Three Stages of Relationships

Annotations:

• Psychologists are not only interested in why relationships form, but also what keeps them going.
• Some relationships never seem to flourish, while others are extremely successful and long-lasting.
• Maintaining a relationship is not a one-way process, but involves an interaction between the two partners, each with their own needs and expectations.
• In a sense, the two theories here represent a kind of marketplace, where each member of a romantic partnership must serve their own needs, but also satisfy the needs of their partner.

1. Social Exchange Theory
   1. Thibaut and Kelley, 1959
   2. Profit and loss

      Annotations:

      • Central assumption of this theory is that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges; we attempt to maximise rewards and minimise costs.
      • In society, people exchange resources with the expectation/hope that they will earn a "profit" (rewards exceed costs).
      • Rewards that we may receive from a relationship include being cared for, companionship and sex. Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted (missed opportunities with others because of being in that particular relationship)
      • Reward minus costs equal the outcome (a profit or loss). Social exchange, in line with other "economic" theories of human behaviour, stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the probability of this outcome.
      1. Commentary

         Annotations:

         • The notion of exchange has been used to explain why some women stay in abusive relationships.
         1. Rusbult and Martz, 1995

            Annotations:

            • They argue that when investments are high (e.g. children, financial security) and alternatives are low (e.g. nowhere else to live, no money) this could still be considered a profit situation and a woman might choose to remain in such a relationship.
   3. Comparison level

      Annotations:

      • In order to judge whether one person offers something better or worse than we might expect from another, Thibaut and Kelley proposed that we develop a comparison level - a standard against which all our relationships are judged.
      • Our comparison level (CL) is a product of our experiences in other relationships together with our general views of what we might expect from this particular exchange.
      • If we judge that the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile, and the other person will be seen as attractive as a partner.
      • If the final result is negative (profit is less than our CL) we will be dissatisfied with the relationship and the other person is thus less attractive.
      • A related concept is the comparison level for alternatives, where the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship.
      • A new relationship can take the place of the current one if its profit level is significantly higher.
      1. Commentary

         Annotations:

         • Support can be found by looking at how people in a relationship deal with potential alternatives; one way of dealing with such potential threats is to reduce them as a means of protecting the relationship.
         1. Simpson et al, 1990

            Annotations:

            • Asked participants to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness; those participants who were already involved in a relationship gave lower ratings.
            • However, social exchange theory does not explain why some people leave relationships despite having no alternative, nor does it suggest how great the disparity in CL has to be to become unsatisfactory.
   4. Limitations

      Annotations:

      • The main criticism focuses on the selfish nature of the theory. Are people only motivated to maintain relationships out of hedonistic (selfish) concerns?
      • It is possible that such principles only apply in individualist cultures, if at all. (See cultural bias strand)
      1. Duck and Sants, 1983

         Annotations:

         • Criticised the social exchange theory for focusing too much on the individual's perspective and ignoring the social aspects of a relationship, such as how partners communicate and interpret shared events.
2. Equity Theory
   1. Walster et al, 1978
   2. Inequity and distress

      Annotations:

      • In social exchange theory, we learned that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges, with individuals attempting to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs.
      • According to equity theory, any kind of inequity has the potential to create distress. People who give a great deal in a relationship and get little in return would perceive inequity, and therefore would be dissatisfied in the relationship.
      • However, the same is true of those who receive a great deal and give little in return.
      • This is also an inequitable relationship, with the same consequence for both partners - dissatisfaction. As you might imagine, the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, and the greater the dissatisfaction, the greater the distress.
      1. Messick and Cook, 1983

         Annotations:

         • Equity theory is an extension of that underlying belief, with its central assumption that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness.
   3. Ratio of inputs and outputs

      Annotations:

