Close Relationships and Well-Being

importance of marriage by permitting a divorce only viable solution to marital problems. The increased
when relatively serious offenses or prolonged con- freedom to dissolve a marriage, like the constraints
flict could be shown. In the past, even if they that held marriages together in the past, may be a
weren’t particularly happy, married couples could dual-edged sword that cuts both ways. On one
find a number of reasons for maintaining a commit- hand, freedom means the possibility of a better life,
ment to their marriage. This may have led some rather than being trapped in an unhappy marriage.
couples to work out their difficulties and develop On the other hand, increased freedom may make
satisfying marriages. For others, it may have meant ending a marriage too easy an option. That is, rather
being trapped in an emotionally empty or conflict- than making a commitment to do the hard work that
ridden relationship. might resolve marital difficulties, people may view
The direction of cultural change since the divorce as the simplest and easiest solution.
1960s has been toward a reduction in the barriers to,
and costs of, divorce. Marriages between two peo- GETTING MARRIED AND STAYING MARRIED: IS LOVE
ple with professional careers are now quite com- THE ANSWER? More so today than in the past, mar-
mon. Each spouse can make it on her or his own riage is not a prerequisite for having sex, for having
if the marriage ends. Within the United States, children, or for a woman’s financial well-being. Sex
women’s increasing participation in the workforce is outside marriage is widely accepted (Myers, 2000b);
strongly correlated with the rise in divorce rates. a third of children are born out of wedlock (Miller
And, a woman who brings in significantly more et al., 2007); and many women enjoy financial inde-
money than her husband has a higher risk of future pendence. A man’s ability to provide for his family is
divorce than a woman whose income is equal to, or less important to women when they can provide for
less than, her husband’s (Miller et al., 2007). themselves. In addition, people used to believe that
Increased financial independence allows greater a pre-marital pregnancy meant the couple “had to
freedom to leave an unhappy marriage. Spouses get married.” If they didn’t, we had the image of the
who do divorce are less likely to face social disap- “shotgun” wedding, in which the bride’s father com-
proval. Divorce, in large measure because it is so pelled the groom to take responsibility for the child
common, is not stigmatized as strongly as in the and to maintain the social respectability of his
past. Politicians, corporate executives, and other daughter. Today, marriage is more of a choice—
prominent people no longer cover up their failed freer of the constraints, social norms, and practical
marriages and seem to suffer few, if any, conse- necessities of the past. Survey research suggests
quences. Surveys show that staying together for the marriage is a choice that is increasingly and more
sake of the kids is also less of a barrier to divorce exclusively based on love.
today. Thornton (1989) found that by 1985 only 20% Think about the following question: If a per-
of women in his survey believed that unhappily son had all the other qualities you desired, would
married couples should stay together because they you marry this person if you were not in love? When
had children. A common belief today seems to be American college students were surveyed in 1967,
that a stable and conflict-free single-parent family is 35% of men and 76% of women said yes to this
a better environment for kids than a two-parent fam- question (Simpson et al., 1986). Men evidently had
ily with emotional problems. more romantic notions for the basis for marriage,
Finally, the courts and conventional wisdom whereas women were more practical-minded. For
have also accommodated the changing cultural con- women, desirable qualities trumped love. However,
text of marriage. Many states now have no-fault nearly three decades later, “no” was the overwhelm-
divorce laws that grant divorces because of “irrecon- ing answer to the same question by both men and
cilable differences,” which would seem to include women (86% of men and 91% of women said no)
everything from boredom and unhappiness to, “I (Allgeier & Wiederman, 1991, cited in Hatfield &
think I can do better with someone else.” Because Rapson, 2006). In current American culture, being in
divorce is commonly accepted, the advice and help love appears to be the major reason to get married.
couples in troubled marriages receive from others is The ability of love to prevail over differences in peo-
likely to be more accepting of divorce as well. In ple’s social status, religion, backgrounds, and life
summary, compared to the past, more people today circumstances is a prominent theme in romantic
seem to believe that divorce is a reasonable and movies. Think of the classic love story in the movie

263
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

Pretty Woman. Why would a rich, powerful attorney Passion and romance have much do with why
marry a prostitute? Answer: He fell in love. people marry. What do they have to do with why
Is the importance of romantic love a peculiar people divorce? If you recall our discussion of the
feature of Western individualistic cultures? For a difference between friendship and romantic love,
time, historical investigations suggested that roman- you can probably anticipate the answer. First, many
tic love was a Western cultural invention that was social observers believe that the increased emphasis
not prominent in non-Western societies. More col- on passion/romance is linked to the increased emo-
lectivist cultures—especially those in which parents tional expectations for marriage (Miller et al., 2007;
arranged marriages—were thought to emphasize Myers, 2000b; Phillips, 1988). As practical reasons for
more practical considerations, such as endowments, marriage have faded, expectations of personal satis-
social status, and religious compatibility. However, faction and fulfillment seem to have taken their
more extensive and detailed recent work by anthro- place. A marriage today seems to depend more and
pologists has shown that passionate romantic love more on the “sweetness of its contents” (Berscheid &
appears to be nearly universal in cultures around Campbell, 1981). Why should you stay married if
the world, with few exceptions (Jankowiak, 1995). you’re marriage is not happy, satisfying, exciting,
Culture shapes its prominence and particular and sexually/emotionally fulfilling? In the past,
expressive form, but passionate love is not unique answers might have included children, finances, and
to Western individualistic societies. social respectability. Today, the answer seems to be
Large-scale survey studies affirm the universality that if you’re not happy and fulfilled there is some-
of passion and romance as bases for marriage. In his thing wrong with your marriage. The concern here is
monumental study of mate selection, Buss (1994) that these expectations are simply too high and set
asked over 10,000 people from 37 different countries people up for disappointment when the realities of
to rate 18 characteristics according to their desirability marriage start to sink in. Disillusionment may then
in choosing a mate. Participants varied widely in their lead to divorce. Clearly, saying that people expect
levels of affluence, language, religion, ethnic/racial too much of marriage is a judgment call related to
background, and political beliefs. Despite these differ- the scope and degree of expectations. A good mar-
ences, the number-one desirable trait, chosen by men riage certainly is a significant source of personal hap-
and women across all the countries, was love/mutual piness and no one expects or wants an unhappy
attraction. After love, cultures did vary in the particular marriage. But the exact point at which expectations
qualities viewed as desirable. For example, among become unreasonable is difficult to pinpoint.
Chinese, Indonesians, Iranians, and Israelis, chastity However, a second problem with the roman-
was important. For French, Norwegian, and Swedish tic love–marriage connection helps clarify the issue
individuals, this was not an important trait and some of reasonable versus unreasonable expectations.
even considered it a disadvantage. Here, the evidence is fairly clear. One significant
Cross-cultural studies that ask, “If a person had difficulty with passionate romance is that it does
all the other qualities you desired, would you marry not last. Marrying for romance is one thing, but stay-
him/her if you were not in love?” also find strong ing married only if passionate romance continues
support for the love–marriage connection (e.g., is quite another. Evaluating a marriage primarily on
Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1995; Sprecher the strength of romantic and passionate emotions
et al., 1994). Among diverse cultures around the seems a recipe for disillusionment and divorce.
globe, few people endorse a loveless marriage. Based Longitudinal studies consistently find a decline in
on their review of cultural differences and historical men and women’s ratings of satisfaction with their
changes in passionate love, Hatfield and Rapson con- marriages, ratings of overall marriage quality, and
cluded that the differences between Western and the frequency of expressions of positive affection
Eastern cultures appear to be “fast disappearing.” (Bradbury, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kurdek,
“. . . Young people in a variety of traditional cultures 1999). As you can see in Figure 2 based on Kurdek’s
are increasingly adopting ‘Western’ patterns—placing (1991) data, the decline in marital satisfaction is
a high value on ‘falling in love,’ pressing for gender steepest in the first few years of marriage, then levels
equality in love and sex, and insisting on marrying for off to remain somewhat stable, and then shows
love (as opposed to agreeing to arranged marriages)” another drop at 8 to 10 years. Studies of long-term
(2006, p. 240). marriages (20 years and more) do show more

