Relationship Flashcards
Physical attractiveness: The halo effect (Dion et al 1972)
According to the attractiveness stereotype, we perceive attractive people as also having more attractive personalities.
Attraction & proximity
-Where we live & work influences the friends we make.
-Bossard (1932) ‘more than half of 5000 couples who applied to get married in Philly lived within a few mins walk.
-More availability - more likely to meet people who live closer.
-Mere exposure - the more you’re exposed to an object, the more positively you evaluate it.
-> humans like familiar things, as they make them feel safe & happy.
Evolutionary explanations: Sexual selection (Darwin 1871)
-Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on & may be exaggerated over time.
-Probability of passing on our genes depends on changes of survival & ability to attract a male.
-Darwin says if a male characteristic enhances reproductive success, it’s established as a preference among females so males improve on that trait.
-Goal for males is to outcompete their rivals, mate to ensure child is conceived & ensure child survives long enough to reproduce their genes.
Human reproductive behaviour
-Any behaviours that give opportunity to reproduce & increase survival chances of our genes.
-Basis of evolutionary explanation of reproductive behaviour is that every species goal is to reproduce & pass on their genes.
Sexual selection: Anisogamy
Refers to the differences between male gametes (sperm) & female gametes (egg).
Female gametes:
- Large
- Static
- Limited years of fertility
- Huge investment in time/energy
Male gametes:
- Small
- Extremely mobile
- Infinite supply
- Little expenditure of time/energy
Means there’s no shortage of male mates but fertile females are much rarer, leading to 2 types of sexual selection.
Sexual selection: Inter-sexual selection
-Between the sexes, focusing on the strategies used by males to select females and vice versa.
-Female preferred strategy: Quality over quantity due to higher investment in offspring (ova are rarer than sperm).
Inter-sexual selection: Parental Investment theory (Trivers)
-Females invest more time, commitment, and resources before, during, and after birth.
-Both sexes are choosy, but females face greater consequences of making a poor partner choice, leading to higher selectivity.
-Females seek genetically fit partners who can provide resources.
-If a trait (e.g., height) is considered attractive by females, it increases in the male population over generations, becoming exaggerated through a runaway process.
Inter-sexual selection: Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis
-Genes enhancing reproductive success are passed down.
-Females selecting males with attractive traits produce sons who inherit these traits.
-These sons are more likely to be selected by future generations, perpetuating the preference for the ‘sexy’ trait.
Sexual selection: Intra-sexual selection
-Within each sex, focusing on competition between males to be selected by females.
-Male preferred strategy: Quantity over quality due to abundant sperm supply.
-Males compete for access to females.
-Winners pass on traits that contributed to their success, while losers do not reproduce, preventing the transmission of ‘losing’ characteristics.
Intra-sexual selection: Dimorphism
-Intra-sexual selection leads to physical differences between sexes (dimorphism).
-Males: Larger size provides an advantage in physical competition, increasing reproductive success.
-Females: No competition for reproductive rights, so no evolutionary drive for larger size. Instead, males prefer younger, more fertile women, leading to selection for youthful traits (e.g., low waist-to-hip ratio).
Intra-sexual selection: Behavioural consequences
-Favours traits that help males outcompete rivals.
-Traits such as deceitfulness, intelligence, and aggression may be passed on.
-Males may behave aggressively to acquire and protect fertile females from other males, promoting the selection of aggressive traits in males.
Strength of Evolutionary explanations: Research support for inter-sexual selection
-There’s evidence for role of female choosiness in partner preference.
-Clark & Hatfield sent male & female psych students across Uni campus and had them approach students asking “would you go to bed with me tonight?”
-75% of men said yes & no females agree.
-> Supports idea that females are choosier & males evolve a diff strategy to ensure reproduction.
Counter: too simplistic of an idea that one strategy is adaptive for males & another for females. Seems strats differ based on length of relationship. Males & females are choosier when seeking long term relationships & adopt similar strategies (ie. look for loyal,kind).
-> More complex & nuanced view oh how evolutionary pressures influence partner preferences.
Limitation of Evolutionary explanations: Social & cultural influences underestimated
-Partner preferences have been influenced by changing norms, which develop faster than evolutionary explanation implies due to cultural factors (ie. availability of contraception).
-Women working mean they’re less dependent on men to provide so their mating preferences may no longer be as resource-oriented.
Therefore, partner preferences are influenced by cultural changes.
Strength of Evolutionary explanations: Research support for intra-sexual selection
-Buss carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries.
-Asked questions relating to attributes of evolutionary theory.
-Found females place greater value on resource characteristics (ie. good financial prospects/ambition).
-Males valued physical attractiveness & youth (signs of good reproductive capacity).
Reflects consistent sex differences in partner preferences & supports predictions from sexual selection theory.
