Lecture 1 Relationship impact on well-being
learning objectives
· indicate how (e.g. the role of social support) the quantity and quality of our relationships is associated with health
· identify two ways in which social support operates
· be aware of various effects of social exclusion
· explain the role of control in the effects of exclusion on aggression
Why study relationships? Humans as social animals
Heart-failure study (Coyne 2001)
· happily married males → 70% were still alive after 4 years
· unhappy married males → only 45% were still alive after 4 years
→ happily married males lived longer
Berkman & Syme study
· least socially integrated men → 17% died within 9 years
· most socially integrated men → 7.8% died within 9 years
· least socially integrated women → 14% died within 9 years
· most socially integrated women → 4% died within 9 years
→ high socially integrated men & women live longer
immune system study (Cohen)
· relationships support the immune system
· people got injected rhino-virus (common-cold) → you get sick/not depending on your immune system
· 60% of not socially integrated people got sick
· 35% highly socially integrated people got sick
→ high socially integrated had a better immune system
Mortality risk
· social relationships are the 2. highest cause for mortality risk, close behind smoking
WHY is social integration associated with both physical & psychological well-being?
social integration → social support → health & well-being
social support
· emotional support & instrumental support → strongly correlated & often ‘confounded’ e.g. go shopping when ill
· ‘visible’ & ‘invisible’ support → visible support works better; invisible support = explicit e.g. ‘you look tired’ can have
neg. side effects
How social support affects health & well-being (Cohen)
direct effects hypothesis (main effect hypothesis) e.g. social support makes people take better care of themselves
(less smoking, more exercise, healthier diet etc); social influence/norms
· experience more pos. affect
· here social support is always effective
stress-buffering hypothesis social support reduces stress under potentially stressful circumstances
· stress (e.g. cortisol) directly related to health via cardio-vascular & immune system
· here social support only is effective if you are stressed
1
,Lending a hand (Coan) → example for stress-buffering hypothesis
· fMRI study, neurophysiological responses to anticipated pain
· 3 conditions: holding hand of romantic partner, stranger, or no hand holding, while anticipating a hurtful electric
shock
· stress-related activity in brain when red cross appeared on the screen, instead of the blue circle
→ there was stress which was hampered only when the romantic partner was holding the hand of the women
→ especially when the woman reported high relationship satisfaction stress was buffered
→ quality of relationship matters!
strength & strain model of marriage & health (Slatcher) (quality of relationship)
· a supportive relationship buffers against negative effect of outside stressors
· a non-supportive relationship (non-happy marriage) has a stress-intensifying effect
anecdote:
· twins prematurely born, one nurse put both babies into one incubator → both healed much faster
conclusion:
· having an extensive social network strongly associated with people’s psychological & physical well-being
· social support is key; has direct & indirect (stress-buffering) effect
· role of relationships on health & well-being underestimated, by laypeople & psychologists alike
The need to belong
· evolved need to initiate & maintain relationships; critical for survival…
· similar to need for food & water
2
,need to belong-hypothesis: 2 categories of support
1. Changes in belongingness evokes strong effects
· inclusion/social integration = healthy & happy
· exclusion/loneliness = unhealthy & unhappy
2. Initiating social interactions seems innate & humans form social relationships really easily
· part of genetic make-up
· universal: over the whole globe, people live in societies
· minimal group research just divide a group of people into 2 groups based on arbitrary criteria
→ people start to identify themselves with that criteria and with their ingroup & perceive the others as outgroup
· mere proximity leads to relationships → automatically & easily
· attachment literature → attachment bonds for safety
· innate focus on others (face perceptual system)
face perceptual system
· baby’s 30 minutes (!) old attend their gaze more to faces than other equally complex stimuli
· we always see faces in objects & assign human emotions to them automatically
reactions to changes in belongingness: social exclusion
· small cue of social exclusion can invoke negative reactions
· ball tossing game, 3 people, 2 toss a ball to each other ignoring the third one
→ immediate reactions to ostracism, even if it is financially beneficial to be the ignored one
· ostracism threatens fundamental needs
· lower sense of ‘belonging’, control, sense of meaningfulness & self-esteem (sociometer theory)
→ you find these effects no matter what
→ social exclusion activates the anterior cingulate & right ventral prefrontal cortex, the same areas for physical pain
‘it hurts’ - pain overlap theory
· similar neural system involved in both social & physical pain
· sensitivity to both social & physical pain is linked by a common gene (OPRM-I)
→ similar psychological responses: both social & physical pain lead to loss of control, lowered self-esteem,
aggression etc
can we treat social pain with painkillers (developed for physical pain)?
