Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A Level Psychology > Relationships > Flashcards

Relationships Flashcards

1
Q

What does evolutionary psychology say about partner preferences

A
  • driven by sexual selection
  • means males and females choose partners in order to maximise chances of reproductive success
  • individuals with traits that maximise reproductive success are more likely to survive and pass on genes responsible for their success
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Explain gametes in relation to the evolutionarily explanations of partner preferences

A
  • males have gametes (sperm cells) which are able to reproduce quickly with little energy expenditure
  • female gamete’s (eggs or ova) are much less plentiful are require far more energy to produce
  • this difference (anisogamy) means males and females use distinct strategies to choose a partner
  • males use intra-sexual selection and females use inter-sexual selection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is intra-sexual selection

A
  • where members of one sex (usually male) compete with one another for access to the other sex
  • leads to male-female dimorphism => accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics in those with greater reproductive fitness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does anisogamy suggest about intra-sexual selection

A
  • suggests a male’s best evolutionary strategy is to have as many partners as possible
  • males must compete with other males to present themselves as the most attractive mate to fertile female partners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What might males engage in according to intra-sexual selection

A
  • mate guarding
  • guard their female partner to prevent them mating with anyone else
  • males are very fearful of having to raise another man’s child => cuckoldry
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is inter-sexual selection

A
  • where members of one sex (usually females) choose from available prospects according to attractiveness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does anisogamy suggest about inter-sexual selection

A
  • women’s best evolutionary strategy is to be selective when choosing a partner
  • females tend to seek male who displays characteristics of physical health, high status, and resources
  • thus male is able to protect them and provide for their children
  • although this ability may have equated to muscular strength in evolutionary past, in modern society it is more likely related to occupation, social class and wealth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the sexy sons hypothesis in evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

A
  • females choosing certain traits in partners as these traits are ones they would like their sons to inherit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are examples of positive evaluation points of evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • Clark and Hatfield (1989)
  • Dunbar (2000)
  • Singh (2002)
  • Greiling (2000)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How is Clark and Hatfield (1989) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • conducted infamous study where male and female psychology students asked to approach fellow students of Florida State University (of opposite sex)
  • asked one of three things; to go on a date, go back to their apartment, go to bed with them
  • 50% of both men and women agreed to date
  • 69% of men agreed to visit apartment and 75% agreed to go to bed
  • 6% of women agreed to visit apartment and 0% agreed to go to bed
  • supports evolutionary explanations as shows males ready to sleep with women whereas women more reserved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How is Dunbar (2000) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • found childless males tend to be shorter than males with children
  • suggests females prefer to sexually select a tall mate
  • could be a factor programmed in women’s genes
  • females wish to reported and have tall, healthy children in future (survival of the fittest)
  • therefore want a tall male to reproduce with, supporting sociobiological theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How is Singh (2002) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • investigated whether males preferred women’s body size or waist to hip ratio
  • found waist to hip ratio was most attractive feature
  • ratio of 0:& which indicates small waist and wide hips
  • visible indicator of female fertility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How is Greiling (2000) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • gender biased saying short term mating leads to costs for women
  • suggests short term mating can be beneficial to women
  • gives them chance to leave poor quality relationship (mate switching) or as a way of producing more genetically diverse offspring
  • therefore can be applicable to male and women
  • however long term strategies might be seen as unfair for females as they are supposed to be choosy and sexually select only one mate whereas males can select many
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are examples of negative evaluation points of evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • deterministic
  • socially sensitive
  • variation
  • problems
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How is determinism an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • evolutionary approach is determinist
  • suggests we have little free will in partner choice
  • however everyday experiences tells us we do have some control over our partner preferences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How is social sensitivity an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • evolutionary approaches to mate preferences are socially sensitive
  • promise traditional, sexist views regarding natural male and female behaviours which do not apply to modern society
  • women are now more career orientated and independent and do not look for resourceful partners like before
  • additionally availability of contraception means evolutionary pressures are less relevant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

How is variation an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • evolutionary theory makes little attempt to explain other variations of relationships
  • e.g. non-heterosexual relationships
  • cultural variations in relationships existing across the world
  • e.g. arranged marriages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How are problems an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences

A
  • evolutionary explanations can cause problems in relationships
  • if males need to be big to acquire and protect females, this can cause males to abuse power in relationships and justify being possessive and aggressive towards females
  • could lead to domestic violence whereby males feel justified in controlling women to protect them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Who has carried out research into sexual selection

A
  • Buss (1989)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What did Buss (1989) do

A
  • investigated what males and females looked for in long term partner
  • 10k partners across 37 cultures
  • rated 18 characteristics using 4 point scale, 0 = irrelevant and 3 = indispensable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the findings of Buss’ (1989) research

A
  • females desired males with good financial prospects, resources and ambition
  • males desired females who had reproductive value and were fertile, and all males universally wanted females who were youthful and younger than them
  • both males and females wanted a partner who was intelligent and kind
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What are examples of evaluation points for Buss’ (1989) study

A
  • Buller (2005)
  • sample
  • Dunbar (1999)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How is Buller (2005) an example of an evaluation point for Buss’ (1989) study

A
  • criticised Buss’ findings and evolutionary explanation of sexual selection
  • questioned idea females universally prefer high status males with resources
  • many studies have used female undergraduate students who had high educational status and high income, so maybe they are seeking high earning males who would be similar to them in educational background and income
  • weak evidence females select males with resources and income to support them as many females have vast educational opportunities and good income to support themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How is sample an example of an evaluation point for Buss’ (1989) study

A
  • conducted cross culturally across a range of cultures
  • conclusive and consistent results
  • seems universal
  • can be generalised
  • supports Buss and evolutionary explanations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

How is Dunbar (1999) an example of an evaluation point for Buss’ (1989) study

A
  • found older women try to disguise age to seem more fertile and younger
  • if women perceived as being younger than males might sexually select and reproduce with them
  • supports Buss and evolutionary explanations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is self disclosure

A
  • revealing of personal, intimate thoughts, feelings and information about ourselves to another person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What did Altman and Taylor (1973) propose about self disclosure

A
  • social penetration theory
  • self disclosure is a central concept in the theory
  • claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences, couples gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust
  • self disclosure will then increase attraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is reciprocal self disclosure

A
  • both people self disclosing
  • people expect same level of self disclosure from others as they give
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

How does self disclosure increase

A
  • as people build trust in partner, breadth and depth of self disclosure increases
  • people only disclose superficial details at the start and then move onto more intimate things later
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the factors affecting the success of self disclosure

A
  • appropriateness
  • attributions for self disclosure
  • gender differences
  • content
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

How does appropriateness affect the success of self disclosure

A
  • self disclosure may not always be appropriate
  • e.g. on a first date it may seem over the top and people might be judged as lacking social skills and not be attractive
  • social norms govern this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

How does attributions for self disclosure affect the success of self disclosure

A
  • this addresses reasons why someone is self disclosing information to us
  • self disclosure is seen as less successful in leading to attraction if we feel that the individual self discloses information to everyone anyway
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

How do gender differences affect the success of self disclosure

A
  • we might expect females to self disclose more than males
  • however if a male does self disclose to a female, it might be views as very rewarding for females
  • signals male might trust and like her and could increase attraction for both
  • sometimes males might feel threatened by females self disclosing information to them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

How does content affect the success of self disclosure

A
  • self disclosure of highly intimate information might be seen as inappropriate and violating social norms, especially in early stages
  • can decrease attraction levels and make recipient feel threatened and not know how to respond
  • attraction is low/weak when self disclosure is very low/high
  • attraction is stronger when self disclosure is at a medium level and balanced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What are examples of positive evaluation points for self disclosure

