Relationships Flashcards
Define sexual selection
It suggests that characteristics that confer a reproductive advantage (i.e. are attractive to the opposite sex or provide an advantage over competitors for reproductive rights) are passed on to produce offspring with the best genes. This is effectively ‘survival of the sexiest.’ In sexual selection, an individual’s survival is not at stake, but rather their ability to leave more descendants.
Define intra-sexual selection
Where traits allow an individual to compete with members of the same sex for access to mating opportunities. Men compete to be able to mate with the fertile women (they compare to be chosen)
Define inter-sexual selection
Where traits increase ‘attractiveness’ and/or induce members of the opposite sex to mate with them. Women evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates to have the highest quality offspring
Define anisogamy
The difference between male and female sex cells.
Define human reproductive behaviour
Any behaviours (actions) that relate to opportunities to reproduce and therefore increase the survival chances of our genes.
Explain the difference between male and female sex cells
Sperm are extremely small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age and do not require a great expenditure of energy to produce. On the other hand, ova are relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require a huge investment of energy.
What is the optimum mating strategy for males?
I.e what types of relationships are they looking for and who with
Men prefer short-term relationships to have many offspring. Men are less choosy about who they reproduce with - females who show signs of youth and fertility so that they can pass down their genes (e.g. waist: hip ratio, clear skin etc)
What is the optimum mating stategy for females?
Women’s strategy will be to prefer long-term relationships to have high quality offspring. Women are therefore choosy in who they choose to reproduce with - genetically fit males who are willing to provide resources (older, wealthy men)
As a result, which type of sexual selection is the preferred strategy of each sex?
Males - Intra-sexual selection:
This is the preferred strategy of males. It refers to the competition between (intra) males to be able to mate with a female. The winner of the competition reproduces and passes on the characteristics that contributed to his victory to his offspring.
Anisogamy dictates that the male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible. This is because of the minimal energy required to produce sperm and the relative lack of post-coital responsibility. This results in an increased probability that they will reproduce and pass on their genes. A consequence of this competition for female mates is for males to show a distinct preference (particularly in long-term relationships) for youth and sensitivity to the indicators of youth (e.g. certain facial features) and fertility (e.g. certain body shapes like an hourglass figure) as these are signs of reproductive value. It is also believed that men show less attraction after sexual intercourse as this is an innate mechanism to prevent them from spending too much time with one partner.
Females - inter-sexual selection:
This is the preferred strategy of females. Both sexes are choosy, because both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard partners. But anisogamy dictates that the consequences of choosing a substandard partner is much more serious for females than males because females make greater investment in terms of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring. Combined with there being no shortage of fertile males, it pays for females to be especially choosy in short-term relationships so that any offspring are of a higher quality (i.e. have the best genes) and so their genes are much more likely to be passed on. The female’s optimum strategy for both short and long-term relationships is to prefer and select a genetically fit partner (e.g. tall, strong and so are able to physically protect her and her children) who is able and willing to provide resources (e.g. shelter for her and her offspring, food etc.). This results in a preference for wealthy, older males. Such adaptive mechanisms can be seen in society today as they have been passed down via sexual selection.
What do men look for in women?
Signs of fertility and youth (wide hips)
What do women look for in men?
Signs of strength and ability to provide for offspring (taller, wealthier)
How do men outcompete each other for ‘access’ to women?
Men who have these qualities are better able to compete (e.g. taller, more aggressive to show they can protect women)
How does all of this get passed down?
Men and women who have these characteristics have a reproductive advantage. These characteristics are then passed down to future generations and so evolve via sexual selection.
Using the key terms in question 1 and your answers to questions 2-7, explain the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. Make sure to include what each sex looks for in a partner and how they can outcompete other members of the same sex as well as how the characteristics get passed down.
Sexual selection is an evolutionary explanation of partner preferences. It suggests that attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to offspring. It argues that human reproductive behaviour is controlled by the innate differences between male sperm and female ova (anisogamy). Sperm can be produced very quickly and in large volumes, allowing a man to potentially impregnate hundreds of women in a short space of time, whereas ova and the process of pregnancy require a larger investment of time and energy to produce the ova and carry one foetus. This means that men will typically seek out shorter-term relationships to produce the most offspring possible, whereas women will prefer longer-term relationships to produce the highest quality offspring. This then leads to women displaying inter-sexual selection, where they are more choosy with who they mate with and will select the man who appears to be the most genetically fit whilst having characteristics that make them attractive to the opposite sex to induce them to want to reproduce with them, and men competing amongst themselves to display the most desirable traits to the women in the hopes of mating with her (intra-sexual selection). Since women look to produce high quality offspring, they have evolved to prefer men who show signs of strength and ability to provide for offspring (so will prefer taller, wealthier men). Men on the other hand have evolved to prefer women who display signs of fertility and youth (wide hips for example), in order to maximise the potential for offspring production with each partner. Men and women who have these characteristics have a reproductive advantage. These characteristics are then passed down to future generations and so evolve via sexual selection.
Describe three studies that have supported the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. For each one, explain exactly which predictions of the theory they support using as many of the ideas from questions 1-7 as possible.
Clarke and Hatfield (1989:
Clarke and Hatfield (1989) - Male and female psychology students were sent out across a university campus. They approached other students individually with this question: ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’ Not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of men did, immediately.
Top tip for A*: you could argue that there is a gender bias to attribute short-term mating strategies only to men, as even though men are more likely to want casual sex and a variety of sexual partners, these mechanisms couldn’t have evolved without the presence of willing females. Perhaps there may have been benefits for women to undergo short-term relationships e.g. allowing them to leave unrewarding relationships if their partner discovered their infidelity or to increase the genetic diversity of their offspring. This type of gender bias is known as alpha bias as it overestimates the differences between the sexes.
This reflects sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports the predictions derived from sexual selection theory about short-term mating strategies. Males evolved innate mechanisms favouring short-term relationships to maximise their chances of reproductive success, whilst women are choosier to increase the likelihood of high quality offspring. Therefore, this supports the validity of the theory as an explanation of reproductive behaviour.
Buss (1989):
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 females 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.
Top tip for A*: However, this lacks external validity as it only looks at partner preferences and not the reality of partner choices (people may need to compromise in reality rather than having the ideal partner) and so may not as strongly support the link between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour as previously thought. Although, Buss then studied 29 cultures and found that men chose younger women and if they divorced they tended to remarry younger women.
This reflects universal sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports the predictions about partner preferences derived from sexual selection theory. Men prefer signs of fertility to increase the likelihood of reproductive success, whilst women prefer wealth as a sign of protection and provision for her and her offspring. As the findings apply across different cultures, this reflects that the preferences are not primarily dependent on cultural influences and so support that such preferences may be innate as proposed by the theory, supporting its validity.