· participants took 3 weeks long acetaminophen (paracetamol) or placebo
· study 1: report ‘hurt feelings’ daily
· paracetamol group reported less hurt feelings than the control group
· study 2: brain-scan during social exclusion
· paracetamol group didn’t show pain reactivity at neurological level when socially excluded, like control group
→ psychological & physical pain are strongly overlapping
social & physical pain dissimilarity?
· social pain is long-term & physical pain is not
is there a relationship between social exclusion & aggression?
· much more evidence for: if people are socially excluded, they act more aggressively afterward
· Twenge & colleagues exclusion manipulations:
· e.g. group formation (everyone chose you; non of the others chose you)
· leads to aggression, on several indices of aggression e.g. hot sauce paradigm, sounds blasts, rating of essay
→ aggression leads to regain control & showing others that you are more in control of the situation
3
, When and why? The role of control needs
→ if given an opportunity for reconnection: prosocial
What social exclusion can lead to
· in at least 12/15 school shootings either chronic ostracism/exclusion (bullying), or acute exclusion (e.g. romantic
break-up)
· Oklahoma BTK killer: ‘how many people do I have to kill before someone notices me?’
immediate reflexive stage → hurts directly
reflective stage → ways to strengthen your needs of belonging by reconnecting with others; people use aggression to
strengthen the other need of control
Conclusion
· humans are ‘social animals’
· the need to belong underlies much of our actions & decisions in our life
· do not underestimate the power of social relationships!
4
learning objectives
· indicate how (e.g. the role of social support) the quantity and quality of our relationships is associated with health
· identify two ways in which social support operates
· be aware of various effects of social exclusion
· explain the role of control in the effects of exclusion on aggression
Why study relationships? Humans as social animals
Heart-failure study (Coyne 2001)
· happily married males → 70% were still alive after 4 years
· unhappy married males → only 45% were still alive after 4 years
→ happily married males lived longer
Berkman & Syme study
· least socially integrated men → 17% died within 9 years
· most socially integrated men → 7.8% died within 9 years
· least socially integrated women → 14% died within 9 years
· most socially integrated women → 4% died within 9 years
→ high socially integrated men & women live longer
immune system study (Cohen)
· relationships support the immune system
· people got injected rhino-virus (common-cold) → you get sick/not depending on your immune system
· 60% of not socially integrated people got sick
· 35% highly socially integrated people got sick
→ high socially integrated had a better immune system
Mortality risk
· social relationships are the 2. highest cause for mortality risk, close behind smoking
WHY is social integration associated with both physical & psychological well-being?
social integration → social support → health & well-being
social support
· emotional support & instrumental support → strongly correlated & often ‘confounded’ e.g. go shopping when ill
· ‘visible’ & ‘invisible’ support → visible support works better; invisible support = explicit e.g. ‘you look tired’ can have
neg. side effects
How social support affects health & well-being (Cohen)
direct effects hypothesis (main effect hypothesis) e.g. social support makes people take better care of themselves
(less smoking, more exercise, healthier diet etc); social influence/norms
· experience more pos. affect
· here social support is always effective
stress-buffering hypothesis social support reduces stress under potentially stressful circumstances
· stress (e.g. cortisol) directly related to health via cardio-vascular & immune system
· here social support only is effective if you are stressed
1
,Lending a hand (Coan) → example for stress-buffering hypothesis
· fMRI study, neurophysiological responses to anticipated pain
· 3 conditions: holding hand of romantic partner, stranger, or no hand holding, while anticipating a hurtful electric
shock
· stress-related activity in brain when red cross appeared on the screen, instead of the blue circle
→ there was stress which was hampered only when the romantic partner was holding the hand of the women
→ especially when the woman reported high relationship satisfaction stress was buffered
→ quality of relationship matters!
