Relationships

Question 1

Sexual selection

Answer 1

= Based of Darwin’s explanation of evolution. It suggests certain attributes or behaviours are passed on if they increase reproductive success.

• anisogamy refers to the differences in sex cells
• Male gametes( sperm)- very small and very mobile, produced continuously from puberty,Hundreds or them and not a lot of energy is needed to produce them.
  Whereas female gametes
  -large and require a lot of energy., They are only produced once a Month and only during fertile years.
  Because of this male and female mating statergies differ

Question 2

Types of sexual selection

Answer 2

• inter sexual selection=
  Preferred statergy by females, who choose quality over quantity
• females are very choosy when picking their mates because it’s a much bigger investment in terms of time, energy and resources(eggs).
  -So the female’s best mating strategy is to choose a genetically fit partner who can and will provide resources (sperm plus money, security, intelligence etc)
  -What women prefer in male partners, determines the features that are passed onto the offspring, e.g. height. women want to have sons who are also eventually found more desirable by the opposite sex. This is known as the sexy sons hypothesis; the desirable characteristic of the female’s mate will be passed down to her son.

Intra sexual selection=
- preferred strategy by males who go for quantity over quality
- This is the competition between males to get the high quality female.The ‘winner’ gets to pass on his winning characteristics to his offspring.
- This has led to dimorphism (the obvious differences in sexes e.g. men being bigger/larger/stronger), This is because in a male fight, the larger male is more likely to win and therefore mate but females don’t compete and so there is no evolutionary drive for larger females. There are behavioural and psychological consequnces for intra-sexual selection
-Psychological consequences-acting more aggressively to protect females from male competition
- Physical-having a preference for youth and sensitivity (e.g. facial features) and fertility in females (e.g. body shape) because this suits their optimum mating strategy.

Question 3

Symmetry

Answer 3

-indicates good heath so seen as attractive
- as we grow, develop and then age, disease, infections and parasites cause imperfections in our appearance (asymmetry)
- therefore those with less asymmetry and imperfections are perceived as having better and stronger immune systems.

Question 4

Evaluation of sexual selection

Answer 4

-Clark and Elaine Hatfield 1989) showed that fernale choosinessis a reality in heterosexual relationships. Male and female psychology students were sent out across a university campus. They approached other students individually with this Question: “ have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very atracive.Would you go to bed with me tonight?’. Not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of males did, immediately.This supports evolutionary theory because it suggests that females are choosier than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners and that males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
HOWEVER, this theory arguably lacks temporal validity. Results may have changed if carried out now as contraceptions have been evolved so women may be open to casual sex.
- also Partner preferences over the past century have undoubtedly been influenced by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour. These develop much faster than evolutionary timescales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors such as availability of contraception.Women’s greater role in the workplace means that they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them (despite the ongoing inequality in earning power).Bereczkei et al. (1997) argue that this social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences, which may no longer be resource-oriented. Chang et al. (2011) compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed but others remained the same, corresponding with the huge social changes in that time. Mate preferences are therefore the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. Any theory that fails to account for both is a limited explanation.

• David Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries.
  He asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference. He found that female respondents placed greater value on resource-related characteristics, such as good financial prospects, ambition and industriousness, than males did. Males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity, and preferred younger mates, more than females did. These findings reflect sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy. They support predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory.Furthermore, the findings can be applied across vastly different cultures (universality and generalisable) reflecting fundamental human preferences which are not primarily dependent upon cultural influences.
• The evolutionary theory suggest males prefer a body that signals fertility.(e.g. big hips)
• Siangh(2002) found that body size doesn’t matter it’s ratio of waist to hip size.
• he found that ideal ratio of hip-waist is 0.7 with smaller waist and bigger hips and not currently pregnant( small waist)
  Thus supports the theory as it supports the ideas that men seek high quality females who they can reproduce with.
  HOWEVER, David Waynforth and Robin
  Dunbar (1995) studied lonely hearts advertisements in American newspapers. These slightly quaint historical documents were opportunities for men (usually) and women to describe the qualities they desired in a potential partner, whilst cataloguing what they had to offer. The researchers found that women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (‘flirty, exciting, curvy, sexy’). Men, on the other hand, offered resources more than women did (‘successful, fit, mature, ambitious’) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness. Which does bn \ support the theory.
• reductionist=individual differences in partner choice plays a rile, e.g. fails to account for homosexual relationships which does not result in reproductive success and so has no evoluntionary advantage

