Relationships Flashcards
Outline the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Sexual selection:
- Darwin’s concept of sexual selection concerns the selection of those characteristics that aid successful reproduction, rather than survival
- some physical characteristics, such as a male peacock’s tail, are a sign of genetic fitness
- females who select males with such characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring
- other characteristics, such as aggressiveness, are adaptive because they provide an advantage for a male over competitors for reproductive rights
- the aggressive characteristics that allow the animal to reproduce in the first place are passed onto offspring IF they are genetically determined, and the genes that gave rise to the characteristics remain in the population
Anisogamy:
- the basis of human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy, which refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
- male gametes are small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old-age, and do not need much energy to be produced
- in contrast, female gametes are relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years, and require significant investment of energy
- one consequence of anisogamy is that there is no shortage of fertile males, but a fertile female is a much rarer ‘resource’
- anisogamy is important in partner preference because it gives rise to 2 types of sexual selection
Inter-sexual selection:
- inter-sexual selection describes the strategies that each sex uses to attract the other
- this is the ‘quality over quantity’ approach and is favoured by females because they invest more energy into the development of ova, which are produced in limited numbers at intervals across their lives, and the fact that females experience more post-coital responsibility compared to males
- therefore, a female will be more ‘choosy’ as to who she mates with, due to her limited reproductive resources
- in particular, she may choose a partner who can offer resources, such as food, territory, and protection
- this, from an evolutionary standpoint, enables the high quality of her offspring
- Fisher developed a sexy sons hypothesis, which suggests that the genes we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success
- a female who mates with a male who has a certain characteristic will then have sons who inherit this ‘sexy’ trait
- then her sons are also more likely to be selected by successive generations of females who will mate with her offspring, meaning the preference for the ‘sexy’ trait is perpetuated
Intra-sexual selection:
- intra-sexual selection refers to the evolution of preferences for certain characteristics/qualities within members of the same sex
- this is the ‘quantity over quality’ approach and is favoured by males, because they produce sperm continuously throughout their lifetime with little energy, investment, and limited post-coital responsibility
- there is competition between males to be selected to mate with a female, and the winner of this competition reproduces, and therefore the characteristics that contributed to his victory may be passed on to his offspring
- this strategy has given rise to dimorphism - males and females end up looking very different because of intra-sexual selection
- for example, in any physical competition between males, size matters
- larger males have an advantage, and are therefore more likely to be reproductively successful
- females do not compete for reproductive rights, so there is no evolutionary drive towards favouring larger females
- in females, youthfulness is selected, because males have a preference to mate with younger, more fertile women
- therefore, from an evolutionary perspective it is most effective to impregnate as many women as possible in order to ensure the survival of the genes
- intra-sexual selection has also has behavioural consequences, as the characteristics that are favoured and passed on are those that allow a male to outcompete his rivals, including deceitfulness, intelligence, and aggression
- for example, males may benefit from behaving aggressively in order to acquire fertile females and protect them from competing males
- this leads to the selection of aggressiveness in males
What are the factors affecting attraction?
- Self-disclosure
- Physical attractiveness
- Filter theory
Outline self-disclosure
- self-disclosure is revealing ourselves to another person, by sharing our likes and dislikes, our hopes and fears, and our interests and attitudes
- we share what really matters to us, and our partners understand us better, and we them
- this self-disclosure has a vital role in a relationship beyond the initial attraction, but most people are careful about what they disclose, at least to begin with
- used wisely and effectively, it can really help the course of true love run smoother
Social penetration theory:
- self-disclosure is a major concept in Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory, which focuses on how relationships develop
- relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
- in romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners
- when one person reveals some some personal information about themselves, this indicates and displays trust towards the other person, and to go further, the other partner must also reveal sensitive information
- as they increasingly disclose more and more, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives, and great gain a greater understanding of each other
- it is a basic feature of romantic relationships
- being able to disclose insinuates trust, and suggests that the relationship has reached a stage where deeper disclosure is welcomed and, hopefully, reciprocated
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure:
- according to Altman and Taylor, self-disclosure has two elements, which are breadth and depth
- as both of these increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other
- we disclose a lot about ourselves at the start of a relationship, but what we reveal is superficial, mostly ‘on the surface’, like the outer layers of an onion
- it is the kind of ‘low risk’ information we would reveal to anyone
- the breadth of disclosure is narrow, because many topics are ‘off-limits’ in the early stages of a relationship
- if we were to reveal too much too soon, we may get the response ‘too much information’, possibly threatening the relationship before it gets going
- however, as the relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, progressively removing more and more layers to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wide range of topics, especially those concerning things that matter to us
- eventually, we are prepared to reveal intimate, ‘high-risk’ information, such as painful memories and experiences
- Altman and Taylor also use the term depenetration to describe how dissatisfied partners self disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship
Reciprocity of self-disclosure:
- Reis and Shaver make it clear that for a relationship to develop, as well as increasing breath and depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
- once you have decided to disclose something that reveals your true self, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding to you, such as understanding, empathy, and also their own intimate thoughts and feelings
- one key here is that there must be a balance of self disclosure between both partners in a successful romantic relationship, which increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship
Outline physical attractiveness
Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness:
- evolutionary explanations of attractiveness state that traits associated with attractiveness act as indications of good health, and therefore, choosing an attractive partner is the best way of ensuring a healthy partner and a healthy child
- Shackelford and Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- this is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness
- people also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face) features, such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin, and small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct
The halo effect:
- physical attractiveness may also matter because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive
- this is the physical attractiveness stereotype - a widely accepted view of attractive people ( Dion coined ‘what is beautiful is good’)
- Dion et al found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to unattractive people
- the belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them; an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy
- psychologists use the term halo effect to describe how one distinguishing feature, physical attractiveness in this case, tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a persons other attributes, for example, their personality
The matching hypothesis:
- the matching hypothesis suggest that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (and also in terms of personality, intelligence etc) instead of choosing the most appealing people
Walster et al - ‘The computer dance’:
Procedure - - male and female students were invited to a dance
- they were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start, and also completed a questionnaire about themselves (personality, self-esteem etc)
- they were told the data about themselves, and that this information would be used by computer to decide their partner for the evening, but in fact, they were paired up randomly
Findings - - the hypothesis was not supported
- the most liked partners were also the most physically attractive, rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account
- however, Berscheid et al replicated the study, but this time each participant was able to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness
- this time, participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
Conclusions - - we tend to seek out and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
- this means choice of partner is a compromise - we risk rejection in selecting the most attractive people available, so we settle on those who are ‘in our league’ physically
Outline filter theory
- Kerckhoff and Davis compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term (defined as less than 18 months) and long-term relationships
- they devised a filter theory to explain how such romantic relationships form and develop
- in terms of partner choice, we have a field of availables, the entire set of potential romantic partners, all the people we could realistically form a relationship with
- but, of course, not everyone who is available to us is desirable
- according to Kerckhoff and Davis, there are three main factors that act as filters to narrow down a range of partner choice to a field of desirables
- each of these factors assumes greater or lesser importance at different stages of the relationship
Social demography (1st level of filter):
- social demography refers to a wide range of factors, all of which influence the chances of potential partners meeting each other in the first place
- these factors include:
-> geographical location, or proximity
-> social class
-> level of education
-> ethnic group
-> religion
- the outcome of this filtering is homogamy, meaning you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar
- most of us find shared demographic similarities attractive
Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter):
- partners will often share important beliefs and values, partly because the field of availables has already been narrowed down by the first filter to those who have significant social and cultural characteristics in common
- Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, but only for the couples who have been together less than 18 months
- there is a need for partners in the early stages of a relationship to great to agree over basic values, the things that really matter to them
- this encourages greater and deeper communication, and promote self-disclosure
- Byrne has described the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the law of attraction
- if such similarity does not exist, then the relationship is likely to fizzle out
Complementarity (3rd level of filter):
- the third filter concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs
- two partners compliment each other when they have traits that the other lacks, for example one partner may enjoy making the other laugh, and in turn, this partner enjoys being made to laugh, or perhaps one partner is more dominant in the relationship than the other, or one likes to nurture and the other be nurtured
- Kerckhoff and Davis found that the need for complementarity was more important for the long-term couples
- in other words, at a later stage of a relationship, opposites attract
- complementarity is attractive because it gives two romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish
What are the theories of romantic relationships?
- Social exchange theory
- Equity theory
- Rusbult’s investment model
- Duck’s phase model
Outline social exchange theory
Rewards, costs, and profits:
- Thibault and Kelley proposed social exchange theory, claiming that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
- most importantly, we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle)
- we judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields, defined as the rewards minus the costs
- the value of rewards and costs might well change over the course of a relationship, as what is seen as rewarding or costly in the early stages, for instance, might become less so as time goes on
- rewards include beneficial things such as companionship, sex, and emotional support
- costs include time, stress, energy, compromise etc
- also in economic terms, a relationship incurs another kind of cost, an opportunity cost - your investment of time and energy in your current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere
Comparison level:
- we develop the standard which we compare all our relationships against
- it is formed based on all our experiences of previous relationships
- it is also influenced by social norms that determine what is widely considered, within a culture, to be a reasonable level of reward
- we consider a relationship worth pursuing if our comparison level is high
- someone with low self-esteem will have a low comparison level, and will therefore be satisfied with gaining just a small profit, or even loss, from a relationship
- someone with higher self-esteem will believe they are worth a lot more
Comparison level for alternatives:
- where we weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a potential partner minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship
- social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives
- according to Duck, the CLalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship
- there are usually ‘plenty more fish in the sea’, so if the costs of a relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive
Stages of relationship development:
- Thibault and Kelley’s social exchange theory concerns the four stages through which relationships develop:
Sampling stage -> we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships, or by observing others doing so
Bargaining stage -> this marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
Commitment stage -> as time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable, and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
Institutionalisation stage -> the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established
Outline equity theory
- equity theory is another economic theory which developed in response to a significant criticism of the social exchange theory
- maximising rewards and minimising costs are important, but social exchange theory fails to take into account the need most people have for balance rather than profit in a relationship
The role of equity:
- ‘equity’ means fairness
- Walster states that what matters most with equity is that both partners level of profit are roughly the same
- where there is a lack of equity, one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits from the relationship, and according to equity theory, this is a recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness
- both overbenefit and underbenefit are examples of inequity, although it is the underbenefited partner who is likely to feel the greatest dissatisfaction, in the form of anger, hostility, resentment, and humiliation
- the overbenefited partner would likely feel guilt, discomfort, and shame
- satisfaction is about perceived fairness
Equity and equality:
- according to equity theory, it is not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters, it’s the ratio of the two to each other
- if one partner puts in put a lot into the relationship, but at the same time gets a lot out of it, then they are likely to feel satisfied
- 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:
- problems arise when one partner put a great deal into the relationship, but gets little out of it
- a partner who perceives inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied with the relationship if the state of affairs continues for long enough
- the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, and equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the two
- this applies to both the overbenefited and underbenefited partner, to the extent that they both receive this inequity
Changes in perceived equity -> what makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on. For example, at the start of a relationship, it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive. But if the relationship develops in such a way that you continue to put more into the relationship and get less out of it, this will not feel as satisfying as it did in the early days.
Dealing with inequity -> the underbenefited partner is usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable, as long as they believe it is possible to do so and that their relationship is salvageable. The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity. On the other hand, another possible outcome is a cognitive rather than behavioural one. They will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes. What was once seen as definitely a cost earlier in the relationship is now accepted as the norm.
Outline Rusbult’s investment model
- according to Rusbult et al, commitment depends on 3 factors
- the investment model is the development of social exchange theory
Factor 1 - satisfaction:
- satisfaction is based on the concept of the comparison level
- a satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs, and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards, such as support, sex, and companionship, and few costs, like conflicts and anxiety
- each partner is generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms
Factor 2 - comparison with alternatives:
- CLalt results in romantic partners wondering of they could get more rewards and less costs out of an alternative
- alternatives include not just relationships with other people but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all
Factor 3 - Investment:
- Rusbult suggested that CL and CLalt derived from SET are not enough to explain commitment
- if they were, than many more relationships would end as soon as either the costs outweigh the rewards, or more attractive alternatives presented themselves
- therefore, a crucial third factor was introduced that influences commitment
- an investment can be understood as anything we would lose if the relationship with to end
- there are two major types of investment:
-> Intrinsic investments are any resources we put directly into the relationship. They can be tangible things such as money and possessions, and they can also be resources less easy to quantify (intangibles) such as energy, emotion, and self disclosures
-> Extrinsic investments are resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it. Tangibles include possessions bought together, such as a car, mutual friends, and children. A good example of an intangible is shared memories
- if the partners in a 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
Satisfaction versus commitment:
- Rusbult argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction a contributory factor
- this is an important distinction, because it can help to explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship - it is because they are committed to their partner
- they are so committed because they have made an investment that they do not want to see go to waste
- therefore they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship especially when it hits a rough patch
Relationship maintenance mechanisms:
- there are a number of mechanisms used to promote relationship maintenance when a partner is dissatisfied, but it all depends on how committed the partners are
- these include:
-> accommodation
-> forgiveness
-> willingness to sacrifice
-> positive illusions
-> ridiculing alternatives
- enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation but instead act in a way to promote the relationship (accommodation)
- they will put their partners interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
- they will forgive them for any serious transgressions (forgiveness)
- there is also a cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair - committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in a specific and predictable way
- they are unrealistically positive about their partner to their face and to others (positive illusions)
- they are negative about tempting positives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives)
Outline Duck’s phase model
- Duck proposed a model of relationship breakdown
- he argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one off event, but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases
- each phase is marked by one partner, or both, reaching a ‘threshold’ - a point at which the perception of the relationship changes
- the road to break up begins once a partner realises that they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed about the way things are going
Intra-psychic phase:
Threshold - ; I can’t stand this anymore’, indicating a determination that something has to change
- the focus of this phase is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual
- the dissatisfied partner worries about the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner shortcomings
- the partner mulls their thoughts over privately, and may share them with a trusted friend
- they weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives
- they begin to make plans for the future
Dyadic phase:
Threshold - they eventually come to the conclusion ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’
- the focus is on interpersonal processes between the two partners
- there comes a point where they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer
- there is a series of confrontations, in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired
- these are characterised by anxiety, hostility, most likely complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles, and the rethinking of the commitment that kept the partners together
- there are two possible outcomes:
-> a determination to continue breaking up the relationship
-> a renewed desire to repair it
- if the rescue attempts fail, another threshold is reached
- ironically, self-disclosures may become deeper and more frequent in this phase, as partners express thoughts and feelings they have been withdrawing in the intra-psychic phase
Social phase:
Threshold - the dissatisfied partner concludes ‘I mean it’
- the focus is on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks
- the break-up is made public
- partners will seek support and try to forge pacts
- mutual friends find they are expected to choose a side
- gossip is traded and encouraged
- some friends provide reinforcement and reassurance, and others will place blame on the partner or the other
- some may hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret information
- others may pitch in and try to help repair the relationship
- this is usually the point of no return - the break-up takes on a momentum driven by social forces
Grave dressing phase:
Threshold - ‘it is now inevitable’
- the focus of this phase is on the aftermath
- once the relationship is dead, the time comes to bury it by spinning a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption
- this allows the partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation, usually at the expense of the other partner, showing them in a bad light
- gossip plays an important role in this phase
- it is crucial each partner tries to retain some ‘social credit’ by blaming circumstances, your partner or other people, or everything and everyone but themselves
- grave dressing also involves creating a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one
- this is more to do with tidying up memories of the relationship, with a certain degree of rewriting of history
- the traits you found endearing in your partner at the start of the relationship are now reinterpreted in a much more negative fashion
- a ‘wild and unpredictable nature’ is now seen as an ‘irresponsible failure to settle down’
- the dissatisfied partner finally reaches the threshold, ‘time to get a new life’
Outline virtual relationships in social media
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships:
Reduced cues theory-
- according to Sproull and Kiesler, virtual relationships are less effective than face-to-face ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in face-to-face interactions
- these include non-verbal cues, such as our physical appearance, and especially cues to our emotional state
- this reduces a person’s sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (de-individuation), which in turn leads to disinhibition
- many people then feel free to communicate in blunt and even aggressive ways
- people are unlikely to want to express their real thoughts and feelings to someone who is so impersonal
The hyperpersonal model -
- Walther argues that virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than face-to-face ones
- this is because virtual relationships can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, and once established, they are more intense and intimate
- there are two key features of hyperpersonal self disclosure in virtual relationships:
-> The sender of a message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send than they would in a face-to-face situation. This is selective self-preservation. The sender manipulates their self image to present them self in an idealised way. To achieve this, self disclosures can be in both intensely truthful (hyperhonest) and/or intensely false (hyperdishonest)
-> The receiver gains a positive impression of the sender, and they make a feedback that reinforces the sender’s selective self-preservation
- another factor that promotes online self-disclosure, and makes virtual relationships hyperpersonal, is anonymity
- Bargh et al point out that the outcome of this is like the strangers on a train effect in face-to-face relationships
- when you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour, meaning you may well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to even your most intimate partner
The effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships:
What is a ‘gate’? -
- a gate is any obstacle to forming a relationship
- face-to-face interaction is gated in that it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship
- examples of gates include physical attractiveness, facial disfigurement, a stammer, and social anxiety
Benefits and drawbacks -
- a key feature of virtual relationships is that most of these gates are absent
- this means a virtual relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper
- therefore, the relationship can get off the ground in a way that is less likely to happen face-to-face
- absence of gating works by re-focusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features
- a benefit of gates being absent is that the individual is free to be more like their ‘true selves’
- on the other hand, there is scope for people to create untrue identities and deceive people in ways that they could never manage face-to-face
- a person can change their gender or age, an introvert become an extrovert, a plain person the worlds 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
Outline parasocial relationships
Levels of parasocial relationships:
- McCutcheon developed the celebrity attitude scale (CAS)
- this was used in a large-scale survey by Maltby et al, who identified 3 levels of parasocial relationship:
Entertainment-social -> this is the least intense level of celebrity worship. At this level, celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction. For example, friends with an interest in soap operas might enjoy discussing stories in OK magazine about actors on EastEnders. Giles 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 ‘soulmate’.
Borderline-pathological -> this is the strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. These might include spending 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 absorption addiction model:
- McCutcheon linked the levels approach to the deficiencies people have in their own lives
- for example, a person may have a low self-esteem and lack fulfilment in their everyday relationships
- someone who initially has an entertainment-social orientation to a certain celebrity may be triggered into more intense involvement by some personal crisis or stressful life events
- the parasocial relationship allows them to ‘escape from reality’
- the absorption addiction model has two components:
-> absorption - seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, to become preoccupied with the celebrity and identify with them
-> addiction - just as with a physiological addiction to a psychoactive substance, the individual needs to increase their ‘dose’ in order to gain satisfaction, which may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking, for example, stalking a celebrity because they believe that the celebrity really wants to reciprocate their feelings, but someone, the celebrities manager perhaps, is stopping the celebrity from getting involved
Attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships:
- psychologists have suggested that there is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood
- Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested such early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in life
- Ainsworth identified two attachment types associated with unhealthy emotional development, which are insecure-resistant and insecure-avoidant
- insecure-resistant types are most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults, because they seek to have unfulfilled needs met, but in a relationship that is not accompanied by the threat of rejection, break up, and disappointment that real-life relationship bring
- insecure-avoidant types, on the other hand, prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether, whether they be social or parasocial
