Relationship 3

Question 1

Darwin’s Sexual Selection A01

Answer 1

•natural selection: genes selected that promote survival
•sexual selection: promote successful reproduction eg peacocks tail
•adaptive characteristics: advantages over males

Question 2

Anisogamy

Answer 2

•basis of human reproductive behaviour
•differences between female and male sex gametes
•sperm: small, mobile, vast numbers, not much energy
•eggs: large, static, limited number, investment of energy

Question 3

Inter-sexual selection

Answer 3

•between sexes, strategies that males use to select females vice versa
•females prefer quality over quantity
•males prefer quantity over quality

Question 4

Inter-sexual selection Trivers

Answer 4

•Trivers: females make greater investment of time& commitment
•consequences of wrong choice are more serious
•female optimum mating strategy is select genetically fit partner
•female preference determines which features are passed on to offspring’s, •increases attractive trait in male population over successive generations ( runway process)

Question 5

Inter-sexual Fisher

Answer 5

•sexy sons hypothesis: genes we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success.
•eg female mates with male with desired characteristic who will inherit sexy trait and sons more likely to be selected by successive generations of female who will mate with her offspring’s
•preference for sexy trait is perpetuated

Question 6

intra- selection

Answer 6

• within sexes, strategies between males to be the one that is selected
•competition between males, winner reproduces and characteristics contributing to victory are passed on
•dimorphism: differences in sexual organs, size matters
•females youthfulness selected
•behavioural consequence: favoured characteristics passed on that allow males to outcompete males

Question 7

Sexual selection strengths

Answer 7

•evidence for specific role of female choosiness in heterosexual preferences, Clark and Hatfield: uni students asked to go bed, no female agreed, 75% males agreed, supports view that girls are choosier than males
(simplistic, length of relationship, lt=choosier, more complex)
•Buss survey over 10,000 adults in 33 countries, questions related to attributes that evolutionary theory predicts, females importance on resources, males valued attractive and youth, reflect consistent sex differences in preferences

Question 8

Sexual selection limitations

Answer 8

•social and cultural influences underestimated, preferences influenced by rapidly changing social norms of behaviour
•homosexuality, cannot explain partner preference of gay ppl, not assessing genetic fitness, Lawson looked at personal ads placed by homosexuals, found that preferences differ like straight ppl

Question 9

self disclosure

Answer 9

•revealing personal information about yourself, vital role beyond initial attraction, careful about what they disclose at least to begin with, used wisely can help course of love run smoother

Question 10

social penetration theory

Answer 10

•altman and taylor’s theory of how relationships develop
•gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else of giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings
•reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners, to signal trust and the other person also revealing sensitive info
•increased disclosure means they “penetrate” more into each others life’s and gain greater understanding of each other
•basic feature since it’s difficult to hear one’s soul to a relative stranger
•by doing so the relationship has reached a certain stage where self-disclosure will be welcomed and reciprocated

Question 11

breadth and depth of self disclosure

Answer 11

•2 elements= breadth & depth, increase= more committed to each other
•eg onion, disclose a lot at the start but superficial, low risk info revealed to anyone, narrow breadth bc many topics are off-limits in early stage to avoid response of TMI and threaten relationships
•relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, removing more layers to reveal true self and encompass a wide range of topics, things that matter the most
•eventually prepared to reveal intimate, high risk info eg painful memories, strongly held beliefs/ secrets
•depenetration: describe how dissatisfied partners self disclose less as gradually disengage from relationship

Question 12

reciprocity of self disclosure

Answer 12

•Reis and Shaver: for relationship to develop as well as breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
•once u disclosure your true self, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding with emo that and also their own intimate thoughts
•there is a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in successful relationship, which increases feelings of intimacy and deepen relationship

Question 13

Self-disclosure A03 strengths

Answer 13

•several predictions from S.P.T, Sprecher and Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure, those who self disclose were more satisfied and committed, Sprecher shows relationships are closer when disclosure is reciprocated
•can help people who want to improve communication, partners use self disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond, Haas and stafford found 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self disclosure was main way to maintain and deepen relationship, if less skilled partner learn to self disclosure this could benefit relationship and deepens satisfaction and commitment, shows psychological insights can be valuable to help relationship problems