strength & strain model of marriage & health (Slatcher) (quality of relationship)
· a supportive relationship buffers against negative effect of outside stressors
· a non-supportive relationship (non-happy marriage) has a stress-intensifying effect
anecdote:
· twins prematurely born, one nurse put both babies into one incubator → both healed much faster
conclusion:
· having an extensive social network strongly associated with people’s psychological & physical well-being
· social support is key; has direct & indirect (stress-buffering) effect
· role of relationships on health & well-being underestimated, by laypeople & psychologists alike
The need to belong
· evolved need to initiate & maintain relationships; critical for survival…
· similar to need for food & water
2
,need to belong-hypothesis: 2 categories of support
1. Changes in belongingness evokes strong effects
· inclusion/social integration = healthy & happy
· exclusion/loneliness = unhealthy & unhappy
2. Initiating social interactions seems innate & humans form social relationships really easily
· part of genetic make-up
· universal: over the whole globe, people live in societies
· minimal group research just divide a group of people into 2 groups based on arbitrary criteria
→ people start to identify themselves with that criteria and with their ingroup & perceive the others as outgroup
· mere proximity leads to relationships → automatically & easily
· attachment literature → attachment bonds for safety
· innate focus on others (face perceptual system)
face perceptual system
· baby’s 30 minutes (!) old attend their gaze more to faces than other equally complex stimuli
· we always see faces in objects & assign human emotions to them automatically
reactions to changes in belongingness: social exclusion
· small cue of social exclusion can invoke negative reactions
· ball tossing game, 3 people, 2 toss a ball to each other ignoring the third one
→ immediate reactions to ostracism, even if it is financially beneficial to be the ignored one
· ostracism threatens fundamental needs
· lower sense of ‘belonging’, control, sense of meaningfulness & self-esteem (sociometer theory)
→ you find these effects no matter what
→ social exclusion activates the anterior cingulate & right ventral prefrontal cortex, the same areas for physical pain
‘it hurts’ - pain overlap theory
· similar neural system involved in both social & physical pain
· sensitivity to both social & physical pain is linked by a common gene (OPRM-I)
→ similar psychological responses: both social & physical pain lead to loss of control, lowered self-esteem,
aggression etc
can we treat social pain with painkillers (developed for physical pain)?
· participants took 3 weeks long acetaminophen (paracetamol) or placebo
· study 1: report ‘hurt feelings’ daily
· paracetamol group reported less hurt feelings than the control group
· study 2: brain-scan during social exclusion
· paracetamol group didn’t show pain reactivity at neurological level when socially excluded, like control group
→ psychological & physical pain are strongly overlapping
social & physical pain dissimilarity?
· social pain is long-term & physical pain is not
is there a relationship between social exclusion & aggression?
· much more evidence for: if people are socially excluded, they act more aggressively afterward
· Twenge & colleagues exclusion manipulations:
· e.g. group formation (everyone chose you; non of the others chose you)
· leads to aggression, on several indices of aggression e.g. hot sauce paradigm, sounds blasts, rating of essay
→ aggression leads to regain control & showing others that you are more in control of the situation
3
, When and why? The role of control needs
→ if given an opportunity for reconnection: prosocial
What social exclusion can lead to
· in at least 12/15 school shootings either chronic ostracism/exclusion (bullying), or acute exclusion (e.g. romantic
break-up)
· Oklahoma BTK killer: ‘how many people do I have to kill before someone notices me?’
immediate reflexive stage → hurts directly
reflective stage → ways to strengthen your needs of belonging by reconnecting with others; people use aggression to
strengthen the other need of control
Conclusion
· humans are ‘social animals’
· the need to belong underlies much of our actions & decisions in our life
· do not underestimate the power of social relationships!
4