Limitation of Evolutionary theory: Homosexuality
Cannot explain partner preferences of gay & lesbian people.
-Homosexual relationships do not assess genetic fitness tho they may other qualities (ie. caring for offspring).
-Lawson looked at personal ads by homosexuals and found their preferences differ, just as they do in heterosexual men & women (men prioritise physical attraction & women, resources).
Limitation of Evolutionary theory: Non-survival genes can be passed on
Some human traits passed on through sexual selection, despite them serving no survival purpose.
-Nettle & Clegg compared a sample of artists & poets to a control group of non-creative men.
-Creative men had more sexual partners than non-creative men.
-Women attracted to creativity.
Weakness explanation as contradictory research for women’s preference of strong masculine traits.
Factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure (Jourard 1971)
-Self-disclosure involved revealing personal info about yourself.
-Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops.
-These revelations strengthen the relationship & builds trust if used appropriately.
-People reveal more intimate info to those they like & tend to like those who they tell intimate things to.
Self disclosure: Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor)
-Involves gradual process of revealing your inner-self to someone.
-Involves reciprocal exchange of into between partners.
-Trust builds and partners build trust and penetrate more deeply into each others lives & understand each other.
Self disclosure: Breadth & depth (Altman & Taylor)
-Important factors in SD - as breadth & depth increases, so does committment.
-Metaphor of onion - reveal superficial info first & move into intimate details later.
-Restricted breadth at first (some topics are off limits) & as depth increases, so can breadth.
-Initial breadth is narrow to prevent TMI, which may threaten the relationships chance to keep going.
-Eventually, we peel back layers and reveal intimate, high-risk info (painful/sensitive).
-Depenetration is how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship.
Self-disclosure: Reciprocity (Reis & Shaver)
-To increase breadth & depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element where a partner disclosed something and the other responds in a rewarding way, empathetically & with own thoughts.
-Revelations display trust, to help develop relationship.
-Only works if both of the pair share. If only one does, & other doesn’t, it shows a lack of willing intimacy.
-Gradual process of revealing inner self which requires the other to do the same.
Self-disclosure: Norms of self-disclosure
-Norms for how and when self-disclosure should occur.
-Grzelak suggests that neither so personal that the disclosed appears indiscriminate for disclosing to a stranger but also not so impersonal that the listener is unable to know the discloser better as a result.
-The more someone discloses, the more they expect in return.
Strength of Self-disclosure: Research support (Collins & Miller)
-Meta-analysis found that people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels, & people like others as a result of having disclosed to them.
-Relationship between disclosure & liking was stronger if the recipient believed the disclosure was shared only with them rather than shared indiscriminately with others.
-Sprecher & Hendricks found strong correlation between satisfaction & self-disclosure in heterosexual dating couples.
-> Strengthens validity of the explanation & strong links.
Counter: Most self-disclosure research is correctional. Another explanation could be that, the more satisfied a partner is, the kroe they self-disclose. Or, they could both be independant and caused by another variable (ie. how much time they spend together).
-> Reduces validity.
Strength of Self-disclosure: Real-world application
Research has helped people who want to improve communication in their relationships.
-People use self-disclosure to increase intimacy & strengthen their bond.
-Haas & Stafford found 57% of homosexuals found open & honest self-disclosure was how they deepened their relationships.
-If less skilled partners (small-talkers) use this, it can bring several benefits to their relationships in deepening commitment & satisfaction.
Shows how research can be valuable in helping people who are having problems in their relationships.
Evaluation of Self-disclosure: Boom & bust phenomenon (Cooper & Sportolari)
-Researchers suggested internet realtoonships involve higher levels of self-disclosure.
-Potentially since it’s easier to disclose to someone you’re not close to, as there’s less risk and fear of being judged.
-People reveal more sensitive info than they would in face-to-face interactions and things get intense quick (boom).
-However, the underlying trust isn’t there so the relationship is difficult to sustain (bust).
This may explain why many individuals who are sure they found their soulmates, leave an established relationship.
Limitation of Self-disclosure: Cultural differences
Not true for all culture that increasing depth & breadth = satisfaction.
-Tang et al found men and women in US (individualist) self-disclose more sexual thoughts than men and women in China (collectivist).
-However, lower disclosure didn’t mean less satisfaction.
-Cultural norms also shape condor ability of men & women with self-disclosure. Japanese women prefer lower disclosure, to men. & Western women tend to prefer it to men.
Self-disclosure is a limited explanation and based on findings from individualist cultures, so not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
-Shackelford & Larsen suggest that people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive.
-This could be because it’s a signal of genetic fitness.
-People also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as wide eyes, small nose, because they trigger a protective instinct.
Physical attractiveness: The halo effect
-We have preconceived ideas about personality traits people must have & they’re almost universally positive.
-Dion states “what is beautiful is good.” Found physically attractive people are consistently rated kind, strong, sociable & successful compared to unattractive people.