Question 5

physical attractivness

Answer 5

• Shackelford and Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive, because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness.
  -People are also attracted to faces with baby face features such as large eyes, small nose (neotenous) because they trigger a protective and caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce. Mcnulty also found that physical attractiveness is not only important at the start of the relationship, found that the initial attractiveness brought the partners together continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage.
• Physical attractiveness is also important because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people have and they are almost universally positive.
  -Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful. The belief that good looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we should behave positively towards them. Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe how one distinguishing feature tends to have a disportionate influence on our judgments of a person’s other attributes, like personality.
• Even if physical attractiveness is desirable, common sense tells us that we can’t form relationships with the most attractive people. The matching hypothesis states that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other, so we have to make a realistic judgement about our own ‘value’ to a potential partner. Our choice of partner is a compromise, we desire the most physically attractive partner for evolutionary, social, cultural and psychological reasons

Question 6

evaluating physical attractiveness

Answer 6

• One strength is research support for the halo effect. Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This has implications and suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters. This shows that the halo effect can be observed in real-life situations
  FURTHERMORE
  One strength is there is cultural consistency in what is considered attractive. Cunningham found lage eyes, small nose and prominent cheekbones in females were rated as highly attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males. Wheeler and Kim found that Korean and US students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, mature, concerned for other people and friendly. This consistency suggests physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots. increases external validity as can be generalised to the wider population

-One limitation is that not all people attach importance to physical attractiveness. Towhey asked males and females to rate photographs and personal info, they completed a ‘Macho’ scale questionnaire which measures sexist attitudes and behaviours. He found that ppts that scored highly were more influenced by physical attractiveness and those that scored low were less sensitive. Therefore, this suggests that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors

-One strength with the claim that men value physical attractiveness comes from research examining marital satisfaction. Meltzer found that objective ratings of wives attractiveness were positively related to the level of their husbands satisfaction. Furthermore, objective ratings of the husband’s physical attractiveness were not related to wives marital satisfaction. This supports the idea that men value physical attractiveness, as men with physically attractive wives are more content in their marriages, whereas attractiveness had no effect on females.

-evidence against the matching hypothesis = Taylor et al (2011) investigated the activity log on dating website + found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them= contradicting the matching hypothesis

-beta bias= assumes men and women are very similar when it comes to the importance of physical attractiveness. However research found that men rate long-term relationships more satisfying if their partners is physically attractive, while for women physical attractiveness did not have a significant impact on their relationship satisfaction= gender differences

Question 7

self-disclosure

Answer 7

-Self-disclosure is revealing intimate information about yourself and your deepest thoughts and feelings. By revealing ourselves to another person, we share our likes and dislikes, our hopes and fears, our interests and attitudes, we share what really matters to us and helps make them understand us better.
-Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory explains how relationships develop, it’s a gradual process of revealing your inner self, giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings. When one partner reveals some personal information they display trust; the other must also reveal sensitive information. Self- disclosure is seen within this as a reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners results in a greater understanding of each other, therefore, ‘penetrating’ into each other’s lives.
-There are two elements of self-disclosure, Breadth and depth. At first, people often share a lot of information about certain aspects of themselves (depth), but consider some topics to be ‘off-limit’ (breadth). As they build trust in their partner’s understanding, breadth increases and then depth also increases. In the beginning, people only disclose superficial details about themselves which you would reveal to co-works or even acquiescence and gradually move to revealing more intimate details.
-Reis and Shaver argues that for a relationship to develop there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure. So once you have decided to disclose something that reveals your true self, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding, with understanding, empathy and their own intimate thoughts and feelings

Question 8

evaluaion of self-disclosure

Answer 8

-One strength of the concept of self-disclosure is that it is supported by research. For example, Has and Hartford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women considered open self-disclosure as a main way to maintain close relationships. This demonstrates the importance of self-disclosure in romantic relationships, just as the theory has predicted.THEREFORE if partner who communicate by small talk learn to use self-disclosure this could deepen the satisfaction and commitment in the relationship. Such Real-life application demonstrates the value of self-disclosure

