Psychology-Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
What are evolutional explanation?
A
They focus on the adaptive nature of behaviour, i.e. modern behaviours are believed to have evolved because they solved challenged faced by our distant ancestors and so became more widespread in the gene pool
2
Q
What is the theory of sexual selection?
A
Developed by Charles Darwin. It explains the evaluation of characteristics that confer a reproductive advantage as opposed to a survival advantage. In sexual selection, an individual’s survival is not stake, but rather it is their ability to leave more descendants. Evolution is driven by competition for mates, and the development of characteristics that ensure reproductive success
3
Q
What is the nature of sexual selection?
A
Intrasexual selection, intersexual selection, and sexual selection and long-term mate preferences
4
Q
What is intrasexual selection?
A
In intrasexual selection, individuals of one sex (usually males) must outcompete other members of their sex in order to gain access to members of the other sex. Successful individuals are able to mate and so are able to pass on their genes. The losers are not able to mate and so are not able to pass on their genes. Whatever characteristic leads to success in these same-sex contests becomes more widespread in the gene pool by virtue of the reproductive advantage this gives to the winner
5
Q
What is intersexual selection?
A
In intersexual selection, members of one sex evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates. Members of the opposite sex who possess these characteristics will then gain a mating advantage over those who do not. The preferences of one sex, therefore, determine the areas in which the other sex must compete
6
Q
Why does sexual selection affect long term mate preference?
A
Mechanisms for mate choice evolve because being choosy requires time and energy, and the costs of mate choice can even impair survival in some cases. The rationale behind sexual selection is that ransom mating is essentially stupid mating. It pays be choosy, as the genetic quality of a mate will determine half the genetic quality of any offspring. Low quality mates will be more likely to produce unattractive, unhealthy offspring. High quality mate=high quality offspring
7
Q
How does sexual selection affect long-term mate preferences for females?
A
For females, the means being attracted to males who (i) are able to invest resources in her and her children, (ii) are able to physically protect her and her children, (iii) show promise are sufficiently compatible to ensure minimal costs to her and her children (Buss). However, males do not give away their resources indiscriminately
8
Q
How does sexual selection affect long-term mate preferences for males?
A
Males would be most attracted to females who display signals of fertility, an indication of their reproductive value
9
Q
What is the key study for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Buss’s research, which explored sex differences in long-term mate choice and found universal trends in male and female preferences
10
Q
What was the procedure for Buss’ research?
A
The study involved 10,000 people from 37 different cultures. Participants were asked to rate each of 18 characteristics (eg physicals attractiveness, good financial prospect) on how important they would be in choosing a mate. A four point scale was used ranging from ‘3’ (indispensable) to ‘0’ (irrelevant)
11
Q
What were the findings for Buss’ research?
A
The main results were that women more than men desired men desired mates who were ‘good financial prospects’. This translated into desire for men with resources or qualities such as ambition and industriousness. Men placed more importance on physical attractiveness. This provides cues to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and reproductive values. Men universally wanted mates who were younger than them-an indication that men valued increased fertility and potential mates. Both sexes wanted mates who were intelligent (linked to good parenting) and kind (linked to long-term relationships)
12
Q
What are the evaluation points for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Cultural traditions may be just as important as evolutionary forces, female preferences for high-statues men may not be universal, mate choice in real life, mate choice and the menstrual cycle, and is there a human equivalent of the peacock’s tail
13
Q
How is the point that ‘cultural traditions may be just as important as evolutionary forces’ an evaluation point for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Bernstein points out gender differences in mate preference patterns may stem from cultural traditions rather than being the result of evolved characteristics. For example, the fact that women have been denied economic and political powers in many cultures might account for their tendency to rely on the security/economic resources provided by men. Women valued this more in cultures where women’s status and education were very limited
14
Q
How is the point that ‘female preferences for high-status men may not be universal’ an evaluation point for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Buller claims that evolutionary psychologists are mistaken in their claims of a universal female preference for high status men as mates. He argues that the majority of studies attempting to determine female mate preferences have been carried out on female undergraduate students. These expect to achieve high educational status so have expectations of high income levels. The fact that these prefer high-status men may be explained by general preference for high-status men or in terms of preference for men with similar interests/education/prospects
15
Q
How does ‘mate choice in real life’ evaluate evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Studies such as Buss’s survey of mate choice might suffer from a serious problem of validity-i.e. they give us an indication of expressed preferences rather than being a reflection of what actually happens in real life. However, many real-life studies also support these mate-choice hypotheses. Eg a study of actual marriages in 29 cultures confirmed that men choose younger women. Some argue the questionnaires used in Buss’s study are more valid measures than real life marriage stats
16
Q
How is ‘mate choice and the menstrual cycle’ an evaluation point for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Research by Penton-Voak et al suggests that, female mate choice varies across the menstrual cycle. Women chose a slightly feminised version of a male face as ‘most attractive’ for long term. But for short term, during high conception risk phase of cycle, the preferred face shape was more masculinised. Sexual selection may well have favoured females who pursue a mixed mating strategy under certain conditions. May choose a main partner whose feminised appearance suggests kindness/cooperation in parental care, but male with masculine appearance when conception is most likely as they likely have more testosterone, but a healthy male despite this may have a highly efficient immune system, which is valuable to pass down
17
Q
How is the question, ‘is there a human equivalent of the peacock’s tail?’ an evaluation point for evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Research supports the view that some human traits that serve no survival purpose have evolved purely as a result of sexual selection. Eg a preference for highly creative partners has been a characteristic of mate choice throughout evolutionary history. Nettle and Clegg compared a sample of contemporary British poets and artists and a control group of males in non-creative professions. They found males in creative professions tended to have significantly more sexual partners, and the amount of their creative output correlated positively with amount of sexual partners
18
Q
How important is physical attractiveness in mate selection?
A
Buss’s research on partner preferences in different cultures demonstrated that men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate. Physical importance=important cue to woman’s health/fertility/reproductive value. More recent research suggests however physical attractiveness may be just as important to women when choosing partners but some research suggests this is only true for women that are looking for short term relationships (but men also rely on it for long term relationships)
19
Q
What is the ‘matching hypothesis’?
A
It claims that, when initiating romantic relationships individuals seek out partners whose social desirability approximately equals their own. According to this view, when choosing a partner, individuals must first assess their own ‘value’ in the eyes of a potential romantic partner and then select the best available candidates who would be most likely to be attracted to them. Although both individuals would theoretically be attractive to the most socially desirable potential partners, by opting for partners of similar social desirability to themselves they can maximise their chances of a successful outcome
20
Q
How does the matching hypothesis link with physical attractiveness?