-We then behave positively towards them which is an example of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Physical attractiveness: The matching hypothesis (Walster & Walster)
-Suggests we look for partners who are similar to us, in terms of physical attractiveness, instead of the most appealing option.
-Though both individuals would be attracted to the most socially desirable potential partners, they opt for partners of similar social desirability to themselves (‘in their league’, to maximise chance of a successful outcome.
The matching hypothesis - The computer dance (Walster et al)
-Males & females invited to a dance & rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers & completed a questionnaire about themselves.
-Told the data about themselves (personality,self-esteem etc) & that info would help decide partner (randomly selected in reality).
-The hypothesis’ were;
-> attractuve people expect attractive partner
-> couples equally matched are happier
-> person rated partner for attractiveness & compared it with themselves
The computer dance - Walster et al - Findings
-Hypothesis not supported. The most liked partners were also the most physical attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account.
The computer dance - Berscheid et al
-Replicated study but allowed ppts to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness - people tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
-We do seek & choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own.
Therefore, choice of partner is a compromise - as we risk rejection by selecting the most attractive people available so we settle for those in our physical league.
Strength of Physical attractiveness: Halo effect research support
-Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable & competent than unattractive people.
-So powerful that it persisted even when ppts knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
This has implications for the political process where there may be dangers for democracy if politicians are judged suitable for office just because they’re considered physically attractive.
Strength of Physical attractiveness: Evolutionary explanation
-Cunningham et al found women who had large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose & high eye browns were rated as highly atractuve by white, Hispanic & Asian men.
-Researchers said what is considered physically attractive is pretty consistent across diff societies.
-Attractive features (symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness & this is perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection).
Importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level.
Limitation of Physical attractiveness: Research challenging matching hypothesis (Taylor et al)
-Studied activity logs of a popular online dating site.
-Real-world test of matching hypothesis since it measured actual date choices rather than preferences.
-Keeps original hypothesis concerning realistic rather than fantasy choices.
-Found that online daters had meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
Undermined validity as it contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness.
Counter: Support for Matching hypothesis
-Choosing individuals for dating could be considered different to selecting a partner for a romantic relationship.
-Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies & found a strong correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners.
-Also, just because online daters seem more attractive potential partners doesnt mean that they get them, dating selection may just be ‘fantasy’.
Support for matching hypothesis from studies of real-world established romantic partners.
Evaluation of Physical attractiveness: Individual differences
-Most the info highlights the role of physical attractiveness in the initial formation of romantic relationships.
-Also evidence that some people don’t attach importance to attractiveness.
-Touhey measured sexist attitudes of men & women (using MACHO scale) & found low scores were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the like-ability of potential partners.
Factors affecting attraction: Filter theory (Kerckhoff & Davis)
-We choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the ‘field of availables’ from which we make our choice.
-But, not everyone who’s available is desirable.
-They compared attitudes & personalities of student couples in both short term (less than 1-1/2 years) & long term relationships.
-Found 3 main filters used to select a partner (social demography, similarity in attitudes & complementarity).
Filter 1: Social demography
-What influences the chances of partners meeting.
-Includes; geographical location/proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion.
-Benefit of this is accessibility.
-Our field of available narrows down due to constraints in social circumstances.
-Anyone too different is discounted as a potential partner.
-This leads to homogamy: more likely to form relationship with someone socially or culturally similar, as there’s more in common & similarities are attractive.
Filter 2: Similarity in attitudes
-Most important during first 18 months of a relationship.
-Couples that have agreement over basic values have deeper connections (link to self-disclosure).
-In early stages, couples need to agree on basic values.
-Byrne described this as the law of attraction: similarity causes attraction.
-If there’s no similarity, the relationship is likely to fizzle out.
Filter 3: Complementary
-More important for long-term relationships.
-This level of filter suggests we’re attracted to those who can give us what we lack.
-Opposites attract:
-> dominant vs submissive
-> make you laugh
-> to nurture vs be nurtured
-This makes the couple feel like they form a ‘whole’ together.
Strength of Filter theory: Research support (Festinger et al)
-Observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments for married students.
-Students lived across 17 buildings.
-Students were 10X as likely to form a friendship with people who lived in their own building.
-Most popular people lived nearest to the staircases and post-boxes because they were most likely to be ‘bumped’ into.
Supports social demography and how proximity plays a vital & impactful role in formation of relationships.
Limitation of Filter theory: Problems with complementary
Complementary may not be central to all long-term relationships.
-Found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied. -Their samples were together for more than 4 1/2 years.
-Dijkstra & Barelds studies 760 singles on dating site & found that initially partners wanted a complementary partner, but there was strong correlations between their own personality & their partner’s ideal personality.
Suggests similarity of needs rather than complementarity is associated with long-term satisfaction.
