relationships Flashcards
define ‘relationship’
- an encounter w another person // other ppl that endures through time
- has 3 phases: beginning, maintaining, end
define ‘sexual selection’
- Darwin suggested ‘species evolve thru sexual selection’
- involved the selection of characteristics that increase reproductive success
how do physical characteristics change
- thru ‘adaptive’ genes
- they promote survival long enough for successful reproduction happen → these genes = passed to next gen
- the less adaptive the genes, less likely to survive to then reproduce → meaning their genes = lost from genes pool {natural selection}
what is reproductive success
- the ‘heart of the’ evolutionary process
- for ancestors → successful mating = complex
↳ involves selection of the right mate & out-competing w rivals
define ‘fittness’
the ability to survive + produce (healthy) offspring
define ‘anisogamy’
2 sex cells // gametes that come together to reproduce –> leads to diff selection styles due to how both genders reproduce
=> parental certainty
define ‘intra-sexual selection’
- found in male behaviour
- when men compete w other males for best access for mating w females
- their gamete is plentiful, so they don’t need to be worried about being careful –> cannot be sure of paternity
what characteristics do men look for in women?
- seek physical attributes linked to fertility –> higher chances of reproductive success
– healthy
– youthful
– child-bearing hips
define ‘intersexual selection’
- found in female behaviour
- how women = choose available men more careful when choosing a partner due to their limited amount of eggs & actually carrying the baby
what characteristics do women look for in men?
- seek monogamy
- men of good:
– status
– attractiveness
– genetic fitness
– status
– resource (rich)
– protection
evaluate human reproductive behaviour w Buss’ study
- aim –> investigate if evolutionary explanations for sex differences in human mate preferences = found across all culture
- method:
– developed a questionnaire
– 10,000 ppts + 37 cultures + 6 cultures
– ppts had to rate 13 characteristics they preferred in a partner of the opposite sex & what their priorities were in choosing a sexual partner - results:
– most cultures: ‘good financial prospects’ = higher in females compared to men
– ‘good looks’ = higher in men [compared to females] in all 37 samples
– ‘ambition + industriousness’ = 34/37 - females value more than men - conclusions –> sex differences w mate preferences = strongly confirmed across all cultures –> findings support evolutionary explanations of human mating
(D) susceptible to validity issues
– the partners they may describe and want to ideally be with may not be an accurate reflection of their actual partners
(D) only applies to heterosexual couples
– lacks temporal validity (outdated)
(A) evaluate the human reproductive behaviour theory
(A) Clark + Hatfield (1989)
- attractive stranger approaches approaches ppts of the opposite sex on an American college & asks:
– to go out w them
– to go back to their home
– to have sex with them
- results:
– 50% m+f agreed to date
– 69% m & 9% f agreed to visit home
– 75% m & 0% f agreed to have sex
- this study was repeated and similar results were given –> suggesting that high reliability of this study
- this study portrays how men supposedly feel less vulnerable compared to women
(CP) can be seen as susceptible to cultural standards
- women = seen as less promiscuous
(A) the ‘lonely hearts’ advert (1995)
- where ppl describes themselves and what kind of partner they’re looking for
- women tend to describe themselves as physical indicators of youth (curvy, exciting)
- men tend to describe themselves as more resourceful (good job, money / financially stable)
–> hence supporting evolutionary views of partner preferences (exp)
(CP) it was only in american newspapers - meaning there would be an appearance of culture bias and the results couldn’t be generalised to other cultures / countries
(D) evaluate the human reproductive behaviour theory
(D) can be argued that the theory of evolution is no longer applicable to modern times
- it’s more common that women are financially stable - they don’t need to depend on men
-some women don’t want children (birth-control / contraception) so men = redundant
(D) considered to be biologically deterministic
- partner references = evolutionary drives + cultural influences
- in cultures where women = still denied economic + political power states –> seek for men who have that
- assuming PP = biologically driven // evolutionary instinct = reductionist view –> don’t underestimate the important of culture
- the theory mainly focuses on biologically factors
- partner preferences reflect one’s evolution and culture - but the theory ignores this
- evolution also ignores free will + choice –> ignores ‘individual differences’ (reductionist)
– considered to be reductionist
(D) evolutionary explanations = deterministic
- assumes that: all men = motivated to have lots of sexual partners + less inclined to have long-term relationships
the power of physical attraction
the science of it:
- the degree to which a person’s physical features = considered aesthetically pleasing
- implies sexual attractiveness / desirability
- viewed by society as one of the most important factors
- preconceived ideas about personality attractive individual (nice + positive traits) = the halo effect
what is the halo effect?
- research suggests people deem those w positive traits (intelligent // friendly // trustworthy) as the most attractive
- mostly, attractiveness outshines other characteristics & impacts our perception of them
what is the matching hypothesis
- Walster et al (1996):
– the more socially desirable (physically // social status // intelligent) the higher the expectation they’re in a R
– couples who are matched = more likely to have happy + long Rs - mainly judges by physical attractiveness
- intial attraction = determined by comparison levels on the individual
- Walster et al –> relationships = similar level of attractiveness
– if they try to have someone ‘out their league’ they may never find a partner {evolutionary foolishness}
– similar attractiveness = balance between level of competition [intra-sexual] + positive traits
eval the matching hypothesis
(A) research support from Walster et al (1966) ‘the computer dance study’
- 367 males + 367 females + questionnaire for partner preferences
- ptts were told they would be matched to an ideal partner -> but choices were random from a computer
– an observer also rated ppts for attractiveness
- asked if they liked their partners (@ interval)
- asked again if they would go out w them (@ end of dance)
- as predicted -> the more pretty ppl the more the partner liked em
- the more they were liked- the more rewarding the other was & the more desirable they were as a future partner
- this highlights the importance of physical attraction
(CP) but attractiveness = subjectiveness
(A) research support from Walster (1969)
- paired students for a dance & told them their partners = their ideal ppl -> but they were assigned randomly
(CP) - subjective -> of how attractiveness = rated
– likely to be based on western ideals (CULTURE BIAS)
(A) - silverman (1971) -> observed on couples innaturalistic dating settings & a panel rated their attractiveness
- more similar couples -> happier (shows more physical intimacy)
complex matching
- Hatfield et al (2009)
– individuals can sometimes compensate low attractiveness by offering other desirable traits - offering ‘socially desired characteristics’
- due to this –> they can attain more attractive partners
eval complex matching
(A) research support from the halo effect
- palmer + peterson (2012) -> physically attractive ppl = rated more politically knowledgeable + competent > ugly ppl
(D) takeuchi (2006) suggests there’s gender diffs
- physical attractiveness of women = values heavily by men but not the other way
- lesser impact on the perception of men’s social desirability
compare matching + complex matching hypothesis
- MH = over simplified + incomplete –> only focuses on physical attractiveness
– CM = more holistic - CM = better explains cultural differences
– MH = focuses on western ideals
define self-disclosure
- part of sharing info so one can communicate w others in hopes you’re both attracted to each other’s qualities
- (un)+conscious act of revealing significant info about an individual (e.g. –> thoughts // feelings // aspirations // fears)
- leads to stronger feelings of intimacy + relationship satisfaction
- a way of improving quality of inter-personal relationships
– by showing trust (sharing) + respect (listening)
characteristics of SD?
- occurs in dyad {it’s reciprocal}
- info = revealed in increments
– too much too quick = may cause discomfort {risks}
what are the degrees of SD
- can be causal or intimate
- ‘breadth’ –> range of ‘shallow’ topics (surface-level talk)
- ‘depth’ –> goes into intimate details w info about 1 topic
– eg –> past sexual partners
what is the Social Penetration Theory
- suggested by Altman + Taylor (1973)
- ppl reveal their inner, deepest thoughts + feelings
– is done gradually - exchange = reciprocal
– as this continues, the partners penetrate deeper into each other’s lives
– more about the type of SD (rather than SD itself)
eval SPT / SD
(A) research support from Spreecher (2004)
- found strong (+) correlations between several measures of satisfaction + commitment + relationship stability + self-disclosure within heterosexual relationships
(CP) only correlations were found - no guarantee of causality –> low validity
(CP) doesn’t apply to homosexual relationships
(CP) however this research support depends on self-reporting –> may not be accurate due to social desirability bias
(A) research support from Laurenceau et al (2005)
- they analysed couples daily diary entries & found SD=linked to intimacy in married couples
- 96 couples
– both partners did these daily entries
– self-assess + partner disclosure + perceived partner responsiveness
- the diary allows them to study marital + family processes
(CP) can be seen as a breach of privacy as diary = v personal
(CP) the study only shows correlations (no causality)
(CP) can be seen as culturally bias (only used western ppts)
(D) cultural differences w SD {Tang et al}
- aimed to research sexual SD
- found ppl in USA = disclosed more info about sexual thoughts + feelings + experiences compared to China (collectivist cultures)
- the depth of SD varies culturally
what is filter theory?
- assumed to be an unconscious choice to enter a relationship
– removes romantic aspect –> more about convenience
Kerchoff + Davis (1962)
- in order for relationships to progress, they must pass thru the 3 filters:
– social demographic
– similarity of attitudes + values
– complementary of emotional needs {like love languages}
- we narrow down our choices of potential partners
- each of these filters assumes importance @ various stages of relationships
describe the stages of filter theory
-> social demographic (1st level)
- refers to age + religion + social class + level of education + ethnicity + geographical location
- anyone = ‘too different’ out
- most meaningful relationships = those in closest proximity
- outcome of filter = homogamy –> socially + culturally similar
-> similarity in attitude (2nd level)
- K+D –> similarity = of central @ start of relationships& the biggest predictor of stable Rs
(A) - Bryne (1997)
– has consistent findings of ‘similarity causes attraction’ {the law of attraction}
– frequent interactions exposes one another to their values + beliefs + attitudes {similar values = more attractive}
-> complementarity (3rd level)
- involves the assessment of ‘complimentary of needs’
- 2 partners complement each other when the other partner has a trait the other lacks
- complementarity = attractive because it gives 2 romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole
- once R = established –> comp needs = most important factor
evaluate the filter theory
(A) - supporting evidence for social demography as a filter from Festinger et al (1950)
- observed friendships in a block of apartments for student
- students = x10 more likely to be friends with ppl in their own building
- close proximity –> frequent contact + closer friendships
- supports social demography
(A) - many people experience FT in their everyday life -> meaning that filter theory has face validity
- as people can intuitively relate to it without needing much exp as they can understand it easily
(D) - issue of causality
- FT –> ppl = initially attracted due to similarity, but evidence says this direction of causality = wrong
- Anderson (2003) –> longitudinal study that cohabiting partners -> more similar emotional responses over more time
- Rusbult (2009) -> ‘attitude alignment effect’ in LT relationships
– over time, partners bring their attitudes into line w each other’s -> suggesting that similarity is the effect of initial attraction NOT THE CAUSE
– hence, undermining FT and limiting its reliability
(D) can be argued that certain aspects of FT = outdated
- social demography = not that important due to the significant presence of online dating
– it’s easier to meet potential partners that may be outside our social demographic -> an example being long-distance couples
- the filter needs modernising as it lacks temporal val
issues + debates:
(D) - the theory can be seen as not inclusive
- it ignores biological drives [BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONIST]-> assumes we select partners on the basis of social factors + filters only
– and not how men desire and look for the best (external) genes / attributes and women look for the best environment
- Kerckhoff and Davis set the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months, assuming that if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment
– [HETEROSEXUAL BIAS] However, this doesn’t apply to all heterosexual couples, nor does it describe the experience of homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures
– Some couples take much longer than 18 month to establish a similarity of attitudes and complimentarity, while others skip sociodemographic filters altogether and feel they are ready to commit to long-term relationships earlier than the 18 month cut-off point. These experiences can’t be explained by the Filter Theory -> suggesting that other factors (e.g. the type of relationship) play a significant role in the initiation and development of relationships.
what is Social Exchange Theory (SET)
This is an economic theory of romantic relationships. Many psychologists believe that the key to maintaining a relationship is that it is mutually beneficial.
Tibult + Kelly proposed SET -> motivation to stay in a romantic relationship = the result of a cost-benefit analysis that people perform (consciously // unconsciously)
- it’s seen as economics as it heavily uses the idea of profit + loss:
– social behaviour = series of exchanges {when ppl receive rewards from another, they feel obligated to reciprocate}
– each person tries to max rewards+ min costs
– P: company, security, sexual favours, emotional care
– L: abuse, stress, loss of independence / identity - this can be tracked by one’s PAY-OFF MATRICES (a mental numerical log of all P+Ls
- ppl = motivated by rewards
- successful: P-L = (+) output
what are comparison levels in SET
- ppl assess their Rs by 2 comps:
– CL (comparison level) & CL alt (comparison level alternate) - CL -> past + present relationships
– comparisons between P+L now compared to before -> this could also include their IWM - CL alt -> concerned w possible alt Rs
– comparisons of P+L of now and their possible future {what they think they could or deserve the should get) - if someone = satisfied in their current R -> they would be oblivious to alt Rs as they have no motivation to find someone else
fully evaluate SET
(A) - supporting evidence for the influence of comp levels on Rs
- simpson et al (1990) found satisfied partners in a R + told them to rate pics of ppl of the opp sex
- SET assumes we = driven by P+L & ignores we’re capable of being altruistic (opposite of selfish) -> evident w ppl who are emotionally close to someone
(D) mills + clark (1980) identified 2 kinds of Rs:
– COMMUNAL -> gives out of concern for the other
– EXCHANGE -> keeps mental record of who’s ‘behind’ [pay-off matrices]
- suggests the communal couple = not included in SET -> questions hoe generalisable the theory is
(D) nakonenzy + denton (2008) -> argue that P+L needs to be quantifiable
– many profits = emotional and therefore subjective
- also what’s seen as a profit to one may not be one to the other (eg -> like constant attention or many gifts …)
- this makes the theory subjective
- for most -> profit is less important than fairness in Rs
(briefly) what is equity theory?
- mainly concerned with the maintenance of a R due to how a R = PERCIEVED
- developed from the criticism of SET
– SET failed to consider fairness > profit - ET -> if equity = not achieved -> dissatisfaction
– aim = restore balance of perceived unfairness (can be subjective) - the under-benefitted = most distressed (resentment + anger + hostility) & the over-benefitted = feels guilt + shame
how did walster contribute to the equity theory?
walster et al (1978):
- believed that ppl see fairness > profit
- PROFIT -> ppl try to max their Ps + min their Ls (negative experiences)
- DISTRIBUTION -> rewards = negotiated to ensure fairness [can be done thru trade-offs // compensations
- DISSATISFACTION -> unfair Rs produce diss –> mainly felt by ‘loser’, the greater the perceived unfairness the greater the diss
- REALIGNMENT -> if the ‘loser’ thinks there’s a chance of restoring fairness, they’ll be motivated to restore equity (mend + maintain R by using communication strategies)
how to manage a conflict
- avoid mentioning the past -> focus on finding solutions for the present
- seek out competitions
- don’t interrupt -> listen + reflect
- admit when ur wrong
- consider the other’s perspective
- empathy -> don’t disrespect
fully evaluate equity theory
(A) research support -> research has correlated w R satisfaction
- stafford + canary (2006) -> surveyed married couples
results:
– low satisfaction in ppl who considered themselves to be under-benefitted
– high satisfaction for those who felt they were in an equitable R
- hence supporting ET -> equity leads to satisfaction
(A) hatfield et al (1972) provided research support
- over 500 students = interviewed about their R
- 3m later the inequitable RS = more likely to ended
– suggesting -> equity = crucial for maintenance
(D) ETHNOCENTRICM (issues + debates)
- moghaddam et al (1983)
- US students prefer equity but europeans prefer equality -> suggesting that the theory = reflection of US society
- western culture -> individualistic + voluntary + temporary
- non-western -> collectivist + involuntary (?) + permanent
(D) gender bias
- DeMaris et al (2010) argues that females = more likely to feel disturbed by perceiving themselves as under-benefitted > men
- suggesting ET more concerning for Fs - but this gender diff = ignored in ET, implying that this theory cannot be applied to both genders -> limiting its validity + reliability
(briefly) what is the investment model?
- Rusbult (1980) -> deigned to describe why ppl persist / maintain on some romantic Rs but not others
- it builds from the principles of SET {extension from SET}
- it suggests -> Rs = not just maintained due to satisfaction, investments (ties + resources) + the qual of alts = important
– commitment + investment > satisfaction -> when determining the likelihood of a successful R
– satisfaction = influenced by how the partner fulfils needs
model:
S + A + I -> commitment levels -> stay or leave
what r the 3 main factors in the investment model?
- SATISFACTION:
- this depends on (+) vs (-) emotions experienced in the R & how well the other = is at fulfilling needs
– domestic + emotional + sexual + companionship needs
(+) should > (-) - QUALITY OF ALTERNATIVES:
- refers to if one’s needs may be better fulfilled outside their current R [refers back to SET -> comp level alt]
– if the alt partner = superior -> one leaves current R
– alt = not present (not thought of as they = satisfied // there’s a lack of (+) alt) -> stay in current R - INVESTMENT SIZE:
- these = all the resources attached to a R -> hard to divide if they break up + will be lost if the R ends
- INTRINSIC investment -> intangible sources put directly into R (like time + effort + energy + memories + SDs)
- EXTRINSIC investments -> strong tangible sources (house + car + kids + shared friends)
- these investments = made if they think their R has longevity
- more investment -> more dependence -> more commitment (stays in R)
- commitment levels = low when unsatisfied + little investment + perceive better alts
- commitments levels = high when high investment + satisfaction + little qual of alts
- equity + social support (approval) = associated w commitment
eval the investment model
(A) real life application -> can offer explanations why ppl stay in abusive relationships
- rusbult + martz (1995) studied ‘ battered’ women @ a shelter
- found abused women = likely to stay in Rs if investment = high (like if they had kids)
- shows model can be generalised + shows how only satisfaction = not accurate predictor of commitment
(A) research support
- le + agnew (2003)
- meta-analysis of 52 studies from late 70s - late 90s
– sample = 11,000 ppts from 5 countries
- accross all studies -> sat levels + lack of alts + invest levels = (+)ively correlated w commitment -> clear support
(CP) - correlation doesn’t mean causality
– maybe [S + A + I] doesn’t cause commitment & there may be other unmeasured factors = real reason
(CP) - maybe the more committed u feel = more likely u r to invest in R
(A) appears to be universal due to (+) correlation between commitment + satisfaction, no alts + invest levels = cross culturally across individualistic + collectivist cultures -> finding = applicable to ranges of Rs (homosexual ones too)
- percieved levels of sat + invest = important to determine commitment (not acc level)
- belief of better alts can explain infidelity -> low sats in current R = higher sats in alt Rs = decs commitment + investments
(D) issues w measuring investment
- investments can be emotional -> cant rlly be quantifiable
- early R = few investments
- manys Rs plan for their future regardless of anything acc invested
– suggests that investment = oversimplified (REDUCTIONIST)
describe the main features of Duck’s phase model of breakdown
- Steve Duck (1982) developed model of termination of intimate Rs -> focuses on the process (as he claims it’s not a one-off event)
→ how this process starts: - 1 partner = increasingly dis-sat w R
- if dis-sat = sufficiently great → indicates the need for change → progression to the next step
- ‘pre-existing doom’ → incompatible from the start
- ‘sudden death’ → traumatic event (cheating // big argument)
(1) - INTRAPSYCHIC: → {dissatisfaction = internalised}
- focuses on cognitive elements → characterised as ‘social withdrawal’ + ‘resentment’ + dis-sat when focusing on partner’s faults + receiving little pleasure from R (subjective)
- [evaluating their P+Ls → mostly private + unlikely to be shared]
(2) - DYADIC:
- when partners talk abt their probs [perceived inequalities or inequity // resentment // guilt (possibly from over-benefitted) // costs of the R]
↳ results in reconciliation or termination
- communication = v important to mend R
↳ if this = poor → can trigger breakdown
(3) - SOCIAL PROCESSES: {going public}
- break-up = now public (to friends + family)
- partners seek advice + support + reassurance & alliances = made (friends pick sides)
- external ppl may partake in ‘scapegoating’ → “it’s all his fault”
- also, negotiating social implications would take place in this stage
↳ like the care of kids
(4) - GRAVE DRESSING: {addressing the story of the break-up}
- after leaving a R, ppl justify their actions when moving on
- (ex)partners must present themselves as good + trustworthy + admirable [vital for self-worth + attracting new potential partners]
- this may involve fabricating stories abt how it happened (to make it more socially acceptable) -> meaning there may be many diff stories of the break-up offered to diff ppl (friends + family)
- this process it the least emotional as they have detached themselves as they’re moving on
fully evaluate Duck’s phase model
(A) strong face validity + real life application
- can be applied in Rs + marriage counselling
- helps couples understand R-breakdown & gives them solutions to reverse stages
- Duck emphasises communication → this improves longevity
↳ means it has real life applications
- the process = most ppl relate to (FV)
(D) - model = incomplete + oversimplified
- failed to acknowledge the potential for future growth that’s often seen after Rs end
↳ opportunity for ppl to grow stronger (rather than weaker)
- Duck + Rollie (2006) added a 6th stage RESURRECTION PROCESS
↳ addresses how partners prepare themselves for future Rs + how they move on - Tashiro + Frazier (2003) = research support for the updates model by D+R
↳ surveyed undergrads who had recently gone thru a breakup
↳ reported:
→ emotional distress during process
→ experienced personal growth
↳ it taught the students abt themselves + what they wanted from future Rs –> therefore supporting the new model
(D) model isn’t generalisable to all ages
- social phase differs depending on ages of the couple
- teens + younger ppl → believed to be less secure + stable
↳ likely to receive more sympathy from ext ppl & rarely encouraged to reconcile
- older ppl → there’s lower expectations for finding new partners
- ext ppl = more likely to rescue the R
- overall, model needs further amendments to diminish the age differences - which limit the applicability of the model
(D) culture bias
- majority of underlying research = Rs in western culture (USA)
- Moghaddam et al (1993):
↳ western Rs = more voluntarry + shorter duration [end w divorce // separation]
↳ collectivist Rs = more obligatory (often arranged by families) → divorce = more restricted, so it’s unlikely that the process of breakdowns = same cross-culturally
(D) Akert (1998) found:
- partner who didn’t make decision = most miserable {levels of depression + anger + loneliness + anger
- person that made the decision to end the R = most powerful predictor of the dissolution + found break-up least upsetting + painful + stressful
↳ but they reported guilt + unhappiness & but overall less (-) symptoms than the partner that was less responsible
- hence → model = fails to account for individual diffs
virtual relationships: what is SD like in virtual relationships?
- typically higher levels of SD in VR
↳ barriers / gates = removed → more personal info = revealed online (in comparison to F2F Rs - Jourard (1971) → BROADCASTING SD
↳ explains the diff between disclosure to a romantic partner & sharing personal info in a public sitch (like social media) - public: presenting an edited version of the self → best image so people think better of them
- Walther (2001) [HYPER PERSONAL MODEL] → online Rs develop quicker & when developed = more intensity + excitement [hence why the greater degree of SD]
- online Rs = likely to end quick → due to excitement doesn’t match trust -> {BOOM + BUST phenomenon}
↳ rapid intimate SD leads R to be v intense - due to boom + bust; SD = quick (partners = ‘hyper honest’)
↳ more intense+ intimate
↳ also end quicker (little trust + high excitement)
→ easier to SD + be authentic due to anonymity + absences of gating - Sproull + Kiesler (1986) [REDUCED CUES THEORY]
- cues = physical appearance (body language) // emotional state → lacking in online Rs
- can lead to a person losing their identity + acting diff
- CMC (computer mediated communication) = involves aggressive + blunt communication → possible reluctance in SD
→ VRs = less effective due to the lack of non-verbal cues -> cues help to understand behaviuor + emotions → W/out this it can lead to de-individualisation (anti-social behaviour when they believe they cannot be personally identified) + disinhibition (unrestrained behaviour - can come across as rude / offesnsive due to a disregard of cultural constraints) - may then lead to less SD
gating in VR
- gating = feature / obstacle that may interfere w the development of a R (F2F)
↳ examples of gating = shy // social anxiety // self-esteem issues // insecurities // being unnatractive - Mckenna + Bargh (1999) argue that online Rs have advantage of absence of gates
- absence of gating causes one to pursue a R ( that’s quicker + deeper) {boom + bust}
↳ may explain why the rate of progression is > F2F - anonymity that the internet provides → person’s true self = seen more in online Rs [more anonymity = more SD]
fully eval virtual relationships
(A) Rosenfeld + thomas (2012)
- studies 4000 US adults
- found: adults w internet @ home = likely to in R
↳ even when factors (religion // age // sexual preferences) = controlled → adults w internet = 2x as likely to be in R
(CP) lack population validity
↳ all american ptts → sole use of Western culture → data = not generalisable
↳ lack temporal validity → now everyone has access
(A) Baker + Oswald (2010) argue VR = helpful for shy ppl
- surveyed M+F abt their shyness + facebook usage + qual of their friendshisp
- shy ppl = greater usage of FB + (+) correlation for quality friendships {not seen for confident ppl}
- ppl who lacked social skills = attracted to VRs
↳ suggests practical real-life application as a form of therapy (overcoming social obstacles) → they learn social skills that can be useful in formations of real-life Rs
(CP) there’s only (+) correlation → no definitive causality
(CP) temporal validity (no-one young rlly uses FB)
(A) Strong research support from bio reasoning perspective
- Tamir + Mitchell (2012) found: when ppl talk abt themselves, 2 areas of the brain = activated - that are associated w rewards
- suggest that SD + share personal info over social media may stem from a biological basis + rewarding nature of SD
(D) VR may not be separate from F2F
- ppl who SD on FB have real life relations w some online friends
- online dating = only when 2 stranger SD
↳ close online Rs mau progress to F2F interactions
- therefore → there’s many levels of VRs
↳ separating them from F2F Rs = problematic
→ as they become interlinked
what are parasocial relationships (PSRs)
- one-sided Rs where one expends large amount of emotional energy + interest + time but the other = unaware of their existence
- the large media presence gives the illusion that the fan has F2F R w celeb
what’s the main model for PS Rs?
aborption-addiction model:
- McCutcheon (2002) proposed the AAM to explain PS Rs
- suggested that ppl engage in celeb worship as compensation
↳ difficulty forming intimate relationships intimate Rs // poor psychological adjustment // lack of identity // escaping mundane realism
- forming PS Rs allows them to achieve the fulfilment they lack in everyday life & adds a sense of purpose excitement
→ looking for satisfaction → person focuses on the PS Rs & achieving a sense of fulfillment motivates them further - hence, becoming more attatched [ABORPTION]
→ the sense fufilment = addictive → one engages in more risky (stalking) to get mentally + physically closer to their celeb [ADDICTION]
- unlike real Rs, PS Rs don’t have the risk of rejection
- they conducted research on 262 ptts from Florida & developed 3 levels of celeb worship
-> entertainment (social) - most ppl engage in parasocial Rs -> most say @ 1st level
- celebs = source of entertainment (gossip)
- least intense stage
- -> intense (personal):
- intense level of R w celeb
– eg -> may see themselves as a soulmate & have intense interest in celeb’s personal life - typical behavior for teens
- -> borderline pathological
- takes celeb worship to an extreme
- measures levels of uncontrollable feelings + behaviours
– has obsessive fantasies abt the celeb + spends lots of £ for memorabilia + may engage in illegal activities (stalking) - belief that the feelings = reciprocated if given the chance to meet the celeb
- most intense level of PSRs
evluate the AAM
(A) Kaminer (2005) reported that ‘love’ for a celeb may compensate for the absence of genuine romantic attachments
- hence supporting the AAM as it suggests PSRs = way of dealing w loneliness + escapism
(A) Maltby et al (2003)
- AAM links w mental health
- found: ppl who scored in the entertainment scale = likely to be extraverted
- ppl that scored in intense = likely to be rated as neurotic
- ppl that scored in borderline pathological = sign of psychotic personality types
(D) methodological issues w supporting issues
- most research = questionnaires
– allows info to be collected quickly -> but can be susceptible to social desirability -> hence lacks validity
- common finding:
– the more educated one is = less likely to worship celeb
– the more aware one is that that celeb worship = frowned upon –> ppl = less willing to admit such behaviour
- hence, any diff may be due to self-report instead of acc behavioural diffs
(A) supporting research that PSRs = similar feelings to norm Rs when they end / break-up (compensation)
- Eyal + Cohen (2006) -> studied 279 students that were fans of a popular show
- the intensity of their PSR w their fav character = strongest predictor of how they felt when the show ended
- suggests PSRs can compensate for feelings of loneliness
attachment theory a an explanation of PSRs
- the tendency to form PSRs in adolescence + adulthood depending on attachment difficulties from childhood [using bowlby’s attachment theory]
→ insecure resistant types {clingy → due to emotional void created by PCG}
- most likely to develop PSRs as they need close emotional Rs
- these ppl fear rejection + no return of needs + desires for intimacy
- they turn to celebs
↳ this = safer → reduced fear / risk of rejection as PSR = 1-sided (as celeb = unaware)
→ insecure avoidant types
- trust + intimacy issues → diff to form Rs
- least likely to engage in PSRs that create closeness / affection {+ IRL}
- they avoid all risks of disapproval & unlikely to seek them from real or fictional ppl
- deep fear of rejection + disapproval
→ secure types
- no need / desire for PSRs → less likely to develop one
↳ as their emotional needs were met
- they were raised w F2F + loving Rs
- no needs for additional Rs → often satisfied w IRL Rs
eval attachment theory as an explanation
(A) PSRs can be somewhat biological in nature
- Shmid + klimmnt (2013) investigated cultural diff in PSRs toward harry potter
↳ 2 cultures: germany (individualistic) + mexico (collectivist)
- despite diffs between cultures → both grps display similar patterns of PSRs
- online survey → common w their lives + films & admired potter
- demonstrates that some celebs have a universal influence (cross-culturally)
↳ suggests PSRs = not culturally learnt
- suports attachment theory
↳ bowlby argues the need to attach = innate + adaptive
(D) attachment theory as exp = not conclusive
- McCutcheon et al (2006)
↳ found PSRs = as common in secure adults + insecure adults
- fails to support prediction that PSRs = due to insecure attachment types + childhood experiences