A
Although the hypothesis initially proposed people would pair with someone as socially desirable as themselves in terms of wide range of ‘assets’, over time it has come to be associated specifically with matching on physical attractiveness alone. Walster et al referred to these mating choices as ‘realistic’ choices, because each individual is influenced by the chances of having their affection reciprocated. Realistic choices must consider a number of different factors, including desires, whether they are wanted in return, and the availability of other desirable alternatives
21
Q
What is the key study into physical attractiveness?
A
Walster et al’s study
22
Q
What was the procedure for Walster et al’s study?
A
In order to test the matching hypothesis they advertised a ‘computer dance’ for new students at University of Minnesota. From large number of students who purchased tickets, 177 males and 170 females were randomly selected to take part in the study. When collecting their tickets, four student accomplices surreptitiously rated them on physical attractiveness. Participants then completed questionnaire to asses personality, intelligence etc, and told data fathered would allocate their ideal partner, though it was actually random. During intermission of dance, participants completed questionnaire about their dates, and again six months later
23
Q
What were the findings of Walster et al’s study?
A
The findings did not support the matching hypothesis. Once participants had met their dates, and regardless of their own physical attractiveness, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were more likely to subsequently try to arrange dates with them if they were physically attractive. Other factors such as personality/intelligence did not affect liking the fates or any subsequent attempts to date them
24
Q
What are the evaluation points for physical attractiveness and partner preference?
A
Speed dating and the challenge to traditional views of attraction, complex matching, research support for sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness, matching may not be that important in initial attraction, implications of sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness
25
How is ‘speed dating and the challenge to traditional view of attraction’ an evaluation point for physical attractiveness and partner preference?
Eastwick and Finkel claim although men may value physical attractiveness more than women when stating ideal partner preferences, these differences may not predict real life partner choice. Evidence from speed dating backed this up with longitudinal follow up procedures 30 days later. Traditional sex differences in preference before speed dating, but almost no difference in actual romantic attraction, so the traditional sex differences could not predict the outcomes
26
How is ‘complex matching’ an evaluation point for physical attractiveness and partner preference?
Sprecher and Hatfield suggest a reason why research often fails to find evidence of matching in terms of physical attractiveness. People come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics, physical attractiveness is only one. A person may compensate for lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable characteristics such as good personality, kindness, money etc. This compensation is ‘complex matching’ which is how individuals are able to attract partners far more physically attractive than themselves
27
How is ‘research support for sex-differences in the importance of physical attractiveness’ evaluation for physical attractiveness and partner preferences?
If physical attractiveness in long term partners is more important for males, research should show males with physically attractive partners are more satisfied with their relationship. Meltzer et al provided support for this claim. Found objective ratings of wives’ attractiveness were positively related to levels of husbands’ satisfaction at beginning of marriage and remained that way over at least first four years of marriage. In contrast, lower importance females attach to physical attractiveness not related to wives’ marital satisfaction either at beginning or over time
28
How is ‘matching may not be that important in initial attraction’
Taylor et al cast doubt on value of matching hypothesis in attraction. Study of online dating patterns found no evidence that daters’ decisions were driven by similarity between their own and potential partners’ physical attractiveness. Instead found evidence of overall preference for attractive partners, suggesting they don’t take into account own physical attractiveness in initial stages of attraction, and aim for someone more desirable than themselves. Although matching hypothesis didn’t predict who was initially attracted to whim, researchers did find those individuals who specifically targeting similarly attractive others were more likely to receive responses to messages
29
How is ‘implications of sex-differences in the importance of physical attractiveness’ an evaluation point for physical attractiveness and partner preference?
Meltzer et al claim if physical attractiveness plays stronger role in men’s long term relationship satisfaction than in women’s, then women may experience increased pressure to maintain physical attractiveness in order to successfully maintain long term relationship. However, physical attractiveness is not only predictor of marital satisfaction for a man. Both men and women desire partners who are supportive/trustworthy/warm, and those with partners with these qualities tend to be more satisfied with their relationship. Accordingly, less physically attractive women who possess these qualities don’t tend to have less satisfied partners
30
What is self-disclosure?
It was first used by clinical psychologist, Jourard, and is when a person reveals intimate personal information about themselves to another person. It is an important process in the development of romantic relationships, with greater disclosure leading to greater feelings of intimacy. People tend to prefer those who disclose intimate details to whose who disclose themselves to a lesser extent. People reveal more intimate information to those they like and also tent to like those to whom they have revealed intimate information (Collins and Miller)
31
What does research on self-disclosure show?
It makes a distinction between self-disclosure given and self-disclosure received. Typically the level of self-disclosure received in a romantic relationship was a better predictor of liking and loving than the level of self disclosure that is given(Sprecher et al). Self disclosure is positively linked to relationship stability (Sprecher et al)
32
What is the key study into self disclosure?
Sprecher et al. They were interested in whether reciprocal self disclosure was more influential in determining attraction than one-sided self disclosure and listening
33
What was the procedure for Sprecher et al's study into self disclosure?
156 participants (undergrad US students) paired into two-person dyads. Two-thirds of the dyads were female-female and one third was male-female. Each dyad of unacquainted individuals engaged in a self disclosure task over Skype. In the reciprocal condition, dyad members immediately took turns asking questions and disclosing. In the non-reciprocal condition, one person asked questions in the first interaction while the other person disclosed. Then the two switched roles for the second interaction. After each interaction, the researchers assessed liking, closeness, perceived similarity, and enjoyment of the interaction
34
What were the findings for Sprecher et al's study into seld disclosure?
Individuals in the reciprocal condition dyads reported more liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment of the interaction than did those in the non-reciprocal dyads after the first interaction. This difference remained after participants in non-reciprocal dyads switched disclosure roles during the second interaction. This showed that turn-taking self-disclosure reciprocity is more likely to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes than is extended reciprocity
35
Why is the relationship between self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction not straightforward?
Because self-disclosure takes many different forms
36
What are different forms of self-disclosure?
Eg disclosing one's taste in music and disclosing one's inner fears and fantasies are quite different. Researchers have found that it is not self-disclosure per se that predicts relationship satisfaction, but the type of self-disclosure. Sprecher found that disclosure of, eg, experiences of personal disappointments and accomplishments, and information about precious sexual relationships, have a greater influence on relationship satisfaction than more 'neutral' types of self-disclosure
37
What are the norms of self-disclosure?
There are norms about self-disclosure eg there is the norm that people should engage in only a moderately personal level of self-disclosure in the early stages of a relationship. Derlega and Grzelak suggest these should be neither so personal that the discloser appears indiscriminate for disclosing them to a relative stranger, nor so impersonal that the listener is unable to know the disclosure better as a result
38
What is the norm of reciprocity (in terms of self-disclosure)?
