Relationships

Question 1

Outline what is meant by an evolutionary approach, including the terms: natural selection and sexual selection

Answer 1

-evolutionary approaches explain human behaviour in terms of adaptiveness and reproductive success
-they argue that if a behavioural feature, e.g. partner selection, has been genetically inherited by one generation from another, then it must have a specific value for the human species
-it might either help humans adapt better to the environment and survive (natural selection) or might help to attract a mate and have healthy offspring (sexual selection)

Question 2

Explain how anisogamy influences human reproductive behaviour

Answer 2

-anisogamy = differences between the male and female sex cells
-sperm:
-produced in large quantities
-replenish quickly
-created continuously from puberty to old age

-eggs or ova:
-take a lot of energy to produce
-created in limited numbers during specific time intervals
-production only lasts for a certain number of years

Male strategies to achieve reproductive success:
-before DNA testing was invented, there was no way to prove a male as the father of a particular child
-hence, a successful strategy for men would involve having sex with, and impregnating, as many women as possible in order to pass on their genes successfully

-but women spend more energy producing an egg, and carrying a child in the womb for nine months
-means she needs a partner who will be committed to the relationship in the long run and provide resources for her and the child, ensuring the child’s survival

-Buss (1989) surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries
-found females universally place more importance on resource-related characteristics in a partner, e.g. ambition, high intelligence and good financial prospects
-males, however, preferred younger mates and put more value on signs of a female’s ability to reproduce, e.g. attractiveness and modesty

-according to Buss (1995), males tend to be more jealous of their partner’s sexual infidelity as this could result in a male raising someone else’s child
-in contrast, females are more jealous of their partner’s emotional infidelity, as this may result in the withdrawal of resources from the female and the child, thereby putting the child’s survival at risk

Question 3

Explain how inter-sexual influences human reproductive behaviour

Answer 3

-females’ invest more time, energy and resources in raising a child, so they need to be more careful when choosing a partner
-their partner must the right genetic fit, by being willing to and able to provide the necessary resources, to support them and their child

-Clark and Hatfield (1989) asked male and female student volunteers to approach opposite-sex students individually on a university campus
-had to ask them the same three questions: ‘I’ve noticed you around the campus. I find you very attractive. Will you go on a date with me/come back to my apartment/go to bed with me tonight?’
-around 50% of both males and females agreed to go on a date
-69% of males accepted the invitation to visit the female’s apartment but only 6% of women
-75% of males agreed to go to bed with the females, but not a single female said ‘yes’ to the same request

Question 4

Explain how intra-sexual selection influences human reproductive behaviour

Answer 4

-evolutionary features that male to compete with other males for a female mate
-winner reproduces and passes on the genes that contributed to his success
-e.g. a physically stronger and larger male will be able to fight off his competitors for access to the female, so he will produce physically stronger sons
-male’s optimal mating strategy for success is mating with as many female partners as possible

-intra-sexual selection can explain differences in physical dimorphism: body size and physical appearance between males and females
-as males need to compete with other males for access to a fertile female mate, sexual selection favours physically strong and aggressive males
-however, females do not need to physically compete for a mate, meaning that physical strength and aggression holds no evolutionary advantage for them

Question 5

Explain how sexual selection and mates’ choice influences human reproductive behaviour

Answer 5

-principles of sexual selection mean that males and females use different strategies to select a suitable mate
-human females do not advertise their fertility openly, unlike some animal species (e.g. redness and swelling of the genitalia of female baboons)
-so males have evolved to pay attention to other signs in a human females’ appearance that show her ability to produce healthy offspring

-Buss (1989) has discovered that males universally put importance on attractive and healthy looks and youth, which are signs of fertility in humans

-Singh (1993, 2002) studied measurements of the waist-to-hip ratio of the winners of the Miss America contest for a decade
-found that men generally found any waist and hip sizes attractive, as long as a ratio between them is approximately 0.7
-men unconsciously interpret this as a sign that the woman is fertile but not currently pregnant

-women, on the other hand, have adapted to look for the signs of male’s ability to provide resources and protect themselves and a child
-e.g. Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) researched ‘lonely hearts’ columns in American newspapers
-discovered that women tended to describe themselves in terms of physical attractiveness and youth (‘exciting, flirty, curvy’)
-however, men advertised their resources and intelligence more than women did

Question 6

Evaluate evolutionary explanations for partner preferences.

