Foster, 2002).
• Narcissists tend to keep one eye on the relationship but another eye out to see whether a better partner
might come along.
• Narcissists think they are superior beings and overestimate how attractive they are; as a result, they
think they can and should have the most desirable romantic partners.
• If self-love leads to loving others, narcissists should be the best lovers, because they love themselves the
most
 • Narcissism is one problematic extreme, some less extreme versions of self-love and self-esteem may be
helpful for relationships.
• A more minimal form of self-love is self-acceptance, which means simply regarding yourself as being a
reasonably good person as you are. It is found to be linked to more positive interactions with spouse (Schütz,
1999).
• Similarly, having a very negative, critical attitude toward yourself can interfere with the capacity to love.

Studies:
(King, 2012): Individuals high in narcissistic qualities experienced fearfulness in the same way for both males and
females. When females were fearful, the male fanaticized more about power or success. On the other hand, when
the male was fearful, he was less likely to fanaticize about power and success.

Bogart, Benotsch, and Pavlovic (2004): when they explain that the narcissistic self tends to be fragile and in need
of positive attention. This would also indicate that the individual high in narcissistic traits is willing to change
relationship styles based upon situational factors in order to maintain a relationship that provides the attention they
need

(Altınok et al., 2020): narcissism was associated with low relationship satisfaction, and decreased satisfaction was
consistently related to infidelity. In other words, this negative association between narcissism and relationship
satisfaction was mediated by intentions towards infidelity. As the literature has suggested, narcissistic individuals
are less satisfied with long-term relationships, less committed to their romantic partners, and more engaged with
infidelity

(Campbell 2002; Foster et al., 2006;Zeigler-hill, 2013;Mattingly, 2011): Narcissism is associated with poor
relationship function such as lack of relationship commitment, low emotional intimacy and sexual aggression,
increased interest in sexual processes, and high levels of infidelity engagement. Narcissistic romantic partners are
less faithful, less emotionally intimate, less inclined to link sex with intimacy, and eager to have multiple sexual
partners

Maintaining Relationships (Sanaa)

How people deal with temptation, especially the temptation to seek other possible partners.
Miller (1997) had people in dating relationships look ai photos of attractive members of the opposite sex and recorded
how long they looked at them.
He contacted the participants months later to see whether they were still together with the same relationship partner.
The longer they had looked, the more likely they were to break up.

Exposing yourself to temptation (even just by looking at photos of attractive members of the opposite sex) is one sign
that the person may be drifting toward breaking up.
 • Men and women respond to relationship threats and temptations in different ways,
• Meeting a tempting new partner makes men entertain the possibility of a new relationship instead of the one
they have, whereas women try to defend their current relationship.

• Lydon, Menzies-Toman, Burton, & Bell (2008) did a series of experiments and found that when people in
committed relationships were introduced to an attractive single person (or, in other studies, imagined this
experience).

• Women reacted to meeting a desirable man by increasing their commitment to their current partner, such as by
tolerating his faults more, thinking more positively about him, or increasing her level of commitment to him.
Recent research suggests that because of gender differences in relational identities, women will experience
relationship threats as threats to the self (Burton & Lydon, 2004). Therefore, women in the current studies
may be engaging in processes that protect their relationships because the relationship represents their own
self-interest.
• Men reacted to meeting an attractive single woman by reducing their commitment to women. Imagining an
interaction with the opposite sex was not sufficient enough to activiate thoughts of commitment and threat in
men. Men were less likely to approach an attractive alternative when they learned to prioritize protecting their
relationship if such a situation arose.

Do relationships get better each day?

Sprecher (1999) had people report on their relationship quality year after year, and also report on changes.
People in happy relationships consistently said their relationship was better each year.
But if their rating of the current year was compared with how they rated it last year, there was no change. The ever-
improving relationship is largely a myth.
Good relationships essentially stay the same over long periods of time.