264
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

124

123

122

121

120
Wife
Mean Marital Quality

119 Husband

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year of Assessment
FIGURE 2 Decline in Marital Satisfaction for Husbands and Wives Over 10 Years
Source: Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality for
husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283–1296. Copyright
American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

stable levels of satisfaction and there is some debate Relationships. This is an ongoing longitudinal study of
about whether there is an upswing in satisfaction in 168 couples that were married in 1981. Results for the
very long-term marriages (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). first 13 years showed that 35% of the couples had
These data do not mean that couples typically go divorced, another 20% were unhappy with their
from newlywed bliss to misery. The declines are rel- marriages, and only 45% were considered happily
ative to where most marriages start. The number of married. Even the happily married couples were less
couples describing their marriages as “very happy” is affectionate and less satisfied than they had been at
high at the beginning, but much lower as the length the beginning of their marriages. PAIR Project
of marriage increases. At one time, the decline in researchers found strong support for a disillusionment
marriage satisfaction was thought to be associated model of marital satisfaction and divorce. The couples
with having children and assuming the challenges at greatest risk for divorce were those who experi-
associated with parenthood. However, more recent enced the steepest declines in marital satisfaction and
research shows similar declines occurring among feelings of love and romance. Ironically, couples that
couples without children (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). divorced after 7 years began their marriages with
Research by Huston and his colleagues provides higher levels of both affection and romance. “As
an instructive example of how these changes are newlyweds, the couples who divorced after 7 or more
related to divorce (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & years were almost giddily affectionate, displaying
George, 2001; Huston, Niehuis, & Smith, 2001). This about one-third more affection than spouses who
study is also known as the PAIR Project, which were later happily married. However, consistent
stands for The Process of Adaptation in Intimate with the disillusionment model, the intensity of their

265
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

romance dissipated over the 1st year of marriage, relationships. Research suggests that idealized and
reflected in a dramatic drop in how affectionate positive views of the partner contribute to satisfac-
they were with each other and declines in their tion and feelings of intimacy in short-term dating
views of each other’s responsiveness” (Huston et al., relationships and at the beginning of marriage.
2001, p. 249). However, as relationships mature, more accurate
information becomes important and contributes
REALISM OR IDEALISM? Most couples seem to go more to satisfaction and intimacy (Campbell,
through a period of disillusionment, as the realities Lackenbauer, & Muise, 2006; Swann, De La Ronde, &
of marriage sink in and the idealization of one’s Hixon, 1994). Too much idealization may actually
partner and one’s relationship begin to fade. Does get a longer-term relationship in trouble. It is impor-
this mean that the happy couples are those who tant to know with some degree of accuracy your
began their marriages with more realistic views and partner’s strengths and weaknesses. Imagine if
avoided disillusionment? Or might it be that happy excessive drinking were given a positive spin or if
couples began with the same illusions, but found you glossed over your partner’s lack of financial
ways to maintain them? The research literature does planning and checkbook balancing ability. Probably
not provide a definitive answer to these questions. both realism and a degree of positive idealization
The value of both realism and idealization are sup- co-exist in healthy longer-term relationships.
ported. Studies by Murray and her colleagues sug- Realism about specific traits and abilities would
gest that some degree of idealization contributes to seem to contribute both to feelings of intimacy and
a couple’s happiness and satisfaction (Murray, to more effective assignment of relationship roles
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). Couples who had and responsibilities according to each partner’s
the most positive views of each other’s personal strengths and weaknesses.
qualities were not only happier, but were less likely On the other hand, some idealization is
to break up. Murray and her colleagues believe that undoubtedly important in making people feel an
the tendency to view our partners more positively overall sense of positive regard and acceptance. That
than they see themselves means that we overlook or is, we need to feel that, despite the reality of our
put a positive spin on our partners’ shortcomings. imperfections, we are loved, appreciated, and posi-
This is the view that mothers often have of their tively viewed. A recent longitudinal study of married
children. They see the best in their kids and down- couples by Neff and Karney (2005) affirmed the dual
play or ignore faults. To the extent that this idealiza- importance of accuracy and global adoration.
tion is mutual, it is easy to see how each person’s Feelings of mutual and global adoration (“you’re the
self-esteem and satisfaction with a relationship greatest”) were widely shared among newlyweds.
would be enhanced. However, the benefits of this adoration depended on
Self-verification theory posits that people whether it reflected an accurate understanding of
desire evaluations that affirm or verify their own partners’ specific traits. Adoration alone was not
self-views (Swann, 1983, 1987). Specifically, people enough. Neff and Karney concluded that “Global
want positive feedback about positive qualities and adoration lacking in specific accuracy not only leaves
negative evaluations of their less desirable qualities. spouses vulnerable to disappointment as their part-
We each want verification of our own self-view. As ners’ faults surface over the course of the relation-
Swann (1990) put it, people want to be “known”— ship but also may lead partners to doubt the
not necessarily “adored.” Relationships are credibility of their spouses’ love” (2005, p. 495).
enhanced when your partner affirms your own self-
view because this means that she or he knows you SATISFACTION AND CONFLICT As if the picture
as you know yourself. The authenticity of your part- were not gloomy enough already, studies suggest
ner’s understanding of “who you really are” creates that married couples today experience more conflict
strong feelings of intimacy. and somewhat less marital satisfaction than in the
The opposing nature of idealistic and realistic past. Family life appears more complicated and
appraisals may be more apparent than real: (a) hectic today, in part because both husbands and
because the effect of each may depend on the wives typically work and have less time to spend
length and developmental stage of a relationship, together (Amato & Previti, 2003; Rogers & Amato,
and (b) because both probably co-exist in healthy 2000). Managing family concerns, from childcare and