Question 14

Self-disclosure A03 limitations

Answer 14

• not true for all cultures that increasing breadth and depth lead to more satisfactions, Tang reviewed sexual self disclosure and concluded US ppts self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than Chinese ppts, despite lower levels of disclosure satisfaction were no different, limited explanation as based on findings on individualistic cultures not generalisable to other cultures
•self-disclosure is correlational but a correlation does not tell us if greater self disclosure creates more satisfaction as a conclusion only a casual link, alternatives are just as likely eg more satisfaction = more self disclosure or a third variable like amount of time spent together, so self disclosures may not cause satisfaction directly reducing the validity

Question 15

explaining the importance of physical attractiveness

Answer 15

•Shakelford and larsen: people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive bc honest signal of genetic fitness
•attracted to faced with neotenous (baby-face) features eg widely separated and large eyes, delicate chin and small nose bc trigger a protective/caring instinct

Question 16

The halo effect

Answer 16

•matter bc we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive ppl must have, almost universally positive •physical attractiveness stereotype- widely-accepted view of attractive people neatly summed up by Dion “what is beautiful is good”, attractive people are rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful, makes them more attractive so behave positively toward them- self fulfilling prophecy
•halo effect: distinguishing features tend to have disproportionate influence on our judgement of another persons attitudes eg personality

Question 17

Research on matching hypothesis

Answer 17

Walster and Wlaster: look for partners similar to ourselves in physical attractiveness/ personality instead of most appealing. Walster= the computer dance
•procedure: students invited to dance, rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers and completed questionnaires where computer would decide their random partner
•findings: hypothesis not supported, most liked partners were also most attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account, however Berscheid replicated study but each ppt able to select partner from varying degrees, ppl chose partners matching attractiveness
•conclusion: seek and choose partner with matching attractiveness, eg a 6/10 would look for similar partner, choice of partner is a compromise-risk rejection in selecting most attractive so settle with those “in our league” physically

Question 18

Physical attractiveness A03 strengths

Answer 18

•research support for halo effect, Palmer and Peterson found ugly people rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than leng ppl, powerful that persisted when ppts knew knowledgeable people had no expertise, implications for political process- dangers for democracy is politicians are judged as suitable for office bc they are physically attractive by enough voters
•evolutionary processes, Cunningham found women with large eye, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyes brows were rated highly attractive by white, hispanic and asian men, physically attractive is consistent across different societies, attractive features (symmetry) sign of genetic fitness so perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection), importance of attractive makes sense at evolutionary level

Question 19

Physical attractiveness A03 limitations

Answer 19

•matching hypothesis not supported by real world research into dating, Taylor studied activity logs of dating site, real-work test as measured actual date choices and not merely preferences, online daters sought meeting with partners more attractive, undermines the validity of hypothesis as it contradicts central prediction
However, choosing individual for dating different to romantic relationships, Feingold carried meta analysis on 17 studies and found significant correlation in rating of physical attractiveness between partners, also seeking more attractive doesn’t mean you get them so dating selection may be fantasy as it is laboratory research, support for matching hypothesis

Question 20

Filter theory

Answer 20

• kerckhoff and davis: compared attitudes and personality of studies in ST (18months) and LT relationship
•filter theory explains how’s relationships form and develop
•field of availables but not everyone is desirable
•main factors that act as filter to narrow down range of partner choices to field of desirables

Question 21

social demography

Answer 21

• influence chances of meeting partner in the first place
•geographical location, social class, education, ethnicity, religion ect.
•more likely to meet people physically close to you with shared demographic characteristics
•key benefits: accessibility, doesn’t require much effort
•vast potential partners , realistic field is narrower bc choices restrained by social circumstances
•outcome = homogamy, form relationship with culturally similar

Question 22

Similarities in attitudes

Answer 22

•share important belief and values bc availables narrowed by 1st filter
•Kerckhoff and Davis found similarities of attitudes was important for ST couple
•need for agreement in earlier stages to encourage self-disclosure
•Byrne: consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as law of attraction