These results thus indicated that beliefs about increases in positive feelings in the relationship were associated with
relationship stability, controlling for relationship length and contemporaneous feelings, and demonstrating the
importance of positive beliefs and optimism for the maintenance and continuation of romantic relationships

The finding that the length of the relationship was associated with stability is consistent with a similar finding from
several other studies examining predictors of the stability of dating relationships (e.g., Felmlee, Sprecher, & Bassin,
1990; Simpson, 1987).

Duration of relationship is thought to represent how invested one is in the relationship (Rusbult & Martz, 1995), and
investments are theoretically associated with longevity of relationships (e.g., Rusbult, 1983).

Pro–social behavior, Altruism, and Helping beh. (Sanaa)

altruism and passive bystander
prosocial behaviour broadly encompasses acts that are valued positively by society – contrast it with antisocial
behaviour.
Prosocial behavior is defined as “actions by individuals that help others (often, with no immediate benefit to the
helper)” (Baron and Branscombe, 2018)

Lauren Wispé (1972) defined prosocial behaviour as “behaviour that has positive social consequences and contributes
to the physical or psychological well-being of another person. It is voluntary and is intended to benefit others.”

Being prosocial includes both being helpful and altruistic. It also includes acts of charity, cooperation, friendship,
rescue, sacrifice, sharing, sympathy, and trust. What is considered prosocial is defined by society’s norms.

Helping Behaviour, Altruism and Pro social Behaviour

helping behaviour is a subcategory of prosocial behaviour.

• Helping is intentional, and it benefits another living being or group. If you accidentally drop a ten-pound note
and some- one finds it and spends it, you have not performed a helping behaviour. But if you gave ten pounds
to someone who really needed it, you have helped her.
• On the other hand, making a large public donation to a charity because you wanted to appear generous is not
helping behaviour. Some corporate donations to a good cause may be driven by product promotion; e.g. in
pursuit of a long-term increase in profit.
• Helping can even be antisocial; e.g. overhelping, when giving help is designed to make others look inferior
(Gilbert & Silvera, 1996).

Altruism is another subcategory of prosocial behaviour.

It refers to an act that is meant to benefit another person rather than oneself. True altruism should be selfless, but it can
be difficult to prove true selflessness (Batson, 1991).

For example, can we ever really know that an act does not stem from a long-term ulterior motive, such as ingratiation?
Ervin Staub (1977) noted that there are sometimes ‘private’ rewards associated with acting prosocially, such as feeling
good or being virtuous. There is a considerable debate over how magnanimous human nature really is.

Explanations of Prosocial Behaviour

 1. Empathy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis

One explanation of prosocial behavior involves empathy—the capacity to be able to experience others’ emotional
states, feel sympathetic toward them, and take their perspective.

• In other words, we help others because we experience any unpleasant feelings they are experiencing
vicariously, and want to help bring their negative feelings to an end.
• This is unselfish because it leads us to offer help for no extrinsic reason, but it is also selfish, in one sense,
since the behavior of assisting others helps us, too: it can make us feel better.
• Reflecting these basic observations, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, and Birch (1981) offered the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, which suggests that at least some prosocial acts are motivated solely by the
desire to help someone in need (Batson & Oleson, 1991).
• Such motivation can be sufficiently strong that the helper is willing to engage in unpleasant, dangerous, and
even life-threatening activities. Compassion for other people outweighs all other considerations.
• In fact, research findings indicate that empathy consists of three distinct components:
• an emotional aspect (emotional empathy, which involves sharing the feelings and emotions of others),
• a cognitive component, which involves perceiving others’ thoughts and feelings accurately (empathic
accuracy),
• a third aspect, known as empathic concern, which involves feelings of concern for another’s well-being (e.g.,
Gleason, Jensen- Campbell, & Ickes, 2009).
• This distinction is important because it appears that the three components are related to different aspects of
prosocial behavior, and have different long-term effects.