      • An important point to bear in mind when considering this theory is that equity does not necessarily mean equality.
      • It is possible for each partner to contribute (and receive) very different amounts and for the relationship to still be equitable.
      • What is considered "fair" a subjective opinion for each partner. Thus, although one partner perceives themselves as putting in less than the other, the relationship will still be judged fair if they get less out of the relationship (relative to the other person).
      • This is explained in terms of a person's perceived ratio of inputs and outputs, a subjective assessment of the relative inputs of each partner relative to the outcomes for that partner.
      • Deciding whether a relationship is equitable therefore involves some fairly complicated mathematics. An equitable relationship should, according to this theory, be one where one partner's benefits minus their costs equals their partner's benefits less their costs.
      • If we perceive inequality in our relationship, then we are motivated to restore it. This can be achieved in several different ways.
      • For example, we may change the amount we put into a relationship, the amount we demand from the relationship, or our perceptions of relative inputs and outputs, in order to restore the appearance of equity.
      • We may also compare our relationship to our comparison level for other relationships to see if it is worth continuing our investment in the current relationship or whether we should end it and begin a new one.
   4. Exchange and communal
      1. Clark and Mills, 1979

         Annotations:

         • Disagreed with the claim that all relationships are based on economics. They distinguished between exchange relationships (e.g. between colleagues or business associates) and communal relationships (e.g. friends and lovers).
         • Although exchange relationships may involve keeping track of rewards and costs, communal relationships are governed more by a desire to respond to the needs of the partner.
         • There is still some concern with equity, but partners tend to believe things will balance out in the long run.
   5. Marital disruption

      Annotations:

      • If equity is so important in relationships, what happens in the case of inequitable relationships?
      1. DeMaris, 2007

         Annotations:

         • Investigated whether marital inequity is associated with later marital disruption.
         • Using 1500 couples as part of the US National Survey of Families and Households, he found that the only subjective index of inequity associated with disruption is women's sense of being under-benefited, with greater under-benefit raising the risk of divorce.
   6. Insufficient
      1. Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown, 2007

         Annotations:

         • They reject the claim that equity is a key determinant of relationship satisfaction. They argue that this represents "an incomplete rendering of the way in which married people behave with respect to each other."
         • Therefore, equity theory is an insufficient theory to explain marital maintenance.
   7. Equity and satisfaction
      1. Stafford and Canary, 2006

         Annotations:

         • Asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction.
         • Findings revealed that satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable, followed by over-benefited partners and lowest for under-benefited partners.
         • These findings are consistent with predictions from equity theory. Couples also completed measures of five maintenance strategies - positivity, openness, assurances, social networks and sharing tasks.
         • Under-benefited husbands reported significantly lower levels of three of these compared to equitable or over-benefited husbands.
3. Sex, lies and social exchange

   Annotations:

   • Social exchange has increasingly been applied to exchanges between intimate partners, and several studies have demonstrated that sex is used as an exchange resource in intimate relationships.
   • Such is the importance of sex in the maintenance of relationships, that deception has become a strategic weapon in the exchange process.
   1. Marelich et al, 2008

      Annotations:

      • Surveyed 267 students in the US, finding that men were more likely to use blatant lies (e.g. about caring/commitment) to have sex, while women were more likely to have sex to avoid confrontation, gain partner approval and promote intimacy.
      • Such findings show that sexual deception is an important part of a social exchange process, with sex for pleasure and positive relationship outcomes (e.g. approval, commitment) acting as rewards, and unwanted sex and deception consequences (e.g. guilt, lack of trust) as costs.
4. Gender differences

   Annotations:

   • Research suggests that men and women might judge the equity of a relationship differently.
   1. Steil and Weltman, 1991

      Annotations:

      • Found that, among married working couples, husbands who earned more than their wives rated their own careers as more important than their wives' careers.
      • In such couples the women generally also rated their husbands' careers as more important than their own.
      • However, in couples where the woman's income exceeded the man's, neither partner rated their career as more important.
      • Researchers concluded that "wives' tendency to seek less for themselves than comparable men making comparable contributions...impeded the achievement of equality at home."
5. Cultural bias
   1. Moghaddam, 1998

      Annotations:

      • Suggests that such "economic" theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility.
      • One group of people who fit this description are students in Western societies. They are typically very mobile and experience many short-term romantic relationships.
      • When there is little time to develop long-term commitment, it makes sense to be concerned with give-and-take.
      • However, long-term relationships within other less mobile population groups, particularly in non-traditional societies, are more likely to value security than personal profit.