A
  • Altman and Taylor (1973)
  • Kito (2010)
  • Tal-Or (2015)
  • Cooper (1997)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

How is Altman and Taylor (1973) a positive evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • research supports theory of self disclosure
  • found self disclosure on first date is inappropriate and did not increase attraction levels
  • person self disclosing seen as maladjusted and not very likeable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How is Kito (2010) a positive evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • found research evidence to support idea of self disclosure across different cultures
  • investigated Japanese and American students in different types of relationships
  • found self disclosure was high for Japanese and American students in romantic heterosexual relationships
  • shows self disclosure is an important factor in romantic relationships and is cross cultural
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

How is Tal-Or (2015) a positive evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • conducted research which agrees with fundamental concepts of self disclosure being a gradual process than can affect attraction for romantic relationships
  • analysis of reality TV shows, like Big Brother, revealed viewers did not like contestants who self disclosed early on
  • preferred contestant who self disclosed gradually
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

How is Cooper (1997) a positive evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • research supporting self disclosure has found relationships formed over internet involve high level of self disclosure and attraction compared to face to face relationships
  • because individuals on internet can be anonymous and feel more comfortable self disclosing
  • Cooper devised Boom or Bust theory
  • where people on internet self disclose information earlier than they would if they were meeting someone face to face
  • relationship can get intense quick (boom) or might be difficult to sustain relationship as it moved too face (bust)
  • positive and negative
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What are examples of negative evaluation points for self disclosure

A
  • Sprecher (2013)
  • other factors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

How is Sprecher (2013) a negative evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • found research evidence stating self disclosure is important for romantic relationships but most important factor is amount of self disclosure received rather than given
  • level of self disclosure received is best predictor of liking and loving than amount given
  • therefore goes against idea of reciprocal self disclosure and focuses on information received
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

How are other factors a negative evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • seems unlikely that attraction to a potential partner is based on self disclosure alone
  • might be important element but other factors are needed to increase attraction
  • e.g. physical attraction, similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Who has carried out research into self disclosure

A
  • Sprecher (2013)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What did Sprecher (2013) set to investigate and what was the sample

A
  • whether reciprocal self disclosure or one sided self disclosure was more important in determining attraction in relationships
  • 156 American undergraduates that did not know each other before
  • put into pairs
  • 66% were female to female and 33% male to female
  • each pair engaged in the self disclosure task on Skype
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

How did Sprecher (2013) carry out his research

A
  • one group were the reciprocal self disclosure group, each person in pair took turn asking a question and self disclosing information
  • second group were non reciprocal group, one person in pair asked all questions and other person answered and self disclosed information. Switched roles after
  • participants assessed on a range of factors about interaction they had experienced
  • e.g. liking, closeness, perceived similarity, enjoyment of interaction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What were the findings of Sprecher’s (2013) research

A
  • showed reciprocal self disclosure leads to more liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment than those in non reciprocal group
  • therefore reciprocal self disclosure is very important in terms of attraction and the positive forming of relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What’s is a positive evaluation point for Sprecher’s (2013) research into reciprocal self disclosure

A
  • study can be supported by theory proposed by Altman and Taylor
  • seems self disclosure is only successful when both self disclose equally to each other
  • supported by equity theory by Hatfield which says successful relationships are fair and equal and this can apply to self disclosure too
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What are examples of negative evaluation points for the research conducted by Sprecher (2013) into reciprocal self disclosure

A
  • ecological validity
  • sample bias
  • groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

How is ecological validity a negative evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • research can be criticised because self disclosure was measured using Skype rather than face to face like a real date
  • could be argued that Skype distorts/interferes with quality of self disclosure
  • study lacks ecological validity when investigating how self disclosure affects attraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

How is the sample a negative evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • study conducted in American so results are culturally biased and do not have cross cultural validity
  • self disclosure might differ in more collectivist cultures
  • therefore results cannot be generalised to other cultures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

How are groups a negative evaluation point for self disclosure

A
  • study did not investigate male to male self disclosure
  • looking at al three interactions of the groups, Sprecher could have compared self discourse amongst different genders and between genders to see if differences exist
  • sample was biased as 66% were female to female and 33% were male to male
  • maybe sample could have been divided into three groups with equal percentages
  • would have given broader view of self disclosure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What is physical attractiveness

A
  • factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships
  • men place great deal on physical attractiveness for short and long term partners
  • women also put emphasis on physical attractiveness but more on short term than long term
  • physical attractiveness varies across culture and time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What is the halo effect

A
  • when the general impression of a person is incorrectly formed from on characteristic alone
  • physically attractive people often seen as more sociable, optimistic, successful and trustworthy
  • people tend to behave positively towards people who are physically attractive
  • creates self fulfilling prophecy where physically attraction person behaves more positively because of attention received
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What are examples of positive evaluation points for the halo effect

A
  • Palmer and Peterson (2012)
  • Cunningham / Kim (1997)
  • applicability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

How is Palmer and Peterson (2012) a positive evaluation point for the halo effect

A
  • found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable than unattractive people
  • halo effect so powerful it persisted even when participants found out that the physically attractive person had no expertise in politics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

How is Cunningham / Kim (1997) a positive evaluation point for the halo effect

A
  • research supporting halo effect found by Cunningham and might be consistent across range of cultures
  • found female features of large eyes, small nose, prominent cheek bones rated as physically attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males
  • Kim found USA and Korean students just died physically attractive people to be trustworthy, mature and friendly
  • less evident for unattractive people
  • seems stereotypes of physically attractive people is strong in collectivist and individualist cultures, supporting halo effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

How is applicability a positive evaluation point for the halo effect

A
  • halo effect has support as it does not just apply to romantic relationships
  • applies to other areas of life such as friendships, job interviews and meeting peple for first time
  • therefore it is very powerful in terms of physical attractiveness and how people are judged by others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

What is a negative evaluation point for the halo effect

A
  • Towhey (1979)
  • asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph
  • participants also completed a MACHO scale measuring sexist attitudes and behaviour
  • found participants scoring high on MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness
  • those scoring low on MACHO scale did not value physical attractiveness
  • therefore influence of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

What is the matching hypothesis

A
  • when initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek partners that have same social desirability as themselves
  • physical attractiveness becomes major determining factor as it is an accessible way to rate other person as a potential partner before forming relationship
  • most people prefer to form a relationship with someone who is physically attractive
  • in order to not be rejected, many people approach others who are of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the matching hypothesis

A
  • Fangold (1988)
  • Murstein and Silverman (1972)
  • Cavior (1972)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

How is Fangold (1988) a positive evaluation point for the matching hypothesis

A
  • found supportive evidence by carrying out a meta analysis of 17 studies using real life couples
  • found strong positive correlation between partners’ ratings of physical attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

How is Murstein and Silverman (1972) a positive evaluation point for the matching hypothesis

A
  • data collected from correlation studies by Murstein and Silverman (1972) found support for matching hypothesis
  • therefore it seems that in experiments and real world, matching hypothesis can be applied when examining physical attractiveness in relationships
  • studies relied on psychologists judging each person in terms of physical attractiveness
  • findings suggest that the matching hypothesis is a very strong factor when forming relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

How is Cavior (1972) a positive evaluation point for the matching hypothesis

A
  • found strong evidence supporting matching hypothesis amongst long term committed couples rather than short term relationships
  • therefore couples engaged, married or in long term relationships seemed to following hypothesis more than casual daters, especially when relationship was being formed in the first place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