-Further research support for this theory is of Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure (both theirs and their partner’s). In short, men and women who used self-disclosure and those who believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship.
HOWEVER this is correlational research= cause and effect cannot be established= third factor may have caused the result as there is no control over IV so may not be a valid conclusion to draw

-The importance of establishing trust in a partner before revealing more intimate information about ourselves is supported by the so-called ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon in online relationships, described by Cooper and Sportolari (1997). They found that anonymity of online interactions gave web-users a sense of security and made them disclose personal information much earlier in relationships than they would face-to-face, making relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’). However, because the necessary trust foundation had not been established, the intensity of the relationship was impossible to sustain, leading to break-up (‘bust’). This shows that breadth of relationships needs to be established first, before proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, just as Social Penetration Theory suggests.
HOWEVER
not all studies have found that self-disclosure is greater in online relationships. Knop revealed that members of a social group disclose more information in face-to-face relationships, in comparison to online interactions. This may be due to the lack of intimacy of internet relationships and a context for self-disclosure. This suggests that self-disclosure is an important component to face-to-face relationships and that we should be cautious when drawing conclusions from internet research

-The prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures will lead to a more satisfying and intimate romantic relationship is not true for all cultures.To a large extent it depends on the type of self-disclosure. For example, Tang et al. (2013) reviewed the research literature regarding sexual self-disclosure . They concluded that men and women in the USA (an individualist culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (a collectivist culture). Both these levels of self-disclosure are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures. Self-disclosure theory is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on findings from Western (individualist) cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures. = cultural bias

-limited to taking a nomotheic approach bacsue ignore other factors such as cultural influences, and personality that can influenec a relationship and may benefit more taking a idiographic approach to study couples unique experience rather than a general set of laws to all.q

Question 9

The filter theory

Answer 9

Kerckhoff and Davis filter theory suggests that we choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the field of available from which we might eventually make our choice.

• FILTER ONE= Social demography refers to a wide range of factors which influence the chances of potential partners meeting for the first time. This includes geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group and religion. You are likely to meet people who are physically close and share the demographic characteristics. The most meaningful and memorable interactions are with people who are nearby, as the key benefit of proximity is accessibility, as it doesn’t require as much effort. The outcome of this filtering is homogamy, the concept that you are likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar.
• FILTER TWO= SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDE
  Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarly of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, There is a need for partners in the earlier stages of a relationship to agree over basic values, the things that really matter to them, this will encourage greater and deeper communication and promote self-disclosure, Thorough their disclosure, individuals are able to weigh their decisions about whether to continue or terminate their relationship. Partners who are very different to the individuals in terms of their attitude and value are not considered suitable for a continuing relationship and are filtered out.

-THIRD FACTOR=COMPLEMENTARY
-concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs. Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks. For example, one partner may enjoy making others laugh, and in turn this partner enjoys being made to laugh. Kerckhoff and Davis found that the need for complementarity was more important for the long term couples, as that the later stage opposites attract and gives the partners feelings that they form a whole.

Question 10

evaluation of the filter theory

Answer 10

-One strength for the filter theory is the application to everyday relationships.According to Duck, the filtering process allows people to make predictions about their future interactions to avoid investing time and effort in relationships that won’t work. Duck claims that people use a variety of strategies to gather information about each other, for example provoking disagreement, to assess similarity in attitudes. Therefore, the filter theory exists to stop people making the wrong choice and then having to live with the consequences.
HOWEVER,
an issue with the filter theory is that it assumes that values and needs are stable over time.However, attitudes and needs are constantly changing over time. Thortton and Young-DeMarco found evidence of changed attitudes towards relationships in young American adults over a period of a few decades. This poses a problem for the filter theory which fails to take into account the role of constantly changing values, needs and preferences= incomplete explanation

-Basing the explanation of such complex phenomenon as romantic relationships on the application of a series of filters is reductionist and limits the range of real life romantic experiences it can explain. For example, the Filter Theory does not explain why many people stay a long time in abusive relationships despite the lack of complementarity that is theorised as being a factor of long-term relationships. This suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships

Lacks temporal validity. Rise of online dating reduces the importance of some social demographic variables. Dating apps such as Tinder have made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we are able to pursue a date with someone outside or usual demographic limits. E.g. different culture or social class) which wouldn’t apply Years ago.\

Anderson et al. (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon they called emotional convergence.
Furthermore, Davis and Rusbult (2001) discovered an attitude alignment effect in longer-term relationships. Romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each others, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction and not
the cause. These findings are not predicted by filter theory.