Limitation of Filter theory: Actual vs perceived similarity
Actual similarity matters less than whether partners perceive themselves as similar.
-Supported by Montoya’s meta-analysis of 313 studies that found actual similarity affected attraction only in short-term lab studies.
-In real-world, perceived similarly was a stronger prediction of attraction.
-Tidwell tested this in a speed dating event where he measured actual & perceived similarity with a questionnaire & found perceived predicted romantic liking better.
-Partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
So, perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause.
Limitation of Filter theory: Failure to replicate (Levinger)
-Very difficult to replicate the original findings of Kerckoff & Davis.
-This is due to social changes over time (ie. dating patterns-online dating/interracial relationships) & also problems in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of length.
-Kerckhoff & Davis chose an 18-month cut off point to distinguish short & long term relationships.
-Assumed partners who’d been together longer than this were more committed & had a deeper relationship.
Means filter theory is undermined by the lack of validity on its evidence base.
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory (Thibault & Kelley)
-Claimed behaviour in relationships reflects economic assumptions of exchange.
-We try to minimise losses & maximise gains (the minimax principle).
-Judge satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields, defined as the rewards minus the costs.
Social exchange theory: Rewards, costs & profits
-Rewards & costs are subjective, what one person considers a significant reward, another may consider less valuable.
-Value of costs and rewards might change over the course of a relationships (ie. something rewarding or costly in early stages might become less as time goes on).
-People exchange resources with the hope that they’ll earn a profit (that rewards will exceed costs).
Costs & Rewards
Costs:
-effort
-time
-emotional investment
-stress
-compromise
-opportunity cost (cannot invest your resources elsewhere).
Rewards:
-emotional support
-companionship
-physical intimacy
-attention
-security
-status
Social exchange theory: Comparison level
-Refers to the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get. Develops out of previous relationships experiences which feed into expectations of current one.
-Influenced by social norms that determine what’s considered ,within a culture, a reasonable level of reward.
-CL changes as we acquire more ‘data’ (shows,books) to set it by.
-A relationship is considered worth pursuing with a high CL.
-Someone with a low self-esteem will have a low CL and be satirised with gaining just a small profit from a relationship, but a high self-esteem will believe they’re worth a lot more.
Social exchange theory: Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
-Provides wider context for our current relationship where you question if we gain greater rewards from current relationship or an alternative or on own.
-ie. “Could I do better?”
-SET predicts we’ll stay in our current relationship as long as we believe it’s more rewarding than the alternatives.
-Duck says there’s usually ‘plenty more fish in the sea’ so if costs outweigh benefits, alternatives become attractive.
Social exchange theory: Stages of relationship development (Thibault & Kelley)
-Sampling: We consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it
with other relationships available at the time.
-Bargaining: We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.
-Commitment: The relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs.
-Institutionalisation: The relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.
Strength of Social exchange theory: Research support (Kurdek)
-Asked gay, lesbian & heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship committment & SET variables.
-Found most committed partners perceived the most rewards & fewest costs & alternatives as unattractive.
-Demonstrated how main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other.
Findings confirm validity & match SET predictions in homosexual couples as well as heterosexual.
Counter: Ignored equity
-Much research support for role of equity in relationships.
-What matters isn’t just the balance of costs & rewards, but the partners perceptions that this is fair.
-Neglect of equity means SET is a limited explanation that cannot account for a lot of research findings on relationships.
Limitation of Social exchange theory: Direction of cause & effect
-Problematic claim that dissatisfaction only arises after a relationship stops being profitable.
-Argyle argues we don’t monitor costs & rewards, or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied.
-When we’re satisfied & committed to a relationship, we don’t even notice potentially attractive alternatives.
Suggests considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse.
Limitation of Social exchange theory: Vague concepts
-Rewards & costs are defined superficially (ie. money) in order to measure them.
-Real-world psychological rewards & costs are subjective & harder to define.
-ie. Most people would consider loyalty rewarding but rewards/costs differ for everyone so even loyalty isn’t a reward for some.
-Concept of comparison levels is problematic & it’s unclear what the values of CL & CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship.
Theory is hard to quantify & test in a valid way.
Evaluation of Social exchange theory: Inappropriate central assumptions
-SET assumes that relationships are economic in nature (ie. exchange of rewards & costs, profit & loss, constant monitoring to test levels of satisfaction.
-SET claims these concepts apply to all relationships.
-However, Clark & Mills argue that we cannot apply this to romantic relationships.
-Romantic relationships are communal based & they do not ‘keep-score’ because that ruins the trust that underlies a close, emotional relationship.
Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory
-SET says behaviour is a series of exchanges - benefits and costs.
-Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships.
-Happens where both partners’ level of profit is roughly the same.
-Any kind of inequity can make people feel distressed (hostility,anger,resentment).