Annotations:

• Some relationships flourish, some survive in name alone and some fail completely. In our culture, relationships are considered "successful" if partners stay together, and those relationships that end "prematurely" are considered failures.
• This is despite the fact that many so-called successful relationships continue even though neither partner is really committed to the relationship. Likewisem ending an unhappy relationship may help each partner to find a new and happy life elsewhere with a new partner.

1. Reasons for breakdown
   1. Duck, 1999

      Annotations:

      • As Steve Duck suggests, relationships are a little like cars, in that they can have "accidents" for many reasons.
      • Sometimes it is the "driver's" fault, sometimes it is the actions of other road users. Like a car, a poorly maintained relationship is at risk of breakdown.
   2. Lack of skills

      Annotations:

      • For some people, relationships are difficult because they lack the interpersonal skills to make them mutually satisfying. 
      • Lack of social skills, therefore, means that others perceive them as not being interested in relating, so a relationship tends to break down before it really gets going.
      1. Duck, 1991

         Annotations:

         • Individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and are likely to be generally unrewarding in their interactions with other people.
   3. Lack of stimulation

      Annotations:

      • According to Social Exchange Theory, people look for rewards in their relationships, one of which is "stimulation."
      • We would expect, therefore, that lack of stimulation would be a reason why relationships break down. 
      • People expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end a relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair).
      1. Baxter, 1994

         Annotations:

         • Shows evidence that lack of stimulation (i.e. boredom or a belief that the relationship wasn't going anywhere) is often quoted when breaking off a relationship.
   4. Maintenance difficulties

      Annotations:

      • There are clearly some circumstances where relationships become strained simply because partners cannot see each other enough.
      • While enduring romantic relationships can be strong enough to survive the pressures of decreased daily contact, it is evident that for many this isn't the case.
      1. Shaver et al, 1985

         Annotations:

         • Going away to university, for example, places a great strain on existing relationships, and is often respond for their breakdown.
      2. Commentary

         Annotations:

         • Long-distance romantic relationships (LDRR) and long-distance friendships (LDF) are perhaps more common than we think.
         • The fact that in our mobile society, people do have to move and do become separated from family, friends and/or partners means that it is useful to understand the management strategies that people us.
         1. Rohlfing, 1995

            Annotations:

            • One study found that 70% of students sampled had experienced at least one LDRR and that 90% said had experienced one LDF.
         2. Holt and Stone, 1988

            Annotations:

            • Holt and Stone found that there was little decrease in relationship satisfaction as long as lovers are able to reunite regularly.
   5. Extramarital affairs

      Annotations:

      • A major reason why relationships break down is that one or both partners have an extramarital affair.
      1. Boekhout et al, 1999

         Annotations:

         • Boekhout showed how such affairs might be a direct reaction to the perceived lack of skills and/or stimulation in the current relationship.
         • They asked undergraduates to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed relationship.
         • Participants judged that sexual reasons for infidelity (e.g. sexual excitement, boredom, variety) would be more likely to be used by men, whereas emotional reasons for infidelity (e.g. lack of attention, lack of commitment, emotional satisfaction) would be likely to be used by women.
2. Model of breakdown
   1. Rollie and Duck, 2006
   2. Personal stage

      Annotations:

      • The first phase of Rollie and Duck's model begins when one of the partners becomes distressed with the way the relationship is conducted.
      • Inequitable relationships are more likely to create dissatisfaction than equitable relationships, so this realisation may be the first step in the eventual breakdown of the relationship.
      • This leads to an intrapsychic process characterised by a brooding focus on the relationship.
      • During this process, nothing is said to the partner, although the dissatisfied partner may express their dissatisfaction in other ways, e.g. in a personal diary entry. 
      • Some people will end relationships without ever discussing their dissatisfaction with their partner.
      • The promises of "I'll call you" or "let's stay friends" often disguise a deeper dissatisfaction with the other person as a romantic partner.
      • In the dyadic process, people confront their partners and begin to discuss their feelings and the future. At this stage the relationship might be saved or partners begin to involve others in their dissatisfaction with the relationship.
   3. Going public