Answer 6

Limitation - ignores significant social and cultural changes that Western societies have experienced in the past 100 years
-e.g. advancements in gender equality and women’s independence
-Kasser and Sharma (1999) conducted analysis of 37 cultures
-found females mostly valued a mate with resources in societies where women’s access to education and the workplace was severely limited
-however, women in modern Western societies may no longer be looking for a man to provide them with resources
-hence other qualities become more important
-e.g. thoughtfulness or sense of humour
-means that evolutionary explanations only explain human mate choice in terms of evolutionary adaptiveness
-ignores other important factors, such as culture and social norms
-furthermore, lacks temporal validity
-outdated explanation

Limitation - most studies into females’ choice of mates were carried out on undergraduate students
-these women were expected to achieve a high education status leading to a secure income
-so their preference for high-status men may stem from similar interests and prospects, rather than an innate mechanism
-questionable validity
-furthermore, research often takes a retrospective approach
-largely based on speculations about possible evolutionary adaptations for our ancestors
-no reliable way to check validity of these suggestions

Limitation - overly simplistic explanation
-Penton-Voak et al. (1999) found that females’ mate preferences change across the menstrual cycle
-females preferred a partner with strongly expressed masculine features during their fertile period
-but preferred a partner with slightly feminised features as a long-term mate
-may be due to masculine appearance suggests a healthier immune system
-which would be advantageous to pass to offspring
-slightly feminine features suggest kindness and parental cooperation which are desirable traits in a long-term partner
-suggests these differences must be considered when drawing conclusions

Limitation - evolutionary reductionism
-argue that strategies for choosing a mate are the result of genetic inheritance and a striving for reproductive success
-however, individual differences in partner’s choice play a huge part.
-e.g. evolutionary explanations fail to account for homosexual relationships as the choice of partner does not result in reproductive success
-hence doesn’t have an evolutionary advantage
-furthermore, deterministic and ignores role of free will
-claim that choice strategies are determined by a person’s gender and that humans are attracted to people who will provide or care for offspring

Limitation - suffers from alpha bias:
-emphasise the differences in what males and females look for in a potential partner.
-can argue that males and females look for similar characteristics,
-e.g. loyalty and kindness
-such characteristics are not reported in the research, which tends to look for marked differences

Question 7

Outline self-disclosure as a factor affecting relationships

Answer 7

-idea that relationship formation is built on trust with another person
-demonstrated by gradually revealing personal information, e.g. thoughts, feelings and experiences that they might share with anyone else

-disclosing thoughts and feelings leads to greater intimacy in romantic relationships, and ultimately to more satisfaction

-self-disclosure is a central concept in Social Penetration Theory proposed by Altman and Taylor (1973)

-claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences and listening to their reciprocal sharing, people gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust

-self-disclosure has two dimensions: breadth and depth

-initially people often share a lot of information about certain aspects of themselves (breadth), but consider some topics to be ‘off-limit’ (depth).

-e.g. may only reveal superficial details, e.g. hobbies

-as they build trust in their partner’s understanding, breadth and depth increases. I

-gradually move to revealing more intimate details, e.g. religious and political beliefs, family values and difficult experiences

Question 8

Outline Sprecher et al. (2013) research into self-disclosure

Answer 8

-university students from America were paired in either female-female or male-female dyads
-unacquainted pairs engaged in a Skype conversation

-in one condition, the dyads alternated with making personal self-disclosures
-in the second condition, self-disclosure was not reciprocal

-individuals reported a greater liking, closeness and similarity when self-disclosure was reciprocal

-hence reciprocity of self-disclosure, has more positive outcomes for attraction in relationships than one-sided self-disclosure

Question 9

Evaluate self-disclosure as a factor affecting relationships

Answer 9

Strength - research support
e.g. Hass and Hartford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women considered open and honest self-disclosure as an important strategy to maintain close relationships
-demonstrates importance of self-disclosure in romantic relationships
-furthermore, provides real-world applications in relationship counselling
-allows partners with limited communication skills can focus on developing self-disclosure
-in turn improves their relationship satisfaction

Strength - research support for the importance of establishing trust in a partner before revealing more intimate information about ourselves
-‘boom and bust’ phenomenon in online relationships, described by Cooper and Sportolari (1997)
-found that anonymity of online interactions gave web-users a sense of security and made them disclose personal information much earlier in relationships than they would face-to-face
-makes relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’)
-however, due to the necessary trust foundation had not been established, the intensity of the relationship was impossible to sustain
-leads to break-up (‘bust’).
-shows that breadth of relationships needs to be established first, before proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, just as Social Penetration Theory suggests