Question 11

the social exchange theory

Answer 11

• Thibaut and Kelley said that individuals attempt to maximise their reward, and minimise their costs. People exchange resources with the expectation that they will receive a‘profit’, rewards that will exceed the costs. Rewards that we may receive is companionship, being cared for and sex. Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted. The Social exchnage theory (SET) argues that commitment to relationships depends on the profitability of outcome.

-There are two ways of measuring the profit in a romantic relationship one is the comparision level (CL) which suggest that we develop a comparison level where a standard against which all our relationships are judged. Our CL is a product of our experiences in other relationships together with general views of what we might expect from an exchange. If we judge that the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our CL, then the relationship will be judged as worthwhile, but if the profit is less than our CL, then the relationship with the person is seen as less attractive. Someone who had a low CL because of an unpleasant relationship or have a low-self esteem may be happy in a poor relationship, whereas one that had a rewarding relationship would have high expectations for the quality of any future relationships.

-Another factor that determines the likelihood of staying in a relationship, is the comparison level of alternatives (CLA),where a person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship. An individual will be committed to a current relationship when the overall benefits and costs are perceived to be greater than what might be possible in an alternative relationship. The more rewarding a partner’s alternatives, the less is that individuals dependence on their current relationship

Question 12

evaluation of the social exchange theory

Answer 12

-One issue with the social exchange theory is the definition of ‘cost’ and ‘benefit’, in terms of relationships. What might be considered rewarding to one person like constant attention and praise may be punishing to another as it could be seen as an irritating behaviour. In addition,what might be a benefit at the start of the relationship, may turn out to be a cost at a later stage of the relationship. This suggests that it is difficult to understand romantic relationships in terms of simple cost/benefit terms.
ALSO
-SET argues dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect cost outweigh rewards in a relationship or we find alternatives more attractive. However physiologist argue we only look at alternatives once we are dissatisfied in the relationship and we do not measure cost and rewards in a relationship. Miller found that people who rated themselves highly committed to the relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people. Also less time looking was a good predictor in determining the relationship lasting in two months. SET cannot account for the findings,

-A strength of SET comes from supporting evidence. Rusbult and Martz (1995) used the profitand loss concept to explain abusive relationships and found investments are high when there are children involved and the need for financial security and alternatives are low when there’s no money or shelter. Although the women stay in an abusive relationship, this is a profit situation as the children have a home. Therefore, SET has real life application as it provides communities with strategies to build refuge centres where these women can live.
FURTHEMORE
- A strength for SET is supported by research studies. For example, Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that some people appear to base their
evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs (in particular, Comparison Level for alternatives), just as SET suggests. Therefore, it would appear that some people do stay in their current relationship while it remains more profitable than the alternatives. BUT ISSUES WITH CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH

-Equity theory may be a better explanation
- There is much research for the role of equity in relationships such as…and the view balance is more important than cost and reward in which SET neglects therefore is a limited explanation

Question 13

The equity theory

Answer 13

-equity’ means fairness. Walster et al (1978) stated that what mattered most with equity is that both partners’ level of profits (rewards minus cost) is roughly the same. This is not the same as equality which would mean the profit and loss would be the same for both partners. When there is a lack of equity, one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits which will result in dissatisfaction and unhappiness.Both overbenefit and underbenefit are examples of inequality, although it is the underbenefitted partner who is likely to feel the greatest dissatisfaction, in the form of anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation. The overbenefitted partner will feel guilt, discomfort and shame. Thus, satisfaction is about perceived fairness.