2. Negative-state relief model

Another possible motive for helping others is, in a sense, the mirror image of empathy: Instead of helping because we
care about the welfare of another person, we help because such actions allow us to reduce our own negative emotions.
In other words, we do a good thing in order to stop feeling bad.
 • The knowledge that others are suffering, or more generally, witnessing those in need can be distressing. To
decrease this distress in ourselves, we help others. This explanation of prosocial behavior is known as the
negative-state relief model (Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, 1981).
• Research indicates that it doesn’t matter whether the bystander’s negative emotions were aroused by
something unrelated to the emergency or by the emergency itself.
• Eg: one could be upset about receiving a bad grade or about seeing that a stranger has been injured. In either
instance, one engages in a prosocial act primarily as a way to improve one’s own negative mood. In this kind
of situation, unhappiness leads to prosocial behavior, and empathy is not a necessary component (Cialdini et
al., 1987).

3. Empathic joy hypothesis

It is generally true that it feels good to have a positive effect on other people. This fact is reflected in the empathic joy
hypothesis (Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989), which suggests that helpers enjoy the positive reactions shown by
others whom they help.

• An important implication of this idea is that it is crucial for the person who helps to know that his or her
actions had a positive impact on the victim.
• If helping were based entirely on emotional empathy or empathic concern, feedback about its effects would be
irrelevant since we know that we “did good” and that should be enough. But it would not guarantee the
occurrence of empathic joy.

To test that prediction, Smith et al. (1989) asked participants to watch a videotape in which a female student said she
might drop out of college because she felt isolated and distressed. She was described as either similar to the participant
(high empathy) or dissimilar (low empathy). After participants watched the tape, they were given the opportunity to
offer helpful advice. Some were told they would receive feedback about the effectiveness of their advice while others
were told that they would not be able to learn what the student eventually decided to do. It was found that empathy
alone was not enough to produce a prosocial response. Rather, participants were helpful only if there was high
empathy and they also received feedback about their action’s impact on the victim.

4. Kin Selection Theory

A very different approach to understanding prosocial behavior is offered by the kin selection theory (Cialdini, Brown,
Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Pinker, 1998). From an evolutionary perspective, a key goal for all organisms—
including us—is getting our genes into the next generation.

Support for this general prediction has been obtained in many studies, suggesting that, in general, we are more likely
to help others to whom we are closely related than people to whom we are not related (e.g., Neyer & Lang, 2003).

There is one basic problem, we don’t just help biological relatives; instead, often we do help people who are unrelated
to us. According to kin selection theory, this would not be useful or adaptive behavior since it would not help us
transmit our genes to future generations.
One answer is provided by reciprocal altruism theory—a view suggesting that we may be willing to help people unre-
lated to us because helping is usually reciprocated: If we help them, they help us, so we do ultimately benefit, and our
chances of survival could then be indirectly increased (e.g., Korsgaard, Meglino, Lester, & Jeong, 2010).

5. Defensive Helping

People often divide the social world into two categories: their own ingroup and outgroups. Furthermore, they often
perceive their own group as distinctive from other groups, and as superior in several ways. Sometimes, however,
outgroups achieve successes that threaten the supposed superiority of one’s own group. Can that provide a motive for
helping?

• Recent research suggests that it can because one way of removing the threat posed by outgroups is to help
them—especially in ways that make them seem dependent on such help, and therefore as incompetent or
inadequate (e.g., Sturmer & Snyder, 2010).
• In other words, sometimes people help others—especially people who do not belong to their own ingroup—as
a means of defusing status threats from these people.
• Such actions are known as defensive helping because they are performed not primarily to help the recipients,
but rather to “put them down” in subtle ways and so reduce their threat to the ingroup’s status.
• In such cases, helping does not stem from empathy, positive reactions to the joy or happiness it induces
among recipients, but, rather, from a more selfish motive: protecting the distinctiveness and status of one’s
own group.

Evidence for precisely such effects has been reported by Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, and Ben-David (2009). They
told students at one school that students at another school scored either substantially higher than students at their own
school on a test of cognitive abilities (this posed a high threat to the superiority of their own group), while students at
a third school scored about the same as students at their school (this was low threat to their own group’s superiority).
When given a chance to help students at these two schools, participants offered more help to the high-threat school,
presumably as a way of reducing the status threat from this rival institution.