What are examples of negative evaluation points for the matching hypothesis

A
  • complex matching
  • Taylor (2011)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

How is complex matching a negative evaluation point for the matching hypothesis

A
  • sometimes a very physically attractive person forms relationshops with unattractive person
  • often a rebalance of traits occurs
  • less physically attractive person has traits making up for lack of physical attractiveness
  • this is called complex matching
  • goes against matching hypothesis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

How is Taylor (2011) a negative evaluation point for the matching hypothesis

A
  • found evidence contradicting matching hypothesis
  • studied activity logs of an online dating site
  • real test of the matching hypothesis as it measured date choices and not just preferences
  • online daters wanted to meet with partners who were more physically attractive than themselves
  • did not consider their own level of physical attractiveness
  • shows matching hypothesis does not operate in real world and many people aim to date people who are more physically attractive than themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Who carried out a study into the matching hypothesis

A
  • Walster and Walster (1966)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

What was the Walster and Walster (1966) study

A
  • consisted of 752 first year students from University of Minnesota attending a dance party
  • randomly matched to a partner
  • when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a 4 person panel in terms of physical attractiveness
  • during intervals at dance party, and 4-6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them
  • contrary to matching hypothesis, students expressed higher appreciation to partner if they were attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What is the filter theory

A
  • proposed by Kerchoff and David (1962)
  • proposed we using filtering to reduce field of available partners down to a field of desirable partners
  • when we meet a potential partner we engage in three levels of filtering
  • we tend to be attracted to those who pass through a series of filters
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What are the three filters according to the filter theory

A
  • social demography
  • similarity in attitudes
  • complimentarity of needs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What is social demography as a filter in the filter theory

A
  • filter is based on social characteristics and concerns variables such as age, ethnicity, social background, geographical location and likelihood of meeting person in the first place
  • can be recited as we are likely to meet people from our own social and excitation al groups, or people who live nearby
  • if we have similar social demography, we feel at ease and might find them more attractive as we have more in common
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What is similarity in attitudes as a filter in the filter theory

A
  • based on psychological characteristics
  • looks at whether people have same attitudes, beliefs and values
  • attitudes and values are of central important at start of a romantic relationship and can help predict stability, especially if relationships has lasted 18 or less months
  • through self disclosure, individuals weigh up decisions about whether to continue or end relationship based on this filter
  • partners who have very different alums and attitudes are not seen as suitable to continue their relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

What is complementarity of needs as a filter in the filter theory

A
  • based on emotional characteristics
  • people who have different needs in relations up and more attraction might occur if people have complimenting needs
  • both might like each other because they have mutual satisfaction and opposing needs that have been met
  • research found that needs should be complementary and not similar for the relationship to work and be successful
  • long term relationships have more attraction when needs of partners are harmonious rather than conflicting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the filter theory

A
  • Taylor (2010)
  • Hoyle (1993)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

How is Taylor (2010) a positive evaluation point for the filter theory

A
  • research found evidence to support
  • found 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 had married someone from their own ethnic group
  • supports social demography filter
  • individuals seem to choose partners that are similar to them and have a similar background
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

How is Hoyle (1993) a positive evaluation point for the filter theory

A
  • research supports importance of attitude similarity and sharing common values for attraction
  • found perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction more strongly that actual attitude similarity
  • Tidwell tested this hypothesis during a speed dating event whereby participants had to make quick decisions about attraction
  • measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using questionnaire
  • found perceived similarity predicted romantic liking more than actual similarity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the filter theory

A
  • Levinger (1970)
  • Anderson (2003)
  • time validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

How is Levinger (1970) a negative evaluation point for the filter theory

A
  • found many studies failed to replicate findings from Kerckhoff and David based on filter theory
  • conducted research using 330 couples and found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship became over time
  • also an issue on deciding when a short term relationships becomes long term
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

How is Anderson (2003) a negative evaluation point for the filter theory

A
  • filter theory criticised as it suggests people are attracted to each other based on similar social demography
  • Anderson found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction
  • at start attitudes were not so similar
  • emotional convergence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

How is time validity a negative evaluation point for the filter theory

A
  • research using online dating shows lack of support for filter theory in that it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form
  • internet has meant a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone and it is now easier to meet people living far away or having a different ethnicity, social class and background
  • we might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits compared to past 30 years
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Who conducted research into the filter theory

A
  • Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

What did Kerckhoff and Davis investigate for filter theory

A
  • conducted longitudinal study
  • 94 couples from Duke University
  • each person in couple answered 2 questionnaires to assess degree of shared attitudes, values and complimentary of needs in order to assess closeness
  • 7 months later, they completed another questionnaire to see how close they felt to their partner, this was compared to the first questionnaire
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

What were the findings of Kerckhoff and Davis’ (1962) study on filter theory

A
  • couples divided into two groups for findings
  • short term partners had been dating 18 or less months and found similarity of attitudes and values were important for closeness
  • long term partners dated for 18 or more months and relied on complimentary of needs as a predictor for closeness
  • long term and short term relationships rely on different filters to predict closeness, attraction and permeance in a relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

What are the positive evaluation points for the study by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) into filter theory

A
  • longitudinal study that followed couples over time in order to test theory over a long time period
  • theory can thus be tested via short and long term and offers strong support for how filters can be linked to attraction and relationships in general
  • highlights how different filters have more prominence at various stages of relationship
  • e.g. similarity of attitudes is important for short term couples whereas complementarity of needs is more important for longer term couples
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

What are the negative evaluation points for the study by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) into filter theory

A
  • similarity in relationships might not always be important to every individual
  • individual differences might mean some people are attracted to people opposite to them
  • psychologists have conducted lots of research to suggests opposites attract which opposes findings from this study
  • use of questionnaires can be criticised
  • might not be adequate when investigating sensitive issue
  • participants might lie or be affected by social desirability bias and not give valid responses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

What is the social exchange theory

A
  • economic theory of romantic relationships
  • based on idea relationships are like a business where we monitor rewards and costs
  • we all want maximum rewards and minimum costs
  • theory proposes individuals focus on getting out more than they put in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

What does the social exchange theory assume

A
  • those who offer rewards are attractive and those who are perceived to involve great costs are less attractive
  • relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed whereas relationships that are imbalanced fail
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

What did Blau say about the social exchange theory

A
  • relationships are expensive as they take up our time and energy
  • therefore we need to gain some rewards from them in order for the relationship to be successful
  • aim for both parties in a relationship is that they should have maximum rewards and minimum costs to work
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

What are comparison levels

A
  • comparing of current relationship
  • normal comparison level is comparison of current relationship to previous relationships
  • present relationship should have higher rewards and less costs than previous to be seen as successful
  • comparison level for alternatives is comparing present partner to people around us who we could potentially have a relationship with
  • we look for a better deal if our current relationship s not satisfactory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

What are the positive evaluation points for the social exchange theory

A
  • Gottman (1992)
  • Jacobson (2000)
  • individual differences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

How is Gottman (1992) a positive evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • found evidence supporting social exchange theory
  • found individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequent report lack of positive behaviour exchanges with partner and excess of negative exchanges
  • in successful marriages, ratio of positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages ratio is 1:1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

How is Jacobson (2000) a positive evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • social exchange theory has practical applications
  • integrated couples theory (Jacobson, 2000) helps partners break negative patterns of behaviours to to decrease negative exchanges whilst increasing positive exchanges
  • 66% of couples reported significant improve to in their relationships after receiving this form of therapy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