Strength - further research support:
-Laurenceau et al. (2005) asked participants to write a daily diary entry
-found greater self-disclosure improved perception of partner
-hence led to greater intimacy
-similarly, couples who complained about a lack of intimacy self-disclosed less often
-shows important role of self-disclosure in deepening intimacy and attraction to romantic partner

-Limitation - most support for the concept of self-disclosure comes from correlational research
-there is undoubtedly a link between self-disclosure and greater relationship satisfaction
-but cause and effect cannot be established
-reduces validity of the concept
-however, the concept of self-disclosure has strong everyday life applications
-e.g. it could help improve partners’ communication skills in intimate relationships
-by deliberately increasing self-disclosure, couples can achieve higher intimacy and relationship satisfaction
-shows that Social Penetration Theory can be used to enhance romantic relationship experiences.

Limitation - Social Penetration Theory is unable to adequately explain the formation of all types of relationships
-limited by taking a nomothetic approach
-by claiming that higher self-disclosure will invariably lead to greater relationship satisfaction, this theory ignores many other factors that can influence relationships
-e..g. cultural practices and personality
-furthermore, by reducing relationship satisfaction to a single factor, it ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction
-e.g. physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity
-suggests that research into romantic relationships could benefit from the use of an idiographic approach that studies couples’ unique experiences in detail, rather than trying to establish a set of laws that apply to all couples.

Limitation - Social Penetration Theory was developed based on research in a Western, individualist culture
-may not apply to collectivist cultures
-e.g. Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than romantic partners in China;
-however the level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures
-shows that self-disclosure is not a requirement for successful relationships in all cultures
-makes Social Penetration Theory culturally biased.

Question 10

Outline physical attractiveness as a factor affecting relationships, including the Matching Hypothesis

Answer 10

-Matching Hypothesis states that a person’s choice of partner is a balance between a desire to have the most physically attractive partner possible and their wish to avoid being rejected by someone

-as a result, people often choose a partner who has roughly the same level of physical attractiveness, such as facial beauty or handsomeness, as themselves

-however, in order for the two partners to be matched, a realistic judgement must be placed on one’s own physical attractiveness in the first place

-a person may desire the most attractive mate possible

-but a compromise must be struck in order to avoid rejection by someone who does not believe them to be equally physically attractive

-often, there is a discrepancy between what level of physical attractiveness a partner would like in a potential mate and what they have to settle for ultimately

-if the Matching Hypothesis brings two partners of equal physical attractiveness together, it is proposed that both parties will feel more secure in their romantic union with one another

-as less fear or jealousy that temptation from other, more physically attractive, prospective partners may bring about the end of the relationship

Question 11

Describe research into physical attractiveness as a factor affecting relationships

Answer 11

Halo effect:
-Palmer and Peterson (2012) asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be
-found that attractive people were consistently rated higher on these characteristics compared to unattractive ones
-furthermore, Dion et al. (1972) found that attractive people are consistently rated as successful, kind and sociable compared to unattractive people
-means that we not only believe that good-looking people are more physically attractive, we expect them to have other desirable characteristics
-consequently, this also means that we tend to behave more positively towards attractive people.

Walster at al. (1966)
Aim: To examine the Matching Hypothesis.
Methods: Researchers advertised a ‘computer dance’ for fresher students in the first week of college at the University of Minnesota. The first 376 male and 376 female volunteers (752 total) were let in for $1.00. Four independent judges secretly rated the students in terms of attractiveness whilst they were collecting their tickets. Participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire. They were told that the data would be used to determine the similarity between the males and female students, in order to find them the ideal partner for the dance. However, pairing of dates was done completely at random for the dance which was held two days later. During intervals at the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a subsequent date with them.
Results: Once the participants had been paired in a male and female partnership for the dance, partners responded more positively to others who had been rated as physically attractive by the independent judges, irrespective of their own level of attractiveness. This pattern was also echoed in willingness to ask out the paired partner on another date. Females who were rated as physically attractive were frequently asked out on a second date by males who were not rated as physically attractive.
Conclusion: Contrary to the Matching Hypothesis, students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.