Question 23

Complementarity

Answer 23

•ability of partners to meet each others needs, compliment when one had traits that the other lacks
•kerch off and david found complementarity important for LT couples
•it is attractive bc it gives partners a feeling that together they form a whole, adds depth to relationship making it likely to flourish

Question 24

Filter theory A03 strengths

Answer 24

•research support from Kerckhoff and davis, longitudinal study partners complete questionnaire assessing similarity and complementarity, closeness also measured 7 months later, closeness associated with similarities of values for ST couples and LT complementarity, evidence for theory
BUT Levinger: studies have failed to replicated original findings of Kerchoff and Davis, put down to social changes and problems in defining depth of relationship in terms of length, they chose 18months cut off point for ST and LT so ppl together for longer were more committed with deeper relationship, lack of validity of evidence base

Question 25

Filter theory A03 limitations

Answer 25

•complementarity not central to all LT relationships, prediction that most satisfying relationships partners are complementary disproved by Markey and Markey as lesbian couples with equal dominance were most satisfied and had been involved for more than 4 and a half yrs, similarity rather than complimentary associated with LT in some couples
•actual similarity matters less than whether perceived to be similar, meta-analysis by Montoya of 313 studies found actual similarities affected ST lab attraction, real-world perceived similarity was stronger predictor of attraction, partners perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other, similarity may be an effect not cause of attraction

Question 26

social exchange theory: rewards, costs and profits

Answer 26

•Thibault and Kelley: behaviour in relationship reflect economic assumptions of exchange
•try to min loss and max gains: minimax principle
•judge satisfaction in terms of profits it yields (rewards - costs)
•rewards and costs are subjective, wide range of outcomes, significant to one may b less valued to another eg. sex
•Blau said relationship can be expensive so costs include time, stress ect
•opportunity cost: investment of time and energy cannot be used elsewhere

Question 27

Comparison level

Answer 27

•measure profit through CL, amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
•develops from experiences of previous relationships which feed current one, social norms, books/ films
•more relationships “under our belt” and more experience of social norms so CL changes as we acquire more “data” to set by it
•relationship worth pursuing if CL is high, links with self esteem, low self esteem = low CL and satisfied with small profits

Question 28

Comparison level for alternatives

Answer 28

•wider context for current relationship
•do we believe we could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship or being alone?
•SET predicts we stay in relationship only if we believe it is more rewarding then alternatives
•Duck: the CLalt we adopt depend on state if current relationship, plenty fish in sea so if costs of current outweigh rewards then alternatives are more attractive

Question 29

stages of relationship development

Answer 29

• sampling stage- explore rewards and costs of social exchange experimenting with them in our relationship or by observing others
•bargaining- beginning of relationship, partners exchange rewards and costs negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
•commitment- sources of reward sand costs become predictable so relationship is stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
•institutionalisation- partner settled down because norms of relationships in terms of costs and rewards are firmly established

Question 30

Social exchange theory A03 strengths

Answer 30

•support from Kurdek asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaire measuring commitment and SET variables, found most committed also had most rewards and less costs and view alternatives unattractive, first study to demonstrate main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent, findings match prediction confirm validity of theory
BUT SET studies ignore equity, what matters is not just balance of rewards and costs but partners perception that it’s fair, neglect of equity means SET is limited explanation

Question 31

Social exchange theory A03 limitations

Answer 31

•direction of cause and effect , become dissatisfied with costs outweighing benefits or alternatives mir attractive but Argyle argued that we don’t monitor costs and rewards/ consider alternatives until we are dissatisfied, when committed we do not consider costs/alternatives
•vague concepts, rewards defined superficially to measure then but real world rewards are subjective and harder to define eg loyalty is rewarding but it varies and is not reward for everyone, CL is unclear what values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship, theory is difficult to test in valid way

Question 32

Equity theory: the role of equity

Answer 32

•economic theory developed in response to criticism of SET
•”equity” = fairness, Walster says what matters most with equity is both partners level of profit roughly the same
•not equality where it has to be equal
•lack of equity= one partner overbenefits and other underbenefits =dissatisfaction
•underbenefit and overbenefit are examples of inequity although underbenefited feels greatest dissatisfaction (anger ect) overbeneifited feels guilt so satisfaction is about fairness