-True for both the giver & the receiver.
-The overbenefitter may feel guilt, discomfort & shame.
Equity theory: Equity & equality
-Equity theory says it’s not the size or amount of rewards or costs rhat matters, but rather the ratio.
-If they benefit the same, there’s more satisfaction.
-Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly between partners.
-Involves making trade offs.
Consequences of inequity: Changes over time
Theory suggests there’s a strong positive correlation between perceived inequity & dissatisfaction.
-If equity in relationshio reduces over time, this causes the most dissatisfaction.
-At the start, it’s normal to put in a lot of effort & not receive as much.
-Over time, if you put in a lot of effort & receive less, you begin to lose interest.
Is equity more important in the early days? (Schafer & Keith)
-Surveyed married couples of all ages & who felt their marriages were inequitable because of an unfair division of domestic responsibilities.
-Wives reported feeling under-benefitted & husbands over-benefitted during child rearing years.
-Dipped marital satisfaction.
-However, during honeymoon & after children left home, both husband & wives perceived equity & satisfaction.
Consequences of inequity: Dealing with inequity
-The underbenefitted partner is usually motivated to make sure the relationship is equitable as long as it’s possible to salvage it.
-The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they work to restore equity.
-They may revise their perceptions of rewards & costs so the relationship feels more equitable to them even if nothing changes.
-What was once seen as a cost (thoughtlessness/abuse) is now accepted as the norm.
Limitation of Equity theory: Individual differences (Huseman et al)
Not everyone is sensitive to inequity in the same way & some perceive inequity even in equitable relationships while some don’t perceive inequity at all.
-Huseman identified 3 categories: benevolents, equity sensitives & entitleds.
-Benevolents are ‘givers’ & tend to be more tolerant of under-rewarded inequity.
-Equity sensitives behave in accordance with equity theory, experiencing tension when faced with inequity.
-Entitleds prefer to over-benefit & think they’re owed benefits and are unsatisfied when under-benefitting or even equitable.
-
Strength of Equity theory: Research support (Utne et al)
-Carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples measuring equity with 2 self-report scales.
-Ppts aged between 16–45 & were together 2 years before marrying.
-Researchers found those who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than over/under-benefitters.
Study confirms validity of theory that equity is linked with satisfaction.
Limitation of Equity theory: Gender differences (DeMaris et al)
-Men and women aren’t really affected by inequity in relationships.
-Women tend to perceive themselves as more under-benefitted compared to men & are more disturbed by being under-benefitted than men.
-Suggested the reason for this is that women’s greater relationship focus may make them more sensitive to injustices & inequality.
Counter: Equity didn’t increase over time & relationships didn’t end
-The theory states equity increases over time & relationship that end, end due to difference in equity.
-Other factors are more important (ie. self-disclosure).
Undermines validity because equity doesn’t play the role in a relationship (dis)atisfaction that is predicted.
Limitation of Equity theory: Cultural differences
Concept of equity is not as important in non-Western cultures.
-Aumer-Ryan et al found there’s cultural links in equity & satisfaction.
-Couples from individualist cultures (US) considered relationships most satisfying when equitable.
-Partners in collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting (true of men & women).
Suggests the theory is inapplicable to all cultures, so not generalisable.
Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model (2011)
-Development of SET, developed to address gaps in SET.
-Model of committment, the model suggests that individuals aren’t actually that focussed on cost vs rewards, instead commitment is lost important.
Rusbult’s investment model: Factor 1 - Satisfaction
-Based on the comparison level.
-A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards & costs, & is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards (ie. support, sex, companionship) & few costs (ie. conflicts, anxiety).
-Each partner generally satisfied they’re getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience & social norms.
Factor 2 - Comparison with alternatives
-Results in romantic partners asking themselves ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?”
-Alternatives include other relationships, but also none at all.
Factor 3 - Investment
-CL & CLalt isn’t enough because f it was, more relationships would end as soon either the costs outweighed rewards or more attractive alternatives present selves.
-Therefore, investmentinfluences commitment.
-Intrinsic investments are any resources we put directly into the relationship. Can be tangible (money/possessions) or hard to quantify and intangible (energy/emotion).
-Extrinsic investments are resources that previously didn’t feature in the relationshio but now closely associated with it (car/children/friends). Memories (intangible).
-Sizes of investment increasing, no alternatives, more rewards = committed to relationship.
Rusbult’s investment model: Satisfaction VS commitment
-Commitment is main psychological factor causing people to stay in relationships.
-Satisfaction is a contributory factor.
-The distinction helps explain why someone will stay in an unsatisfactory relationship.
-Commitment (as a result of investment) maintains a relationships because they do not want it to go to waste so they’ll work hard to repair relationship.