The norm of reciprocity governs much of our social behaviour-people expect others to return the services they provide eg money, favours, self disclosure. Berg and Archer produced evidence showing people possess a norm of reciprocity concerning self disclosure. The more one person discloses to another, the more is expected in return
39
What are the evaluation points for self-disclosure?
Research support for the importance of self-disclosure, self-disclosure on the internet: the 'boom and bust' phenomenon, the norms of self-disclosure run deep, self-disclosure may be greater in face-to-face than online relationships, and, cultural differences in patterns of self-disclosure
40
How does 'research support for the importance of self-disclosure' evaluate self-disclosure?
Meta analysis by Collins and Miller supports central role that self-disclosure plays in development and maintenance of romantic relationships. Found that people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels, and people like others as a result of having disclosed to them. Collins and Miller also found that the relationship between disclosure and liking was stronger if the recipient believed that the disclosure was shared only with them rather than being shared indiscriminately with others
41
How does 'self-disclosure on the internet: the 'boom and bust' phenomenon' evaluate self-disclosure?
Some researchers suggested relationships formed over internet involve higher levels of self-disclosure and attraction than in face-to-face relationships. Due to anonymity online, the greater psychological comfort that comes with tat may lead them to reveal more about themselves. Cooper and Sportolari refer to this as 'boom and bust' phenomenon. When people reveal more about themselves earlier than they would in face-to-face then relationships intensify quickly (boom) but due to underlying trust and true knowledge of other person are not there to support the relationship, it is difficult to sustain (bust)
42
How does 'the norms of self-disclosure run deep' evaluate self-disclosure?
Tal-Or and Hershman-Shirit showed relationship between gradual self-disclosure and attraction applies not only to real-life romantic relationships but also to liking reality TV contestants. Shows such as Big Brother tend to be characterised by the very intimate self-disclosure of contestants early on in the shows. This rapid self-disclosure appears to conflict with what happens in everyday interactions, where such intimate self-disclosure is only welcomed when it evolves gradually. They found although viewers liked characters who make early intimate disclosures, they still preferred this disclosure to evolve gradually and become more intimate, as in real relationships
43
How does 'self-disclosure may be greater in face-to-face than online relationships' evaluate self-disclosure?
Research by Knop et al challenges assumption that people self-disclose more in offline relationships than face-to-face. Their study reveled members of a social group disclose personal information more often in face-to-face than online interactions, and disclose more intimate information. Appears that individuals don't seize opportunity to reveal personal information online as much as expected, contrary to the original belief. They suggest it may be due to relative lack of intimacy of the internet as a context for personal self-disclosure. A person disclosing appreciates non-verbal cues such as eye contact and attentive silence of someone disclosing to, both absent in the online environment
44
How does 'cultural differences in patterns of self-disclosure' evaluate self-disclosure?
Cultures differ in extent to which various topics are considered appropriate for conversation. In the West people typically generally engage in more intimate self-disclosure than non-Westerners. Americans eg disclose more than Chinese or Japanese. Cultural norms also shape how comfortable men/women are disclosing/ Eg Nakanishi found Japanese women prefer lower level of personal conversations than Japanese men, which is opposite to the self-disclosure patterns typically found in the West
45
What is filter theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis' 'filter theory' of attraction suggests we choose a romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the 'field of availables' from which we might eventually make out choice. Different filters are prominent at different stages of partner selection
46
What are the three stages of filter theory?
Social demography, similarity in attitudes, and complementarity of needs
47
What is social demography?
It refers to variables such as age, social background and geographical location, which determines likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place. This already restricts our range of potential partners as we are more likely to meet people with similar backgrounds or who live closer. We feel more similar to these people so more at ease, and therefore we find them more attractive simply due to having more in common with them. In this first stage, attraction is more to do with social, rather than individual, characteristics
48
What is similarity in attitudes?
Second filter involves individual's psychological characteristics, specifically agreement on attitudes and basic values. Kerckhoff and Davis found similarity in attitudes and values was of central importance at the start of a relationship and was the best predictor of the relationship becoming stable. Disclosure allows the individuals to weight up their decisions with continuing or terminating the relationship. People who have very different views are not considered suitable and so are 'filtered out'
49
What is complementarity of needs?
People who have different needs like each other as they provide each other with mutual satisfaction of these opposed needs. This is important as finding someone who complements them ensures that their own needs are likely to be met. Eg young women who lack economic resources may feel attracted to older men who are a good financial prospect so may be good providers
50
What is research into complementarity of needs?
Winch's investigation of 25 married couples in the US suggested that 'social needs' should be complementary rather than similar if marriages are to work. If one parter was low in a particular attribute then the other should be high. This is not the same as 'opposites attract', but for long term relationships people are attracted to those whose needs are 'harmonious' with their own rather than conflicting with their own
51
What is the key study for filter theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis
52
What was the procedure of Kerckhoff and Davis' study?
Longitudinal study of 94 dating couples at a US university. Each partner completed two questionnaires assessing the degree to which they shared attitudes and values, and the degree of need complementarity. Seven months after initial testing, they completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to the beginning of the study. The researchers believed this would indicate 'progress toward permanence' in the relationship
53
What were the findings of Kerckhoff and Davis' study?
In the initial analysis of the results, only similarity appeared to be related to partner closeness. However, when the researchers divided the couples into short term (less than 18 months) and long term (more than 18 months), a difference emerged. For short term couples, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of how close they felt to their partner. For long term couples, only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close each individual felt to their partner
54
What are the evaluation points for filter theory?
Lack of research support for filter theory, the real value of the filtering process, perceived similarity may be more important than actual similarity, complementarity of needs may not be that important, a problem for filter theory
55
How does 'lack of research support for filter theory' evaluate filter theory?
Levinger et al failed to replicate the Kerckhoff and Davis' study. They studied 330 couples who were 'steadily attached' through the same procedures as the original study but found no evidence that either similarity of attitudes/values or complementarity of needs influenced progress toward permanence in relationships. Also found no significant relationship between length of relationship and influence of the different variables. Levinger et al suggest the questionnaire in the original study would not have been appropriate given changes in social values and courtship patterns that occurred in the intervening years between the studies
56
How does 'the real value of the filtering process' evaluate filter theory?
Duck suggests the real value of the filtering process is it allows people to make predictions about their future interactions so avoid investing in a relationship that 'won't work'. Each person conducts series of explorations, disclosing bits of information about themselves, and making enquiries about the other person. Duck claims people use variety of different strategies to gather information about each other including encouraging self-disclosure etc. Based on this, partners decide whether to continue the relationship and so filtering stops people making the wrong choice and getting stuck with the consequences
57
How does 'perceived similarity may be more important than actual similarity' evaluate filter theory ?