Question 33

equity and equality

Answer 33

•not size or amount of rewards and costs that matter but the ratio eg one puts a lot but gets a lot back = satisfaction
• satisfying relationships marked by negotiations to secure equity, rewards are distributed fairly between partners, inevitably involves making trade-offs
•eg partner works night shift so cannot distribute household task equally but can make up in other aspects

Question 34

consequences of inequity

Answer 34

•one puts great deal, gets little out= problems, distressed & dissatisfied if continues for long enough
•strong correlation between inequity and dissatisfaction
•changes in perceived equity: dissatisfaction from change in level of equity as time goes on eg at the start it’s ok to contribute more than receive but as time goes this is not ok
•dealing with inequity: underbenefitted partner motivated to make relationship more equitable if possible to do so, relationship is salvageable, more unfair the harder they work to restore equity. Cognitive outcome where revise rewards and costs so relationship feels more equitable to them even if nothing changes, what was seen as a cost becomes norm

Question 35

Equity A03 strengths

Answer 35

•research support from Utne, carried out survey of 118 recently married couples (ages 16-45, together for 2 years before marrying) measure equity with 2 self report scales, those who considered equitable=more satisfied than those under/over benefitting, equity is major concern linked with satisfaction
However Berg and Quinn found equity did not increase over time and relationships did not end in terms of equity as other variables were significantly more important, undermines validity of equity

Question 36

Equity A03 limitations

Answer 36

•cultural variation, Aumer-Ryan found cultural differences in link of equity and satisfaction, couples from individualistic considered relationship most satisfying when equitable but collectivist most satisfied when over benefitting true for both men and women so not gender differences, limited to some cultures
•individual differences, Huseman: people less concerned about equity than the norm describe partners as benevolents who are prepared to contribute more to relation than get out(underbenefit), others are entitleds (belive they deserve over benefit without guilt), individual less concerned with equity than theory predict, shows desire for equity varies from individuals not universal feature

Question 37

Rusbults investment model

Answer 37

•commitment depends on 3 factors
1.satisfaction: many rewards, few costs (comparison level)
2. Comparison with alternatives: judging other possible partners
3. Investment: resources put into a relationship which would be lost (insintric (out directly into relationships eg. money/self-disclosure) and extrinsic (didn’t feature before but feature now eg. car brought together, children, shared memories)
• satisfaction vs commitment: commitment > important than satisfaction in maintaining relationship, desire to avoid wasting investment
•relationship maintenance mechanisms: commuted partners act to promote relationship through accommodation willingness to forgive/ sacrifice

Question 38

Rusbults investment model A03 strengths

Answer 38

•research support, meta-analysis Le and Agnew reviewed 52 studies with 11,000 ppts from 5 countries, all 3 factors predict commitment, more commitment = most stable and longer, true for all (men,women,gays), universally important feature
•explains abusive relationship, Rusbults and Martz found where investment and commitment more important than satisfaction, abused partners stay, satisfaction alone cannot explain commitment and investment also factors

Question 39

Rusbults investment model A03 Limitations

Answer 39

•Oversimplifies investment, Goodfriend and Agnew say not just current resources but future plans count in extended model, motivated to commit to fulfil future plans, original model is limited bc not true complexity of investment
*many correlations shown doesn’t mean satisfaction, comparison or investment cause commitment (Le and Agnew), direction of causality may be reverse

Question 40

Duck’s phase model A01

Answer 40

•ending of relationship takes time and goes through:
•intra-psychic- “I can’t stand with this anymore”, dissatisfied partner considers issue privately, share w/close friends
•dyadic- “I would be justified in withdrawing”, both partners confront about relationship to air dissatisfaction eg. lack of equity, resulting in arguments/ negotiation and more self disclosure
•social- “I mean it”, partners involve their social networks to try save relation and gain support, different reactions
•grave dressing: “It’s not inevitable”, ex-partners tidy up loose ends by constructing favourable public and private story, time to get a new life

Question 41

Duck phases A03 strengths

Answer 41

•real world application: reverse breakdown, useful for partners eg.in intra-psychic focus on positive, dyadic = communication, insights help counselling
BUT, based on individualistic cultures, collectivist less easy to end and involve wider family, romantic differs