266
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

paying bills, to getting older kids to their many after- attended to and cared for; first reveal your deeper
school activities, may take a toll on a marriage. feelings, fears, and needs; first feel that no one else
National surveys show some drop (5% or so) in could replace this person in your life; first display
the percentage of married couples describing their lots of mutual affection, like hugging, kissing, and
marriage as very happy today compared to the 1970s holding; first know that this relationship was for life?
(Glenn, 1991; Glenn & Weaver, 1988). The cause of For most of us, our first “love” experiences were
this decline is unclear. Does it reflect an actual with parents—often our moms. Nearly all of us
decline in marital happiness, perhaps due to the develop an intense attachment bond with our pri-
increase in conflict? Or might it be the exaggerated mary caretakers—most frequently our biological
expectations of marital happiness that are disap- parents. Attachment theory raises the intriguing
pointed by the realities of marriage, or some combi- possibility that some of our most basic, and perhaps
nation of both? Whatever the case, it is worth unconscious, emotional responses to intimacy are
remembering two facts: (1) married people are still shaped by the kind of relationship we had with our
consistently found to be significantly happier than parents. If this seems a bit far-fetched, consider this:
never-married singles; and (2) there is a strong ten- Think of a romantic involvement in which you got
dency for very happy people to report that their mar- to know your partner extremely well, including all
riages are also happy and satisfying (Myers, 2000a). his or her little quirks and peculiarities. Then, think
The question is, “What are the ingredients of a happy of the first time you met your partner’s family. Did
marriage?” Some of the answers are suggested by you have any “aha” experiences such as, “Now I see
studies of what people bring to a marriage. why you avoid emotionally charged issues in our
relationship. Your whole family does!” Or, “No won-
der you say whatever is on your mind, even if it’s
WHAT PEOPLE BRING TO ROMANTIC negative and critical. Your family is like the show
RELATIONSHIPS Brothers and Sisters on TV—absolute honesty in
Experts seem to agree that cultural changes have expressing feelings, no matter who it might offend!”
made happy long-term marriages somewhat more How early relationships might affect later ones
difficult to achieve today than in the past. The suc- begins with studies of infants and young children.
cess or failure of marriage also depends on the
particular mix of the two spouses’ characteristics. Infant Attachments
People bring a diversity of personality traits and
beliefs to their romantic relationships (Fitness, 2006; Psychiatrist John Bowlby was one of the first to
Vangelisti, 2006). Some people are better suited to describe different types of attachment between chil-
intimate relationships than others. For example, the dren and their parents. During World War II, many
emotional instability and negative emotionality of British parents sent their children to the country
people high in the personality trait of neuroticism where they would be safer from Germany’s nightly
make satisfying relationships difficult for them to bombings of London. Bowlby observed that chil-
achieve, and we know that drug abuse, alcoholism, dren’s reactions to separation from their parents
and physical abuse are frequent causes of divorce were quite varied and seemed to reflect different
(see Miller et al., 2007). Some amount of failure kinds of parent–child bonds or attachments (see
undoubtedly also occurs because the wrong people Bowlby, 1988, for a current review). Ainsworth and
got married. As they try to build a life together, a her colleagues developed a more formal assessment
married couple’s differences may cause too much of attachment styles using what became known as
conflict, making love difficult to sustain. One of the the “strange situation test” (Ainsworth, Blehar,
more important things people bring to a marriage is Waters, & Wall, 1978). Paralleling Bowlby’s earlier
their particular style of relating to intimate partners. work, these researchers found three distinct attach-
ment patterns between infants and mothers (or any
caretaker to whom an infant is attached). The
Attachment Style
strange situation test involves observing an infant, its
Think for a minute about your first close and inti- mother, and an adult stranger in an unfamiliar room
mate relationship. When did you: first learn about with toys available. The mother and stranger move
trusting someone and having your emotional needs in and out of the room according to a set sequence.