-
Rusbult’s investment model: Relationship maintenance mechanisms
When someone feels committed, they carry out maintenance mechanisms to maintain relationship, seen in everyday behaviours.
-Aim to promote the realtionship - accomodation.
-Put partners interests first - willingness to sacrifice.
-Forgive for offences - forgiveness.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms - Cognitive element
Committed partners think about other & potential alternatives in a speciifc & predictable way:
-Unrealistically positive about their partner to their face & to others - positive illusions.
-Negative about tempting positives & other peoples relationships - ridiculing alternatives.
Strength of Investment model: Research support (Le & Agnew)
-Meta-analysis of 52 studies which included 11,000 ppts from 5 countries.
-Found that satisfaction, CLalt & investment size all predicted relationship commitment.
-Relationshios where commitment was greeters were the most stable & lasted longest.
-Outcomes true for heterosexual & homosexuals.
Suggests there’s validity to claim that these factors are universally important features of a relationship.
Counter: Correlational
-Strong correlation do not allow conclusion that the factors identified by the model cause commitment.
-It could be that the more committed tou feel, the lore investment you’re willing to make.
-Direction of causality could be reversed.
Unclear if the model has identified causes of commitment rather than factors associated with it.
Strength of Investment model: Explains abusive relationships
Explains intimate partner violence (IPV).
-Rusbult & Martz studied domestically abused women & found those most likely to return to an abusive partner, reported having made the greatest investment & fewest attractive alternatives.
-These women were dissatisfied with their relationships but still committed to them.
Therefore, the model shows how satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships, but commitment & investment are factors too.
Limitation of Investment model: Oversimplifies investment
Views investment in a simplistic, one-dimensional way.
-Goodfriend & Agnew point out there’s more to investment than resources invested.
-In early stages, partners will have made few investments.
-They extended the model or include investment made through future plans.
-Means there’s motivation to commit for plans for the future.
Means original model is limited and ignores complexities of investment.
Evaluation of Investment model: Perception VS reality
-Model supported by self-report methods which can be influenced by biases and subjective beliefs of respondents.
-However they may be appropriate measures as what determines commitment, isn’t objective.
-Perceptions and beliefs may matter more.
Theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown (2007)
-Suggests the ending of a relationship isn’t a one off event & happens over phases where partners reach thresholds & each threshold changes the perception of the relationship.
-Reasons for relationship breakdown:
-> Pre-existing doom - incompatible from the start.
-> Mechanical failure - people who are compatible but no longer function together.
-> Sudden death - a traumatic event (cheating/big argument)
Duck’s phase model: Phase 1 - Intra-psychic phase
“I can’t stand this anymore”
-Private cognitive process where a partner considers own feelings z
-They consider shortcomings & problems.
-Evaluate alternatives & pros and cons to see if relationship is saveable.
-No discussion with partner yet.
Phase 2 - Dyadic phase
“I would be justified in leaving”
-Interperosnal processes involving partner - confrontations & conversations.
-Complaints are characterised by anger/hostility.
-Increased SD, expressing feelings.
-If dissatisfaction isn’t resolved, the breaking point is passed & moves onto next stage.
Phase 3 - Social phase
“I really mean it”
-Break-up is aired and made public.
-Friends & families may choose sides & gossip & social implications (ie. children/assets/house) negotiated.
-Chance of relationship survival through intervention.
-Point of no return.
Phase 4 - Grave dressing phase
“It’s now inevitable”
-Ex-partners begin organisation of their post-relationship lives.
-May spin favourable stories to keep a rep and gossip is prevalent to retain social cred.
-Employ self-serving attributional bias and personal story tou can live with.
-Traits you liked about partner now interpreted negatively.
Then may reach “time to get a new life.”
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: Incomplete model (Duck & Rollie)
-Added a fifth phase called the resurrection phase.
-Ex-partners apply to new relationships what they learnt from previous & ‘glow up’/redefine themselves.
-Also argue progression from one phase to the next isn’t inevitable as it’s possible to return to an earlier point in process in any phase.
-Processes that occur in relationship breakdown are more important than its linear movement.
Therefore, OG model doesn’t account for complexity of its breakdown & its dynamic nature.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: Descriptive rather than explanatory
Model doesn’t explain how realtionship gets to the point of breakdown.
-Femlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis argues the cause of breakdown can be account in attractive qualities that brought them together in the first place.
-Relationship is threatened by partners getting too much of what they were looking for.
-ie. Good sense of humour becomes “he can’t take anything seriously.”
Therefore, it has limited explanatory power & oversimplifies depth of breakdown process & no cause.
Strength of Duck’s phase model: Real-world application
Suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed.
-Recognised different repair strategies that are more effective at some points in the breakdown than others.
-Duck recommends that peopoe in the intra-psychic phase coukd be encouraged to focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner.
-A feature of the dyadic phase is good communication.