      Annotations:

      • Up to this point, partners might have kept their dissatisfaction fairly private, but it now spills over to a network of friends and family as it reaches the social process.
      • Others may take sides, offer advice and support, or may help in mending any disputes between the two sides. The involvement of others may even speed the partners towards dissolution through revelations about one or other of the partners.
      • Having left a relationship, partners attempt to justify their actions. This process is important, as each partner must present themselves to others as being trustworthy and loyal, key attributes for future relationships.
      • Partners strive to construct a representation of the failed relationship that does not paint their contribution to it in unfavourable terms.
      • In this grave-dressing process, people may strategically reinterpret their view of the partner. For example, they may have been attracted to their "rebellious" nature, but now label that characteristic as "irresponsibility."
      • In the final resurrection process each partner prepares themselves for new relationships by redefining themselves and building on past mistakes and experiences.
   4. Research Support

      Annotations:

      • Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life break-ups.
      1. Tashiro and Frazier, 2003

         Annotations:

         • Tashiro and Frazier surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. 
         • They typically reported that they had not only experienced emotional distress, but also personal growth.
         • These students reported that breaking up with their partner had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners.
         • Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes they were able to put the original relationship to rest and get on with their lives.
   5. Intervention implications

      Annotations:

      • Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. 
      • Paying attention to the things that people say, the topics that they discuss and the ways in which they talk about their relationship offers both an insight into their stage and also suggests interventions appropriate to that stage.
      • If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for the partner, perhaps by re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light.
      • In the later stages, different strategies of repair are appropriate. For example, people outside the relationship may help the partners patch up their differences.
   6. Breakdown

      Annotations:

      • Dissatisfaction with the relationship.
      • "I can't stand this anymore"
      1. Intrapsychic

         Annotations:

         • Social withdrawal, rumination resentment, brooding on partner's "faults" and relational "costs," re-evaluation of alternatives to relationship.
         • "I'd be justified in withdrawing."
         1. Dyadic

            Annotations:

            • Uncertainty, anxiety, hostility, complaints, dicussion of discontents, talk about "our relationship," equity, roles, reassessment of goals, possibilities, commitments.
            • "I mean it"
            1. Social

               Annotations:

               • Going public, support seeking from third parties, denigration of partner, alliance building, social commitment, outside forces create cohesion
               • "It's now inevitable"
               1. Grave-dressing

                  Annotations:

                  • Tidying up memories, making relational histories, stories prepared for different audiences, saving face
                  • "Time to get a new life"
                  1. Resurrection

                     Annotations:

                     • Recreating sense of own social value, defining what to get out of future relationships, preparation for a different sort of relational future, reframing of past relational life
                     • "What I learned and how things will be different"
3. Relationship skills

   Annotations:

   • The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has been demonstrated in studies that have attempted to enhance relationship skills in distressed couples.
   • The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) programme aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect within their relationship and to improve communication and problem-solving skills.
   1. Cina et al, 2003

      Annotations:

      • Cina compared 50 couples (average length of relationship at 12 years) who received CCET training with a control group who did not.
      • Results showed that the CCET group reported much higher marital quality after training compared to the control group.
4. Gender differences

   Annotations:

   • Women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution.
   • Women have more desire to stay friends after relationship has broken up.
   1. Brehm and Kassin, 1996

      Annotations:

      • Men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding".
   2. Akert, 1998

      Annotations:

      • Men want to "cut their losses" and move on.
5. Ethical issues

   Annotations:

   • Carrying out research in this sensitive area raises particular issues of vulnerability (participants may experience distress when revisiting the issues that led to breakdown).
   • Issues of privacy (many such issues are of an intensely personal nature) and confidentiality are also involved in breakdown research.
   • For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her abuser should he discover her participation in their research.
   • Ultimately, the researcher faces a choice of pursuing valuable information or terminating their involvement with a participant to prevent any further harm befalling them.