267
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

Infants are sometimes with their mothers only, less supportive partner responses and more jealousy
sometimes with the stranger only, and sometimes of the infant.
alone. A majority of infants tested in this situation Researchers do not believe that early child-
show a secure attachment style. In this style, the hood experiences represent adulthood destiny (see
infant explores the room and the toys confidently Hazan et al., 2006). Despite evidence of moderate
when its mother is present, becomes mildly upset levels of stability in attachment style over the first
and explores less when it is left by the mother 19 years of life (Fraley, 2002), people’s orientation
(either alone or with the stranger), shows pleasure toward relationships can be altered and changed by
and reassurance when the mother returns, and then life experiences. Divorce, death of a spouse or par-
resumes exploring the room. Home observations ent, new relationship experiences, and new partners
show that mothers of securely attached infants can all influence our basic attachment style. In addi-
responded warmly and promptly to their infants’ tion, studies that do show stability may be con-
desires for contact comfort. founded with genetically-determined temperament.
A minority of infants show an avoidant Some infants are constitutionally “laid back” or “high
attachment style. Here, infants do not show any vis- strung,” making the infant’s temperament—not treat-
ible distress when separated from their mothers and, ment by parents—primarily responsible for the
most tellingly, they actively avoid contact with their nature of the parent–child relationship.
mothers when the mothers re-enter the room. At It also needs to be noted that the meaning and
home, mothers of avoidant infants are consistently value of different attachment styles may be unique
negative, rejecting, critical and often neglectful, in to Western individualistic societies like the United
the form of failing to provide comfort when their States. For example, Japanese parents appear to fos-
infants are upset. ter insecure attachment and “needy” children when
An even smaller minority of infants showed an evaluated by Western attachment criteria
anxious-ambivalent attachment style, in which the (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000).
infant does not explore much, even when its mother Japanese parents appear indulgent, permissive, and
is present, becomes very upset when she leaves, overly protective to Western eyes. They do not seem
and both seeks and simultaneously resists her com- to foster the secure base necessary for independ-
fort when she returns. Mothers of this style are ence and self-confidence that defines secure attach-
found to be unpredictable in their responses to their ment. However, these judgments likely reflect
infants’ desires for comfort, sometimes showing a Western standards and biases. The Japanese and all
positive response and sometimes responding in a other cultures have their own criteria for relation-
rejecting or controlling manner. ships and they raise their children accordingly. They
The nature of childhood attachment has been nurture healthy children who are well-adapted to
shown to predict behavior in later relationships their culture. Rothbaum and his colleagues point
(e.g., Ainsworth, 1989; Schneider, Atkinson, & out that attachment theory and measurement, in its
Tardiff, 2001). As you might expect, securely current Westernized form, simply does not fit other,
attached infants generally go on to have healthier non-Westernized cultures.
relations with others. For example, longitudinal stud- Despite these qualifications, the possibility
ies find that compared to insecure children, securely remains that that our childhood experiences, at least
attached children tend to be more socially skilled in the West, may be significant. For example, a person
and competent and are more likely to have close whose own childhood was marked by an absence of
families, friendships, and longer-term romantic rela- warmth and love might be strongly motivated to find
tions (e.g., Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004). Other an intense and all-absorbing romantic love relation-
studies find that attachment styles may be transferred ship as a teen or adult. And it makes sense that a per-
from one relationship to the next, building upon son who experienced harsh criticism and rejection
early attachment histories (Brumbaugh & Fraley, when she sought the love of her parents may be “gun
2006) and that a couple’s personal attachment styles shy” when it comes to developing intimate adult rela-
are predictive of how they perceive, feel about, and tionships. Finally, if you experienced a healthy, warm,
relate to each other after the birth of their first child and loving relationship with your parents, wouldn’t
(Wilson, Rholes, Simpson, & Tran, 2007). In this lat- this inform your ideas about desirable and undesirable
ter study, anxious and avoidant styles were related to relationships in the future, perhaps even influencing

268
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

the qualities you look for in a spouse? Setting aside all refined. The current view is that attachment styles
the possible Freudian dynamics, why wouldn’t a are continuous rather than discrete categories and
young girl or boy think of marrying someone like Dad reflect two underlying dimensions: anxiety and
or Mom if they loved, respected, and admired their avoidance (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
parents and experienced an enjoyable childhood Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller,
because their parents were good parents who were 1998; Hazan et al., 2006). The anxiety dimension
happily married? describes a fear of abandonment and rejection and
With both the possibilities and qualifications in is assumed to express low self-esteem and a nega-
mind, researchers have found attachment styles to tive view of self. A lack of self-confidence and a
be extremely useful in capturing adults’ cognitive belief in one’s inadequacy causes anxiety in close
and emotional orientation toward romantic and relationships, perhaps because a person feels that
other close relationships (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). her faults will be discovered or that he is not the
Measures of adult attachment styles have a good kind of person that anyone would love. Conversely,
deal of face validity in the sense that we can often people with a positive self-view are low in anxiety,
“see” ourselves or someone we know as typifying do not fear abandonment, and are comfortable and
one, or some combination of the different attach- confident in their intimate relationships.
ment styles. The avoidance dimension describes the
degree of trust and comfort (or lack thereof)
Adult Attachment Styles in becoming intimate with others. High intimacy-
avoidance presumably stems from viewing others
Which of the following would best describe how
with a mistrustful and suspicious eye or dismissing
you think about close relationships? (from Hazan &
intimate relationships altogether as unnecessary
Shaver, 1987):
because of a strong belief in one’s own self-
A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being reliance (i.e., “I don’t need intimate relationships”).
close to others; I find it difficult to Conversely, people low in avoidance are more
trust them completely, difficult to trusting of others, enjoy intimacy, and do not worry
allow myself to depend on them. I am that they will be mistreated. Because people can be
nervous when anyone gets too close, high or low on the anxiety and/or the avoidance
and often, others want to be more dimension, four different attachment styles can be
intimate that I feel comfortable being. described. These styles are overlapping, but for
B. I find it relatively easy to get close to purposes of clarity they are described below as
others and am comfortable depending four distinct styles. Included in these descriptions
on them and having them depend on are results from the multitude of studies that have
me. I don’t worry about being aban- examined the connection between individual dif-
doned or about someone getting too ferences in attachment style and characteristics of
close to me. people’s close and romantic relationships (see
C. I find others are reluctant to get as Bartholomew, 1990; Collins & Feeney, 2000;
close as I would like. I often worry Feeney, 1999; Hazan et al., 2006, for reviews).
that my partner doesn’t really love me Figure 3 shows the four styles defined by the two
or won’t want to stay with me. I want dimensions of avoidance and anxiety.
to get very close to my partner, and Secure attachment describes people with pos-
this sometimes scares people away. itive self-images who are low on both relationship
anxiety and avoidance. These people are confident in
Shaver and his colleagues found that this sim- themselves and the ability of their relationships to sat-
ple one-item test was sufficient for people to reli- isfy their needs. Compared to other attachment styles,
ably classify themselves according to their the intimate and romantic relationships of people
attachment style (A is avoidant, B is secure, and C is with a secure attachment style are characterized by
anxious-ambivalent) (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998; greater trust and closeness, more positive than nega-
Hazan & Shaver, 1987). tive emotions, lower levels of jealousy, higher levels
Over time, both the conceptualization and of marital satisfaction and adjustment, and more sen-
measurement of adult attachment styles have been sitive and supportive responses to the needs of one’s