How are individual differences a positive evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • different people perceive rewards and costs differently
  • this theory can thus account for individual differences in attraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

What are the negative evaluation points for the social exchange theory

A
  • Moghaddam (1998)
  • Argyle (1987) / Duck (1994)
  • Blau (1964) / Littlejohn (1989)
  • students
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

How is Moghaddam (1998) a negative evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • criticised social exchange theory
  • states it is more applicable to individualistic cultures than collectivist cultures
  • perceived costs and rewards of relationships might be very different from one culture to the next
  • family values and compatibility might be more important rewards in collectivist cultures
  • in individualist cultures, rewards might be views as partner buying expensive presents
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

How is Argyle (1987) / Duck (1994) a negative evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • disagrees with idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs
  • states people only monitor rewards and costs once relationship becomes dissatisfying
  • Duck (1994) agrees with Argyle and states we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are dissatisfied, not when we are happy and the relationship is successful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

How is Blau (1964) / Littlejohn (1989) a negative evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • Blau argues human beings are selfish to think of relationship maintenance in terms of rewards and costs
  • social exchange theory is rooted in behaviourist approach where focus of relationship maintenance is from operant conditioning
  • however some relationships have little rewards and many costs but still continue
  • therefore cognitive approach might explain social exchange theory more accurately
  • Littlejohn (1989) found its very difficult to define what a reward and cost is in a relationship and might differ from person to person
  • theory needs to carefully examine how individuals view and think about rewards and costs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

How is students a negative evaluation point for the social exchange theory

A
  • much research conducted on theory focuses on students in short term relationships
  • using limited sample of participants might mean results are invalid and not strong evidence
  • might be able to successfully apply research findings to long term committed older couples who will have a different dynamic in their relationship
  • therefore we should treat research findings from studies with caution and identify results are not strong in supporting social exchange theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

Who has carried out research into the social exchange theory

A
  • Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)
100
Q

What did Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) investigate

A
  • 4 types of couples;
  • 44 married heterosexual, 35 cohabiting heterosexual, 50 same sex male, 56 same sex female
  • each couple lived together but had no children
  • each person answered questionnaire without discussing with partner
101
Q

What were the findings of the study by Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • greatest relationship satisfaction was found for
  • A) having many rewards from current relationship compared to previous relationships (CL)
  • B) not many alternatives foe them to compare their current relationship to, and if there were, the CL.alt quality was low
  • conclusion is that for heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the same factors can predict satisfaction in romantic relationships
102
Q

What are the positive evaluation points for the study by Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • range
  • The Equity Theory
  • cognitive approach
103
Q

How is range a positive evaluation point for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • strength of research conducted is that it examines a range of relationships (heterosexual and homosexual) when looking at social exchange theory and rewards
  • beneficial because the research emphasises how romantic relationships in general operate and can be successful in relation to rewards and satisfaction
104
Q

How is the Equity Theory a positive evaluation point for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • social exchange theory is an economic theory and has support from a second economic theory, the Equity Theory by Hatfield and Walster
  • both theories examine relationships as a business and focus on couples trying to gain high rewards whilst minimising costs
  • therefore there is support for social exchange theory and research by Kurdek and Schmitt
105
Q

How is the cognitive approach a positive evaluation point for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • research conducted has support from cognitive approach
  • seems couples in relationships think about current rewards and make comparisons of their current relationships to their past ones
  • therefore individuals in relationships are continuously thinking about whether they are getting s good deal which relies on subjective judgements when comparisons current and past relationships
  • rewards/benefits can also be supported by behavioural approach whereby if relationship is rewards then operant conditioning occurs
106
Q

What are the negative evaluation points for the study by Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • questionnaires
  • measurement
107
Q

How is questionnaires a negative evaluation point for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • research can be criticised as it relies on participants filling in a quesionnaire
  • questionnaires might lack validity and might be prone to social desirability bias and participants lying
  • effect of this may be results gained about social exchange theory are weak and invalid and not give true picture about how theory really operates
  • might have been best to use interviews to investigate theory properly and get more valid results
108
Q

How is measurement a negative evaluation point for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) into the social exchange theory

A
  • research can be criticised in terms of how rewards might be measured in a relationship
  • reward needs to be operationalised in order to be fully valid
  • psychologists have argued it might be difficult to compare one reward to another and some rewards might carry more value than others
  • maybe they should have investigated quality of rewards rather than quantity in order to add more validity
109
Q

What is the equity theory

A
  • economic model of relationships based on idea of fairness for each partner
  • emphasises need for each partner to experience balance between costs and rewards
110
Q

What are the principles of the equity theory

A
  • profit => individuals try maximising rewards in relationship while minimising costs, aim is profit
  • distribution => negotiation needed ensuring fairness occurs
  • dissatisfaction => if relationship is unfair, it produces stress and dissatisfaction, especially for disadvantaged person
  • realignment => disadvantaged person tries to restore equity so it can continue
111
Q

What does equity mean

A
  • does not mean equality
  • means fairness and each person in relationship must feel that the relationship is fair
  • equitable relationship has fair ratio of rewards and costs for each individual
112
Q

What happens if a relationship is not equitable

A
  • distress will be felt
  • if people over-benefit, they may feel guilty
  • if people under-benefit, they may feel angry
  • imbalance of rewards can be tolerated as both parties accept the situation
113
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the equity theory

A
  • DeMaris (2007)
  • Brosnan (2003)
114
Q

How is DeMaris (2007) an example of a positive evaluation for the equity theory

A
  • studied 1500 couples as part of the US National Survey of Families and Households
  • found if women were under-benefitting to a high degree, there was a high risk of divorce occuring
  • thus equity and inequity seem to be important for women
115
Q

How is Brosnan (2003) an example of a positive evaluation for the equity theory

A
  • found female monkeys became angry if they were denied a prize for playing a game with a researcher, especially id they saw another monkey who had not played the game receiving the reward instead
  • monkeys got angry and hurled food at experimenter
  • seems ideas of equity are rooted in our ancient origins
116
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the equity theory

A
  • culture bias
  • Buunk (1996)
  • Mills and Clark (1982)
117
Q

How is culture bias an negative of a positive evaluation for the equity theory

A
  • more applicable to individualistic than collectivist
  • people may be more concerned with equal rewards and costs for relationships to be successful in individualistic
  • however, in collectivist, extended family networks and values might be more important for a relationship rather than rewards and costs
  • relationships in collectivist may be successful due to cultural expectations and obligations rather than equity of rewards and costs
118
Q

How is Buunk (1996) an negative of a positive evaluation for the equity theory

A
  • found no association between equity in a relationship and the future quality and maintenance of a relationship
  • just became a relationship is equal, does not mean it will progress
  • people have free will to continue or end relationship
119
Q

How is Mills and Clark (1982) an negative of a positive evaluation for the equity theory

A
  • said it is not possible to assess equity in loving relationships
  • many rewards and costs are emotional/psychological and cannot be quantified or measured
  • if we measure rewards and costs, it could diminish quality of love which could be damaging
120
Q

Who has carried out researched on the equity theory

A
  • Hatfield (1979)
121
Q

How did Hatfield (1979) investigate the equity theory

A
  • asked newly married couples extent to which they were receiving more or less rewards than they thought in their marriage on a questionnaire
  • sample indicated contentment, happiness, anger and guilt levels
122
Q

What were the findings of Hatfield (1979)