-According to the equity theory, it’s not the size or the amount of rewards or costs that matters; it’s the ratio of the two to each other. If one partner puts a lot into the relationship but at the same time gets a a lot out of it, then that will seem fair enough. e.g. imagine a relationship in which one partner has a disability that prevents them from carrying out domestic chores or other physical activities. A precisely equal distribution of these tasks would probably not be seen as fair by either partner. The equity in such a relationship may well come from the compensations that the disabled partner could offer in other areas, or from the satisfaction the more active partner gains from their behavior. Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly (not necessarily equally) between the partners. This inevitably involves making trade-offs

• consequences of inequity=
  changes in perceived equity whereby the change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on. e.g. it may seem normal to contribute more than you receive at the start of the relationship but as the relationship develops and this continues it will feel less satisfying as it did in the earlier days
  -Dealing with inequity=he ‘put-upon’ partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to doso, and that the relationship is salvageable. Also may change their cognitions, the partner will work hard to revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes, so what was once seen as a cost earlier in the relationship is now accepted as the norm

Question 14

evaluation of the equity theory

Answer 14

-One issue with the equity theory of relationship is the idea of equity sensitivity. Huesman put forward the idea of equity sensitivity, suggesting that there are three categories of people: benevolents, equity sensitives and entitleds. Entitleds prefer to be over-rewarded, having theattitude that they are owed and thus entitled to receive benefits. As a result, they often feel dissatisfied unless they are over-benefiting. This suggests that equity theory is limited and should take into account individual differences, when examining relationships
ALSO fails to take into account Gender difference
-Another issue with the equity theory of relationship is the idea of gender differences. DeMais points out that men and women are not equally affected by inequality in romantic relationships. Women tend to perceive themselves as more under benefited and less over benefited, compared to men. Sprecher also found that women feel more guilty in response to being over benefited. As a result the equity theory fails to take into account these gender differences and is therefore limited in its application to both genders.

• Furthermore, Equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour. However, Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al.
  (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. The researchers compared couples in a collectivist culture with those in an individualist Couples from an individualist culture considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners in the collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting. This was true of both men and women.
  This suggests that equity theory’s claim that equity is a universal need in relationships is unwarranted. So the theory is limited because it cannot account for this cultural difference.

-one strength of the equity theory of relationships comes from research on other primates. Waal studied female capuchin monkeys and found that they became very angry if they were denied a reward. If another monkey unfairly received a reward instead, the capuchins grew angry and threw food at the experimenter. This suggests that the perception of inquiry has ancient origins and supports the findings of research in human studies, however, to the extent there may be an issue relying on animal studies, as generalisability from animals to humans would be inadequate as we differ largely.= issues with extrapolation

Question 15

Rusbults investment model

Answer 15

-According to Rusbult’s proposal, there are three major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.

-Satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives are based on the idea of comparison levels from Social Exchange Theory. People will have a high level of satisfaction with relationships if they have more rewards (companionship, attention, emotional support) and fewer costs (arguments, time). They also tend to be committed to relationships if, when asking themselves, ‘Is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?’ the answer is ‘no’. Alternatives can include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all, as well as finding a new partner.

-However, for Rusbult et al., the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment. Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave relationships. The model proposes two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investment comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure. Extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people’s life through the relationships, such as children, friends and shared memories.

-Because both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in relationships. Therefore, it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.

In addition to the factors influencing partners’ commitment, Rusbult et al. also identified maintenance mechanisms partners use to keep relationships going enduring partners do not engage in ‘tit for tat’ retaliation but act instead act to promote the relationship (accomadation)
,Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner’s interests first.
Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes, both minor and serous ones.
Positive illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities.
Ridiculing alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.

Question 16

Evaluation of Rubults Investment model

Answer 16

-Some of the strongest support for the investment model comes from a meta-analysis by Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003).
They reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1999, studies which together included some 11,000 participants from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest.
An especially supportive finding was that these outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.
This suggests there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships

-The investment model is thought to be a particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving intimate partner violence On the face of it, it seems surprising that any rational person subjected to violence by a partner should continue to be committed.
Caryl Rusbult and John Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (i.e. were most committed) reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives. The model recognises that a victim of IPV does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.

-Wind Goodfriend and Christopher Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. After all, in the early stages of a romantic relationship the partners will have made very few actual investments. They may not even live together at this point. Goodfriend and Agnew extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out. The original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for the future influences commitment.= oversimplified explanation of investment

-Furthermore, much of the evidence supporting the investment model relies on self-report measures such as questionnaires and interviews.
However, these are appropriate methods because it is not the objective reality of factors such as investment size that matters.
What matters is the individual partners’ perceptions of these factors. It is your belief that you have made a big investment in your current relationship, or your belief that you have no attractive alternatives, that will influence your commitment.
ALSO
- lots of tel he research show a strong correlation but that does not = causation. It may be the more you feel committed to a relationship the more you will invest.