269
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

Anxiety to know you well is strong motivation to avoid inti-

Low High macy. People with this style view others as untrust-
worthy and likely to let them down. They feel that
relying on others is too risky and are more pes-
Low Secure Preoccupied simistic about lasting love. As you might expect,
fearful attachment is associated with a variety of
Avoidance interpersonal difficulties including less willingness
to provide comfort and support to others and being
Dismissing Fearful perceived by others as emotionally distant and even
High
Avoidant Avoidant hostile.
Dismissing avoidant attachment com-
bines high avoidance with low anxiety. This style
FIGURE 3 Four Attachment Styles Defined by Level describes people who are confident, self-reliant,
of Anxiety and Avoidance and take pride in their independence. They view
others as essentially irrelevant. That is, whether
people like them or not is not a major concern,
partner. Securely attached people are comfortable because they believe they can make it on their
seeking support from others in times of distress. own. Intimate involvements with others are
Surveys suggest that about 60% of people fit this thought to be fraught with problems and not
attachment style (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997). worth the trouble. The relationships of people
Overall, secure attachment is associated with longer, with this style are marked by lower enjoyment,
stronger, and more satisfying intimate relations. less commitment, and less intimacy compared to
The preoccupied attachment style describes those with secure and preoccupied styles. If you
people who are low on avoidance because they recall our earlier discussion of the universal need
want and enjoy intimacy, but are high in anxiety as for human attachments, you may wonder if people
a result of their low self-esteem. This style was who dismiss the importance of relationships are
referred to as anxious/ambivalent in previous classi- exceptions to this general rule. A recent study
fications. The preoccupied style reflects a need for titled, “No man is an island: The need to belong
the approval and affection of others to prop up and dismissing avoidant attachment style,” sug-
one’s own lack of self-esteem. Such people might be gests that the answer is no (Carvallo & Gabriel,
described as “needy,” “clingy,” or even “greedy” in 2006). In this study, people with a dismissive ori-
their need for intimacy and acceptance. While they entation were found to experience more positive
may appear to be sensitive, caring, and supporting, feelings in response to feedback that others liked
these behaviors stem more from their own self- and accepted them than people with a low dismis-
centered needs than from genuine concern for their sive view. Perhaps because dismissive types typi-
partner. Their fear of abandonment may cause them cally receive less affirmation from others, they are
to be highly controlling of their partners, to experi- more affected when they do. Contrary to their
ence wide mood swings, and to experience intense claims, dismissive individuals do seem to care
jealousy concerning their romantic involvements. about how people think of them. Carvallo and
Although an extreme example, one can’t help but Gabriel conclude that “. . . people with a dismis-
think about the neurotic lover portrayed by Glenn sive attachment style also have a fundamental
Close in the movie Fatal Attraction as exemplifying need to feel connected to others but because they
the worst features of preoccupied attachment. have buried it under denial and a hard shell of
People with a fearful avoidant attachment indifference, it can only be glimpsed by giving
style are high in avoidance and high in anxiety. A them a taste of what all people need and desire
fear of rejection keeps people with this style from most: inclusion and acceptance from others”
getting close to others, and their low opinion of (2006, p. 707).
themselves seems to be the major reason. If you Overall, secure attachment is a strong founda-
don’t like or love yourself you may assume others tion for healthy and satisfying relationships, particu-
won’t love you either. A fear of being unlovable larly if this style is shared between romantic
and, therefore, likely to be rejected when people get partners. In their review of studies, Miller and his

270
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

colleagues (2007) provide a long list of positive out- depends heavily on open communication about
comes associated with this style. Compared to the disagreements and the ability to resolve them.
other styles, secure people are more supportive of
their partners, particularly in times of distress. They
Focus on Research: The Power
are more disclosing of intimate life details and have
of the “Bad”
more satisfying social lives with their friends and
lovers. Secure people also enjoy higher levels of A curious implication of relationship research is
emotional well-being and lower levels of emotional that once a relationship is well established, its suc-
distress. Securely attached people seem to recapitu- cess seems to depend more on the absence of con-
late the health of their relationships with their par- flict (the bad) than it does on the presence of
ents, which built a strong foundation for the rich affection (the good) (Reis & Gable, 2003). A cou-
and satisfying relationships that contribute so much ple’s satisfaction with their marriage is tied signifi-
to a happy life. cantly more strongly to the level of conflict than it
Research suggests that the majority (60%) of is to the level of positive behaviors. A well-known
us fit, moreso than less, into the secure attachment daily diary study found that nearly two-thirds of
style. However, it is important to remember that couples’ marital satisfaction was related to the
the four types are meant to be continuous—not occurrence (or lack) of negative behaviors
discrete—categories. So, despite the virtues of and conflict, and much less so to the occurrence
secure attachment, most of us are probably a com- (or lack) of positive behaviors (Wills, Weiss, &
bination of attachment orientations defined by our Patterson, 1974). In our intimate relationships, the
degree of anxiety and avoidance. The more prob- bad seems much stronger than the good. A single
lematic styles are in the minority, although we can negative act appears capable of “undoing” count-
probably think of someone who fits the preoccu- less acts of affection and kindness.
pied, fearful avoidant, or dismissive style. The The most extensive studies of marital conflict
point here is to resist believing that, just because have been conducted by John Gottman and his col-
you are not overly confident in yourself or that you leagues (Gottman, 1994, 1998, 1999; Gottman &
are somewhat cautious in opening up to others, Krokoff, 1989; Gottman & Levenson, 1992). Among
this means you fit one of the negative styles and his many studies were intensive observations of
will have relationship problems, or that this fully married couples in his “love lab.” This was an apart-
explains the problems you have. The distance ment set up to video-tape verbal, nonverbal, and
between high self-esteem and low self-esteem and physiological responses of couples as they talked
between caution and avoidance is large. Even if we about topics posed by Gottman. Some topics con-
are not “pure” secure attachment types, we can still cerned sources of conflict and how they viewed
have satisfying relationships. each other’s strengths and weaknesses, but the main
point was to get couples to talk and to analyze their
style of communication. Both the husbands’ and
Conflict and Communication Skills
wives’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors were care-
Attachment styles describe important features of fully recorded. Observations captured both subtle
people’s global orientation toward intimate relation- nonverbal behaviors (like a faint frown or raised
ships. More specific behaviors and ways of thinking eyebrows), and more obvious behaviors (such as
that enhance or damage relationships have also smiling, one spouse interrupting the other, and
been studied extensively. A great deal of research expressions of anger, resentment, affection, and
has focused on how relationship partners deal with support).
conflict and interpret negative behaviors. This is Gottman and his colleagues consistently found
because some amount of conflict is inevitable in that negative communication patterns were more
our intimate relations. Married couples may con- predictive of marital satisfaction level and overall
front differences in their expectations and desires relationship quality than were displays of affection
regarding managing finances, spending habits, fre- and kindness. Patterns of negative interaction were
quency of sex, displays of affection, raising kids, summarized as the “Four Horsemen of the
dealing with in-laws, and keeping the house clean. Apocalypse” because of their destructive effects on
Studies make clear that the success of a marriage relationships. The “Four Horsemen” are:

271
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

1. Criticism: A high percentage of negative as ratio. This term describes a tit-for-tat exchange of
compared to positive comments, remarks, and negative expressions, both verbal and nonverbal, that
nonverbal communications. Gottman and his colleagues found contributes to the
2. Defensiveness: Taking comments and criticism downward spiral of a relationship. If you think about
personally and responding to the feelings they your own relationships, you know that it’s hard not to
created, rather than to the behavior they retaliate against a critical or hurtful comment made by
describe. This included rehearsing defensive an intimate partner. One partner’s negative critical
thoughts such as “I’m not going to take it any comment invites reciprocation from the other, which
more,” or “Next time he/she says that, I am invites further retaliation, which may then escalate
going to say . . . ” into a heated argument. As Gottman notes, anger,
3. Stonewalling: Punishing a partner with the conflict, and disagreements can all be opportunities
“silent treatment” by clamming up, refusing to for deepening mutual understanding and increasing
respond and holding in anger, resentment, future satisfaction. Successful couples find ways to
hurt feelings, and the real reasons for refusing turn disagreements into growth in their relationship,
to talk. and ways to repair the damage of conflict. However,
4. Contempt: Showing scorn, anger, and rejection distressed couples seem stuck in this negative affect
through verbal and nonverbal means (e.g., reciprocity pattern and are unable or unwilling to
rolling of eyes) and generally condemning the respond in more constructive ways.
actions, motives, or personality of the other. Demand/withdraw can be added to the list of
negative interaction patterns described by Gottman’s
All marriages involve some amount of mutual research. This pattern reflects what seems to be a
criticism and hurtful things said in the heat of argu- fairly typical gender difference in response to conflict
ment. Gottman’s research found that it was not sim- (Grossman & Wood, 1993). Women, who are often
ply the presence of negative behaviors that more attuned to and concerned about the ongoing
distinguished happy/stable couples from those quality of close relationships, make more demands to
headed for divorce. Instead, what mattered was the resolve problems and to improve a marriage than
ratio of positive to negative behaviors and the men (Christensen & Heavey, 1993). Relationship
degree of reciprocation of negative behaviors (“neg- problems raised by one partner are sensitive issues
ative affect reciprocity”). Somewhat amazingly, in because they directly or indirectly imply criticism of
counting up the positives and negatives in “love lab” the other partner. In raising these issues, women are
observations, a ratio of 5 positive interactions to 1 generally more emotionally expressive and report
negative interaction was found to be the dividing more intense emotions than men (Grossman &
line between successful and unsuccessful relation- Wood, 1993). Men seem generally less sensitive to
ships. That is, in healthy relationships, likely to last, relationship problems and less comfortable talking
there were five times more positive than negative about them. These differences may produce a pattern
interactions. Troubled relationships had very low of interactions in which the woman makes demands
ratios, meaning that negatives and positives were to talk about a concern and the man withdraws or
about equal, or that negatives out numbered posi- becomes defensive and refuses to confront the issue
tives. The 5-to-1 ratio supports the general principle (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). This frustrates the
that “bad is stronger than good.” Evidently, the harm wife, who then makes more demands, which may
done by one bad thing needs to be offset by five lead to more strident withdrawal on her husband’s
good things for marriages to be satisfying. The 5-to- part, like stomping off and slamming the door on the
1 ratio suggests a fairly obvious approach to improv- way out. This interaction pattern would likely frus-
ing the quality of a relationship—namely, find ways trate both husband and wife and decrease the odds
to reward your partner! Gottman and Levenson that problems will be resolved.
(1992) argue that frequent and simple acts of kind-
ness, concern, care, and affection can shift the ratio
Attributions
into the positive range. This makes conflict less
likely and easier to resolve when it occurs. In addition to negative communication patterns,
Negative affect reciprocity may be one rea- people’s characteristic style of explaining their part-
son unhappy couples have a low positive-to-negative ner’s transgressions and faults also has much to do

272
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

with relationship satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham, on the other hand, assumes relationships are chal-
1990). If your partner forgets to do a favor you lenging and will grow and develop over time. As
requested, or misses an important occasion like your Knee and his colleagues described it, people follow-
birthday or anniversary, how do you explain it? ing the growth theory “. . . are primarily interested in
Does it mean they really don’t care about you, or do developing the relationship, and believe that rela-
you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume tionships grow, not despite obstacles, but rather
there must have been a good reason? As you proba- because of them” (Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003,
bly guessed, satisfied couples assume the best and p. 41). Sample items from their Implicit Theory of
unhappy couples assume the worst. Relationship- Relationship Scale make the distinction between the
enhancing attributions are explanations for a two theories very clear. People who hold to the
partner’s faults and transgressions that “excuse” the romantic destiny theory endorse items such as, “A
behavior because it is seen as determined by situa- successful relationship is mostly a matter of finding
tions, rather than as a reflection of an enduring trait a compatible partner right from the start,” and “Early
or lack of concern for the other partner. “Having a troubles in a relationship signify a poor match
bad day” or “just being forgetful because of preoc- between partners.” Growth theory advocates would
cupation with other things,” puts a positive spin on agree with items like the following: “Challenges and
otherwise negative and potentially hurtful actions. obstacles in a relationship can make love even
Enhancing attributions also work on the positive stronger,” and “It takes a lot of time and effort to cul-
side. Positive behaviors are seen as stemming from a tivate a good relationship” (Knee et al., 2003, p. 41).
partner’s desirable qualities and from their care and Research by Knee and his colleagues suggests
concern for the relationship. When good things hap- that these general beliefs influence many aspects of
pen, they are attributed to the person—not the situ- a relationship—perhaps most importantly, the deci-
ation. “He or she is so thoughtful and loving, look sion to stay or leave (Knee, Nanayakkar, Vietor, &
what I got for our anniversary.” In contrast, unhappy Neighbors, 2002; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkar, &
couples show a distress-maintaining pattern of Neighbors, 2002; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, & Neighbors,
attributions. Negative behaviors, hurtful comments, 2004). A strong belief in romantic destiny leads to an
and forgetting special occasions are attributed to interpretation of conflict as a sign of incompatibility
permanent characteristics of the individual. “This over which couples can exert little control (i.e.,
just shows that you don’t really care, and nothing is “We’re either right for each other or we’re not”).
going to change because that’s just the way you Attributions for problems are likely to focus on indi-
are!” It is little wonder that longitudinal studies have vidual traits (such as personality incompatibility)
linked distress-maintaining attributions to low mari- rather than circumstances. This makes relationship
tal satisfaction throughout the course of a marriage problems seem more stable and enduring and thus,
(Fincham, Harold, & Gano-Phillips, 2000; Karney & unfixable. As marriages progress, a romantic destiny
Bradbury, 2000). view may cause that typical drop in marital satisfac-
tion (described earlier) to be seen as a sure sign of a
bad choice. In fact, research shows that people with
Implicit Theories and Expectations
strong destiny beliefs are more likely to end a rela-
People come into relationships with different tionship if they are not satisfied with how it goes at
implicit or informal theories about how relationships the beginning (Knee, 1998).
are supposed to work. These general ideas may The work-it-out perspective of the relationship
shape the more specific ways people respond to, growth theory is clearly a more hopeful and, many
and evaluate, intimate relations. Knee and his col- would say, more realistic approach to marriage,
leagues have identified two distinct implicit theories, unless of course there really is one “right” person for
defined either by a belief in romantic destiny or each of us, and our job is to find that person for a
by a belief in relationship growth (Knee, 1998). marriage made in heaven. A belief in relationship
The basic premise of the romantic destiny theory is growth provides a more positive and accepting
that two people are either compatible or they are perspective on the inevitable conflicts and disap-
not. If a marriage runs into difficulty, this signals a pointments married couples confront. From a
lack of compatibility—namely, an assumption that growth perspective, conflict is a natural part of all
“we aren’t right for each other.” The growth theory, relationships and does not mean that someone has