Waynforth and Dunbar (1995):
Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) studied lonely hearts adverts in American newspapers. These were opportunities for men and women to describe the qualities that they desired in a partner whilst also sharing what they had to offer. The researchers found that women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (e.g. flirty, exciting, curvy, sexy). Men on the other hand, offered resources more than women did (e.g. successful, fit, mature, ambitious) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness.
This supports sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports predictions for long-term mating strategies for women (preferring resources to ensure provision for her and her offspring and therefore the offspring surviving), and short and long-term strategies for men (preferring signs of fertility to increase their likelihood of reproducing). This therefore reflects an innate adaptive mechanism for identifying and preferring signs of fertility and resources, supporting the theory.
Why it is unlikely that partner preferences have entirely evolved? Why is this a problem for the theory?
Partner preferences over the last 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 the availability of contraception. Women’s greater role in the workplace means that they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them. Researchers argue that this social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences, which may no longer be resource-oriented. Research compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed and some had 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 consider both is therefore a limited explanation of human reproductive behaviour and so we can’t argue that the theory is completely valid.
Name the three factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
i.e the theories
Physical attractiveness theory, filter theory and self-disclosure theory
What do we mean by physical attractiveness according to physical attractiveness theory?
How appealing we find a person’s face
What are the two features that make a face attractive?
Facial symmetry and neotenous features
Why is this the case?
Facial symmetry is seen as an honest signal of genetic fitness as you can’t fake it
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose. This is because they trigger a protective or caring instinct (a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce).
Physical attractiveness leads to the physical attractiveness stereotype. What is this?
This suggests that attractive people are kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. This belief makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them.
How does then increase attraction even further?
This in turn makes them more likely to act kindly etc. (a self-fulfilling prophecy), which makes them even more attractive to us.
What is the halo effect?
This becomes a halo effect – one distinguishing feature of a person (their physical attractiveness in this case) disproportionately influences our judgements of their other attributes (their personality).
What is the matching hypothesis? Make sure to include what the compromise is between and who we are attracted to.
Common-sense tells us that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people. The matching hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966) suggests that people are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical attractiveness.
To do this, we must make a realistic judgement about our ‘value’ to a potential partner.
Therefore, our choice of partner is a compromise between desiring the most physically attractive partner possible and avoiding being rejected by someone who is unlikely to consider us physically attractive.
Physical attractiveness has been found to influence politics. How? What does this tell us about the theory as a factor affecting attraction? What implications does this have for society?
Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise. The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of life too.
This supports that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise. By being physically attractive, it seems that this distinguishing feature disproportionately influences voters’ judgements of the politicians’ knowledge and competency (halo effect). This has implications for the political process; it suggests that there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered physically attractive enough by voters.
What is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures. What was found about this and what does this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Research shows that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures. Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive. Research has found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly. It seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist ones.
This supports the external validity of the theory that physical attractiveness is important in relationship formation universally. This also implies that the importance of physical attractiveness in attraction might have an evolutionary basis as it is found consistently across the world. Attractive features (e.g. symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarity in all cultures (sexual selection).
There is evidence that some people care more about physical attractiveness than others. Who? How? What does this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Ignore
Some people do not seem to attach much importance to physical attractiveness. In a study by Touhey (1979), male and female participants rated how much they would like a person based on their photograph and some biological information. They also completed a questionnaire designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours. It was found that the participants who scored highly on the questionnaire were more influenced by physical attractiveness of the individual when judging likeability. Low scorers were less sensitive to this influence.
Describe Taylor et al.’s study of the matching hypothesis. How does this undermine the matching hypothesis?
Taylor et al. (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating website, therefore measuring people’s actual date choices rather than preferences. They found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
This suggests that the matching hypothesis may not be a valid explanation of attraction as its central prediction (that people will be more attracted to and so select partners who ‘match’ them in physical attractiveness) is contradicted by these findings.
Note: you could use this as evidence to support physical attractiveness theory.
Describe evidence to support the matching hypothesis. Explain what this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction.
There is some support for the matching hypothesis in its narrowest form, where it is applying to physical attractiveness only. For example, a meta-analysis by Feingold (1988) of 17 studies found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness of actual romantic partners.
This suggests that we are attracted to people who ‘match’ us approximately in physical attractiveness [you need to explain why using the details of the theory e.g. What people are making a compromise between]. This is especially supportive of the matching hypothesis as it studied actual romantic partners rather than who people would like to date, and therefore suggests that physical attractiveness in the form of the matching hypothesis is a valid explanation of attraction in romantic relationships.
What is filter theory?
An explanation of relationship formation. It states that a series of different factors progressively reduces that range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities. The filters include social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
Define field of availables
The entire set of potential romantic partners, all the people we could realistically form a relationship with
Define feild of desirables
The people we want to date after the filtering process
Name the three filters of filter theory
Social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
For each filter, define it and explain why it increases attraction.
Social demography:
Definition - this refers to a wide range of factors such as geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion etc
Why it increases attraction - we tend to be more attracted to those who we come into contact with (accessibility) and those who are socially and culturally similar to us (homogamy). Others who are too ‘different’ to us are discounted as potential partners
Similarities in attitudes:
Definition - This refers to people sharing basic values (things that really matter to them), such as views on marriage, raising children etc
Why it increases attraction - this encourages greater and deeper communication, which promotes self-disclosure, making us more attracted to such people
Complementarity:
Definition - This refers to the ability of partners to meet each other’s emotional needs e.g. One likes to make other laugh and the other likes to be made to laugh
Why it increases attraction - this is attractive because it gives romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship, making it more likely to flourish
What is the problem with the first filter due to online dating? What does this tell us about filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
The rise of online dating in recent years has changed the process of beginning a romantic relationship. It has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables. The internet and apps like Tinder have made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we might well pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits (e.g. from a different culture or social class) than would have applied 30 years ago.
This suggests that the theory may lack temporal validity as it can’t explain the formation of all relationships over time. It may be a valid explanation of the formation of offline romantic relationships, but this may not generalise to relationships that begin online.
Describe at least one study to support filter theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory the study supports.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) conducted research that supports filter theory. They carried out a longitudinal study of 94 dating couples from the USA. Each partner completed two questionnaires assessing the degree to which they shared values and attitudes and the degree of need for complementarity. Seven months after the initial testing, the couples completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to at the beginning of the study. The researchers believed this would indicate ‘progress towards permanence’ in the relationship. In the initial analysis, only similarity in attitudes was related to partner closeness. However, when they divided couples into short-term (they had been dating less than 18 months) and long-term (they had been dating longer than 18 months) relationships, a difference emerged. For short-term couples, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of how close they felt to their partner. For long-term couples, only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close each individual felt to their partner.
This supports that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar [you need to explain why here], and that complementarity becomes more important as the relationship progresses [you need to explain why here], as predicted by the theory. This, this suggests that the theory is a valid explanation of attraction.