Research generally supports importance of attitudinal similarity in attraction. Consistent with assumptions of Kerckhoff and Davis's second stage of the filtering process, some researchers found perceived similarity predicts attraction more strongly than actual similarity. Tidwell et al tested this claim in the context of a speed-dating event, where decisions about attraction must be made over a much shorter time span. After measuring actual and perceived similarity with a questionnaire, the researcher found perceived but not actual similarity predicted romantic liking for these couples
58
How does 'complementarity of needs may not be that important' evaluate filter theory?
Although studies consistently find support for 'similarity-attraction' aspect of the theory, support for the importance of complementarity of needs is much scarcer. Eg Dijkstra and Barelds studied 760 college-educated singles on a dating site looking for a long term mate. Participant's own personalities were measured and asked to rate personality characteristics they desired in an ideal mate. Researchers found that although initially indicating desired complementary partner rather than similar, there were strong correlations between own personality and ideal personality-supports similarity-attraction hypothesis instead
59
How does 'a problem for filter theory' evaluate filter theory?
Filter theory assumes that relationships progress when partners discover shared attitudes and values with their partner and the possession of needs that complement their own. However, most problematic for this assumption is these are constantly changing over time and in many instances, people are not aware of their partners' values, needs or role preferences. Eg Thornton and Young-DeMarco found evidence of changed attitudes towards relationships with a now more relaxed attitude towards cohabitation, and more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles in marriage
60
What is social exchange theory?
The likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in, and how the relationship measures up against what they expect and what they might achieve in a different relationship
61
What is the key study into social exchange theory?
Kurdek and Schmitt
62
What was the procedure for Kurdek and Schmitt's study into social exchange theory?
They investigated the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples. These comprised 44 heterosexual married couples, 35 cohabiting heterosexual couples, 50 same sex male couples and 56 same sex female couples. Each couple lived together and did not have children living with them. Each couple completed a questionnaire without discussing their answers with each other
63
What were the findings of Kurdek and Schmitt's study into social exchange theory?
For each of the four different types of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with (a) the perception of many benefits of the current relationship-comparison level, and (b) seeing alternatives to the current relationship as less attractive-comparison level for alternatives. These findings show the factors that predict satisfaction in same sex relationships are the same ones that predict satisfaction in heterosexual relationships
64
What are the three parts of social exchange theory?
Profit and loss, comparison level, and comparison level for alternatives
65
What is profit and loss in social exchange theory?
The centre of the theory is assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges-individuals attempt to maximise rewards and minimise costs. In out society, resources are exchanged with expectations of earning a 'profit' where rewards outweigh costs. Rewards include companionship, care etc, and costs include effort, time and financial investment. Reward minus costs equals outcome of relationship. Social exchange in line with other economic theories of human behaviour stress that relationship commitment is dependent on profitability of this outcome
66
What is the comparison level part of social exchange theory?
Thibault and Kelley proposed we develop a comparison level to judge whether someone offers something better or worse than others. It is a product of our experiences in other relationships with general views of what we may expect from this particular exchange. If we judge the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds the current relationship, then it will be judged as worthwhile and the other person will be seen as an attractive partner, and then it works the other way if the potential profit in a new relationship is less than the current relationship. Someone with previous unpleasant experiences of relationships may have a very low comparison level, and vice versa. If both partners perceive profits in the relationship as above their comparison level, it is probably more stable
67
What is comparison level for alternatives in social exchange theory?
It is where the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards form 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 anticipated profit level is significantly higher. Committed to current relationship when overall benefits and costs are perceived greater than possible alternative relationships. The more rewarding the potential partner, the less dependent on the current partner. If one or both individuals have low dependence in a relationship, the relationship will be less stable
68
What are the evaluation points for social exchange theory?
Evidence for the influence of comparison level for alternatives, the problem of costs and benefits, the problem of assessing value, overemphasis on costs and benefits, and real world application relationship therapy
69
How does 'evidence for the influence of comparison level for alternatives' evaluate social exchange theory?
Sprecher, in a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university, found the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was partners' comparison level for alternatives. The study showed the presence of alternatives was consistently and negatively correlated with commitment and satisfaction for males and females. In relationships where the comparison level for alternatives was high, commitment and satisfaction with current relationship tended to be low
70
How does 'the problem of costs and benefits' evaluate social exchange theory?
A problem with the theory is the confusion of what constitutes a cost and a benefit within a relationship. What might be considered rewarding to one person eg constant attention and praise, may be punishing to another, eg perceived as irritating. In addition, what might be seen as a benefit at one stage of the relationship may be seen as a cost at another stage as partners may redefine things from benefits to costs. This suggests it is difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as 'costs' and 'benefits', and challenges the view hat all romantic relationships operate in this way
71
How does 'the problem of assessing value' evaluate social exchange theory?
Nakonezny and Dention argue that, for social exchange to be relevant to personal relationships, individuals must have some way of quantifying value of costs and benefits in order to assess whether benefits outweigh costs. They point out that not only is value difficult to determine but so is the relative value of costs and benefits. This tends not to be the case in commercial and economic relationships where social exchange theory is more typically applied, but the vagueness of terms such as costs and benefits and the difficulty in assessing their relative value suggests this theory is less comfortable explaining more personal relationships
72
How does 'overemphasis on costs and benefits' evaluate social exchange theory?
A reliance on profitable outcomes as indication of relationship satisfaction ignores other factors that play role in this process. Individuals own relational beliefs may make them more tolerant of relatively low ration of benefits to costs in the relationship. They may believe 'it is self to focus on one's own needs'. Although they may recognise an unfavourable ratio of benefits to costs, their relationship standard means they continue to provide benefits and put up with the costs. So this theory alone cannot explain relationship satisfaction without also considering individual differences in relational standards/beliefs
73
How does 'real-world application-relationship therapy' evaluate social exchange theory?
Individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner and an excess of negative exchanges. Gottman and Levenson found in successful marriages the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was around 5:1 but in unsuccessful marriages it was much lower at around 1:1 or less. Primary goal of integrated behaviour couples therapy (IBCT) is to increase proportion of positive exchanges. It helps partners break negative patterns of behaviour that cause problems. Christensen et al treated over 60 distressed couples using IBCT and found 2/3 reported significant improvements in quality of relationships as a result
74
What is equity theory?
Claims that people are most comfortable when what they get out of a relationship (i.e. the benefits) is roughly equal to what they put in (i.e. the costs)
75
What is the key study into equity theory?