Question 17

Ducks phase model

Answer 17

-Duck proposed the phase model of relationship breakdown, where he argued that the ending of a relationship is a process that takes time and goes through 4 distinct phases. Each phase is marked by a partner reaching a ‘threshold’, where their perception of a relationship changes. The road to break up begins once a partner realises they are dissatisfied about the way things are going.

• The intrapsychic phase focuses on the cognitive processes occurring within the individual. The dissatisfied partner broods on the reasons for their dissatisfaction. The partner mulls over their thoughts privately and may share with a trusted friend, they weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate against the alternatives. The threshold for the intrapsychic phase is “I can’t stand this anymore”, indicating a determination that something has to change.

-The dyadic phase focuses on interpersonal processes between the two partners. There is a series of confrontations over a period of time, where the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired. They are characterised by anxiety, hostility, probable over complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and rethinking about the commitment that had kept the partners together. There will be two possible outcomes, a determination to continue breaking up the relationship, or a renewed desire to repair it. The threshold is “I would be justified in withdrawing”, they eventually come to the conclusion.

-The social phase focuses on wider processes including the couples social networks, The break up is made public where partners will seek support and try to forge pacts. Mutual friends will have to choose sides. Some friends will provide reinforcement and reassurance where they will say things like, “I always knew you were way too good for him.”, Others will be judgemental and place the blame on one partner or the other, some may also provide previous secret information, “I didn’t want to mention this but…” And still others may pitch in and try to help repair the relationship, the break up takes on a momentum driven by social forces. The threshold would be “I mean it.” The dissatisfied partner

-Grave-dressing focuses on the aftermath, once the break up has occurred, they will spin a favourable story about thebreakdown for public consumption. This allows the partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation. Gossip plays an important role, where the partner tries to retain some ‘social credit’ by blaming circumstances. Grave-dressing also involves creating a personal story you can live with, The traits you found enderaring in your partner at the start is now reinterpreted in a much more negative fashion. On the other hand, the dissatisfied partner finally concludes, “Time to get a new life.” The threshold would be “It’s now inevitable

Question 18

evaluation of Ducks phase model

Answer 18

• According to Stephanie Rollie and Steve Duck (2006), the original model described on this spread is oversimplified. They modified it to add a fifth phase after grave-dressing, the resurrection phase. Ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained from their recently-ended one.
  Rollie and Duck also make it clear that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable. It is possible to return to an earlier point in the process in any phase. The new model also emphasises the processes that occur in relationship breakdown (e.g. the role of gossip in the social phase) rather than linear movement from one phase to the next.
  These changes overcome a weakness of the original model, that it is a limited explanation because it does not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups with all their inherent uncertainty and complexity.

-one strength of Ducks model comes from research support for grave-dressing. Monroe found that students who experienced the end of a romantic relationship for the first time, hada greater risk of developing depression. However, tashiro and Frazier found that individuals feel better about the end of a relationship when they focus on the situation, rather than their own flaws. This highlights the importance of grave-dressing as the individual is able to create their own story of the breakup that doesn’t affect their psychological well being.

-One issue with research examining the breakdown of relationships is the ethical issues involved. Carrying out research in this area raises issues of privacy, confidentiality, protection from harm. This is particularly difficult when dealing with vulnerable individuals attempting to cope with the stress of a relationship breakup. Therefore, it is important that psychologicals consider ethical guidelines and ensure that the benefits of undertaking the research outweigh the risks
FURTHERMORE
-Most of the research relating to Duck’s model is retrospective. Participants generally give their experiences of the breakdown process some time after the relationship has ended. This means that what they can recall might not always be accurate or reliable. It’s the very early stages of breakdown that understandably tend to be distorted or perhaps even ignored altogether. it is almost impossible to study this phase of the process, the point at which problems first appear. Researchers are very reluctant to study relationships at this early point because their involvement could make things worse, and even hasten the end of a relationship that might otherwise have been rescued. This means that part of Duck’s model is based on research that ignores this early part of the process so it is an incomplete description of how relationships end.