273
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

to be at fault or that partners are incompatible. if they weren’t married—that’s how much she liked
Instead, problems are seen as temporary and situa- him. A man married over 30 years said it had
tional and, thus, solvable and likely to pass. almost been like being married to “a series of dif-
Therefore, effort and commitment can make the dif- ferent women” because he had watched his wife
ference between failure and success. grow and change over time (Lauer & Lauer, 1985,
p. 24). He found his wife more interesting now
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE CONTOURS than when they first married. Others shared that
OF A HAPPY MARRIAGE they thought liking was as important as loving in a
marriage. These positive views of marriage part-
Two lessons of positive psychology that you ners were reflected in the enjoyment of shared
have hopefully learned by now are: (1) The absence activities. “We laugh together.” Men endorsed, “We
of the “bad” does not mean the presence of the share outside hobbies and interests” and women,
“good.” (2) Positive and negative emotional experi- “We have a stimulating exchange of ideas.” Shared
ences are independent of one another. Applied activities that are fun, exciting, and arousing may
to marriage, this means that, while the negative be very important in offsetting the boredom that
relationship behaviors we just reviewed make a can set in, in long-term marriages. This possibility
marriage bad, their absence does not necessarily received experimental support from a study that
make a marriage good. It also means that good rela- found an increase in global marital satisfaction
tionship behaviors are not simply the opposite of after couples completed a novel and physiologi-
destructive behaviors. As Reis and Gable put it, cally arousing activity (Aron, Norman, Aron,
“Relating well is not the same thing as not relating McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). In this study, married
badly” (2003, p. 152). What takes a marriage above couples traversed an obstacle course while holding
zero? Beyond just the absence of the bad to some a cylindrical pillow between their bodies or heads.
level of enjoyment, contentment, and happiness? No hands, legs, or teeth were allowed to keep the
Studies of long-term and happily married couples pillow from falling to the ground. Couples found
provide some clues. this activity, reminiscent of sack races at summer
camp, to be fun and exciting. Evidently, the posi-
What Can Happy Couples Tell Us? tive emotion they experienced generalized to their
In a seminal study by Lauer and Lauer, 351 couples relationship, resulting in a more favorable evalua-
(married 15 years or more) were asked to select tion. One ingredient in a successful marriage seems
from a list of 39 statements those that best explained to be the ability to find exciting and fun things to
why their marriages had lasted (Lauer & Lauer, 1985; do together.
Lauer et al., 1990). Husbands and wives responded Husbands and wives in happy marriages also
separately. The overwhelming majority of couples share similar views on many of the potentially
(300) described their marriages as happy ones. And contentious issues within a marriage. “We agree on
men and women showed an amazing degree of aims and goals.” “We agree on a philosophy of
agreement as to why their marriages were happy life.” “We agree on how and how often to show
and successful. The most frequently endorsed rea- affection.” “We agree about our sex life.”
sons for a happy and enduring marriage can be Interestingly, fewer than 10% of these couples
grouped into two general categories: friendship and believed that enjoyable sex kept their marriages
commitment. together. Most couples were happy with their sex
lives, but others, even if they weren’t, or had
FRIENDSHIP Deep and abiding friendship was the stopped having sex altogether, were still happy
top reason couples gave for their lasting marriages. with their marriages (Lauer, et al., 1990). Evidently,
Both husbands and wives agreed, “My spouse is if you have an enjoyable intimate friend as a
my best friend.” Other statements clarified what spouse, sex is not critical to the success of your
they meant. “I like my spouse as a person.” “My marriage, at least after you have been married for
spouse has grown more interesting.” “I confide in 15 years or more.
my spouse.” In response to the more open-ended
questions on the survey, one woman commented COMMITMENT Happy couples recognized the
that she would want her husband as a friend even importance of strong commitment to making their