A
  • people who under-benefitted had lowest satisfaction and experienced the most anger
  • those over-benefitting admitted to feeling guilty
  • couples who perceived relationship as being equitable had highest level of satisfaction and had more chance of the relationship continuing
  • males who over benefit are as satisfied as those in equitable marriage
  • female who over benefit are less satisfied than women in equitable marriage
123
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the research carried out by Hatfield (1979) on the equity theory

A
  • research can be criticised as it measuring equity using a questionnaire
  • means participants might lie affecting validity
  • only examined newly married couples
  • would have been better to use a range
124
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the research carried out by Hatfield (1979) on the equity theory

A
  • highlights important gender differences
  • equity is important for women but males do not value equity as high as females and may be happy for inequality to occur
  • receives support from social exchange theory
  • evidence showing rewards and costs are important in examining satisfaction levels in a relationship
125
Q

What is Rusbalt’s investment model

A
  • examines range of factors that have an effect on commitment put into relationship and whether relationship is likely to continue or not
126
Q

What are factors affecting commitment according to Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • satisfaction levels
  • comparison / quality of alternatives
  • investment size
127
Q

What are satisfaction levels in Rusbalt’s investment model

A
  • positive or negative emotional experiences that a person in a relationship feels
  • influenced by extent to which their partner fulfils and gratifies their individual needs in the relationship
  • can be compared against previous relationships
128
Q

What are comparisons / quality of alternatives in Rusbalt’s investment model

A
  • person might think whether their important needs might be fulfilled better outside of the relationship
  • if there is an attractive alternative, individual might leave the current relationship and not invest in it
  • if there are no good alternatives, person might stay
  • alternative option could be that person wants to be single as this is better than being in a poor quality relationship
129
Q

What is investment size in Rusbalt’s investment model

A
  • contributes to stability of relationship
  • measure of importance and extent of resources that are attached to relationship which could be lost if relationship ended
  • partners invest in relationship and create strong foundation for future and this could be costly to break
  • investment size is a powerful psychological force which motivates people to continue with their relationship
  • different types
130
Q

What are the different types of investment in Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • intrinsic investment; direct investment such as money, energy, emotion
  • extrinsic investment; investment that was not present at the start of the relationship, but has developed over time
131
Q

What are commitment levels in Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • whether the relationship will persist and confuse
  • if commitment is high and both partners are happy, relationship should continue and survive
  • commitment should involve equity
132
Q

What are the positive evaluation points for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • Van Lange (1997)
  • infidelity
  • variety
133
Q

How is Van Lange (1997) a positive evaluation point for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • supports Rusbult’s investment model
  • studied students from Taiwan and the Netherlands
  • found evidence that high commitment levels in a relationship were related to high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives and high investment size
134
Q

How is infidelity a positive evaluation point for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • investment model can explain infidelity
  • might occur if a person’s current relationship has low satisfaction and there is a high quality to alternative
  • both factors would lessen the commitment levels and the present relationship is likely to end
  • investment model can also explain why some people might stay in abusive relationships; the satisfaction is low and victim should leave the relationship
  • however, they might stay in abusive relationship as there are low quality of alternatives and investment is too high
135
Q

How is variety a positive evaluation point for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • investment model can be applied to variety of different relationships
  • questionnaires were given to partners in heterosexual and homosexual relationships
  • found all factors of investment model were found to be important for both types when looking at commitment
136
Q

What are negative evaluation points for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • measure
  • Lin (1995)
137
Q

How is measure a negative evaluation point for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • difficult to measure factors of commitment, satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives
  • Rusbult responded to criticism and constructed investment model scale which could measure each of the key variables in a reliable and valid way
  • researched conducted using scales involves self-reports, creating further problems for social desirability bias
138
Q

How is Lin (1995) a negative evaluation point for Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • criticised investment model as it does not take into account gender differences that might exist
  • found females tend to report higher satisfaction, poorer quality of alternatives, greater investment, stronger commitment in relationships compared to males
139
Q

Who has done research into Rusbult’s investment model

A
  • Le and Agnew (2003)
140
Q

What did Le and Agnew (2003) do for the investment model

A
  • conducted meta analysis of 52 studies between 1970-1990
  • explored different factors of investment model
  • 11k participants from 5 countries
141
Q

What were the findings by Le and Agnew (2003) into the investment model

A
  • found satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment were correlated with commitment
  • satisfaction and commitment were significantly correlated and had strongest correlation of +0.68 out of all other factors
  • quality of alternatives had lowest correlation with commitment -0.48
  • investment size was correlated with commitment +0.46
  • those who had high commitment were likely to stay in relationship, those with low likely to leave
142
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the meta analysis conducted by Le and Agnew (2003) into the investment model

A
  • conducted in a range of cultures to assess investment model so there is cultural support
  • quality of alternatives is similar to social exchange and factor of CL.alt, both factors focus on alternative people that a person could have a relationship with
143
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the meta analysis conducted by Le and Agnew (2003) into the investment model

A
  • relied on use of correlation coefficients to examine strength and relationship between variables which can be problematic
  • relationships are complex and cannot be reduced to investment size causing high commitment
  • there may be other variables that have to be examined
  • concept of investment has been oversimplified
  • investment is not just what resources a person has put in but may also be future plans
  • Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) extended this proposed model by Rusbult to include investment can be future plans
144
Q

What is Duck’s (1982) phase model of relationship breakdown

A
  • process of breakdown might begin when one partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the way the relationship has occurred
  • 4 stages
145
Q

What are the 4 stages of Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown (1982)

A
  • intra-psychic processes
  • dyadic processes
  • social processes
  • grave dressing processes
146
Q

What is the intra psychic process

A
  • characterised by dissatisfied partner privately thinking about their relationship and brooding about problems identified
  • they focus on their partner’s faults and the fact they are under benefitting from the relationship
  • might feel depressed and withdraw from social interactions with partner
147
Q

What is the dyadic process

A
  • dissatisfied partner privately communicates with partner about being dissatisfied
  • both partners think about investments they have made in the relationship
  • could be reconciliation if partner accepts validity of dissatisfied partner’s views and changes behaviour
  • martial therapy might be useful
  • dissatisfied partner might believe it would be justified in withdrawing from the relationship meaning breakdown process continues
148
Q

What is the social process

A
  • if there is a breakup, it is made public meaning problem is harder to deny or ignore
  • advice and support is given and alliances are made
  • involves criticising former partners and scape gloating
  • younger adults may experience breakdown frequently in this period of life as they are striving to meet their ideal partner and testing the market
  • older couples experience less frequent breakdowns and some may be resigned from finding a new partner
149
Q

What is the grave dressing process

A
  • as the relationship breaks down, there is a need to mourn and justify actions
  • we need to create an account of what the relationship was like and why it broke down
  • ex partners begin their post relationship lives and publicise accounts of how relationship was broken, ensuring their social credit remains high
  • stories might be told about betrayal or how both struggled to make it work
  • different accounts given to different people
  • partners might reinterpret their point of view of their ex partner
150
Q

What are positive evaluation points for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • Rollie (2006)
  • social exchange theory
151
Q

How is Rollie (2006) a positive evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • devised in 1982 however improvements have been made
  • teamed up with Rollie and introduced a fifth phase called the resurrection phase
  • this is where the person engages in personal growth and gets prepared for new romantic relationships
152
Q

How is the social exchange theory a positive evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • supports Duck’s phase model
  • states if a relationship has high costs and minimal rewards then relationship is not worth continuing but instead would breakdown
153
Q

What are negative evaluation points for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • Akert (1998)
  • gender differences
  • simplistic
  • ethics
154
Q