A strength of the model is that it not only helps us to identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown but also suggests various ways of reversing it. The model is especially useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than at others. For example, Duck (1994) recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on the positive aspects of their partner. Also, as a feature of the dyadic phase is communication, any attempt to improve this and perhaps improve wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship. Neither of these strategies is likely to be of much use in the later phases of the breakdown. Such insights could be used in relationships counselling, a real-life application

• Cultural bias= most of the research based in western cultures, especially USA. Relationships in collectively cultures are more likely to be obligatory and less easy to end as involve wider family. Therefore process of relationship breakdown will probably differ.
  = cannot be generalised to all cultures

Question 19

Virtual relationships in social media

Answer 19

-Because of the rise of social media psychologist looked into computer-mediated communication (CMC) and developed two theories

Reduced cues theory= According to Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler (1986), CMC relationships are less effective than Ft ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in Ft interactions. These include nonverbal cues such as our physical appearance. CMC particularly lacks cues to our emotional state, such as our facial expressions and tone of voice. This leads to de individuation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which in turn encourages disinhibition in relating to others. Virtual relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication. The upshot of this process is a reluctance to self-disclose.

• the hyperpersonal model= Joseph Walther (1996, 2011) argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than Ft ones. This is because CMC relationships can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate. They can also end more quickly, because the high excitement level of the interaction isn’t matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners. Alvin Cooper and Leda Sportolari (1997) called this the boom and bust phenomenon of online relationships.
  According to the hyperpersonal model, a key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is that the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in an Ft situation. Walther calls this selective self-presentation. People online have more control over what to disclose and the cues they send. This means it is much easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy in CMC relationships, by self-presenting in a positive and idealised wav.
  Another aspect of CMC that promotes self-disclosure and makes relationships hyperpersonal is anonymity. John Bargh et al. (2002) point out that the outcome of this is rather like the strangers on a train effect in Ft relationships. When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour. So you may well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to even your most intimate partner.
• absence of gating= A gate, in this context, is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship. FF interaction is said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship. Examples of such gates include physical unattractiveness, a stammer, and social anxiety (shyness, blushing, etc.). Katelyn McKenna and John Bargh (1999) argue that a huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating. This means that a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper. This absence of gating allows an online relationship to ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen in an Ft situation.
  Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from what may be considered superficial and distracting features. In other words, online I am more interested in what you tell me than in what you look and sound like. This parallels the rationale behind the TV talent show The Voice. By performing to the judges’ backs, the focus on appearance is removed so that this gate no longer threatens the contestant’s chances of making it past the early audition. Absence of gating also means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage FF. A man can become a woman, an introvert become an extravert, a plain person the world’s most desirable sex symbol. Perhaps the ultimate expression of this ungated existence is Second Life, where anyone can create any kind of avatar to represent themselves in a virtual reality. hips.

Question 20

Evaluation for virtual relationship in social media

Answer 20

Rubin (1975) strangers on a train supports this theory.
In His study confederates disclosed personal information about themselves( varying in level of intimacy) to complete strangers on trains, in airport lounges, and at bus stops. He found when confederates disclosed intimate details of their lives to the stranger sat next to them, the stranger often self-disclosed personal information back to the confederate. This is because they knew they were anonymous and would not see the person again so felt comfortable self-disclosing which is supported by the theory
HOWEVER
There is a lack of research support for the reduced ques theory losepi Walther and Lisa Tidwell
(1995) point out that people in online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of their messages. For instance, taking time to reply to a social network status update is often interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate response. But not too much time, otherwise that might be thought a snub. Clearly there are nuances here that are just as subtle as they are in Fff relationships. Acrostics (such as LOL), emoticons and, increasingly, emojis, are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice in Ft interactions.The success of such online communication is difficult for the reduced cues theory to explain, because it shows that CMC interactions can be just as personal as those conducted Ftf and that it’s possible to express emotional states in virtual relations. Suggests there isn’t a lack of ques as the theory suggested