Stafford and Canary
76
What is the procedure for Stafford and Canary's study?
Interested in how equity/satisfaction predicted use of maintenance strategies typically used in marriage. Asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity/relationship satisfaction. Also each spouse asked questions about their use of relationship maintenance strategies such as assurances, sharing tasks and positivity
77
What were the findings of Stafford and Canary's study?
Revealed satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationship to be equitable, followed by over-benefited partners, then under-benefited partners. Under-benefited husbands reported significantly lower levels of relationship maintenance strategies compared to equitable or over-benefited husbands. Relationship between equity and marital happiness appeared complementary. Spouses treated equitably tended to be happier so more likely to engage in behaviours that contributed to spouse's sense of equity and happiness
78
How does equity theory link to social exchange theory?
It is an extension of it's underlying belief, with its central assumption that people are most comfortable when they perceive that they are getting roughly what they deserve from any given relationship
79
What is an equitable relationship?
It should, according to the theory, be one where one partner's benefits minus their costs equals their partner's benefits minus their costs
80
What are relationships that lack equity?
They are associated with distinct types of dissatisfaction. If people feel over-benefited, they may experience pity, guilt, and shame; if under-benefited, they may experience anger, sadness and resentment. Greater the inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and stress, and the more they are motivated to do something about it
81
What did Schafer and Keith find?
Surveyed hundreds of married couples of all ages, nothing those who felt their marriages were inequitable due to unfair division of domestic responsibilities. During child-rearing years, wives often reported feeling under-benefited and husbands over-benefited. As a result, marital satisfaction tended to dip. In contrast, during honeymoon and empty-nest stages both husbands and wives were more likely to perceive equity and to feel satisfaction with their marriages
82
What did Hatfield and Rapson suggest?
Suggest that how couples are concerned with reward and equity depends on stage of relationship. In initial stages considerations of reward, fairness and equity are important. However once individuals become deeply committed to each other, they become less concerned about day-to-day reward and equity. Happily married people, they suggest, tend not to keep score of how much they are giving/getting
83
What do Byers and Wang say?
Couples in equitable relationships are also less likely to risk extramarital affairs than their peers, and their relationships are generally longer-lasting than those of their peers
84
What are the evaluation points for equity theory?
Equity sensitivity, gender differences in importance of equity, cultural differences in importance of equity, supporting evidence from study of non-human primates, and a problem of causality
85
How is 'equity sensitivity' an evaluation point for equity theory?
Equity theory based on 'norm of equity' which assumes everyone is equally sensitive to equity/inequity. Means each individual experiences same level of tension when they perceive inequity. However this isn't always the case. Huseman et al developed idea of equity sensitivity which determines extent to which individuals will tolerate inequity. Identified three categories of individuals: benevolents ('givers' more tolerant to under-rewarded inequity), equity sensitives (behave in accordance to equity theory) and entitleds (prefer 0ver-rewarded as feel entitled to benefits).
86
How is 'gender differences in importance of equity' an evaluation point for equity theory?
DeMaris et al notes men and women are not equally affected by inequity in romantic relationships. Women tent to perceive selves as more under-benefited and less over-benefited, compared to men. Women also more disturbed by being under-benefited than men. Sprecher also found women feel more guilt than men when over-benefited. De Maris et al suggest several reasons for these differences including women's greater relationship focus (may make them more sensitive to injustices and more likely to react negatively to exploitation), also increased emphasis on gender equity in modern marriage may make women more vigilant about/reactive to relationship inequity
87
How is 'cultural differences in importance of equity' an evaluation point for equity theory?
Possibility that equity is not as important in non-Western cultures as most research of the theory has been carried out in US and Western Europe. Aumer-Ryan et al investigated this and found in all cultures they studied, people considered it important that relationship/marriage should be equitable. However people in different cultures differed in how fair/equitable they considered their relationship. Both men and women from US claimed to be in most equitable relationships and those from Jamaica claimed to be in least equitable relationships
88
How is 'supporting evidence from the study of non-human primates' an evaluation point for equity theory?
In study with Capuchin monkeys, Brosnan and De Waal found female monkeys became very angry if denied highly prized reward of grapes in return for playing a game. If another monkey (who played no part in the game) received the grapes instead, the monkeys grew so angry they threw food at experimenter. In later study, Brosnan et al found chimpanzees were more upset by injustice in casual relationships than in close, intimate relationships where injustice 'caused barely a ripple'. Studies echo what researchers found in human relationships and suggest perception of inequity has ancient origins
89
How is 'a problem of causality' an evaluation point for equity theory?
Although research established inequity/dissatisfaction are linked, the nature of casual relationships itself isn't clear. Eg Clark argues in most relationships, couples don't think in terms of reward/equity. If they do it is a sign their marriages are in trouble. According to this, dissatisfaction with a relationship is the cause, not consequence, of inequity. However a study of married couples found people in inequitable marriages became less satisfied over a year, with no evidence for the converse. Hatfield and Rapson suggest in failing marriages both processes may be operating. When marriages are faltering, partners become preoccupied with inequities of the relationship which can lead to relationship dissolution
90
What is the investment model?
An explanation of relationship stability that emphasises the importance of three factors in determining relationship commitment, which in turn predicts relationship stability
91
What are the three factors of the investment model?
Satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment size. Together these determine the relationship commitment level
92
What is satisfaction level in the investment model?
Refers to positive vs negative emotions experiences within a relationship and is influenced by extent to which other person fulfils the individual's most important needs. Eg a partner may feel satisfied to the degree the other partner gratifies their domestic and companionate needs
93
What is quality of alternatives in the investment model?
Refers to extent an individual's most important needs may be better fulfilled outside the current relationship. Perceiving an attractive alternative may provide superior outcomes to the current relationship may lead an individual away from current relationship. However if alternatives are not present, an individual may persist with relationship due to lack of better options. Attractive alternatives are not necessarily other people as in some cases having no relationship may be more attraction than staying in the current relationship
94
What is investment size in the investment model?
Rusbult proposed investment size also contributes to stability of relationships. It is the measure of all resources attached to the relationship and which would diminish in value or be lost completely if the relationship were to end. Eg partners invest time and energy in relationship, share each other's friends, take on shared possessions or give things of value to each other. Partners make these investments expecting that it will create a strong foundation for lasting future together. Investments increase dependence on relationship as they increase connections with the partner that would be costly to lose. As a result, investments create powerful psychological inducement to persist with a relationship
95
What is commitment level in the investment model?