There is evidence to undermine a couple of different parts of the theory. Describe at least one study that demonstrates this and explain exactly which parts of the theory it undermines.
Filter theory suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar (demographically and in attitudes and in other ways). But there is evidence which suggests that this direction of causality is wrong. Longitudinal research has found that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time. Other research has found that romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction rather than the cause.
This suggests that the theory may not be internally valid as the findings of the research are not predicted by filter theory. It appears that the cause and effect may be the opposite way round with similarity an effect of initial attraction rather than the cause.
Why is it thought that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory? What does this tell us about filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. This may be due to social changes over time and the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship by its length. For example, 18 months has been chosen as the cut off to distinguish between short-term and long-term relationships, with the assumption that those who had been together longer were more committed and had a deeper relationship.
This is a questionable assumption, which means that from the research (which is invalid) it is difficult to strongly support the validity of the theory. Therefore, the theory should be applied to attraction in relationships with caution, and therefore highlights the difficulty in applying it to explain attraction in other heterosexual couples, let alone homosexual couples or relationships in collectivist cultures
What is self-disclosure?
Self-disclosure is revealing personal information about yourself to another person, which can be superficial (low breadth and depth) or more intimate (higher breadth and depth). For example, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, interests, attitudes. It increases attraction.
What is social penetration theory?
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else by giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings (self-disclosing).
What do we mean when we say self-disclosures must be reciprocal?
This is a reciprocal exchange in that when one person discloses something, the partner needs to respond in a way that is rewarding (e.g. with empathy and understanding) and with their own intimate thoughts. This balance and deeper understanding of each other (deeper penetration of each other’s lives) increases feelings of intimacy and attraction.
What do we mean by the breadth of self-disclosures?
Self-disclosure has two elements – breadth and depth. Both begin narrow, but as the relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, encompassing a wider range of topics.
What do we mean by the depth of self-disclosures?
Eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate, high-risk information (e.g. painful memories, strongly-held beliefs, secrets). This leads to the greater understanding and trust, increasing feelings of intimacy and attraction.
Use your answers to questions 33-37 to explain how self-disclosure leads to attraction.
Diagram on L2
Self-disclosure theory can be used to explain why online relationships don’t succeed and as part of relationship counselling. Choose one of these and explain how. What does this then tell us about self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
The theory can be used to explain why relationships developed online may not succeed. Individuals communicating over the internet are often anonymous. The greater psychological comfort that comes with such anonymity may lead them to reveal more information about themselves. This is referred to as the ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. When people reveal more about themselves earlier than they would in a face-to-face interaction, relationships get very intense very quickly (boom). However, because the underlying trust and true knowledge of the other person are not there to support the relationship, it becomes difficult to sustain (bust). Researchers have highlighted instances where people who are certain that they have found their ‘soulmate’ online have left an established relationship to meet people who do not turn out to be what they first seemed.
This supports the external validity of the theory as it provides practical strategies for people who wish to have successful relationships that begin online - self-disclosures need to be reciprocal and increase slowly in breadth and depth to establish trust and intimacy and therefore attraction. It also explains why such relationships often do not succeed.
Describe Sprecher and Hendrick’s (2004) study of self-disclosure theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory this study supports.
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). Therefore, men and women who used self-disclosure and believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. In a later study, Sprecher et al. (2013) found that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose. Other research involved participants writing daily diary entries. They found that self-disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples. The reverse was also true; less intimate couples self-disclosed less often
This suggests that the theory is valid in that self-disclosures that are reciprocal do seem to lead to more satisfying relationships, potentially because it increases trust and intimacy, implying that it increases attraction.
The research on self-disclosures is often correlational. What does this mean in this context and why is this a problem? What does this tell us about self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
Much self-disclosure research is correlational. Although it is usually assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction, a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw. It is possible that being happier in a relationship makes people disclose more. Or perhaps a third variable causes both self-disclosure and satisfaction/attraction e.g. The amount of time partners spend together.
Therefore, from the research, we can’t strongly support the internal validity of the theory that self-disclosure causes attraction as self-disclosures may not directly cause attraction/satisfaction.
There is evidence that the theory lacks external validity. How?
The prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures will lead to more satisfying and intimate relationships is not true for all cultures. It depends on the type of self-disclosure. A review by Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than Chinese men and women (collectivist). Both of these levels are linked to relationship satisfaction in these cultures.
Therefore the theory is limited as it is based on findings from Western (individualist) cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
What is a virtual relationship?
A virtual relationship is an online relationship. It includes a wide variety of electronic communication methods by which relationships can be formed and maintained e.g. email, instant messaging, chat rooms, texts and social networking sites.
Which two theories fall under the umbrella term of ‘self-disclosure’ affecting virtual relationships?
Reduced cues theory
Hyperpersonal model
Which theory is classed separately?
Absence of gating
According to reduced cues theory, what are cues?
They are things we depend on in FtF interactions such as facial expressions, tone of voice, appearance
What cues are missing in virtual relationships?
Facial expressions, tone of voice, appearance
How does impact the person and their self-disclosures?
This leads to a reduced sense of individual identity and so people act in ways that they usually wouldn’t (deindividuation).
One of these ways is disinhibition i.e. we are less likely to censor what we say. This leads to blunt and even aggressive communication.
This leads to a reluctance to self-disclose (as we are sharing a narrow breadth and depth of information, and we feel like it would be less likely to be reciprocated - responded to with empathy and understanding and therefore their disclosures) and so people are less likely to want to initiate a relationship with someone as there is a lack of intimacy as we don’t feel like we have developed a deeper understanding of each other and so haven’t established trust.
According to the hyperpersonal model, what promotes self-disclosures online?
The anonymity online promotes self-disclosure. As people don’t know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour and so share information you may not normally (greater breadth and depth).
Therefore do self-disclosures happen earlier or later than in face to face relationships? Are they deeper or more shallow?
Self-disclosures happen earlier in relationships online and once the relationships are established they are more intense and intimate - there are more self-disclosures in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face relationships.
How does this promote intimacy?
The more self-disclosures the deeper they are and the more intimate
What is selective self-presentation? How does this affect self-disclosures online?
Additionally, the sender has more time to manipulate their online image (selective self-presentation) so that they can control what they disclose and the cues they send. This means that they can more easily manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy by presenting themselves in a positive and idealised way, either by being intensely truthful or intensely false. The receiver then gets a positive impression of the sender and so may give feedback (essentially reciprocity - they will respond with empathy and understanding and potentially their own disclosures), which reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation and encourages more disclosures and therefore a deeper understanding of each other, more trust and greater intimacy.
Explain two weaknesses of the reduced cues theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory they undermine. What does this tell us about how self-disclosure affects virtual relationships?
The reduced cues theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from online communication. They are just different. Online interactions use other cues, such as style and the timing of the message. For instance, taking time to reply to a status update is often interpreted as more intimate than an immediate response. But too much time is considered a snub. These nuances are as subtle as they are in face-to-face relationships. Additionally, acrostics (e.g. LOL), emoticons and emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.