How is Akert (1998) a negative evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • criticised Duck’s phase model
  • found role that people had in deciding if relationship should breakdown was the most important prediction of the breakdown experience
  • found those who did not initiate the end of the relationship were most miserable, lonely, depressed and angry in weeks after end
  • those who initiate breakdown were least stressed but felt guilty
155
Q

How is gender differences a negative evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • Duck’s phase model ignores gender differences
  • Kassin (1996) found researcher suggesting females emphasis unhappiness, lack of emotional support and incompatibility as reasons for relationship breakdown
  • men state lack of sex and/or fun
  • females often wish to stay friends with ex partner but males rather have a clean break and not stay friends
156
Q

How is simplistic a negative evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • Duck’s phase model can be viewed as overly simplistic
  • reducing complex phenomenon of relationship breakdown into four simple stages that must follow a specific order
  • in the real world, it would be unlikely that relationship breakdown can be compartmentalised or reduced into four basic stages
  • breakdown is unpredictable and could be the case that breakdown does not happen in this chronological order
  • some couples could break up, make up then break up again
157
Q

How is ethics a negative evaluation point for Duck’s phase model (1982)

A
  • many ethical issues that need to be considered when examining model proposed by Duck
  • relationship breakdown is a socially sensitive topic
  • psychological harm could be an issue when people are recalling why their relationship broke down and the impact of this
  • invasion of privacy is also an issue that Duck needs to address when investigating relationship breakdown
158
Q

What were the traits found by Duck (1982) for relationship breakdown

A
  • partners that marry when they are very young
  • partners that become partners (when they are young), often have little time to adjust to their new responsibilities and this can cause financial and housing problems
  • couples that are from different socioeconomic background
  • partners that have different social demographic backgrounds, such as race, religion, etc. (links to filter theory)
  • people who have partners that are divorced
  • people who have had many sexual partners before they got married
159
Q

What are differences between face to face and virtual relationships

A
  • self disclosure tends to occur faster in virtual relationships
  • impact of rejection is lower in virtual relationships
  • likelihood of self disclosure occurring is higher in virtual relationships
  • importance of physical attraction is lower in virtual relationships
160
Q

What is the hyperpersonal model for self disclosure in virtual relationships

A
  • Walther (2011)
  • self disclosure in virtual relationships happens faster
  • virtual relationships become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful
  • can end more quickly as it is difficult to sustain same level of intense self disclosure for a long term
161
Q

What theories are associated with self disclosure in virtual relationships

A
  • hyperpersonal model
  • reduced cues theory
162
Q

What does the hyperpersonal model suggest

A
  • virtual relationships may feel more intimate
  • easier to manipulate self disclosure online than face to face
  • participants in online conversations have more time to edit responses to present themselves in a more positive light
  • Walter calls this selective self presentation
  • projecting a positive image makes virtual partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing intensity of relationship
163
Q

What is a positive evaluation point for the hyperpersonal model

A
  • Whitby and Joinson (2009)
  • research demonstrating effect of being online on self disclosure
  • discovered in online discussion forums, both questions and answers tend to be more direct, probing and intimate than in everyday face to face interactions as hyperpersonal model would predict
164
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the hyperpersonal model

A
  1. McKenna and Bargh
    - research found relationships which begin online are more durable rather than ending quickly as hyperpersonal model suggests
    - this is because of more open self disclosure early on in the relationship
  2. Self disclosure varies on the online context
    - people disclose more on gaming sites than dating because latter is more likely to lead to face to face encounters in the future
165
Q

What is the reduced cue theory

A
  • Spoull and Kiesler (1986)
  • suggested self disclosure in virtual relationships might be less open and honest
  • in real life, we rely on lots of subtle cutes which are absent in virtual
  • reduction in non verbal communication leads to deindividuation as it diminishes people’s feelings of individual identity and brings on behaviours that people usually restrain
  • may make online communications more aggressive resulting in less self disclosure
166
Q

What are evaluation points for the reduced cue theory

A
  1. developed when social media lacked face to face interaction
    - much less non verbal communication than real life
    - however advanced technology allows for live interactions similar to real life
  2. non verbal communication is not absent from virtual relationships
    - cues are just different
    - timing of responses is also important form of non verbal communication
167
Q

Who carried out research into the reduced cues theory

A
  • Joinson (2001)
168
Q

What was the procedure of the study carried out by Joinson (2001) into reduced cues theory

A
  • undergrad students in lab study
  • placed in same sex pairs and asked to discuss dilemma requiring conversation
  • transcribes made
  • transcripts analysed and rated for self disclosure, especially unprompted disclosures
  • in A, half pairs discussed face to face, others half discussed in different rooms using computer
  • in B, all participants used chat programme, half had video connection and half did not
169
Q

What were the findings of the study carried out by Joinson (2001) into the reduced cues theory

A
  • in A, significantly more disclosure using computer chat program than face to face
  • in B, pairs using video has lower self disclosure than those without
  • conclusion is that people self disclose more about themselves when using a computer and cannot see each other compared to face to face interaction
170
Q

What is the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • in real life, attraction to others is influenced by appearance, mannerisms and other factors such as age and ethnicity
  • being online removes factors that normally act as a barrier (gate) to interaction
  • creates more opportunities for shy/less attractive people to develop romantic relationships
  • absence of gating online also means people can establish virtual identities they never could in face to face
171
Q

What are positive evaluation points for gating in virtual relationships

A
  • Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012)
  • Zahoa et al. (2008)
  • Baker and Oswald (2010)
172
Q

How is Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012) a positive evaluation point for the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • social benefits
  • could reduce loneliness by making it easier for people to access social interactions
  • R and T showed importance of online communication for developing RS
  • out of 4k participants, 72% of those with internet access were married or had a romantic partner
  • 36% of those without internet access
  • suggests virtual environment helps people to establish and maintain RS
173
Q

How is Zahoa et al. (2008) a positive evaluation point for the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • claims absence of gating has positive effects on people’s offline RS
  • people can create online identity that is appreciated by others
  • enhances overall self image and increases quality of face to face RS
174
Q

How is Baker and Oswald (2010) a positive evaluation point for the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • suggest absence of gating in virtual RS may be useful for shy people
  • asked 207 participants to complete questionnaire
  • scored answers in terms of shyness, internet use and perception of quality of their friendships
  • found peple scoring highly on shyness and internet use, perceived quality of friendship as high
  • this correlation was absent for people with low shyness scores
  • findings imply as online communication helps people to overcome shyness, so the quality of face to face communication also improves
175
Q

What are negative evaluation points for gating in virtual relationships

A
  • differences
  • temporal validity
176
Q

How are differences a negative evaluation point for the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • people are involved in both online and offline RS everyday
  • it’s not an either/or situation
  • means there are fewer differences between virtual and face to face RS than research suggests
  • research examining virtual RS fails to account for effect of these RS on a person’s offline interactions and vice versa
177
Q

How are temporal validity a negative evaluation point for the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • most research examining gating was conducted in late 1990s and early 2000s
  • as technology is changing, so is the nature of online RS
  • therefore psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated by the time it is published
  • lowers temporal validity
178
Q

Who has conducted research into the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • McKenna and Bargh (2002)
  • Yurchisin et al. (2005)
179
Q

What was the research conducted by McKenna and Bargh (2002) into the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • first condition, participants interacted with partner in real life
  • second condition, participants interacted with partner online then in person
  • third/fourth condition, participants interacted with partner online/in person then done the reverse but did not know it was the same partner
  • counterbalanced
180
Q