-The hyperpersonal model predicts that people are motivated to self-disclose in CMC in ways which are sometimes ‘hyperhonest and sometimes
“hyperdishonest’. Monica Whitty and Adam Joinson (2009) summarise a wealth of evidence that this is the case. For example, questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. This is quite different from Ft conversations, which are often hedged around with ‘small talk’ Responses are likewise direct and to the point.
These findings support a central assertion of the model, which is that the way we self-disclose in CMC relationships is designed to present ourselves in an exaggeratedly positive light which aids relationship formation.
However,

self-disclosure online is not a blanket phenomenon. Its extent and depth depend very much on the type of CMC being used. In the case of snetworking sites, people interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world. People self-disclose more in their Facebook status updates than they are willing to in completing an online e-commerce webform, when they are quite reluctant to disclose information they consider to be private (Paine et al. 2006). An interesting case is online dating, an unusual example of CMC with complete strangers. Self-disclosure is reduced because both communicators anticipate future meetings Ft in the offline world, a consideration that generally doesn’t exist in chatrooms and on gaming sites.
Any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects its richness and variety, and is therefore unlikely to be a completely valid explanation.

-Walther (2011) argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC, including the role of self-disclosure, needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted both online and offline through many different media. It is not usually a straightforward matter of ‘either/or’. This is in fact probably the central characteristic of many modern relationships. What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions, and vice versa.Therefore online relationships are multimodal

Question 21

Parasocial relationships

Answer 21

• parasocial relationships= one-sided relationships, where one person extends emotion energy, interest and time and the other partying is completely unaware of the persons existence

levels of parasocial relationships=

•Entertainment-social: This is the least intense level of celebrity worship. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction. For example, friends with more than a passing interest in soap operas might enjoy discussing stories in OK magazine about actors on Eastenders or Coronation Street. Giles (2002) found that parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices.
• Intense-personal: This is an intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity. A fan of Kim Kardashian might have frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings about her, perhaps even considering her to be a ‘soul mate’.
• Borderline pathological: This is the strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. These might include spending (or planning to spend) a large sum of money on a celebrity-related object, or being willing to perform some illegal act on the celebrity’s say-so.

• The first stage of the model = the absorption addiction model suggest that people pursue parasocial relationship due to deflicts within their real life. Relationship with celebrities are seen as an attempt to cope with or escape from reality .

The first stage of the model= adsorption
-the sense of fulfilment then becomes addictive for the person leading them to engage more in risky behaviour such as stalking in order to get mentally and sometimes physically closer to the celebrity they worship

• they then become addicted. This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.e.g. Stalking a celebrity as you believe that he or she wants to reciprocate your feelings but their manager may be stopping them
• There is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood.
  As Bowlbys attachment theory suggests difficulties in early childhood may lead to emotional trouble later in life.
• insecure- resistant identified by Mary ainsworth= more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults as they have unfulfilled needs that need to be met but by a relationship not accompanied by the fear of rejection and breakups

Question 22

Evaluation of parasocial relationships

Answer 22

-John Malty and his colleague (2005) investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in males and females aged 14 to 16 years. Of particular interest were females reporting an intense-personal parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired. The researchers found that these female adolescents tended to have a poor body image, and speculated that this link may be a precursor to the development of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa.
Other research, by Maltby et al. (2003), links the entertainment-social category of celebrity worship with extraverted personality traits, the intense-personal category with neurotic traits, and the borderline pathological category with psychotic personality type.
Both studies support the model because they confirm the prediction of a correlation between the level (type and intensity) of celebrity worship and poor psychological functionining

Methology issues:
-There are two major issues. Most research studies on parasocial relationships use self-report methods to collect data, for example, online questionnaires. These are subject to a number of effects that can bias the findings. For instance, participants may respond to quite personal items in a way which they think enhances their social status (social desirability bias).
The second issue arises because most studies use correlational analysis. Strong correlations are found between celebrity worship and body image, for example. But the conclusion that an intense-personal parasocial relationship causes young women to have a poor body image is unwarranted. It could be that young women who already have a poor body image are drawn to an intense-personal worship of an admired celebrity. The issue of cause-and-effect could be addressed by longitudinal research, but this is currently lacking in this field. As the addiction-absorption model is based on such studies, there remain questions about its validity as an explanation of parasocial relationships.

-Lynn McCutcheon et al. (2006) measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 participants. The researcher found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than participants with secure attachments. This finding fails to support a central prediction of the attachment theory, raising serious doubts about its validity.
ALSO

The model has been criticised for being a better description of parasocial relationships than it is an explanation. For instance, the model is capable of describing the characteristics of people who are most absorbed by and addicted to celebrity (that is, borderline-pathological). But, unlike attachment theory, it does not explain how such characteristics develop.