This is hard for reduced cues theory to explain as virtual relationships can be just as personal as face-to-face relationships as it is possible to express emotional states. Therefore, deindividuation should not occur and people should act in a disinhibited manner. As such the theory may not be a valid explanation of virtual relationships in social media.
The extent and depth of self-disclosure online depends on the type of online communication. On social networking sites, people interacting generally have relationships in the offline world. People self-disclose more on Facebook for instance than they would on an e-survey, where they are reluctant to disclose information they consider to be private. Online dating often results in reduced self-disclosure because communicators anticipate future meetings face-to-face in the offline world. This consideration generally doesn’t exist in chatrooms and on gaming sites.
The theories assume that all interactions online are the same rather than varied in these ways. As such, it is unlikely that either theory is a completely valid explanation of virtual relationships in social media.
Describe evidence to support the hyperpersonal model. Explain exactly which parts of the theory it supports and what this tells us about how self-disclosure affects virtual relationships.
The hyperpersonal model predicts that people are motivated to manipulate their self-presentation in virtual relationships. Whitty and Joinson’s (2009) research supports that this is the case. For example, questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). This is quite different from small talk in face-to-face conversations. Responses online are also direct and to the point. This helps to present us in an exaggeratedly positive light. Selective self-presentation can also be hyperdishonest, such as when people invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles.
This suggests that there is a difference in the type of self-disclosures used in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face ones, providing some support for the validity of theory, particularly in terms of selective self-presentation (we present ourselves in a positive, idealised way online). However, it is not necessarily that this promotes more or deeper self-disclosure compared to face-to-face relationships and so isn’t particularly strong support for the central prediction of the theory.
Describe evidence to undermine the hyperpersonal model. Explain exactly which parts of the theory it supports and what this tells us about how self-disclosure affects virtual relationships.
edit this
The hyperpersonal model predicts that people are motivated to manipulate their self-presentation in virtual relationships. Whitty and Joinson’s (2009) research supports that this is the case. For example, questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). This is quite different from small talk in face-to-face conversations. Responses online are also direct and to the point. This helps to present us in an exaggeratedly positive light. Selective self-presentation can also be hyperdishonest, such as when people invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles.
This suggests that there is a difference in the type of self-disclosures used in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face ones, providing some support for the validity of theory, particularly in terms of selective self-presentation (we present ourselves in a positive, idealised way online). However, it is not necessarily that this promotes more or deeper self-disclosure compared to face-to-face relationships and so isn’t particularly strong support for the central prediction of the theory.
According to absence of gating, what is a gate?
A gate is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship
What gates are there in face to face relationships?
Stammer, stutter, physical unattractiveness etc.
These are then thought to be absent online. How does this impact self-disclosures and therefore intimacy?
Virtual relationships have an absence of gating in that these obstacles are not present.
Therefore a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper (i.e. the relationship ‘gets off the ground’). This means that the self-disclosures are more likely to be reciprocated (responded to with empathy, understanding and their self-disclosures) which then means the breadth and depth of the disclosures will increase.
Absence of gating refocuses attention on self-disclosure and away from more superficial features. This then promotes intimacy as they gain a deeper understanding of each other and trust.
Absence of gating has important real-world applications. Explain both with evidence to support them and what they tell us about absence of gating as a theory of virtual relationships.
Baker and Oswald (2010) argue that virtual relationships are particularly helpful for shy people. Through social media sites like Facebook, shy people can overcome the barriers they face when trying to form relationships in real life. Researchers surveyed 207 male and female students about their shyness, Facebook usage and the quality of their friendships. For students who scored high on shyness, greater use of Facebook was associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality. For those who scores low on shyness, Facebook usage was not associated with the perception of friendship quality.
This supports that shy people do benefit from online relationships, presumably because the gating that obstructs face-to-face relationships is absent online [you need to explain here how this then leads to self-disclosures and the relationship progressing], supporting the external validity of the theory as it can support emotional wellbeing.
McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at online communication use by lonely and socially anxious people. They found that such people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in face-to-face situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 71% survived more than two years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world (49% in a study by Kirkpatrick and Davis in 1994).
This supports that socially anxious people’s relationships do benefit from beginning online, presumably because the gating that obstructs face-to-face relationships is absent online [you need to explain here how this then leads to self-disclosures and the relationship progressing], supporting the external validity of the theory as it can support emotional wellbeing.
Both theories share the same problem. What is this and why it is a problem?
The hyperpersonal model (from self-disclosure theory) and absence of gating both try to explain how there is more self-disclosure in virtual relationships than face-to-face ones because of features unique to online relationships (e.g. Selective self-presentation). But Walther (2011) argued that these theories fail to take into account that almost all relationships are multimodal i.e. We conduct them both online and offline rather than either/or. What we choose to disclose in virtual relationships is influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa.
Whilst this doesn’t suggest that we should abandon both theories, it does suggest that to most comprehensively explain virtual relationships in social media, the theories may need to be combined with the impact of self-disclosures in face-to-face relationships. This would then more completely explain the role of self-disclosure in relationships.
What do we mean by theories of romantic relationships?
Why people are satisfied/committed and so stay/remain in relationships.
There are three theories of romantic relationships - name them.
Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbult’s investment model
All three theories of romantic relationships are classed as economic theories. What do we mean by an economic theory of romantic relationships?
This is an economic theory of relationships which considers how parties act out of self-interest and exchange rewards and costs.
Define reward from SET
They include companionship, sex and emotional support
Define costs SET
They include compromise, energy, stress and opportunity cost (the investment in time and energy in current relationship means using resources that you can’t invest elsewhere).
Define profit SET
When rewards exceed costs
Define minimax principle SET
It argues that we try to minimise (costs) and maximise gains (rewards)
Define comparison level SET
The amount of reward (profit) you believe you deserve to get from the current relationship based on experience of previous relationships and social norms (what is considered within a culture to be a reasonable level of reward or profit, often reflected in the media). We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high.
Define comparison level for alternatives SET
We compare the rewards and costs from the current relationship to other possible relationships and being alone. We will stay in a relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding (or has fewer costs) than alternatives. Being in a satisfying relationship means that we may not even notice that alternatives are available.
Explain how rewards and costs are subjective
What one person considers a reward might be less valuable to someone else.
Explain how the value of rewards and costs can change over time.
What is seen as rewarding or costly in the early stages might become less so as time goes on (and vice versa). For instance, having a partner who is adventurous might be a reward in the beginning as you do lots of fun new activities together, but might be seen as a lack of stability as the relationship continues.
Explain how profit is measured according to social exchange theory.