What were the findings of the research conducted by McKenna and Bargh (2002) into the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • partners were liked more when meeting on the internet
  • communication seen as more intimate
  • allowed to be their true selves
  • more frequent and deeper self disclosure
  • quicker development online
  • allows freedom to create own identity
181
Q

What are evaluation points for the research conducted by McKenna and Bargh (2002) into the effects of absence of gating on virtual relationships

A
  1. Supports that superficial gating features are present in real life, e.g. physical attraction
  2. supports that physical gating features allowed certain disadvantaged people to bypass obstacles in real life
    - illustrates why a lack of gates features makes virtual RS more desirable to those struggling to make face to face RS
182
Q

What was the research conducted by Yurchisim et al. (2005) into the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • interviewed 11 online dates
  • found they gave accounts of both their real and better selves in profiles
  • done to attract potential partners
  • some interviewees admitted to stealing other dater’s ideas or copy images to seem popular
  • found most online identities were close to true identity to avoid unpleasant surprises in real life encounters
  • gating features are not always visible
  • wider potential group of people to form RS with online => focus on common interests rather than being limited by superficial but dominant gating features
183
Q

What are evaluation points for the research by Yurchisin et al. (2005) into the effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • self reports
  • generalisation
  • gender differences
  • intimacy
184
Q

How is self reports an evaluation point for Yurchisin et al. (2005) into the effects of the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • negative
  • majority of studies used self report
  • relies on participants revealing information
  • social desirability bias
  • lowers validity
185
Q

How is generalisation an evaluation point for Yurchisin et al. (2005) into the effects of the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • negative
  • research has not considered effect of limiting gating on different groups of people
  • e.g. age groups, different levels of attractiveness, ethnic groups, cultures
  • means research lacks external validity
  • cannot be generalised to wider population
186
Q

How is gender differences an evaluation point for Yurchisin et al. (2005) into the effects of the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • negative
  • theory fails to consider gender differences
  • research shows males place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than females
187
Q

How is intimacy an evaluation point for Yurchisin et al. (2005) into the effects of the absence of gating in virtual relationships

A
  • positive
  • Bargh found intimacy developed more quickly with virtual RS than face to face
  • due to lack of gating features typically preventing intimate disclosures in face to face RS
  • supports idea that a lack of gating helps virtual RS to grow more quickly and intimately than face to face ones
188
Q

What is a parasocial relationship

A
  • one sided RS with celebrity/prominent person in community/fictional character
  • fan knows everything about the subject of their adoration and feels close to them
  • no chance of reciprocity
189
Q

What are the different levels of para social relationships

A
  • entertainment social
  • intense personal
  • borderline pathological
190
Q

Who researched into the different levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • Giles and Maltby (2006)
191
Q

What is the entertainment social level of parasocial relationships

A
  • celebrities are seen as a source of entertainment and as a topic for light hearted gossiping with friends
  • least intense level of celebrity worship
192
Q

What is the intense personal level of parasocial relationships

A
  • person has a more intense RS with celebrity
  • might see celebrity as a soulmate and have an intense interest in the celebrity’s personal life
  • e.g. dress sense, food they like and entertainment they partake in
193
Q

What is the borderline pathological level of parasocial relationships

A
  • most intense level
  • person takes celebrity worship to an extreme
  • obsessive fantasies about celebrity, spends a lot to obtain memorabilia and may engage in illegal activity such as stalking
  • usual for people to believe if they were given a chance to meet celebrity, their feelings would be reciprocated
194
Q

What are positive evaluation points for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • research
  • attractiveness
195
Q

How is research a positive evaluation point for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • studies explored factors that were instrumental into formation of parasocial RS
  • found positive correlation between degree to which a person sees TV characters as real and a tendency to form parasocial RS
196
Q

How is attractiveness a positive evaluation point for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • research support for claim that attractiveness increases likelihood of a parasocial RS
  • attractiveness of a celebrity influences the development of the three levels of parasocial RS from members of the public
197
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • education
  • training
  • research
198
Q

How is education a negative evaluation point for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • education levels of individuals needs to be accounted for
  • highly educated individuals may perceive majority of celebrities as less educated than themselves
  • therefore are less likely to engage in a parasocial RS
199
Q

How is training a negative evaluation point for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • recommended training should occur in schools to highlight dangers of parasocial RS
  • often results in individual having unrealistic goals to be more similar to celebrities
  • e.g. one may develop an eating disorder to obtain the slim body of a media star
200
Q

How is research a negative evaluation point for levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • research into parasocial RS conducted by questionnaires
  • can be affected by social desirability bias and idealised answers
  • lacks validity
201
Q

Who has carried out research into levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • Shiappa et al. (2007)
202
Q

What was the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • carried out meta analysis
  • explored factors that were instrumental in formation of parasocial relationships
203
Q

What were the findings of the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • found support for assumption that people with higher levels of parasocial RS watch more TV
  • analysis showed significant positive relationship between degree to which a person perceives TV characters as being real and their tendency to form parasocial RS
  • found evidence to support claim that likelihood of forming a parasocial RS with a TV character was linked to those characters’ perceived attractiveness and similarity to viewer
204
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the research carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • Turner (1993)
  • Thompson (2006)
205
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the research carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • Rubin (1985)
  • generalisation
206
Q

How is Turner (1993) a positive evaluation point for the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • found parasocial RS tend to form with media personalities with perceives similar attitudes
  • supports idea that parasocial RS are similar to real interpersonal RS
207
Q

How is Thompson (2006) a positive evaluation point for the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • supported idea that parasocial RS satisfy many of main needs fulfilled by real RS
  • need for relatedness, competence and independence
  • supports idea that parasocial RS resemble face to face RS in many ways
208
Q

How is Rubin (1985) a negative evaluation point for the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • found little correlation between loneliness and strength of TV viewers’ parasocial RS with TV characters
  • refutes idea that parasocial RS are a dysfunction substitute for inadequate RS
209
Q

How is generalisation a negative evaluation point for the study carried out by Shiappa et al. (2007) into the levels of parasocial relationships

A
  • research might only apply to younger people who may be more attracted to media personalities
  • due to them having less involvement in face to face social networks and spend more time interacting with media than older people
210
Q

What is the absorption addiction model

A
  • proposed by McCutcheon et al. (2002)
  • attempts to explain why people develop parasocial RS
  • argues pursing parasocial RS makes up for deficits in individual’s real life RS
  • RS with celebs seen as attempt to cope with/escape from reality
  • parasocial RS enable individual to develop sense of personal identity and achieve sense of fulfilment
  • people with addictive nature escalate through series of stages until parasocial RS becomes a total preoccupation with a celeb’s life
211
Q

What are the components of the absorption addiction model

A
  • absorption
  • addiction
212
Q

Explain the absorption component of the absorption addiction model

A
  • seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates one to focus all their attention on the celeb, to become preoccupied in their existence and identity with them
213
Q

Explain the addiction component of the absorption addiction model

A
  • individual sustains commitment to RS by feeling a stronger and close involvement with celeb
  • leads to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking
214
Q

What are positive evaluation points of the absorption addiction model

A
  • Greenwood and Long (2009)
  • stalking
  • Maltby et al. (2005)
215
Q

What are negative evaluation points of the absorption addiction model

A
  • correlational
  • descriptive
216
Q

How is Greenwood and Long (2009) a positive evaluation point for the absorption addiction model