Question 12

Evaluate research into physical attractiveness as a factor affecting relationships, including the Matching Hypothesis

Answer 12

Limitation - research has failed to provide conclusive evidence for the Matching Hypothesis
-e.g. Taylor et al. (2011) found that dating website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them
-these findings contradict the Matching Hypothesis
-it predicts that website users should seek more dates with a person who is similar in terms of attractiveness
-because it provides them with a better chance of being accepted by a potential partner

Limitation - significant individual differences
-people place on physical attractiveness in terms of relationships
-Towhey (1979) gave participants photos of strangers and some biographical information about them
-participants were asked to rate how much they liked the people on photographs
-found that physical attractiveness was more important for participants who displayed sexist attitudes (measured by a specially designed questionnaire)
-suggests that physical appearance may not always be a significant factor in attractiveness, while the Matching Hypothesis suggests it is always the main one

Limitation - mainly applies to short-term relationships
-when choosing a partner for long-term relationships, people tend to focus more on the similarity of values, rather than physical attractiveness
-lowers the validity of the Matching Hypothesis
-as it will only describe a limited number of relationships
-furthermore, the Matching Hypothesis ignores the fact that people may compensate for the lack of physical attractiveness with other qualities, such as intellect or sociability
-this compensation explains repeatedly occurring examples of older, less attractive men being married to attractive younger women
-the Matching Hypothesis cannot account for this

Strength - physical attractiveness seems to be an important factor in forming relationships across cultures
-e.g. Cunningham et al. (1995) found that White, Asian and Hispanic males, despite being from different cultures, rated females with prominent cheekbones, small noses and large eyes as highly attractive
-universality of findings suggests that using attractiveness as a decisive factor in choosing a partner might be a genetically reproduced mechanism, aiding sexual selection
-supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate
-as it shows that human behaviour is mainly a result of biological influences, rather than environmental ones

Limitation - suffers from beta-bias
-assumes that men and women are very similar when it comes to the importance of physical attractiveness
-but research contradicts this
-e.g. Meltzer et al. (2014) found that men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive
-for women their partner’s attractiveness did not have a significant impact on their relationship satisfaction
-shows that it may not be possible to generalise the theory to both genders

Question 13

Outline Filter Theory as a factor affecting relationships, including:
-social demography
-similarity of attitudes
-complementarity

Answer 13

-there are several levels of filters that people apply
-the first level is that of sociodemographic characteristics, such as physical proximity, level of education, social class and religion
-people are more likely to build relationships with people who are geographically close, and with whom they are meeting frequently, as this gives them a greater chance to find out more about one another given the greater accessibility

-people find similarities in education, social class and religious beliefs attractive, as this gives them assurance that relationships are more likely to move forward
-tend to view others as more attractive if they share the same core beliefs and values, such as views on career and importance of family
-Byrne (1997) noted that similarity of attitudes is especially important for couples who have been together fewer than 18 months
-presence or absence of similarities is discovered through self-disclosure, which leads to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple
-if partners have very little in common, however, relationships rarely develop beyond the first few dates and come to an end

-complementarity: each partner has some traits that the other partner lacks and helping each other to fulfil their needs
-e.g. one partner may enjoy meeting new people but the other may not enjoy being initiating social encounters themselves
-hence these two people would complement one other
-Winch (1957) found that similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples at the beginning of relationships
-complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships
-appealing notion for partners as it appears that the coming together of two halves created a whole in the union of their relationship

Question 14

Describe Kerckhoff and Davis’ (1962) research into filter theory

Answer 14

-longitudinal study
-94 participant couples from Duke University in America answered two questionnaires
-one assessed shared values and attitudes
-the other was designed to ascertain the extent to which the individual needed complementarity in a relationship
-7 months later, the couple completed a third questionnaire asking them to rate closeness to their partner from the beginning of the study to the present day
-initial analysis showed only similarity between partners appeared to be related to ratings of closeness towards a partner
-however, results of couples in a short-term relationship (>18 months) and long-term relationships were compared
-other differences appeared in the findings
-couples in short-term relationships rated shared values and attitudes as the most important factor in feeling close to their romantic partner
-couples in long-term relationships thought complementarity indicated closeness in their partnership
-hence provides research support for the filter theory of romantic relationships
-shows that complementarity is the most important in relationships over 18-months long in duration and before that time, similarity of attitudes is most important