When rewards exceed costs
Use your answers to questions 65-70 to describe social exchange theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Social exchange theory is an economic theory of relationships which considers how parties act out of self-interest and exchange rewards and costs. It argues that we try to minimise costs (things we lose) and maximise rewards (things we gain). This is known as the minimax principle. For a relationship to be considered satisfying (therefore worth being committed to) rewards must exceed the costs (known as profit) for both people in the relationship. Costs can include compromise, energy, stress and opportunity cost (the investment in time and energy in current relationship means using resources that you can’t invest elsewhere). Rewards include companionship, sex and emotional support. However, rewards and costs are subjective so there are a wide range of possible outcomes. What one person considers a reward might be less valuable to someone else. The value of rewards and costs can also change over time. For example, what is seen as rewarding or costly in the early stages might become less so as time goes on. We measure profit in a relationship in two ways. One is the comparison level which is the amount of reward (profit) you believe you deserve to get from the current relationship. This is based on experience of previous relationships and social norms and the media. We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our comparison level is high. The other way is comparison level for alternatives, where we compare the rewards and costs from the current relationship to other possible relationships and being alone. We will stay in a relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding (or has fewer costs) than alternatives and therefore we are satisfied.
Describe the procedure and results of Kurdek’s (1995) study of social exchange theory.
Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. He found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive. More importantly, this was the first study to find that the main components of SET that predict commitment to the relationship are independent of each other (i.e. They all individually have an effect).
Explain how this study supports the theory, making it clear exactly which ideas it supports.
These findings match the predictions of SET, with more rewards and fewer costs (i.e. Greater profit) being linked to greater commitment to the relationship. This suggests that factors that predict relationship satisfaction are the same for heterosexual and homosexual couples and therefore supports the external validity of the theory in predicting relationship satisfaction.
The concepts of SET have been argued to be difficult to quantify. Give examples of this and explain why this is a problem for the theory.
Rewards and costs have been defined superficially (e.g. money) in order to measure them. However, psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define, especially as they vary so much from one person to another. The concept of comparison levels is particularly problematic. It is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship.
If we can’t measure the concepts in a valid and reliable way, we cannot provide strong support for the theory from the research and so it is difficult to establish the validity of the theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Clark and Mills (2011) have argued that the theory may only apply to certain types of relationships. Which ones? Why does it not apply to others? What does this tell us about the theory as an explanation of romantic relationships?
Ignore
Clark and Mills (2011) have argued that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. They suggest that exchange relationships (e.g. between work colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicts. However, communal relationships (e.g. between romantic partners) are characterised by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is ahead and who is behind. If we felt the kind of exchange monitoring at the start of a promising relationship as SET predicts, we would probably question what kind of commitment our partner wanted.
This suggests that social exchange theory is based on faulty assumptions and therefore may not be a valid explanation of most relationships.
There is said to be a direction of causality issue for SET. What do we mean by this in the case of this theory and why is it a problem?
Ignore
SET argues that dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect that our costs outweigh our rewards or that alternatives are more attractive. However, some researchers argue that we do not measure costs and rewards in a relationship, nor do we consider the attractiveness of alternatives, until we are dissatisfied with the relationship. Research by Miller (1997) has supported that dissatisfaction may come first as it was found that people in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives.
This implies that the direction of causality may be incorrect in SET and so the theory may lack internal validity as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Which important factor is ignored by SET? Describe evidence to support that this factor is important in romantic relationships.
One crucial factor is ignored by SET – equity (fairness). This has been addressed by equity theory. There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships, and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs. For example, Utne et al. (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. The participants were aged between 16 and 45 years and had been together more than 2 years before marrying. They found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting
Why is this therefore a weakness of SET?
Neglecting this suggests that the theory is limited as it can’t account for many of the findings of real relationships and so the theory may not be a completely valid explanation of romantic relationships.
Most studies supporting SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions. Give examples of these and explain how real romantic relationships are different. Explain why this is then a problem for SET as an explanation of romantic relationships.
For example, two strangers work together on a game-playing scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed. The two ‘partners’ know nothing about each other and their ‘relationship’ depends entirely on the task they are performing together.
This suggests that the research is not valid as it doesn’t represent real relationships [you would need to add an example of why not]and therefore cannot provide strong support for the theory as an explanation of romantic relationships. More realistic studies using participants in real relationships have been less supportive of SET.
Define equity as it applies to romantic relationships.
It is the distribution of rewards and costs (i.e. the profit) is fair for both partners (individually - remember it’s still an economic theory so each partner is acting out of self-interest). It emphasises the need for each partner to (individually) experience a balance between their costs/efforts and benefits/rewards. This leads to satisfaction.
How is equity ensured in relationships?
Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity i.e. that the rewards are distributed fairly, which involves making compromises/trade-offs.
Are relationships thought to become more or less equitable over time? Why?
It is thought that relationships should become more equitable over time – to start with you need to invest more effort (so there’d be more costs) to get the relationship going but it should become more equitable as the relationship continues.
What leads to satisfaction according to equity theory?
If each partner experiences a balance between their costs and rewards
When there is inequity, one person overbenefits and one underbenefits. Explain what both of these mean and how each person feels.
Inequity means that one person underbenefits (and so feels anger, hostility, resentment etc.) and one person overbenefits (and so feels guilt, discomfort and shame). Therefore both are dissatisfied. The greater the inequity, the greater the distress and dissatisfaction.
When are people most dissatisfied according to the theory?
People are most dissatisfied when there is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on.
Explain both ways in which inequity can be dealt with.
The ‘put upon’ partner will work hard to try to restore equity, as long as they believe it is possible to do so and the relationship is salvageable.
They will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable even if it’s not.
Use your answers to questions 80-86 to explain the equity theory of romantic relationships.
Economic theory of relationships where acting out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs
To be satisfied, there must be equity
Definition of equity - distribution of rewards and costs must be fair - each partner needs to experience a balance between their rewards and costs
Relationships should become more equitable over time
Partners can negotiate to ensure equity
If there is inequity, partners may overbenefit and so feel guilty etc. Or underbenefit and so may feel angry etc. Therefore they will be dissatisfied
To restore equity: underbenefitter may work harder or revise their perceptions so relationship feels more equitable
Describe the procedure and findings of Utne et al.’s (1984) study of equity theory. Explain exactly how this study supports the proposals of the theory.
There is evidence to support the proposals of the theory. Utne et al. (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. The participants were aged between 16 and 45 years and had been together more than 2 years before marrying. They found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting.
This suggests that equity is a major concern of romantic couples and is linked to satisfaction [add in here why those who were overbenefitting or underbenefitting in the study would be less satisfied], supporting the central prediction of equity theory and implying it is a valid theory of romantic relationships.
There is evidence to undermine two of the major claims from equity theory. Describe this evidence and explain which two claims they undermine.
There is evidence to undermine the theory’s claim that relationships should become more equitable over time. Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples. Additionally, they found that there was no difference in equity in relationships which had ended compared to those which continued.