274
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

marriages work and agreed with the statement, Hendrick and Hendrick (2002) argue that “sexual
“Marriage is a long-term commitment.” The basis of expression” might show up as declining far less if
their commitment was also suggested by other researchers included hugs, kisses, and other physi-
responses (e.g., “Marriage is sacred.” “An enduring cal displays of affection as part of sexual behavior.
marriage is important to social stability.” “I want the Humor, however, apparently does not decline.
relationship to succeed.”). Consistent with Knee’s Why else would 50-years-married couples say
work on the growth theory of relationships, success- laughing together is what made their marriages last
ful couples believed that all marriages run into trou- (Lauer et al., 1990)? Humor is undoubtedly one
bles and that you just have to “take it” until you can major reason happy couples enjoy each other’s
find ways to work it out. Agreement that “We discuss company. Given the benefits of positive emotions,
things calmly” suggests that happy couples take a it’s no wonder successful couples enjoy enhanced
positive approach to resolving conflicts. health and happiness. In addition, as we men-
These results affirm our earlier discussion of tioned earlier in this chapter, humor can detoxify
the differences between friendship and passionate conflict and relieve stress in a relationship.
romance. The deep friendship, intense liking, The value of humor may go beyond its role
respect, comfort, and enjoyment expressed by the in making a couple’s life together more enjoyable.
happy couples in the Lauer’s study stand in contrast Husbands and wives who share a similar sense of
to marriages based on the more tenuous and fickle humor may also share something deeper—namely
nature of passionate romance. The stable solidarity a match of personalities and emotional orienta-
of friendship makes passion look like a shaky basis tions. The idea that what a person honestly finds
for a stable marriage. Many relationship researchers funny might be a window into his or her personal-
would agree that companionate love built on friend- ity is widely shared among humor theorists and
ship is more enduring than romantic love built on researchers (see Martin, 2007). The logic of the
passion. Contemplating the future of marriage, argument is that laughter is an emotional reaction
Hendrick and Hendrick (2002) see hopeful signs that most people cannot fake (accomplished actors
that companionate love and passionate love are may be an exception). An obligatory and forced
being brought into better balance in young people’s laugh is easily distinguished from the real thing.
thinking about intimate relationships. They point to Because it is less subject to conscious control, a
studies showing that college students frequently genuine laugh is thought to an honest expression
name their romantic partners as their closest friends. of how a person really feels. This, in turn, is
Hendrick and Hendrick conclude that “If one could assumed to reflect significant and genuinely
also be good friends, perhaps even best friends with expressed aspects of personality. Both research
one’s passionate lover, then perhaps the relationship and everyday interactions affirm this possibility.
could survive the turbulent comings and goings Studies show that humor and personality are con-
of passion” (2002, p. 473). Couples in the Lauer nected and tend to reflect traits that are prominent
and Lauer study provided strong affirmation of this in our personalities (see Martin, 2007, Chapter 7,
possibility. for review). For example, aggressive people prefer
harsh and aggressive jokes; conservatives prefer
“safe” jokes such as puns; and people who are
Humor and Compatibility
intelligent risk-takers with a high tolerance for
One final morsel of food-for-thought: Earlier in this ambiguity and openness to new experiences enjoy
chapter, we discussed the importance of teasing, more bizarre and highly imaginative humor. In our
humor, and laughter to all our close relationships. own experience, most of us have been in the com-
Social support, intimacy, and concern are all signif- pany of people who laugh heartily at a joke that
icant, but for sheer pleasure and enjoyment you we find personally offensive. This can be an
can’t beat having fun with people you care about. immediate source of alienation. We may think, “If
It’s no accident, then, that happy couples say they you find that funny, you’re not my kind of per-
laugh together and that a sense of humor is high son.” Shared humor can create an opposite feel-
on the list of desirable qualities people seek in ing: “That’s my favorite kind of joke, so you’re my
a potential mate. We know that frequency of kind of person.”
sex declines even in good marriages, although

275
 Close Relationships and Well-Being

The idea that humor is a window to thoughts their spouse seems so different from when they
and feelings that lie beneath the surface of con- were dating or first married? A shared sense of
scious awareness is exemplified in an engaging humor may increase the odds that when the
book by Leon Rappoport titled, Punchlines: The distorting effects of self-conscious impression
Case for Racial, Ethnic and Gender Humor (2005). management fade, some basic compatibility will
Rappoport argues that racial, ethnic, and gender- remain.
based forms of humor are typically viewed as insult- While there is not a large literature examining
ing and prejudicial, which they certainly can be. the relationship value of a shared sense humor,
However, at a deeper level such humor serves the what there is provides some support (see Martin,
important function of expressing those forbidden 2007, Chapter 5). Similarity in humor is affirmed as
thoughts and feelings that are buried deep beneath a basis for initial attraction. We like people who
the veneer of polite society and, more recently, the share our sense of what’s funny, in part because
culture of political correctness. Comedians who we assume we also share other beliefs and quali-
make fun of their own race, ethnicity, or gender ties. Married couples do tend to share a similar
open the door to honest consideration of stereo- sense of humor. However, higher ratings of humor
types and hostilities by reducing the anxieties, ten- similarity do not reliably predict marital
sions, and guilt experienced by people who hold satisfaction. Part of the problem here may have to
them. Laughing releases the tension created by con- do with the limitations of self-report assessments of
sciously denied, but honestly felt emotions and shared humor. Because humor in real life is spon-
beliefs, and brings them out in the open. Because taneous, self-report questionnaires may not be the
humor detoxifies stereotypes and prejudices by best way to measure it, because they are far-
holding them up for public ridicule, Rappoport removed from the moments of actual humor that
argues that the net effect is to reduce—not occur in the context of everyday life. To this point,
increase—their potency. Gottman’s “love lab” observational studies do show
Rappoport believes that humor may serve a that happy couples’ interactions are characterized
similar function in marriage (L. Rappoport, per- by a good deal of humor and reciprocated laugh-
sonal communication, April 20, 2007). Because ter. Humor, marital harmony, and effective rela-
people differ in what they find funny, humor tional problem-solving were found to go together.
reflects something important about a person’s per- Perhaps we need a “humor lab” to specifically
sonality. Most intriguing is the idea that humor rep- assess couples’ shared and non-shared humorous
resents accurate information about a person reactions to situations, issues, and problems that
because genuine laughter is spontaneous and can- typically occur in a marriage.
not be produced on demand. Much of what people Though the empirical jury is still out, a
reveal to others is disingenuous, not necessarily shared sense of humor is an intriguing way to
because of manipulative intentions, but because think about an index of basic compatibility
people are being polite, want to make a good between intimate partners. Similarity in humor
impression, or are following their expectations may be important in knowing whether someone is
about how to act in a particular kind of relation- “right” for you, and in sustaining a mutually enjoy-
ship. Compared to the similarities revealed in peo- able and enduring future relationship. Our guess
ple’s consciously controlled actions, responses to would be that successful couples have humor in
humor may represent honest and deeper similari- common, whether or not they realized this at the
ties between two people. beginning of their relationships. As research
Studies support the value of similarity as an shows, we are attracted to people who laugh at
essential foundation for successful close relation- the same things we do.
ships (Noller & Feeney, 2006). Opposites may be So there you have it. Friendship, humor, and
interesting, but they don’t seem to attract, as con- commitment. Three essential ingredients in the com-
ventional wisdom suggests. Significant differences, plex recipe for a successful marriage. Looking for a
not similarities, cause spouses the most trouble. romantic partner? Find yourself a best buddy/best
However, knowing if you are similar to someone friend who laughs at all the same things you do and
at a deeper level is difficult to determine. How you should find it easier to make and sustain a long-
many couples wonder after a year of marriage why term commitment!

276