Annotations:

• Romantic relationships based on feelings and shared emotions rather than simple reinforcement  or similarity.
• Social psychologists are not usually known for romantic views of relationships. Perhaps it's more to do with self-interest.

1. Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory

   Annotations:

   • When asked what attracts you to your partner, you might respond that they are attentive, supportive, loving or good fun.
   • This suggests we're attracted to people we find satisfying or gratifying to be with. Most stimuli can be viewed as punishing or rewarding in some way. We are motivated to seek rewarding stimuli and avoid punishing stimuli.
   • The things we find rewarding tend to reflect our unmet needs (e.g. need for company, financial security, an attractive partner, etc.)
   • Mutual attraction occurs when each partner meets the other person's needs. One person might have the need for financial security, while the other craves love.
   1. Byrne and Clore, 1970
   2. Rewards and punishments

      Annotations:

      • Rewarding stimuli produce positive feelings in us (e.g. they make us happy) and punishing stimuli produce negative feelings.
      • Given that some of these stimuli are other people, it follows that some people make us happy, and some don't.
      • According to operant conditioning, we are likely to repeat any behaviour that leads to a desirable outcome and avoid behaviours that lead to an undesirable outcome.
      • We enter into relationships because the presence of some individuals is directly associated with reinforcement (i.e. the person creates positive feelings in us, which make them more attractive to us.
   3. Attraction through association

      Annotations:

      • We also like people who are associated with pleasant events. If we meet someone when feeling happy we are much more inclined to like them than if we meet them when we are unhappy.
      • A previously neutral stimulus (e.g. someone we hadn't previously met and have no real feelings for) can become positively valued because of their association with a pleasant event.
      • We learn to like people through the process of classical conditioning. Byrne and Clore believed the balance of positive and negative feelings are crucial in relationship formation.
      • Relationships where positive feelings outweigh negative feelings are more likely to develop and succeed, but those where negative outweigh the positive are likely to fail.
   4. Research support

      Annotations:

      • The theory proposes that we like some individuals because they provide direct reinforcement.
      1. Physiological support
         1. Aron et al, 2005

            Annotations:

            • Participants who measured very high on a self-report questionnaire of romantic love also showed strong activity in particular areas of the brain including the ventral tegmental area.
            • Early-stage, intense romantic love was associated with elevated levels of activity in subcortical reward regions of the brain, rich in the neurotransmitter dopamine.
      2. Griffitt and Guay, 1969

         Annotations:

         • Participants were evaluated on a creative task by an experimenter and then asked to rate how much they liked the experimenter.
         • Ratings were highest when the experimenter had positively evaluated (i.e. rewarded) the participant's performance on the task.
         • Supports theory that we also like people who are associated with pleasant events.
         • Participants also had to say how much they liked an onlooker. The onlooker was more highly rated in the condition where the performance of the participant has been positively evaluated by the experimenter.
         • Participants rated both individuals the same (experimenter and onlooker).
   5. Reward importance
      1. Cate et al, 1982

         Annotations:

         • Asked 337 individuals to assess their current relationships in terms of reward level and satisfaction.
         • Reward level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction.
      2. Hays, 1985

         Annotations:

         • Reward/Need Satisfaction theory only explores the receiving of rewards, but Hays found that we gain satisfaction from giving as well as receiving.
2. Similarity Theory

   Annotations:

   • Similarity promotes liking. According to this model, there are two distinct stages in the formation of relationships.
   • People first sort potential partners for dissimilarity, avoiding those whose personality or attitudes appear too different from their own.
   • Then, from those remaining, they are most likely to choose somebody who is similar to themselves. Byrne et al's model emphasises similarity of personality and attitudes.
   1. Personality

      Annotations:

      • Research has consistently demonstrated that people are more likely to be attracted to others who have similar personality traits than they are to those who have dissimilar or complementary traits.
      • For example, two people who are serious and hardworking are more likely to be attracted to each other than a serious, hardworking person and someone whose main interests are having fun and avoiding responsibility.
      • However, this is obviously not always the case. We all know couples who are complete opposites of each other, but research suggests that similarity is more often the rule, particularly in long-term relationships.
      1. Berscheid and Reis, 1998

