Lec. 9. Chapter 5. Friendship, Love, and Commitment

I. The Importance of Love: major life decisions, such as marriage, based on

II. Love and American Families

a. 18^th cent mar:not formally arranged like elsewhere; but > parent control then

b. end 19^th cent: parental control over children’s marriage choice had dissipated

1. cause is econ development:>opportunity decreased dependency on parents

2. Love: became vehicle that drove mate selection

C. Love: more central in American mate selection than other Western societies

1. love-based mar: fits freedom given young, estab indep of conjugal family

2. if extended fam predom: love not central; pol/econ reasons for alliances

3. not uniquely American: value romantic love in building intimate relations

recognized in 90% of 166 societies examined by Jankowiak and Fisher (1992)

D. Homogamy:American marry people like selves;challenge idea blind, irrat love

III. Friendship, Love, and Commitment

A. Lovers:more fascination&exclusiveness than friends;> chance conflict;deeper

B. Men maintain > emotional distance: unlike women, > capacity disclosing

C. Men display < affection:do things,not reveal & have > friendships than fems

D. Male-male style:maybe discomfort,no unable,intimacy w/men;>reveal to fem

D. Men quicker fall in love: & more likely see sex as expressing love than fems

E. Exaggeration of gender differences:greater in what is said than what is done

F. Socialization: men competitive,rational; fem express feel w/out worry conseq

G. Permeable ego boundaries: fems open to rel w/ others; strong bond to moms

H. Male boundaries because sep from moms: thus less able to bond intimately

a. Task completion: and independence remain as male orientation

b. role models for intimacy:<for boys since dads not care young child

c. caring, loving female role model: girls are able to see up close

I. Schwartz’s (1994) Peer Marriage: built on equity & deep friendship (intense

companionship, intimacy, mutual respect); share chores; equal power & childcare

1 M/F grow alike:e.g.,fems value instrumental display love (servicing her car)

2 Fems <dep conversational express love:since have identity outside home

3 Like Risman& Johnson-Summerford’s post-gender couples:not common

J.Separation of sex & love: for majority of men easy to do; more so than fems

K. women: > likely report feelings of love if sexually involved with partner

1 seek emotional relationships: whereas men seek physical relationships

L. Trad. values:“good” fems virgins;“bad”are sex experienced,indep, passionate.

M. Gay Criterion: some say loving person of same sex, rather than having sex

N. WC: marry to escape poverty&parent control,be adult;now >like MC,eg share

O. Prototypes of love:models stored in back of mind(use of word “love”),not def

P. 12 attributes in love prototype (Fehr 1988):trust,caring, honesty, friendship,

respect, concern for the other’s well-being, loyalty, commitment, acceptance of

the other, supportiveness, wanting to be with the other, interest in the other

1.peripheral char: euphoria, thinking @ other all time, butterflies in stomach

Q. Zubin’s 4 feelings identifying love: caring for other, needing other (want to

be in presence), trusting other (exchange confidences), tolerating other

R. Reiss’s (1980) 3 Factors in commitment: 1 cost/benefit 2 normative inputs

(basic values:eg.,marriage for life?), structural constraints (roles—wife,mom)

1. marital commitments endure:norms/constraints may compensate no satis