These insights can help resolve issues before they elaborate in relationship counselling.
Counter: Cultural bias
-Mainly based on Western cultures experiences - USA.
-Moghaddam states that relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary & frequently come to an end (ie. divorce).
-However, collectivist cultures, Relationships tend to be obligatory, less easy to end, involve more family & sometimes even arranged by family.
-Therefore, whole concept of romantic relationships differ between cultures & it’s unlikely the breakdown process is identical across cultures.
Lacks external validity since it’s not a universal, representative explanation and imposes western norms onto all cultures.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: Methodological issues
-Most research is retrospective & participants give experiences after relationship has ended.
-Means their recall may not always be accurate or reliable, and early stages of breakdown may be distorted or ignored.
-Impossible to test phases in the process, where the problems first appear.
-Researchers don’t intervene early as their involvement could make things worse & hasten a relationship ending.
Therefore, early phases are theorised and hypothesised and are subject to distorted bias & perceptions, faulty memory and a subjective recount.
Virtual relationships in social media: How does self disclosure differ in online?
More SD:
-anonymity
-escapism
-more breadth than depth)
-more availability
-less intimidating
-introverts may feel more confident
Less SD:
-lack of social cues
-lack of physical comfort
-hard to assess gebuinity
-hard to trust
-fear of blackmail
-misconstrued info (tone/expressions)
How important is non-verbal communication?
-When we speak face-to-face, we also communicate with non verbal paralanguage, like body language, eye gaze etc.
-On the phone, there’s still paralanguage signals (ie. pauses & tone of voice) which can communicate intention.
-However, all non-verbal communication is lost on the internet; meaning is dependent only on words & nothing else.
Self disclosure in virtual Relationships: Reduced cues theory (Sproull & Kiesler)
-Computer-mediated communication lacks important non-verbal cues present in face-to-face (FtF) interactions (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice, physical appearance).
-The absence of these cues can cause deindividuation -a reduction in individual identity.
-Deindividuation may lead to disinhibited behaviour, including blunt or aggressive communication.
-This impersonal style of communication leads to reluctance in self-disclosing or forming intimate relationships.
As a result, CMC relationships are considered less effective and intimate than FtF ones.
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships: The hyper personal model (Walther 1966)
-Online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure.
-Because CMC relationships develop quicker as disclosure happens earlier and once established, they’re more intense & intimate.
-But, this means they can also end quicker because of the high excitement level of interactions isn’t matched by level of trust.
-Cooper and Sportolari call this ‘boom & bust’.
2 features of the Hyper-personal model
-Selective self-presentation: the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than in FTF. Means self-disclosures can either be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest.
-Receiver has a positive impression of the sender and may give feedback that reinforces the senders selective self-presentation (“you sound like a happy person”).
-Anonymity (Bargh et al): says the outcome of this is like the strangers in a train accountable for your behaviour, so you may as well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than your most intimate partner.
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships: Absence of gating (McKenna & Bargh)
Gate: features that interfere with the early development of a relationship (ie. physical unattractiveness/stutter/shyness etc).
-FtF interaction is gated since it involves features interfering with esrly development.
-CMC means an absence of gating, so relationships can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes frequent & deeper.
-Absence of gating works by focussing attention on self-disclosure not superficial things & being more interested in what someone tells you than what they look like.
-Intimacy develops & then the gate may be revealed but won’t matter as much now.
A limitation of this is that anyone can create an ‘avatar’ to represent themselves in a virtual reality that isn’t a reflection of them (ie. introvert becomes extravert).
Limitation of Virtual relationships: Lack of support for reduced cues
-People in online interactions use other cues (ie. style/timing).
-VRs can be just as nuanced as face-to-face (FtF) ones, with acronyms (e.g., LOL), and emojis used as substitutes for non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice).
This suggests that virtual relationships can be just as personal as FtF relationships, challenging reduced cues theory which argues that virtual relationships are less effective.
Limitation of Virtual relationships: Lack of support for the hyper-personal model (Ruppel et al)
Conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies comparing self-disclosures in FtF and virtual interactions.
-Self-report studies: Showed greater self-disclosure in FtF relationships (more frequency, breadth, and depth).
-Experimental studies: Showed no significant differences between FtF and virtual relationships in terms of self-disclosure.
Challenges the hyperpersonal model, which claims that virtual relationships should foster greater intimacy and deeper self-disclosures than FtF.
Counter: Difference in disclosure types
Whitty & Joinson found differences in self-presentation between FtF and virtual relationships:
-Online discussions tend to involve direct, probing, and intimate questions (hyperhonest).
-FtF conversations often involve more small talk.
-Online profiles can also be hyperdishonest (e.g., people exaggerating their qualities in dating profiles).
Supports the model’s idea of hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures, showing that FtF and virtual relationships differ in self-presentation.