Question 42

Ducks Model A03 limitations

Answer 42

•incomplete model, Duck and Rollie added resurrection phase, can return to earlier points, processes in breakdown more important than linear movement from one phase to another, does not account complexity of breakdown
•early phases less understood, retrospective recall especially of early phases (longer ago) lacks accuracy, may not explain early as well as later phases

Question 43

Virtual relationships, self disclosure

Answer 43

•Reduced cues theory:Sproull and Kiesler, Virtual relationships lack FtF cues eg. expressions so de-individuation , disinhibition and less self-disclosure
•Hyperpersonal model: Walther, virtual more self disclosure than FtF bc develop quick,
1.sender has selective self-presentation (hyperhonest/ hyperdishonest), 2. Receiver reinforces senders self-presentation (feedback) , anonymity: Bargh, increases self disclosure because less accountable as identity unknown. Outcome: strangers on a trian effect

Question 44

Effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships

Answer 44

•Mc Kenna and Bargh: gate= obstacle to forming a relationship, FtF is gated eg facial disfigurement, shyness

•allows person to be truer self but permits fake persona to deceive eg gender/ age, second life create avatar

Question 45

Virtual relationships A03 limitations

Answer 45

•lack of support for reduced cues, Walther and Tidwell say virtual relationships still involve cues eg timing just right and emojis/ acronyms so emotional states can be expressed, virtual can be just as personal as FtF
•lack of support for hypersonal model, Ruppel meta-analysis of 25 studies comparing self disclosure in Ftf and virtual found greater frequency, breath and depth of self-disclosure Ftf than virtual in self report studies or no difference in experimental studies, contradicts more intimacy in virtual leads to deeper self disclosure

Question 46

Virtual relationships A03 strengths

Answer 46

•support for absence of gating, shy lonely people find virtual relationships valuable, Mckenna and bargh looked at online communication by shy ppl, they expressed their true self more, 71% of online relationships lasted two years compared to 49% offline by Davis, shy people benefit
*conversations in virtual more probing (hyperhonest) than Ftf but also hyperdishonest (whitty and Joinson)

Question 47

Parasocial relationships- levels

Answer 47

•McCutcheon : celebrity attitude scale
•levels of parasocial relationships by Maltby:
entertainment-social (fruitful source of gossip:Giles)
intense-personal (obsessive thought, ‘soulmate’)
borderline-pathological (uncontrollable fantasies, extreme even illegal behaviour)

Question 48

Absorption addiction model

Answer 48

•McCutcheon: linked levels to deficiencies people have in our life’s
•escape from reality
•triggered by stress- a fan absorbs them in celebrity’s world seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship to become preoccupied (absorption)
•then needs to increase their dose to gain satisfaction (like addiction to drug) leading to extreme delusional thinking (addiction)

Question 49

Attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships

Answer 49

•insecure-resistant types most likely to form parasocial relationships because they seek to have unfulfilled needs met in a relationship without rejection or disappointments
•insecure-avoidant prefer to avoid pain and rejection altogether social / parasocial

Question 50

Parasocial relationships A03 strengths

Answer 50

• research support for levels, McCutheon used CAS to measure level of parasocial relationship, assessed ppts problems in their intimate relationships found a link between parasocial intensity and anxiety in intimate relationships, levels are predictive of actual behaviour
•support for absorption addiction model, Maltby assessed boys and girls 14-16 focused on girls who admired celebs with nice body, found correlations between level of celebrity worship and poor psychological functioning eg bad body image

Question 51

Parasocial relationships A03 strengths and counterpoint

Answer 51

•universal tendency, explains why people all over world desire to form parasocial relationship, Dinkha compared collectivist and individualist, found insecure attachment linked to parasocial relationships across cultures so the ‘driver for forming parasocial is independent of culture, universal explanation
BUT: Mc Cutcheon measured attachment types and celebrity related attitudes in 299 american ppts, found attachment security did not affect forming parasocial relationships, insecure attachment were no more likely than secure attachments, not a way of compensating for attachment