BYSTANDER EFFECT

When an emergency arises, people often rush forward to provide help. But we also often learn of situations in which
witnesses to an emergency stand around and do nothing; they take no action while victims suffer or perhaps even die

• Common sense suggests that the more bystanders that are present, the more likely you are to be helped.

• The more witnesses present at an emergency, the less likely the victims are to recieve help.
• The reasons were first suggested by John Darley and Bibb Latané, two social psychologists who thought long
and hard about this issue after learning of a famous murder in New York City.

In this tragic crime, a young woman (Kitty Genovese) was assaulted by a man in a location where many people could
see and hear what was going on; all they had to do was look out of their apartment windows. Yet, despite the fact that
the attacker continued to assault the victim for many minutes, and even left and then returned to continue the assault
later, not a single person reported the crime to the police. When news of this tragic crime hit the media, there was
much speculation about the widespread selfishness and indifference of people in general or, at least, of people living
in big cities. Darley and Latané, however, raised a more basic question: Common sense suggests that the greater the
number of witnesses to an emergency (or in this case, a crime), the more likely it is that someone will help. So why
wasn’t this the case in the tragic murder of Kitty Genovese? In their efforts to answer this question, Darley and Latané
developed several possible explanations and then tested them in research that is certainly a true “classic” of social
psychology.

1. Diffusion of responsibility

Perhaps no one helped because all the witnesses assumed that someone else would do it!

• In other words, all the people who saw or heard what was happening believed that it was OK for them to do
nothing because others would take care of the situation.
• Darley and Latané referred to this as diffusion of responsibility, and suggested that according to this principle,
the greater the number of strangers who witness an emergency, the less likely are the 90 victims to receive
help.
• After all, the greater the number of potential helpers, the less responsible any one individual will feel, and the
more each will assume that “someone else will do it.”

• Race of the Victim

Kuntsman and Plant (2009) suggests that race of the victim and the helper may play a role, with black victims less
likely to receive help from white bystanders, especially if they are high in aversive racism (negative emotional
reactions to black people).

2. Five crucial decisions in deciding to help (or Not)

I.Noticing, or failing to notice, that something unusual is happening: An emergency is obviously something that occurs
unexpectedly, and there is no sure way to anticipate that it will take place or to plan how best to respond. We are
ordinarily doing something else and thinking about other things when we hear a scream outside our window, observe
that a fellow student is coughing and unable to speak, or observe that some of the other passengers on our airplane are
holding weapons in their hands. If we are asleep, deep in thought, concentrating on something else, we may simply
fail to notice that something unusual is happening.
II.Correctly interpreting an event as an emergency: Even after we pay attention to an event, we often have only limited
and incomplete information as to what exactly is happening. Most of the time, whatever catches our attention does not
turn out to be an emergency and so does not require immediate action. Whenever potential helpers are not completely
sure about what is going on, they tend to hold back and wait for further information. After all, responding as if an
emergency is occurring when one is not can lead to considerable embarrassment. It’s quite possible that in the early
morn- ing when Kitty Genovese was murdered, her neighbors could not clearly see what was happening, even though
they heard the screams and knew that a man and a woman were having a dispute. It could have just been a loud
argument between a woman and her boyfriend. This suggests that the presence of multiple witnesses may inhibit
helping not only because of the diffusion of responsibility, but also because it is embarrassing to misinter- pret a
situation and to act inappropriately.