Strength of Virtual relationships: Support for absence of hating
-McKenna & Bargh found that shy, lonely, and socially anxious people benefit from VRs because they can express their “true selves” more freely than in FtF situations.
-71% of romantic relationships formed by shy people online lasted at least two years, compared to 49% in offline relationships (Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994).
This suggests that the absence of gating factors (social barriers) in virtual relationships benefits these individuals.
Evaluation of Virtual relationships: Online VS multimodal
-Walther (2011) argues that theories like the hyperpersonal model and absence of gating fail to consider that relationships are multimodal, meaning they occur both online and offline.
-What individuals disclose in virtual relationships is influenced by their offline interactions, and vice versa.
Parasocial relationships
-Parasocial relationships with celebrities are missing the reciprocity that’s involved in a relationships.
-The target individuals are unaware of the existence of the person who created the relationship.
-These may be appealing to a fan since; no rejection, don’t need to disclose info, romanticised view of celeb, few demands & risk.
-A parasocial relationship is more likely if; person is attractive, viewer is female, low self-esteemed, shy and lonely with a lack of social skills.
Levels of Parasocial relationships: Entertainment social
-**McCutcheon developed the Celebrity attitude scale (CAS) & Matlby et al identified levels.
-Entertainment social is the least intense level, where celebs are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction.
-ie. Friends may take interest in soap operas and discuss them.
-Giles found that parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices.
Levels of Parasocial relationships: Intense-personal
-Intermediate level reflecting a greater personal involvement.
-Intense feelings and thoughts about the celeb.
-ie. A Kim K fan may have a frequent obsession & believe they’re her soulmate.
Levels of Parasocial relationships: Borderline-pathological
-Strongest level of celeb worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies & extreme behaviours.
-Might include spending a large sum of money on a celeb-related object, or being willing to perform some illegal act on the celeb say-so’s.
Parasocial relationships: The absorption addiction model (McCutcheon 2002)
-Linked levels approach to deficiencies in people’s lives.
-ie. Someone may have a low self-esteem & lack fulfilment. Or someone may be triggered by a life crisis and the parasocial relationship allows them to ‘escape from reality’.
-Absorption: seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, to become preoccupied with the celebrity and to identify with them.
-Addiction: like a physiological addiction to a drug, the individual needs to increase their ‘dose’ in order to gain satisfaction. This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.
Parasocial relationships: Attachment theory explanation
-Bowlby’s attachment theory suggests that early attachment issues can lead to emotional difficulties later in life (in this case, parasocial relationships).
-Ainsworth (1979) identified 2 attachment types linked to unhealthy emotional development:
-Insecure-resistant types are most likely to form parasocial relationships, as they seek unfulfilled needs in relationships without the risks of rejection, break-up, or disappointment.
-Insecure-avoidant types prefer to avoid relationships altogether, including parasocial ones, to prevent the pain and rejection associated with real-life relationships.
-Secure tend to have satisfactory real-life relationships & don’t seek parasocial ones.
Strength of Parasocial relationships: Research support for levels
-McCutcheon et al. (2016) used the CAS to measure parasocial relationships and assessed participants’ issues in intimate relationships.
-Ppts with borderline-pathological or intense-personal parasocial relationships showed high anxiety in intimate relationships, while those at the entertainment-social level did not (though some relationship issues were still present).
This supports the idea that the levels model can predict actual behaviour.
Strength of Parasocial relationships: Support for absorption addiction model
-The absorption-addiction model suggests that deficiencies (e.g., poor body image) predispose individuals to parasocial relationships.
-Malty et al found that girls aged 14-16 who had intense-personal parasocial relationships with a celebrity they admired for body shape often had poor body image, which could contribute to eating disorders.
Supports prediction that parasocial relationships are linked to poor psychological functioning and the intensity of the relationship.
Strength of Parasocial relationships: Universal tendency (Dinkha et al)
-Attachment theory can explain why people worldwide form parasocial relationships.
-Dinkha et al compared collectivist (Kuwait) and individualist (US) cultures and found that insecure attachment types were more likely to form intense parasocial relationships in both cultures.
-Schmid & Klimmt report using online questionnaires, similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter in an individualist culture (Germany) & collectivist (Mexico).
Attachment type is a universal explanation for the desire to form parasocial relationships.
Counter: Lack of support
-In a study of 299 American participants, attachment security did not affect the likelihood of forming parasocial relationships with celebrities.
This suggests that parasocial relationships are not necessarily a way of compensating for attachment issues.
Evaluation of Parasocial relationships: Causation & correlation
-Correlational studies do not show causal relationships.
-ie. Cannot be concluded that anxiety in relationships causes parasocial involvement; the direction of causality could be the opposite, or a third factor could influence both variables.
-Despite this, correlations suggest links between variables, and such methods may be the only option for studying everyday behaviour.