A
  • research supports a link between loneliness and engaging in parasocial RS
  • Greenwood and Long found evidence that people may develop parasocial RS as a way of dealing with a recent loss or loneliness
217
Q

How is stalking a positive evaluation point for the absorption addiction model

A
  • stalkers often have a history of failed sexual RS at time of stalking
  • stalking in such cases is a reaction to social incompetence, isolation and loneliness
218
Q

How is Maltby et al. (2005) a positive evaluation point for the absorption addiction model

A
  • measured the RS between parasocial RS and body image in teenagers
  • found teenage girls who engaged in parasocial RS tended to have a poor body image, especially if they particularly admired a celebrity’s physical appearance
219
Q

How is correlational a negative evaluation point for the absorption addiction model

A
  • most research into parasocial RS is correlational
  • means cause and effect cannot be established
  • lowers scientific explanatory power
220
Q

How is description a negative evaluation point for the absorption addiction model

A
  • absorption addiction model is better suited to describing levels of parasocial RS than explaining how people develop these attitudes
  • model attempts to establish universal principles of behaviour and as such misses out on deep insight into reasons for behaviour
  • looking into particular instances of parasocial RS may be better suited to uncovering reasons for why people develop them
221
Q

Who has carried out research into the absorption addiction model

A
  • Derrick et al.
222
Q

What was the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • studied undergrads from USA
  • people with high self esteem can form parasocial RS with celebs they see themselves in
  • people with low self esteem form parasocial RS with celebs who they see their ideal self in
  • those with low self esteem saw boost in self esteem after writing about favourite celeb but not experienced in real life RS
  • low esteem people use parasocial RS to experience movement toward ideal self
  • parasocial RS can increase self esteem and need for person to belong
223
Q

What are evaluation points for the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • research
  • Giles and Maltby
  • sample
  • factors
224
Q

How is research a negative evaluation point for the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • contradictory research found parasocial RS can have negative effects
  • Maltby found parasocial RS with celebs perceived as having a good body leads to poor body image in female adolescents and a predisposition to eating disorders
  • suggests there is a relationship between attitudes to celebs and body image resulting in low self esteem
225
Q

How is Giles and Maltby an evaluation point for the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • found it was important that people choose good celebs to follow as these influences can become more important role models than parents during childhood
  • can be beneficial if they show good models of social behaviour as many adolescents are more influenced by celebs than parents
226
Q

How is sample a negative evaluation point for the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • many studies focus on students
  • sample bias (age)
  • results cannot be generalised to whole population
227
Q

How is factors a negative evaluation point for the research carried out by Derrick et al. (2009) into the absorption addiction model

A
  • research can be criticised as it is unclear whether the media or attachment type determine the likelihood of parasocial relationships
  • unknown which factors is more prominent and important
228
Q

What is attachment theory in parasocial relationships

A
  • parasocial RS can be linked to attachment problems in childhood
  • several characteristics of parasocial RS are linked to attachment
  • e.g. protest at loss of attachment figure is similar to separation protest
  • people with childhood attachment problems form parasocial RS to meet their needs for attachment/affection
229
Q

What can attachment theory of parasocial relationships link to

A
  • Bowlby’s monotropic theory and maternal deprivation theory
  • Ainsworth’s attachment styles / Hazan and Shaver
230
Q

How does attachment theory of parasocial relationships link to Bowlby’s theories

A
  • some psychologists use Bowlby’s theories to explain parasocial RS
  • Bowlby noted failure to form monotropic attachment before critical period of 2 years or developing a poor attachment had several long term impacts
  • people can become affectionless psychopaths, develop poor working model, become delinquents, etc.
  • Bowlby’s theories predict individuals who didn’t form strong bond with primary caregiver in early childhood try to find attachment substitute as adults, and engaging in parasocial RS allows them to
231
Q

How does attachment theory of parasocial relationships link to Ainsworth’s theories

A
  • individuals with insecure resistant RS with primary caregiver more likely to form parasocial RS
  • abroad of criticism and rejection in real RS
  • as shown in strange situation, insecure resistant are clingy to mothers, showing no exploration behaviour as they do not feel safe leaving parents
  • also show great distress when mothers leave room
232
Q

How does attachment theory of parasocial relationships link to Hazan and Shaver

A
  • insecure resistant behaviour translates into clingy and jealous behaviour in adulthood
  • makes it difficult to develop committed and lasting RS
  • intensive parasocial RS allows insecure resistant people to engage in fantasy about perfect RS without risk of rejection
233
Q

What are positive evaluation points for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • Cole and Leets (1999)
  • stalkers
  • insecure attachment
234
Q

How is Cole and Leets (1999) a positive evaluation point for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • found individuals with insecure resistant attachment more likely to engage in parasocial RS with favourite TV personality
  • insecure avoidant individuals were least likely to engage in parasocial RS
  • suggests there is a RS between early attachment in childhood and adult parasocial RS
235
Q

How is stalkers a positive evaluation point for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • research support
  • 63% of stalkers experienced los of primary caregiver in childhood usually from parental separation
  • 50% reported childhood emotion, physical or sexual abuse from primary caregivers
  • supports idea that disturbed attachment in childhood is related to extreme forms of parasocial RS as adult
236
Q

How is insecure attachment a positive evaluation point for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • study found adults with insecure attachment types had positive attitudes to obsessive behaviours and stalking
  • pathological attachment types tend to stalk
  • implies stalking is related to childhood attachment
237
Q

What are negative evaluation points for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • research
  • fulfilment
238
Q

How is research a negative evaluation point for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • research studies into link between infant attachment type and parasocial RS rely on participants’ memories about early lives to assess their infant attachment style
  • such recollections are likely to be flawed because out memories of past are don’t always accurate
  • means studies are not valid
239
Q

How is fulfilment a negative evaluation point for the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • parasocial RS can be positive and not just about fulfilling attachment needs
  • e.g. allow a safe exploration of emotions
240
Q

Who has carried out research into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • Cole and Leets
241
Q

What was the study by Cole and Leets into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • research focused on why some people are more likely to develop parasocial RS based on attachment style
  • person’s willingness to form parasocial RS is related to attachment style
  • insecure resistant most likely to enter parasocial RS to satisfy unrealistic and unmet needs
  • RS with celebs is another reflection of desire for intimacy
  • insecure avoidant least likely to form parasocial RS as they find it hard to develop intimate RS and so less likely to seek real or parasocial RS
  • they avoid relational intimacy and imagined intimacy
242
Q

what are evaluation points for the research carried out by Cole and Leets into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • McCutcheon
  • Schmid
  • methodology
243
Q

How is McCutcheon an evaluation point for the study carried out by Cole and Leets into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • found supporting evidence that when measuring attraction to celebs, adults with insecure attachment had positive attitudes to obsessive behaviours and stalking
  • pathological attachment types tend to stalk implying stalking is related to childhood attachment
  • however, McCutcheon would contract research
  • found no RS between childhood attachment and mild celeb worship
  • there is only a RS between more intense forms of parasocial RS and attachment
244
Q

How is Schmid a positive evaluation point for the study carried out by Cole and Leets into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • investigated fictional character of Harry Potter within 2 different cultures (Germany and Mexico)
  • findings show within both cultures they showed similar patterns of parasocial RS between them and HP as well as other characters
  • shows cultural validity between individualistic and collectivist
245
Q

How is methodology a negative evaluation point for the study carried out by Cole and Leets into the attachment theory of parasocial relationships

A
  • research studies on parasocial RS use self report techniques, such as questionnaires
  • can lead to social desirability bias
  • lowers validity

A Level Psychology (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions