Relationships Flashcards
What is sexual selection ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Charles Darwin’s - theory
Features that are attractive to the opposite sex are more likely to develop - more likely possessor will pass on genes
Sexual Selection – an evolutionary explanation of partner preference – attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on – they drive evolution
Anisogamy – the differences between male and female gametes
* males have unlimited supply
* females are a rare resource
What is intra-sexual selection for females ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Between sex’s - strategies that males/females use to mate - mainly used by females
Females operate on - quality over quantity - as they make a bigger investment of time, commitment and resources
suggests why females are geneticaly choosy
Female’s optimum mating strategy – select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources
What is intra-sexual selection for males ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Within each sex – strategies between males to be one who is selected – mainly used by males
Quantity over quality
Competition between males - winner reproduces
Consequences:
Physical – larger males have advantage in physical competition with other males – more likely to mate and pass on genes
Behavioural – to acquire fertile female and protect them from competing males – may benefit from behaving aggressively
Male’s optimum strategy – mate with as many fertile females as possible - due to minimum effort to produce sperm
preference for youth indicated through certain facial features and fertility indicated through certain body shapes
What is the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Human Reproductive Behaviour – the different behaviours that humans exhibit in order to increase their reproductive success
males and females use different strategies to select a suitable mate
Gender Differences in Partner Preferences
Men - pay attention to other signs in a human female’s appearance that show her ability to produce healthy offspring
Women - look for the signs of male’s ability to provide resources and protect themselves and a child
University Campus volunteers - Alpha bias
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Female inter-sexual selection ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Point - Clark and Hatfield asked student volunteers to approach opposite sex students individually on a university campus. Asking the same question - ‘I’ve noticed you around the campus. I find you very attractive. Will you go to bed with me tonight?’. Makred gender differences in responses as 75% males said yes whereas 0% females said yes
I&D - Alpha bias due to evolutionary explanations of mate preference emphasise the differences
Buss survey - ‘Lonely Hearts’
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Gender Differences in Partner Preferences ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Point - Buss surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 different countries, females put more importance on resource-related characteristics in a partner. Males preferred younger mates and put more value on signs of a female’s ability to reproduce
Further - Waynforth and Dunbar researched ‘lonely hearts’ columns in American newspapers. women tended to describe themselves in terms of physical attractiveness and youth. Men advertised their resources and intelligence
Gender Equality - Homosexual Relationships
Evaluation - Limitation – Ignores Social and Cultural Influences ?
(Evolutionary Explanations)
Point - Western societies have experienced significant changes in terms of gender equality and women’s independence. women in modern Western societies may no longer be looking for a man to provide them with resources and other qualities have become more important
Further - evolutionary explanations fail to account for homosexual relationships where choice of partner clearly does not result in reproductive success and has no evolutionary advantage
What is self disclosure theory ?
(Self Disclosure)
Self-Disclosure – revealing personal information
Theory – romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops and these self-disclosures can strengthen a romantic bond
Process
What is social penetration theory and how does it occur ?
(Self Disclosure)
Altman and Taylor
Social Penetration Theory – the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else
Reciprocal exchange of information - partners reveal personal information to eachother
The more you exchange partners penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives and gain greater understanding of each other
What does breadth and depth of self-disclosure ?
(Self Disclosure)
As breadth and depth increases, partners become more committed
At the start of the relationship - people reveal a lot of low risk information
No breadth or depth
What is reciprocal disclosure ?
(Self Disclosure)
Reis and Shaver – for a relationship to develop and increase in breadth and depth, there must be reciprocal disclosure
Must be a balance of self-disclosure between both partners, this increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship
Sprecher and Hendrick - Diary Entries
Evaluation - Strength - Research Support ?
(Self Disclosure)
Point - Sprecher and Hendrick studied couples who were dating and found that as self-disclosure increased, so did relationship satisfaction
Further - Laurenceau et al studied dating couples, asked Ps to write daily diary entries about progress in their relationships, found that self-disclosure and perception of disclosure in a partner led to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple. Th reverse was also true
Many Factors - Nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation - Ignores other factors ?
(Self Disclosure)
Point - Theory ignores many other factors that can influence relationships cultural practices, personality. Theory ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity
I&D - Theory takes a nomothetic approach by claiming that higher self-disclosure will indefinetly lead to greater relationship satisfaction for all types of relationships
USA vs China - Culture Bias
Evaluation - Limitation - Cultural Differences ?
(Self Disclosure)
Point - Theory was developed based on research in a Western, individualist culture, so it may not apply to collectivist cultures. Tang et al - found men and women in the USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than romantic partners in China however relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures
I&D - theory is subject to culture bias ignoring cultural differences and interpreting all behaviour through the “lens” of one’s own culture. Assuming that self-disclosure is an important factor in attraction in all cultures where this may not be the case
Symmetry
What is the importance of physical attractiveness and how is it displayed ?
(Physical Attractiveness)
Shackelford and Larsen – people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive as it is an honest signal of genetic fitness
Males have a preference for females with neotenous (baby face) features
What is the halo effect and physical attractiveness stereotype ?
(Physical Attractiveness)
Halo Effect – when one distinguishing feature has a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes
Physical Attractiveness Stereotype - We have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people have – almost universally positive
What is the matching hypothesis ?
(Physical Attractivness)
common sense tells us that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people
Walster et al – proposed the matching hypothesis – People choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other
MACHO Scale - Nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation - Individual Differences in the Importance of Physical Attractiveness ?
(Physical Attractivness)
Point - Towhey – asked Ps to rate individuals based on their photograph and some biographical information. Ps also asked to complete the MACHO scale measuring sexist attitudes and behaviours. Those who scored highly were more influence by the physical attractiveness
I&D - takes a nomothetic approach by attempting to make general laws of human behaviour whereas individual differences suggest a more idiographic approach preferable
Long Term Relationships - Beta-Bias
Evaluation - Limitation – Importance of Physical Attractiveness is Different for Men and Women ?
(Physical Attractivness)
Point - Meltzer et al found men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive. womens husband’s physical attractiveness did not relate to their wives’ relationship satisfaction
I&D - matching hypothesis may be suffering from beta-bias, as it assumes that men and women are very similar in their view of the importance of physical attractiveness
Feingold - Dating Website
Evaluation - Strength - Research Support for the Matching Hypothesis ?
(Physical Attractivness)
Point - Feingold’s meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples found, strong correlation between the partners’ ratings of attractiveness
Counter - Taylor et al investigated the activity log on a dating website and found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them
What is filter theory ?
(Filter Theory)
Kerckhoff and Davis theory
Field of Availables – entire set of potential romantic partners
3 factors narrow down our choice to identify field of desirables
What is social demography (1st level) ?
(Filter Theory)
Wide range of factors which influence the chances of potential partners meeting each other
- Proximity
- Social class
- Level of education
- Ethnic group / Religion
- Age
Homogamy – you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar
What is Similarity in Attitudes (2nd Level of Filter) ?
(Filter Theory)
Individuals’ psychological characteristics – attitudes and basic values
Kerckhoff and Davis found similarity of attitudes is important to the development of romantic relationships. Best predictor of relationship becoming stable
There is a need for partners to agree over basic values early in the relationship
Filter out those who are dissimilar in attitudes and values so not in field of possible long-term partners
What is Complementarity of Needs (3rd Level of Filter) ?
(Filter Theory)
The ability of partners to meet each other’s needs
Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks
Complementarity is attractive as partners feel as though they form as whole - adds depth to relationship
Needs should be complementary rather than similar
Gruber - Baldini longitudinal study - Winch
Evaluation - Strength - Research Support ?
(Filter Theory)
Point - Gruber-Baldini et al’s longitudinal study of couples aged 21 found those similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship are more succesful
Further - Winch found similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples in the beginning of relationships and complementarity had more impact on long term relationships
Priorities - Temporal validity
Evaluation - Strength – Face Validity ?
(Filter Theory)
Point - theory is in line with most people’s experience of romantic relationships, suggests face validity. recognises that priorities in relationships change over time
Counter - contemporary psychologists question temporal validity as the way people form relationships are different from the 1960’s when study was first conducted. Social demographics may be less important as technology enables us to pursue partner outside of usual demographic
Arranged Marriages - Culture bias
Evaluation - Limitation – Doesn’t Recognise Cultural Differences ?
(Filter Theory)
Point - Filter Theory uses Ps from individualist, Western cultures. Individualist cultures value free choice in relationships. However, not the case in collectivist cultures where relationships are arranged and partners cant apply filters freely
I&D – Culture Bias – the theory Ignores cultural differences and interprets all behaviour from a Western viewpoint and therefore could be an example of an imposed etic
What are the assumptions of social exchange theory ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
People in romantic relationships both seek exchange
Romantic partners exchange rewards and costs
committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive
we act out of self-interest but there is mutual interdependence
How do rewards, costs and profits work in relationships ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
Thibault and Kelley – in relationships we try to minimise losses and maximise gains
Rewards and costs are subjective
Value of rewards may change over the course of a relationship
opportunity cost - whereby you can only invest time and energy into current relationship
What is the comparison level ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
Develops from experiences of previous relationships
Also influenced by social norms
changes over time as we have more relationships and experience more social norms
relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high
What is the comparison level for alternatives ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
a person’s perception of whether other potential relationships (or being single) would be more rewarding
Social Exchange Theory predicts we stay in our current relationships only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives
What are the 4 stages of relationship development ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
- Sampling Stage – explore the rewards and costs of relationships by direct experience or observation of others
- Bargaining Stage - romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
- Commitment Stage – relationship becomes more stable, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable. The more stable the more rewards increase and costs lessen
- Institutionalisation Stage – partners settle down – the norms of the relationship in terms of rewards and costs are firmly established
Floyd Et Al - Comparison Levels,Strong Predictor
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
Point - Floyd et al found that commitment develops when couples are satisfied with, and feel rewarded in, a relationship and when they perceive that equally attractive or more attractive alternative relationships are unavailable
Further - Sprecher found that comparison levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment. rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women
Integrated Behavoural Couples Therapy - Christensen
Evaluation - Strength – Real Life Application ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
Point - theory has led to development of Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy. Partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones
Further - Christensen et al found about two-thirds of couples treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved
High-Cost Relationships - Deterministic
Evaluation - Limitation – Individual Differences ?
(Social Exchange Theory)
Point - According to theory, if costs outweigh rewards, person will leave relationship. However there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships such as when one partner is chronically ill without feeling dissatisfied. Theory fails to predict if people will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship
I&D - theory takes a deterministic view of romantic relationships, claiming that a relationship will end if the costs outweigh the rewards
What does the equity theory assume ?
(Equity Theory)
partners are concerned about fairness in relationships
achieved when people feel they get approximately what they deserve from relationships
Equity – the perception partners have that the distribution of rewards and costs in their relationship is fair
What is the role of equity in relationships ?
(Equity Theory)
Both partner’s level of profit should be roughly the same
Both partners should feel they get out what they put into a relationship
Satisfaction for both partners is about perceived fairness
Relationships that lack equity are more likely to be associated with dissatisfaction
How does inequity in a relationship work ?
(Equity Theory)
Lack of equity whereby one partner over-benefits, and the other under-benefits. Causes dissatisfaction
Under-benefitted partner is the one likely to feel dissatisfaction and anger, hostility, resentment, humiliation
Over-benefitted partner likely to feel guilt, discomfort and shame
How do you deal with inequity in relationships ?
(Equity Theory)
Behavioural response - Under-benefitted partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so.
The more unfair the relationship the harder they work to restore equity
Cognitive response – Under-benefitted partner revises their perceptions of rewards and costs so the relationship feels more equitable
Stafford and Canary - Utne et al survey
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support ?
(Equity Theory)
Point - Stafford and Canary studied over 200 married couples who completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction. Found partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced experienced most satisfaction. under-benefitted showed lowest levels of satisfaction
Further - Utne et al - survey of 118 recently married couples aged 16-45 who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying. Measured equity with two self-report scales. Found couples who considered their relationship equitable were more content
Collectivist vs indivdualist - culture bias
Evaluation - Limitation – Culturally Differences ?
(Equity Theory)
Point - Aumer-Ryan et al’s Study shows the concept of equity is more important in Western cultures than non-Western cultures. Found people in collectivist cultures were most satisfied when over-benefitting
I&D - Equity theory claims to have universality. however it is an example of culture bias, ignoring cultural differences and interpreting all behaviour through the “lens” of the Western culture
benevolents vs entitleds - nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation – Individual Differences ?
(Equity Theory)
Point - Huseman et al suggests that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners are benevolents those prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out. while others are entitleds – those who believe they deserve to be over-benefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty
I&D - Equity Theory takes a nomothetic approach trying to make general laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples. However, an idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships
What does Rusbult claim commitment is dependant on ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Satisfaction Level
Comparison with Alternatives
Investment Size
If partners in a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction, and the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investment are increasing, they will be committed to the relationship
How does investment size effect relationships according to Rusbult’s ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
comparison level and comparison level of alternatives from SET are not enough to explain commitment as many more relationships would end as soon as the costs outweighed the rewards or more attractive alternatives presented themselves
investment – the extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship - anything we would loose if the relationship were to end
What are the main two types of investment ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Intrinsic Investments – resources put directly into the relationship
Extrinsic Investments – resources that are brought to people’s life through the relationship
What are the relationship mainteneance mechanisms ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Committed couples display maintenance behaviours to keep the relationship going:
Accommodation – not keeping a tally of costs but act to promote the relationship instead
Willingness to Sacrifice – putting partner’s interests first
Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes
Positive Illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities
Ridiculing Alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives
Le and Agnew’s meta analysis - Avoids culture bias
Evaluation - Strength - Research Support ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Point - Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis of 52 studies found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment and was a key factor in long term relationships
I&D - Avoids Culture Bias because Le and Agnew found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures. Model is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples
Too simple - Reductionist
Evaluation - Limitation – Too Simplistic ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Point - Goodfriend and Agnew’s claim Rusbult’s idea of ‘investment’ is too simple - partners also consider ‘future investments’. Partners motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their plans for the future work out
I&D - Investment in romantic relationships is a complex phenomenon, consisting of many different factors. The Investment Model is reductionist as it breaks investment down to just one factor
Abusive relationships - battered women
Evaluation - Strength – Real-Life Application ?
(Rusbult’s Investment Model)
Point - Model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. According to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high
Further - Rusbult and Maltz’s study of ‘battered’ women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn’t have any appealing alternatives
What are the 4 phases of relationship breakdown ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Intra-psychic
Dyadic
Social
Grave Dressing
Each phase is marked by one or both partners reaching a “threshold” – a point where their perception of the relationship changes
How does the intra-psychic phase work ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Focus is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual
Dissatisfied partner broods on the reasons for his/her dissatisfaction
Thinks about it privately – may share thoughts with a trusted friend
Weigh up pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives
Begin to make plans for the future
How does the dyadic phase work ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Focus is on interpersonal process between two partners
A series of confrontations over a period of time – relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired
characterised by hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resentment
Two possible outcomes:
Determination to continue breaking up the relationship
Renewed desire to repair it
How does the social phase work ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Focus is on the wider processes involving the couple’s social networks
Break up is made public
Partners seek support and try to forge pacts – mutual friends are expected to choose a side
- Some friends provide reinforcement
- Some friends hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret information
- Some friends may try to help repair the relationship
Usually the point of no return – break up takes on momentum driven by social forces
How does the grave dressing phase work ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Focus is on the aftermath
“Spinning” a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption
Each partner tries to retain some “social credit” by blaming circumstances, their partner, other people
Also creating a personal story you can live with – may be different from the public one
- May involve rewriting history
- Ex-partners may agree they weren’t compatible
Teenager vs adults - nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation – Applies Differently Depending on Age ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Point - Social phase - Dickson found that friends and relatives see teenagers’ break-ups as less serious and dont put much effort fixing it but ending of relationships by older couples seen as more distressing and those close to the couple put more effort into bringing them back together.
I&D - nomothetic approach by trying to establish a general law of break ups that apply to everyone whereas break-ups can be different for a number of reasons, including age, and a more idiographic approach should be considered
collectivist vs individualist - culture bias
Evaluation - Limitation – Cultural Differences ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Point - Model based on relationships from individualist cultures where ending relationships is voluntary choice, separation and divorce easily obtainable. May not be case in collectivist cultures as relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family, greater family involvement which makes relationship difficult to end and break-up probably won’t follow phases
I&D - Duck’s phase model claims to have universality - that it can be applied to everyone, anywhere, regardless of culture, however it is an example of culture bias, ignoring cultural differences and interpreting all behaviour through the “lens” of the Western culture
couples councelling - how but not why
Evaluation - Strength – Real Life Application ?
(Duck’s Phase Model)
Point - couples may be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they are currently in. couple in dyadic phase may be advised to communicate dissatisfaction and find ways to balance relationship
Counter - Duck’s model describes how relationships break down, but not why. Other psychologists argue it is more important to examine the reasons that cause the break up in the first place rather than just looking at the stages involved in the process
What is computer mediated communication ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
includes a wide variety of electronic communication methods through which relationships can be formed and maintained
How does the reduced cues theory work ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Sprouli and Kiesler – computer mediated communication relationships less effective than face to face – as lack many of the cues we normally depend on:
nonverbal cues – physical appearance
emotional cues – facial expressions, tone of voice
Leads to de-individuation – reduces people’s sense of individual identity
encourages disinhibition in relating to others - blunt or aggressive communication
Leads to a reluctance to self-disclose
How does the Hyperpersonal model work ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Walther –online relationships can be more personal – involve greater self-disclosure than face to face
develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier so relationships more intense and intimate
Cooper and Sportolari – Boom and Bust Phenomenon - can end quickly due to lack of trust
Selective Self-Presentation – sender has more time to manipulate their online image
Anonymity – also promotes self-disclosure
Why is there an absence of gating in personal relationships ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Gate = any obstacle to the formation of relationships
face to face is gated – involves many features that can interfere with the early development of relationships
McKenna and Bargh – advantage of computer mediated communication is the absence of gating – means a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper
Absence of gating refocuses attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features
men vs women - gender bias
Evaluation - Limitation – Gender Differences in Self-Disclosure ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Point - McKenna et al found women tended to rate their relationships formed online as more intimate, and valued self-disclosure, especially in regards to emotion. Men preferred activities-based disclosure, and rated online relationships as less close than face to face
I&D – Gender Bias - research into online relationships may suffer from beta bias as it assumes that males’ and females’ experience of virtual relationships are the same when they may actually be very different
conducted online and offline - type of communication
Evaluation - Limitation – Relationships are Multimodal ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Point - Walther found our relationships are generally conducted online and offline through many different media. What we choose to disclose in online relationships will be influenced by our offline interactions
Further - many different types of computer mediated communication – extent and depth of self-disclosure depends on the type of computer mediated communication being used – social networking sites – people interacting generally have relationships face to face so will disclose more. Online dating – CMC with complete strangers where self-disclosure is reduced as they anticipate a future FtF meeting
anxoius people - absence of gating
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Absence of Gating ?
(Virtual Relationships in Social Media)
Point - McKenna and Bargh – researched CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people – found they were able to express their “true selves” more than in FtF situations. 70% of romantic relationships formed online survived more than 2 years
Further - Baker and Oswald - suggest absence of gating in virtual relationships may be particularly useful for shy people - asked 207 male and female participants to complete questionnaire, scoring answers in terms of shyness, internet use and perception of quality of their friendships. Found that those people who scored highly on shyness and internet use, perceived the quality of their friendships as high
What is a parasocial relationship ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
One-sided unreciprocated relationships, usually with a celebrity, on which the fan expends a lot emotional energy, commitment and time
What did Maltby et al find ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Identified 3 levels of parasocial relationship using the Celebrity Attitude Scale
What is the first level of parasocial relationships and what happens ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Entertainment-social – least intense level of celebrity worship – celebrities viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction
What is the second level of parasocial relationships and what happens ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
intermediate level – greater personal involvement. Frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings,
What is the third level of parasocial relationships and what happens ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Borderline Pathological – strongest level – uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours, spending large sums of money on a celebrity-related object, being willing to perform some illegal act on behalf of the celebrity
What does the absorption addiction model show ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
McCutcheon - Parasocial relationships form due to deficiencies people have in their own lives and lack of fulfilment in everyday relationships
entertainment-social orientation may be triggered into a more intense level by a personal crisis or stressful life event
- Absorption – seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus attention as far as possible on the celebrity
- Addiction – individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationships by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity – may lead to more extreme behaviour or delusional thinking
What is the attachment theory of how parasocial relationships are formed ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Parasocial relationships form in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood
Bowlby’s Attachment Theory – early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in life
Ainsworth’s attachment types:
1. Insecure-Resistant – most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults – because of a need to have their unfulfilled needs met in a relationship that is not accompanied by the threat of rejection, break-up and disappointment that real-life relationships bring
2. Insecure-Avoidant – prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether
Harry Potter - Avoids culture bias
Evaluation - Strength – Universally Applicable ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Point - Schmid and Klimmt studied levels of parasocial relationships with characters from Harry Potter in different cultures - found similar levels of worship in Germany (individualist culture) and Mexico (collectivist culture)
I&D - a particularly useful study as it avoids cultural bias by studying a range of different cultures and generalising the findings to all relationships around the world
stalkers - environmental determinism
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support Attachment Theory ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Point - Kienlen et al investigated the experiences of stalkers - found 63% of Ps experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood while 50% experienced emotional and physical abuse. Supports that problems in childhood cause parasocial relationships
I&D - Linking early childhood experiences to to developemnt of parasocial relationships later in life is environmental determinism
Body image - cause and effect
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Absorption-Addiction Model ?
(Parasocial Relationships)
Point - Matlby et al – investigated link between celebrity worship and body image in males and females aged 14-16 – found teenage girls at the intense-personal level of celebrity worship tended to have poor body image
Further - Greenwood and Long - found some evidence that people may develop celebrity worships as a way of dealing with a recent loss or loneliness
Counter - research into parasocial relationships is correlational - cause and effect cannot be clearly established