This undermines the validity of equity theory as equity does not seem to play the role in relationship dissatisfaction (as the relationships that continue/end do not seem to be linked to whether there is equity or not) and relationships do not seem to become more equitable over time as would be predicted by the theory.
There is evidence to suggest there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. Describe this evidence and explain what this tells us about equity theory.
Ignore
There is evidence to suggest cultural difference in the link between equity and satisfaction. Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found that couples from an individualist culture (the USA, which prioritises the individual’s needs) considered their relationship to be most satisfying when it was equitable, whereas partners from a collectivist culture (Jamaica, where the needs of the wider group come first) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting. This was true of men and women so can’t be explained by gender differences.
This suggests that the theory’s claim that equity is a universal need in relationships is unwarranted and so the theory has limited external validity as a theory of romantic relationships as it can’t explain this cultural difference (and so can only be said to apply to some cultures).
Equity doesn’t even seem to apply to all people in the same way. Describe evidence to support this idea and explain what this tells us about equity theory.
There is evidence to suggest that there are individual differences in the perceived importance of equity in a relationship. Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners are ‘benevolents’, who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Others are ‘entitleds’ who believe they deserve to be overbenefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
In both cases, such individuals have less concern about equity than the theory predicts. According to the theory the ‘benevolents’ would be dissatisfied and feel angry and hostile towards their partner and the ‘entitleds’ would also be dissatisfied and feel guilty and discomfort but that was not the case in this study. This suggests that equity is not necessarily a universal feature of all romantic relationships and therefore the theory may not be a completely valid theory of romantic relationships.
Which of the evaluation ideas about SET can be reused to evaluate equity theory? How?
Can recycle the idea that the theory is subjective and cause and effect issue from SET
According to Rusbult’s investment model, satisfaction is not the reason people remain in romantic relationships. What is?
Having commitment levels (if the partners in the relationship experience high levels of satisfaction and the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investment are increasing, then we can confidently predict that partners will be committed to the relationship)
Define satisfaction from Rusbult’s theory
This is based on the comparison level idea from SET. It is judged by comparing rewards and costs and is seen as profitable when rewards exceed costs. Each partner is satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms
Define comparison with alternatives from Rusbult’s theory
We compare the rewards and costs from the current relationship to other possible relationships and being alone. We will stay in a relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding (or has fewer costs) than alternatives
Define investment size from Rusbult’s theory
This is the extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship. They can be understood as anything we would stand to lose if the relationship ended
Define intrinsic investments
These are any resources directly put into the relationship. They can be tangible e.g. money and possessions or intangible e.g. energy, emotion and self-disclosures
Define extrinsic investments
These are resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it. They can be tangible e.g. possessions bought together, mutual friends since the relationship began, children or intangible e.g. shared memories
Define commitment from Rusbult’s theory
The intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting a belief that the relationship has a viable long term future. If the partners in a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction, the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes if their investments are increasing, they will intend to continue the relationship
Define relationships maintenance mechanisms from Rusbuls theory
Commitment expresses itself in everyday behaviours. For example, they will put their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice) and forgive them fir serious transgressions (forgiveness)
Use your answers to questions 93-95 to describe Rusbult’s investment model of romantic relationships.
Suggests that people remain in relationships because they are committed to it (then define commitment)
Three factors determine our commitment to the relationship:
1. Satisfaction - rewards-cost = profit (measured by CL, which you should define) - will be committed to relationship if we are getting more out of the relationship than expected based on previous relationships and social norms
2. Comparison with alternatives - define - will be committed to the relationship if perceive that we will have more costs or fewer rewards elsewhere (including being alone) i.e. Alternatives are unattractive
3. Investment size - define generally and then define intrinsic and extrinsic investments - will be committed to the relationship if investment size is increasing
Therefore committed to the relationship when…
Can therefore explain why people will remain in relationships when dissatisfied
When committed, show relationship maintenance mechanisms (define) - give an example or two
Describe Le and Agnew’s (2003) study of Rusbult’s investment model. Explain exactly which parts of the theory the study supports.
There is strong research support for the theory from Le and Agnew (2003). They reviewed 52 studies of 11000 participants from 5 countries. They found that satisfaction, Clalt and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest. This was true of both genders, across all cultures and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.
This supports that there is some validity to the claim that satisfaction, comparison level with alternatives and investment size are universally important features of the commitment to romantic relationships [you would need to explain how here]. As this seems to be the case for different types of couples, both genders and across cultures, it suggests the theory is externally valid.
The theory is said to have important real-world applications. What are these and what does this tell us about Rusbult’s investment model?
The model is a valid and useful explanation of intimate partner violence in relationships (abusive relationships). Research studying ‘battered’ women at a shelter (by Rusbult and Martz, 1995) 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 intimate partner violence does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.
This supports the external validity of the theory and suggests it has important real-world applications for helping ‘victims’ to leave abusive partners. It demonstrates that satisfaction alone cannot explain why people stay in relationships and so ‘victims’ need to be supported in terms of their investments and comparison with alternatives to support them to leave abusive partners (e.g. Help sorting out finances, legal advice for custody of children).
Lots of the supporting evidence for Rusbult’s investment model comes from self-report techniques. Why is this a good thing?
Ignore
Much of the support for the model relies on self-report measures. These are appropriate methods because it is not the objective reality of factors such as investment size that matters. What matters is each individual partner’s perceptions of these factors. It is your belief that you have made a big investment in the current relationship, or your belief that you have no attractive alternatives that will influence your commitment. Whether this matches the objective reality of the situation doesn’t really matter.
This means that researchers are able to assess the factors that the model predicts matter the most. Therefore using self-report measures is a more valid test of the model as it enables researchers to try to quantify how ‘big’ an investment has to be before it prevents someone leaving an unsatisfying relationship.
However, lots of the research is correlational. What does this mean in the case of the model and why is this a problem?
Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors of the model. However, this is not evidence of causation. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship. Therefore, the direction of causality may be the reverse of what is predicted by the model.
Therefore the investment model may lack internal validity and so may not be able to reliably predict when people stay in relationships or leave them as the theory may not have identified the causes of commitment but instead factors associated with it.
Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) suggested that the original model was a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it didn’t recognise the true complexity of investment. What did they think had been ignored?
There is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into the relationship. In the early stages of a relationship, the partners will have made very few actual investments. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) have extended Rusbult’s 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 plans for the future work out.
Therefore the original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships as it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment and its impact on commitment to a relationship.
Explain four similarities/differences between SET and equity theory.
Both economic theory - exchanging rewards and costs, acting out of self-interest
Both subjecting (rewards, costs etc)
Profit determined by minimax principle for SET and determined by equity for equity
If we are dissatisfied, we will leave (as we’re not making a profit) for SET and equity if we are dissatisfied (because it’s inequitable), we will try to repair the relationship
Explain four similarities/differences between SET and Rusbult’s investment model.
Both economic theory - exchanging rewards and costs, acting out of self-interest
Both are subjective with rewards and costs etc (also investment size for Rusbult’s)
Profit determined by the minimax principle for SET but profit is to level we deserve (CL) for Rusbult’s
If we are dissatisfied, we will leave (as we’re not making a profit) for SET but for Rusbult’s if we are dissatisfied, we may still be committed to the relationship if alternatives are unattractive (comparison with alternatives) and if we have lots of investments
Explain four similarities/differences between equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model.
Both economic theory - exchanging rewards and costs, acting out of self-interest
Both are subjective with rewards and costs etc (also investment size for Rusbult’s)
Both argue things can change over time but equity for equity and investment size for Rusbult’s
Profit determined by equity but Rusbult’s profit is to the level we deserve (only one factor that determines commitment)
When does the process of a relationship breakdown begin according to Duck’s phase model.
Once a partner has become dissatisfied
Each phase is marked by what?
Each is marked by one or both partners reaching a ‘threshold’, a point at which their perception of the relationship changes (usually for the worse).
Name and define each phase of Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. Include at least three things that happen during each phase.
Intra-psychic phase - this phase focuses on the cognitive processes. There is a focus on the reasons for dissatisfaction and the partner’s shortcomings as well as weighing up the pros and cons of the relationship - the couple aren’t talking to each other
Dyadic phase - this phase focuses on interpersonal processes. There are confrontations involving discussing the relationship and dissatisfaction - the couple argue and complain a lot
Social phase - this phase focuses on wider processes involving social networks. The break-up is made public and partner seek support and try to forge pacts - family and friends become involved and the couple find out things they didn’t know about each other
Grave-dressing phase - this phase focuses on the aftermath. The relationship is buried and the breakdown is ‘spun’ into a favourable story for public consumption. It also involves creating a personal story about the breakdown - they spend a lot of time criticising each other to their friends and making it clear that they were the hard done by partner who had every right to leave
When does the break up occur according to the theory?
Between the dyadic and social phase
The theory is said to have important real-world applications. What are these and what does this tell us about Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown?
The model has important real-world applications in that it is useful in suggesting ways to reverse a relationship breakdown. It recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than others. For example, the intra-psychic phase would suggest focusing on brooding on positive aspects of your partner, whilst the dyadic phase would suggest improving wider social skills to improve communication.
Such insights could be used in relationship counselling, supporting the external validity of the theory.
A lot of the research on the model involves participants reporting their experiences of the process of their relationship breakdown some time after the relationship has ended. Why is this a problem? What does this tell us about the model?
Most of the research on Duck’s model involves participants giving their experiences of the breakdown process some time after the relationship has ended (i.e. it is retrospective). This means that their recall may not be accurate or reliable; the very early stages of the breakdown may be distorted or ignored altogether, especially as they can be intra-psychic phase for a long time.
This means that part of the model is based on research that ignores the early part of the breakdown process and so it is an incomplete description of how relationships end. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the validity of the early phases of the model as an explanation of relationship breakdown.
However, why is this likely necessary?
However, this is very difficult to study as researchers’ involvement could make the situation worse or hasten the end of the relationship that might otherwise have been rescued.
The model has been accused of cultural bias. What is cultural bias?
Refers to the tendency to ignore cultural differences and interpret all phenomena through the ‘lens’ of one’s own culture (i.e. in terms of one’s own cultural assumptions).
Explain how the model is culturally biased and why this is a problem.
Ignore
The model and most of the research behind it are based on relationships in Western (individualist) cultures, especially the USA. Individualist relationships are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end (e.g. divorce or separation). Relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, less easy to end, and involve the entire family (including potentially being arranged by them). The entire concept of a romantic relationship differs between cultures. It is therefore very unlikely that the process of a relationship breakdown is identical across different cultures.
This demonstrates a cultural bias in the research as the research is only conducted on Western participants and assumed to be true of people in collectivist cultures which is unlikely to be the case. This suggests that Duck’s model may not be a valid description of relationship breakdown in collectivist cultures and so lacks external validity.
Does Duck’s model explain why relationships breakdown? What does this tell us about the theory?
Duck’s model is not very successful at explaining why relationships breakdown. It focuses on what happens rather than looking at the factors that caused the breakdown. An alternative theory called the ‘fatal attraction hypothesis’ argues that the cause of relationship breakdown are found in the attractive qualities that brought a couple together i.e. the relationship is threatened by getting too much of what you’re looking for. For example, a great sense of humour could turn into frustration that a partner can’t take anything seriously.
This suggests that Duck’s model may be a valid description of how a relationship breaks down but may not be a valid explanation of it, suggesting that the theory is limited.
The model has been criticised for being oversimplified. Explain how this is the case and why this is a problem for the model.
The model has been criticised for being oversimplified. A 5th stage was later added by Duck and Rollie (2006) – the resurrection phase. This is where attention is turned to future relationships using experiences gained from the recently-ended one. It has also been made clear by the researchers 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. They also argue that the processes that occur in the relationship breakdown (e.g. Gossip in the social phase) are more important than the linear movement from one phase to the next.
This suggests that the original model is a limited explanation as it does not account for the dynamic nature of relationship breakdowns with all of their uncertainty and complexity.
What is a parasocial relationship?
Parasocial relationships are relationships that resemble normal ones but lack one key element – they are one-sided, unreciprocated relationships on which the person expends a lot of time, energy and commitment.
Out of the three theories below, which one describes parasocial relationships and which two explain them?
Levels of parasocial relationships - describe
The absorption-addiction model - explain
Attachment theory - explain
Name and define the three levels of parasocial relationships.
Entertainment-social - Fans will watch, keep up with, read and learn about the celebrity for the purposes of entertainment and social interaction (gossip).
Intense-personal - The person has a greater personal involvement in the relationship with the celebrity, such as obsessive thoughts and feelings.
Borderline pathological - On the one hand, the person has empathy with the celebrity, identifying with their successes and failures. However, it is also characterised by over-identification with the celebrity and uncontrollable fantasies about their lives and extreme behaviours, including spending money and crimes.
Describe evidence to support the levels of parasocial relationships.
McCutheon et al. (2016) used the Celebrity Attitude Scale to measure the levels of parasocial relationships. They also assessed participants’ problems in their intimate relationships. Participants who scored as borderline-pathological or intense-personal were more tended to experience a high degree of anxiety in their intimate relationships. People at the entertainment-social level generally did not (although even this level was associated with other relationship problems).
This suggests that ‘celebrity worshippers’ can usefully be classified into three categories as proposed by the theory and that they are predictive of actual behaviour, supporting the predictive validity of the theory.
According to the absorption-addiction model, which level of parasocial relationships do most people stay in?
The entertainment social
What characteristics/circumstances make some people become absorbed in the lives of a celebrity?
However for some people, an introverted nature, an especially difficult set of personal circumstances, low self-esteem a lack of fulfilment in life, being poorly adjusted psychologically, a weak sense of self-identity and a lack of meaningful relationships (i.e. deficiencies in their own lives) may lead them to become increasingly ‘absorbed’ by the lives of the celebrity
Why is this the case?
The parasocial relationship is an escape from reality/way of finding fulfilment which they can’t achieve in real relationships.
What does absorption involve?
This absorption involves the person seeking fulfilment in the relationship and motivates them to focus their attention as much as possible on the celebrity, identify with them and become totally pre-occupied by their existence.
When the absorption level becomes high enough, the motivational forces driving the absorption may become addictive. What does this mean?
If the level of absorption is high enough, the person may move onto higher levels of parasocial interaction where the motivational forces driving the absorption may become addictive (all consuming).
What sorts of behaviours and thoughts do people then show?
They need to increase their ‘dose’ to gain satisfaction. This leads to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking as they have a need to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity.
Overall, do people become interested in celebrities and develop parasocial relationships because of absorption or addiction?
Initial interest in celebrities and the development of a parasocial relationship is via absorption
Is their interest in the celebrities maintained by absorption or addiction?
This interest is maintained by psychological addiction (leading to escalation through the levels of parasocial relationships).
Describe two pieces of evidence that support that a deficiency in a person’s life predisposes them to forming parasocial relationships.
The absorption-addiction model suggests that a deficiency in a person’s life (such as poor body image) would predispose them to forming parasocial relationships. Maltby et al. (2005) investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in teenagers. They were particularly interested in studying females who reported an intense-personal parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admire. They found that these females tended to have a poor body image, and concluded that this may be a precursor to the development of eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa. This supports the model’s prediction of an association between the level (type and intensity) of the parasocial relationship and poor psychological functioning. This suggests that the model is a valid explanation of parasocial relationships.
The absorption-addiction model suggests that a deficiency in a person’s life (such as being poorly adjusted psychologically) would predispose them to forming parasocial relationships. Maltby et al. (2003) found that there is a correlation between the levels of parasocial relationship and personality traits. Entertainment-social was associated with extraverted personality traits, intense-personal with neurotic personality traits, and borderline-pathological with psychotic personality traits.
This supports the model’s prediction of an association between the level (type and intensity) of the parasocial relationship and poor psychological functioning. This suggests that the model is a valid explanation of parasocial relationships.
The absorption-addiction model shares a weakness with Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. Which one? How?
The absorption-addiction model is potentially a better description of parasocial relationships rather than an explanation. The model can describe the characteristics of people who are most absorbed by and addicted to celebrities (poor psychological functioning) but it cannot explain how such characteristics develop.
Therefore, the theory lacks validity as it is not a full explanation of behaviour and as a result cannot predict people’s behaviour. It may be better to combine this with attachment theory, which would be able to explain how parasocial relationships develop (out of childhood experiences). This may then be a more valid explanation of how parasocial relationships form and develop.
According to attachment theory, why do people form parasocial relationships?
People form parasocial relationships because of attachment difficulties in early childhood (i.e. Insecurely attached).
Bowlby noted that insecure attachment in infancy may lead to a poor internal working model that then affects later relationships (continuity hypothesis) e.g. insecure-resistants fall in love easily but find it difficult to find true love.
Therefore, they need to have their unfulfilled needs for affection met, but in a relationship where there is no threat of rejection, break-up and disappointment like in social relationships and so form parasocial relationships
Which attachment type is most likely to form parasocial relationships? Why?
Insecure-resistants as they need to have their unfulfilled needs for affection met, but in a relationship where there is no threat of rejection, break-up and disappointment like in social relationships and so form parasocial relationships
What sorts of behaviours will they therefore demonstrate towards the celebrity?
They may exhibit behaviours associated with this attachment type towards the celebrity such as proximity-seeking (staying informed about the celebrity, rearrange schedule to watch them on TV, send fan letters etc.) and protest at separation (e.g. prolonged distress if their TV show ends).
Which attachment type is least likely to form social and parasocial relationships? Why?
Insecure-avoidants want to avoid pain and rejection of relationships so tend to avoid social and parasocial relationships.
The attachment theory of parasocial relationships seems to be a universal explanation. Describe at least one piece of evidence to support this.
Schmid and Klimmt (2011) identified a tendency for some people (insecurely attached) to form a parasocial relationship with Harry Potter. This has been found to not be culturally specific as similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter was found in individualist and collectivist cultures. This supports that attachment type may be a universal explanation for the need to form parasocial relationships [you will need to explain exactly how it supports the theory here - see box three below for an idea of how to do this].
Describe evidence to undermine the attachment theory of parasocial relationships. Explain exactly how the study undermines the theory.
McCutheon et al. (2016) measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 American participants. They found that attachment type did not affect the likelihood of forming a parasocial relationship with a celebrity. Participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form such relationships than participants with secure attachments.
This therefore fails to support the central prediction of attachment theory that parasocial relationships are a way of compensating for attachment issues (insecure resistants are more likely to form parasocial relationships because of the safety of the relationship without fear of rejection). Therefore this casts doubt on the validity of the theory as an explanation of parasocial relationships.
The theory has to rely on retrospective evidence. How? Why is this a problem?
Ignore
In order to study the relationship between childhood attachment and adult parasocial relationships, research must rely on retrospective evidence from participants about their childhood relationships.
Participants may not accurately recall their childhood friendships or may be biased in some way portraying their relationships as being more positive or negative than they were. As the research to support the theory relies on this recall, we cannot conclude the research is valid and therefore it’s not strong support for the attachment theory.
A problem for the theories is that they rely on correlational data as supporting evidence. Give an example of this and explain why this is a problem for the studies and therefore the theory.
Most studies of parasocial relationships use correlational analyses (e.g. McCutcheon et al., 2016, Maltby et al.). For example, strong positive correlations have been found between celebrity worship and body image. However, it would be inappropriate to conclude that a poor body image causes an intense-personal parasocial relationship. It could be that parasocial relationships cause poor body image rather than the other way round as the research is correlational. Alternatively, a third factor which was not measured in the study could have caused both variables.
Miss Maiden’s note: If you are evaluating one of the other theories, switch the example for a correlational study to one about the theory you are evaluating.
This suggests that from the research we can’t strongly support the validity of the theories of parasocial relationships.
Counterargument: However, correlations can be valuable because they suggest links between variables even though they don’t demonstrate causes. This may be the only practical and ethical way when studying people’s behaviour in their everyday lives. Whilst this doesn’t necessarily improve the validity of the studies, it does explain why research into parasocial relationships is often conducted in this way.
The theories also rely on the use of self-report techniques for supporting evidence. How? Why is this a problem?
Most studies of parasocial relationships use self-report methods to collect data e.g. online questionnaires. This suggests that social desirability bias may be a problem in that participants may think it’s not ‘normal’ to have such extreme views on celebrities and so not be completely honest.
Therefore from the research we can’t strongly support the internal validity of the theories of parasocial relationships.