Commitment is used to describe likelihood an involvement will persist. Commitment is high in romantic partners who are happy with their relationship and anticipate very little gain and high levels of loss if they were to leave the relationship. Commitment is low when satisfaction levels and investment in relationship are both low and quality of alternatives is high. When people are satisfied with relationship feel tied to it due to investments of lack of suitable alternatives, they become dependent on the relationship and commitment is a consequence of this
96
What is the key study into the investment model?
Le and Agnew's study
97
What was the procedure of Le and Agnew's study?
Carried out a meta-analysis of 52 studies conducted between late 1970s and late 1990s. Each had explored the different components of the investment model and relation between them. This produced a total sample of over 11000 participants (54% male and 46% female) from five countries (USA, UK, Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan)
98
What were the findings of Lw and Agnew's study?
Across all studies, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment size were highly correlated with relationship commitment. Correlation between satisfaction level and commitment was found to be significantly stronger than either quality of alternatives and investment size and commitment. Correlation between commitment and stay or leave behaviours was also significant with individuals showing higher commitment being more likely to stay and lower levels more likely to leave
99
How does 'research support' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Importance of commitment as an indicator of relationship stability is supported by meta analysis by Le et al that analysed date from nearly 38000 participants in 137 studies over 33 year period to discover key variables that predicted 'staying or leaving' behaviour in non-marital romantic relationships. In line with predictions from Rusbult's investment model, commitment was strong predictor of whether relationship would break up. Other relational variables that make up the model, namely satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investments, were modest predictors of the likelihood of staying in a relationship or breaking up
100
How does 'problems in measuring the variables' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Difficult to measure commitment and the other variables that lead to commitment in the relationship. Rusbult et al developed the 'Investment Model Scale' to overcome this. They have shown this scale to be high in reliability and validity in measurement of these variables and have shown it suitable for wide variety of different populations. One potential problem of it however is it relies on self-report measures that have problems of social desirability. It raises possibility of biased findings but it would be extremely difficult to measure such a subjective state as commitment in any other way
101
How does 'real world application: explaining abusvie relationships' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Model explains why individuals may persist in relationship with abusive partner. Victims experience low satisfaction which would predict they would leave yet many stay. The model highlights features of the relationship that would explain this. They may, eg, lack alternatives and may have too much invested with that partner, making dissolution too costly. Rusbult and Matz revealed alternatives and investments were a strong indication of whether battered women at a shelter remained committed to and returned to their partner
102
How does 'investment in the future is also important' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Goodfriend and Agnew elaborated on original model and suggested the notion of 'investment' should not only include things already invested in relationship, but also plans partners have made regarding the relationship. Ending the relationship would mean loss of investments already made but also the possibility of achieving any future plans made with that partner. As a result, some relationships persist, because of a motivation to see cherished future plans come to fruition, not just because of already made investments. Their research provided evidence that future plans were strongly predictive of commitment in romantic relationships, over and above past investments
103
How does 'the wide application of the investment model' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Strength of Rusbult's model is its main claims have been shown to be true across many different populations and in many different types of relationships. Eg research has supported the relevance of the investment model across different cultures, in a variety of different participant populations
104
How does 'the wide application of the investment model' evaluate the investment model of relationships?
Strength of Rusbult's model is its main claims have been shown to be true across many different populations and in many different types of relationships. Eg research has supported the relevance of the investment model across different cultures, in a variety of different participant populations
105
What is a theory used for relationship breakdown?
Duck's model of relationship breakdown
106
What is Duck's four stage model of dissolution?
It demonstrates how relationships end. When one of the partners in a relationship become dissatisfied, the relationship can breakdown. The decision to move from one phase to the next is made when the individual reaches a threshold or decision point
107
What are the four stages of Duck's model?
The intrapsychic phase, the dyadic phase, the social phase, and the grave-dressing phase
108
What is the intrapsychic phase of relationship breakdown?
"Brooding"-the person considers whether life outside of the relationship is more appealing. The start of the break up process is when at least one member of the relationship feels unhappiness or dissatisfied. Focus is on the partner's behaviour and how they are failing in the relationship. The unhappy member talks to friends. Once they can no longer stand it, they voice their concerns to their partner. The next phase then begins when it passes through the threshold of "I would be justified in leaving"
109
What is the dyadic phase of relationship breakdown?
Unhappiness is now out in the open. The couple may try to resolve their difficulties and may use couple counselling. Further feelings of guilt and anger may arise as the partner voices their own opinions. The relationship can be saved at this point of both members reaffirm their commitment to resolving their issues. Issues however may fail to be resolved and the next phase of breakdown begins once it passes through the threshold of "I mean it"
110
What is the social phase of relationship breakdown?
Relationship problems are now aired publicly. Couple start to tell friends and family about the possibility of a split. Friends may offer support tot take sides. Now that this distress is made public, it makes it harder to deny that there are problems, and also harder to reconcile. The break up is now pretty inevitable and the next phase of breakdown begins once is passes through the threshold of "it's now inevitable"
111
What is the grave-dressing phase of relationship breakdown?
The last phase takes place after the couple have split. Both parties try to get their side of the story/explanation of the break up across to others, what went wrong and who's to blame. This is often through contribution (equity theory). Memories of the relationship and the partner may be selective. Self esteem is rebuilt for future relationships. Threshold is "time to get a new life"
112
What are the evaluation points for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
Adaption of model, the impact of the social phase varies by type of relationship, benefits of the grave-dressing phase, ethical issues in breakdown research, and real-world application: implications for intervention
113
How is 'adaption of model' an evaluation point for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
2006 Duck et al acknowledged the model did not lead into the relationship breakdown and did not reflect possibility of relational growth following a breakup, so added two phases: breakdown and resurrection. Breakdown became the first stage where there is dissatisfaction with the relationship and the threshold is "I can't stand this anymore". Resurrection became the last stage (supported by Tashiro and Frazier) where individuals recreate sense of own social value, define what to get from future relationships, prepare for future relationships and reframe past relational life."What I learned and how things will be different"
114
How is 'impact of the social phase varies by type of relaitonship' an evaluation point for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
Duck suggests nature/impact of social phase depends on sort of relationship. Eg for teenagers and young adults, romantic relationships seen as more unstable than long-term adult relationships, and are largely recognised by others as being 'testing grounds' for future long-term commitments. As a result, individuals may receive sympathy but no real attempt at reconciliation from their confidants. Older people in long term relationships however have lower expectations of finding a replacement so consequences of breakup is more significant and the social phase may be characterised by more obvious attempts by others to rescue the relationship
115
How is 'benefits of the grave-dressing phase' an evaluation point for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
Research supports importance of this phase in dealing with after-effects of breakdown. End of a romantic relationship can be very stressful. Eg Monroe et al found that students who experienced end of romantic relationship in previous ear had greater risk of developing a major depressive disorder for first time. However, Tashiro and Frazier found individuals are able to feel better about the end of a relationship when they focus on how the situation, rather than their own flaws, was responsible for the breakup. The benefit of the grave dressing therefore is the individual can create stories to play down their role in the breakup and do not threaten their psychological well-being
116
How is 'ethical issues in breakdown research' an evaluation point for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
Carrying out research in this sensitive area raises issues of vulnerability (cause distress when revisiting), privacy (personal nature), and confidentiality (eg for victims of abusive relationship). A guiding principle in all psychological research is the benefits of the research must outweigh the risks, especially risk to participants involved. This is a difficult issue when dealing with vulnerable individuals attempting to cope with trauma and emotional distress of relationship breakdown
117
How is 'real-world application: implications for intervention' an evaluation point for Duck's four phase breakdown model?
Duck's model stresses importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to things people say, topics they discuss and ways they talk about their relationship offers insight into how they are thinking about the relationship and suggests appropriate interventions by friends and family. If relationship was in intrapsychic phase, repair may be re-establishing liking for partner, eg by re-evaluating their behaviours in more positive light. In later phases of the model, different repair strategies are appropriate, eg in social phase, people outside the relationship such as family members may help partners patch up their differences
118
What are two key aspects of virtual relationships in social media?
Self disclosure, and the absence of gating
119
What did Jourard propose about self disclosure in virtual relationships?
Proposed the concept of 'broadcasting self-disclosure' to explain difference between disclosure to romantic partner and sharing of personal information in public situation. Jourard claimed self-disclosure in public domain involves individual presenting an 'edited' version of the self to others. Social networks, such as Facebook exercise different levels of self-disclosure depending on whether they are presenting information publicly or privately
120
What did Jourard find about how people felt about self-disclosure in different situations?
People feel more secure disclosing intimate/sensitive information in private (including private messaging) because of increased control over disclosure to selected individual. In contrast, wen sharing self-disclosures in more visible ways with a wider audience (eg Facebook wall) people are more selective over the content, revealing information that is less private/less intimate. People therefore may compensate for lack of control over target audience by exercising increased control over what information the audience has access to
121
Why do people self-disclose more on the internet?
Most explanations focus on psychological effects of anonymity. Usually self disclosure occurs when they are confident what they share will remain confidential and won't leak to mutual acquaintances. Dangers of this in face-to-face interactions that can lead to ridicule/rejection. However relative anonymity of internet interactions greatly reduces this risk and people can share inner thoughts/feelings with much less fear of disapproval and sanction from other person. In this way, self-disclosure online is similar to the 'strangers on a train' phenomenon. Rubin explained we are more likely to disclose personal information to people we don't know/probably will never see again. Also because a stranger doesn't have access to individual's social circle-confidentiality problem is less of an issue
122
What is gating in face-to-face relationships?
Personal factors such as physical appearance and mannerisms tend to determine who we approach and who we develop romantic relationships with. We use available features such as attractiveness, age, ethnicity to categories potential partners before making a decision about whether we would like a relationship with that person. There is an absence of these barriers or 'gates' online which would normally limit opportunities for the less attractive, shy or less socially skilled
123
What are the consequences of the absence of gating?
Due to the relative anonymity of the internet, gates to interaction are not initially evident and so are less likely to stop potential relationships starting. A consequence of the removal of these gates is a person's true self is more likely to be active in internet relationships than in face-to-face interactions. This is made possible by the absence of the traditional gating features that dominate initial liking and relationship formation, and is a contributor to the establishment of close relationships over the internet
124
What did Zhao et al find about the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
Online social networks can empower 'gated' individuals to present identities they hope to establish but are unable to in face-to-face interactions. Reduction of gating obstacles online also enables people to 'stretch the truth a bit' in effort to project a more socially desirable self than their real 'offline identity'
125
What did Yurchisin et al find about the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
Interviewed 11 online daters, and found these individuals tended to give accounts of both their real and better selves in dating profiles as way of attracting potential partners. Some interviewees even admitted they would steal other daters' ideas or copy other people's images as a way to make themselves more popular. Yurchisin did, however, find most online identities were still close to a person's true identity in order to avoid unpleasant surprises in a possible real life encounter
126
What are the evaluation points for virtual relationships in social media?
The importance of the internet for romantic relationships, virtual relationships can be as strong as offline relationships, a biological basis for self-disclosure on Facebook, Facebook helps shy people have better quality friendships, and virtual relationships have consequences for offline relationships
127
How is 'the importance of the internet for romantic relationships' an evaluation point for virtual relationships in social media?
Rosenfield and Thomas demonstrated importance of internet and use of social media in helping individuals form/maintain relationships. Study of 4000 US adults found individuals with internet access at home were far more likely to be partnered, and less likely to be single. 71.8% of those with internet access at home had a spouse partner. Only 35.9% of those without had a partner. Even after controlling other important variables such as age, gender, education and religion, those with internet access were almost twice as likely to have a partner. Suggests internet may be displacing (rather than complementing) traditional ways of meeting a romantic partner
128
How is 'virtual relationships can be as strong as offline relationships' an evaluation point for virtual relationships in social media?
Often claimed the nature of internet communication is such that it can only lead to superficial relationships that cannot compare with richness of face-to-face relationships. Eg believed relationships formed online are of lower quality and are more temporary than those formed in more traditional ways. However, Rosenfield and Thomas found no evidence to support this claim, and no evidence that online relationships were more fragile
129
How is 'a biological basis for self-disclosure on Facebook' an evaluation point for virtual relationships in social media?
Tamir and Mitchell found evidence of biological basis for motivation to self-disclose on social media. Found increased MRI activity in two brain regions associated with reward, the nucleus accumbens and the ventral tegmental area. These ares were strongly activated when people were talking about themselves, and less so when talking about someone else. They also found participants experienced greater sensation of pleasure when sharing thoughts with friend or family member, and less when they were told thoughts would be kept private. These findings suggest human tendency to share our personal experiences with others over social media may arise from rewarding nature of self-disclosure
130
How is 'Facebook helps shy people have better quality friendships' an evaluation point for virtual relationships in social media?
Baker and Oswald argue virtual relationships are particularly helpful for shy people. Through social media sites, shy people can overcome barriers faced when trying to form relationships in real life. They surveyed 207 male and female students about shyness, Facebook usage and quality of their friendships. For students who scored high for shyness, greater use of Facebook was associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality. In contrast, for those who scored low for shyness, Facebook usage was not associated with perception of friendship quality, demonstrating shy individuals find particular value in virtual relationships
131
How is 'virtual relationships have consequences for offline relationships' an evaluation point for virtual relationships in social media?
Zhao et al claim we should not think of the online world and the offline world as being completely separate, as relationships formed online do have consequences for people's offline lives. Eg development of virtual relationships online allows some individuals to bypass fating obstacles and create the sort of identity they are unable to establish in the offline world. Zhao et al claim these 'digital selves' can enhance the individual's overall self-image and as a result may increase their chances to connect to others in their offline world
132
What is a parasocial relationship?
Where an individual is attracted to another person (usually a celebrity), who is usually unaware of the existence of the person who has created the relationship
133
What are two explanations for parasocial relationships?
Ab attachment theory explanation, and the absorption addiction model
134
How are attachment behaviours present in parasocial relationships?
Parasocial relationships may function similarly to 'real-life' relationships in terms of attachment behaviours, as relationships with TV personalities exhibit to some degree the three fundamental properties of adult attachment, as identified by Weiss: proximity seeking (attempt to reduce distance between themselves and attachment figure eg staying informed about their favourite celebrity), secure base (sense of security) and protest at disruption (prolonged distress following separation or loss of attachment figure)
135
How does attachment style affect parasocial relationships?
Cole and Leets found a person's willingness to form a parasocial bond with favourite TV personality is related to their attachment beliefs. Insecure-resistant were more likely to enter into PSR's with favourite TV personalities. This attachment type is characterised by concern others will not reciprocate their desire for intimacy, so turn to TV characters as a means of satisfying their 'unrealistic' and often unmet relational needs. Parasocial bonds reflect another manifestation of their desire for intimacy. Avoidant individuals were the least likely as they find it difficult to develop intimate relationships so are less likely to seek real life relationships or parasocial relationships
136
What is the nature of parasocial relationships?
Reasons why people form parasocial relationships are varied as the reasons for forming face-to-face relationships. Eg they may form due to lack of real relationship in own life. Shyness/loneliness can create void that can be filled by a parasocial relationship. Such relationships, common among celebrities and their fans, may be particularly appealing to some individuals because the relationship makes few demands. There is not an actual 'real' relationships so individuals do not run risk of criticism or rejection as with real relationships. Parasocial relationships are more likely to form with characters considered attractive by viewer and viewed as similar to the viewer
137
What is the absorption addiction model?
Individuals can become psychologically absorbed with a celebrity to establish a sense of fulfilment. The motivational forces driving this absorption might then take on an addictive component, leading to more extreme behaviours in order to sustain the parasocial relationships
138
How does the absorption addiction model explain parasocial relationships?
According to the absorption addiction model and levels of parasocial relationships, most people never go beyond admiring celebrities because of the celebrities' entertainment or social value. However some go much further than that. Using the Celebrity Attitude Scale, Giles and Maltby identify three levels in this process: entertainment-social, intense-personal and borderline-pathological
139
What is the entertainment-social level on the Celebrity Attitude Scale?
Fans are attracted to a favourite celebrity and will watch, keep up with, read and learn about that celebrity for purposes of entertainment and gossip. Eg on the CAS they would agree with statements such as 'Learning the life story of my favourite celebrity is a lot of fun'
140
What is the intense-personal level on the Celebrity Attitude Scale?
This level involves a deeper level of involvement and reflects intensive and compulsive feelings about the celebrity, similar to the obsessive tendencies of fans often referred to in the literature, eg 'I love to talk to others who admire my favourite celebrity'
141
What is the borderline-pathological level on the Celebrity Attitude Scale?
This level is typified by, on the one hand, empathy with the celebrity, as individuals at this level identify with the celebrity's successes and failures. However, it is also characterised by overidentification with the celebrity and uncontrollable behaviours and fantasies about their lives, eg 'If I walked through the door of my favourite celebrity's house, he or she would be happy to see me'
142
How can a parasocial relationship move from absorption to addiction?
Adolescents may be introverted/awkward in social situations/lack meaningful relationships. May become absorbed into world of parasocial 'friends' to gain stronger sense of identity. 'Friendship' becomes an effortless focus of attention of parasocial relationship, resulting in idea of a 'special bond'. If absorption is high enough, or personal crisis occurs, hey may move up CAS with absorption becoming addictive. Addiction can lead to more extreme land even delusional behaviours to gain satisfaction from parasocial relationship. At borderline-pathological level the addiction can lead to progressively stronger involvement with parasocial relationship to remain 'connected'
143
What are the evaluation points for parasocial relationships?
Research support for factors involved in parasocial relationships, are parasocial relationships linked to loneliness?, the absorption addiction model: links to mental health, loss of parasocial relationship linked to attachment style, and cultural similarities in parasocial relationships
144
How is 'research support for factors involved in parasocial relationships' an evaluation point for parasocial relationships?
Schiappa et al meta analysis of studies that explored factors instrumental in formation with parasocial relationships also watched more television. Their analysis also showed significant positive relationship between degree to which a person perceives television characters as being real and their tendency to form parasocial relationships. Found evidence to support claim that the likelihood of forming parasocial relationship with TV characters was linked to those characters' perceived attractiveness and their similarity to the viewer
145
How is 'are parasocial relationships linked to loneliness?' an evaluation point for parasocial relationships?
Parasocial relationships linked to loneliness and feelings of social isolation, which is supported by research by Greenwood and Long. However, other research, eg Chory-Assad and Yonen found no relationship between the two
146
How is 'the absorption addiction model: links to mental health' an evaluation point for parasocial relationships?
Levels with absorption addiction model corresponds to mental health. Maltby compared Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to model and found: entertainment-social=extrorevtism, intense-personal=neuroticism strongly linked to anxiety and depression. Also suggests future research may explore implications of reported connection between borderline-pathological and psychoticism. May explain poor mental health exhibited by those in parasocial relationships
147
How is 'loss of parasocial relationship linked to attachment style' an evaluation point for parasocial relationships?
Cohen Israeli study-attachment types predict behaviour in loss of parasocial relationships. 381 adults answering questionnaires, asked to imagine their reactions if their favourite TV character was taken off air. Correlated with their adult attachment style. TV viewers show some negative responses to parasocial relationship as the loss of a real relationship. Attachment style predicted intensity of reactions
148
How is 'and cultural similarities in parasocial relationships ' an evaluation point for parasocial relationships?
Culture-individualism vs collectivism. Schmid and Klimmt compared parasocial relationships formed from Harry Potter franchise in Germany (individualist) and Mexico (collectivist). Both showed similar patterns of parasocial relationships. Suggests the media has a universal influence on viewers who all find common links between themselves and characters