         Annotations:

         • People are more likely to be attracted to others who have similar personality traits than they are to those who have dissimilar or complementary traits.
      2. Caspi and Herbener, 1990

         Annotations:

         • Found that married couples with similar personalities tend to be happier than couples with less similar personalities.
   2. Attitudes

      Annotations:

      • What if people find they disagree on something important? For example, dating partners may discover that they differ in their attitudes to holidays.
      • One partner might prefer activity holidays while the other likes relaxing beach holidays.
      • Research suggests that a process of "attitude alignment" often occurs, with partners modifying their attitudes so they become more similar.
      • In order for the relationship to develop, one or both partners may modify their attitudes, otherwise they may end up having to take separate holidays from now on.
   3. Similarity or dissimilarity?
      1. Rosenbaum, 1986

         Annotations:

         • Suggested that dissimilarity rather than similarity was the more important factor in determining whether a relationship will form.
      2. Tested in diff. cultures

         Annotations:

         • This dissimilarity repulsion hypothesis has been tested in a number of different cultures.
         • These studies established that participants were first attracted to each other because of similarity of attitudes.
         • As they got to know each other better, those who discovered more dissimilarities than similarities became less attracted to each other.
         1. Singh and Tan, 1992

            Annotations:

            • In Singapore
         2. Drigotas, 1993

            Annotations:

            • In the USA.
   4. Limitations

      Annotations:

      • Research on similarity has only dealt with attitude and personality similarities.
      1. Yoshida, 1972

         Annotations:

         • Pointed out that this represents only a very narrow view of factors important in relationship formation, with factors such as similarity of self-concept, economic level and physical condition being equally important.
         1. Speakman et al, 2007

            Annotations:

            • Found that people often choose partners with similar levels of body fat.
   5. Similarity importance

      Annotations:

      • Similarity is important in the formation of relationships for two main factors. 
      • 1) We assume that people similar to us will be more likely to like us. By ruling out dissimilar people, we lessen the chance of being rejected as a partner.
      • 2) When other people share our attitudes and beliefs, it tends to validate them, which in turn is rewarding.
      1. Condon and Crano, 1988

         Annotations:

         • By ruling out dissimilar people, we lessen the chance of being rejected as a partner.
   6. Byrne, Clore and Smeaton, 1986
3. Mundane realism

   Annotations:

   • Most of the studies carried out in this area are lab studies, and do not necessarily show that the principles of need satisfaction and similarity apply to real life.
   1. Caspi and Herbener, 1990

      Annotations:

      • Conducted a study on real-life couples and tend to support these claims.
4. Cultural differences

   Annotations:

   • Does not account for cultural and gender differences in the formation of relationships.
   1. Lott, 1994

      Annotations:

      • Suggests that in many cultures women are more focused on the needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement.
5. Evolutionary explanation
   1. Aron et al, 2005

      Annotations:

      • Suggests that the brain reward system associated with romantic love most probably evolved to drive our ancestors to focus their courtship energy on specific individuals.
      • Even love at first sight, the authors claim, is a basic mammalian response that our ancestors inherited to speed up the mating process.
6. Similarity and reciprocal liking
   1. Lehr and Geher, 2006

      Annotations:

      • Studied 24 male and 32 female students to test the importance of attitude similarity and reciprocal attraction in liking.
      • Knowing that someone likes you is particularly rewarding, and so is more likely to result in mutual liking for the other person.
      • Participants were given a description of a stranger, with varying degrees of similarity of the stranger's attitudes to the participant's. 
      • Inserted in each description was a statement that the stranger either liked or didn't like the participant.
      • The dependent variables included measures of liking for the bogus stranger (e.g. degree of liking and likelihood of dating).
      • Researchers found significant effects for attitude similarity (similar people were liked more) and liking (which was more likely to be reciprocated).