This tendency for an individual surrounded by a group of strangers to hesitate and do nothing is based on what is
known as pluralistic ignorance. Because none of the bystanders knows for sure what is happening, each depends on
the others to provide cues. Each individual is less likely to respond if the others fail to respond. The presence of other
people clearly inhibits responsiveness. It is as if risking death is preferable to making a fool of oneself. This inhibiting
effect is much less if the group consists of friends rather than strangers, because friends are likely to communicate
with one another about what is going on

III. Deciding that it is your responsibility to provide help: In many instances, the respon- sibility for helping is
clear. Firefighters are the ones to do something about a blazing building, etc. If responsibility is not clear,
people assume that anyone in a leadership role must take responsibility—for instance, adults with children,
and professors with students. When there is only one by- stander, he or she usually takes charge because there
is no alternative.
III. Deciding that you have the knowledge and/or skills to act: Even if a bystander progresses as far as Step 3 and
assumes responsibility, a prosocial response cannot occur unless the person knows how to be helpful. Some
emergencies are sufficiently simple that almost everyone has the necessary skills to help. When emergencies
require special skills, usually only a portion of the bystanders are able to help. For example, only good
swimmers can assist a person who is drowning. With a medical emergency, a registered nurse is more likely
to be helpful than a history professor (Cramer, McMaster, Bartell, & Pragma, 1988).
III. Making the final decision to provide help: Even if a bystander passes the first four steps in the decision
process, help does not occur unless he or she makes the ultimate decision to engage in a helpful act. Helping
at this final point can be inhibited by fears (often realistic ones) about potential negative consequences. In
effect, potential helpers engage in “cognitive algebra” as they weigh the positive versus the negative aspects
of helping. The rewards for being helpful are primarily provided by the emotions and beliefs of the helper, but
there are a great many varieties of potential costs.
Absolute altruism doesn’t exists – karma, self -image (NALLA TOPIC)

experiment by Batson – moral hypocrisy

(Sanskriti)
- situational factors
- the one who is seeking help characteristics
- the one who is offering help characteristics.
- cultural differences

(Khushi) Instrumental goal – helps you to reach out to another larger goal – eg. karma (you do good to others to eat
fruit after)
Instrumental goals are sought because they are stepping-stones to ultimate goals. When an ultimate goal can be
reached more efficiently by other means, an instrumental goal is likely to be bypassed. A business executive may be
motivated to support the bike paths as an instrumental means to enhance his or her public image. If so, he or she is
likely to lose interest if a less expensive image-enhancing opportunity arises.

(Sanaa) Ultimate goal – end goals.

1. self -benefit – egoist
2. aversive arousal destruction
3. reciprocity
4. social stigmatisation
Unintended consequences – benefit the recipient. absolute altruism doesn’t exists – karma, self -image

(Khushi) Goals of helping others -

Egoism self benefit
A material social self rewards (good mood)

The defining feature is that so-called altruistic behaviour is ultimately egoistically-motivated, the end goal being
one’s own welfare. Altruism is thus redefined to fit the argument that all human action is self-serving, differing from
Comte’s definition. By this definition altruism is seen to be motivated by the attainment of internal rewards even when
these rewards are not directly observable. Some argue that through an internalisation process, by adulthood altruism
acts as a self- reward mechanism. This mechanism eventually fosters self- satisfaction and self-esteem in adolescence.

B material social self punishment - some countries have rules to behave like a good person. Fines and penalties.
We fee obligated to help.

According to normative theory, there are some basic influences on altruism - the intensity of moral (personal)
obligation, a cognitive structure of norms and values, and the relevance or appropriateness of feelings of moral
obligation. Moral personal obligations or norms are influenced by shared group expectations about appropriate
behaviour and social rewards, varying from individual to individual. People help because they perceive it as the
appropriate social response either due to previous experience or observation of others.

C aversive arousal reduction seeing someone else upset makes you upset. In order to reduce this arousal we try
to reduce their suffering.

The arousal-reduction model argues that altruism is motivated by reduction in aversive arousal or tension. When an
observer witnesses another’s suffering this causes negative emotional arousal which is reduced by helping the sufferer.
The experience of guilt in response to another’s suffering can be a powerful motivator. Feelings of guilt endanger self-
esteem and helping behaviour enables self-image reparation.

(Sanskriti) Benefitting others altruism

Scholars haven’t been able to study if real altruism exists.
Critique - jumping to save a friend, another friend dies. So altruism exists

(Sanskriti) Bystander effect – Philip Zimbardo.

1960s – 70s- why people don’t help.