Question 15

Evaluate filter theory

Answer 15

Strength - research support
-Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) carried out a longitudinal study across 7-year intervals from 1956-1984 with 169 couples
-found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship
-furthermore, couples who had been together for longer than 21 years showed more flexibility in attitudes
-demonstrates importance of sociodemographic factors, e.g. age and education
-supports idea that people are more likely to meet and build relationships with people who are geographically close and share similarities in their background

Limitation - may be less relevant today than when it was first proposed
-sociodemographic factors, in particular, may not play as big a role in the development of relationships today
-as the development of technology, such as dating websites and apps, greatly affects modern relationships
-compared with 20-30 years ago, people nowadays are more likely to develop relationships with someone who is not in their geographical proximity or from the same culture
-makes the Filter Theory’s claims less valid
-suggests that the theory lacks temporal validity
-needs to be updated to consider more modern methods of dating

Limitation - subsequent research has failed to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ original findings
-Levenger (1974) claims that this may be due to the difficulty of correlating length and depth of relationships
-hard to define what constitutes short-term and long-term relationships
-e.g. Kerckhoff and Davis set the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months
-assumes that if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment
-however, this doesn’t apply to all couples, especially homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures
-some couples take much longer than 18 months to establish similarity of attitudes and complementarity, whereas others take much less time
-suggests that other factors, e.g. type of relationship, play a significant role in the development of romantic relationships

Limitation - most research support uses participants from individualist, Western cultures
-they value free will with regard to relationship choice and partner preferences
-in these cultures, people may apply the criteria described by the Filter Theory freely and usually without much influence from other people
-however, in collectivist cultures, it is common for romantic relationships to be arranged
-so partners are not free to apply individual filters to select their future spouse
-means that Filter Theory suffers from cultural bias
-as it assumes that the rules of partner choice in Western cultures apply to relationships universally

Limitation - reductionist
-bases explanation of a complex phenomenon, like romantic relationships, on the application of a series of filters
-limits the range of real-life romantic experiences it can explain
-e.g. Filter Theory does not explain why many people stay a long time in abusive relationships despite the lack of complementarity
-suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining the complexity of relationship maintenance

Question 16

Outline Social Exchange Theory of romantic relationships

Answer 16

-Thibaut and Kelly (1959) claim that partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards, such as companionship, praise, emotional support and sex, and minimise costs such as stress, arguments, compromises and time commitments
-suggest that people also use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationships are
-the first level, called Comparison Level (CL), is based on person’s idea of how much reward they deserve to receive in relationships
-becomes a benchmark for judging relationships
-hence subjective and depends on previous romantic experiences and cultural norms of what is appropriate to expect from relationships
-these norms can be reinforced by books, films and TV programmes
-closely linked to person’s self-esteem
-person with high self-esteem will have higher expectations of rewards in relationships
-people consider relationships worth pursuing if the Comparison Level is equal to, or better than, what they have experienced in their previous relationships
-for a relationship to have a strong foundation moving forward, perceived profits from the relationship must be above the Comparison Level for both partners

-the second level = Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt)
-concerns a person’s perception of whether other potential relationships (or being on their own) would be more rewarding than being in their current relationship
-people will stick to their current relationships as long as they find them to be more profitable than the alternatives
-on the other hand, the more profitable a comparable partnership may seem, the less likely an individual is to remain dependent on their current relationship for satisfaction
-however, according to some psychologists, e.g. Duck (1994), if people consider themselves to be content in their current relationships, they may not even notice that there are other available alternatives in the first place

Thibaut and Kelly suggest all relationships proceed through a series of stages:
Sampling stage:
-people explore potential rewards and costs of relationships
-either by direct experience or by observing others

Bargaining stage:
-first stage of any romantic relationship
-partners exchange rewards and costs, figure out the most profitable exchanges and negotiate the dynamics of the relationship

Commitment stage:
-relationships become more stable
-partners become familiar with sources of rewards and costs and each other’s expectations

Institutionalisation stage:
-costs and rewards are well established

Question 17

Describe research examining Social Exchange Theory.

Answer 17

-Floyd et al. (1994) found that commitment develops when couples are satisfied with, and feel rewarded in, a relationship and when they perceive that equally attractive or more attractive alternative relationships are unavailable to them

-however, Argyle (1987) argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them
-e.g. being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships as well as the potential alternatives
-but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered
-contradicts SET, as it assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones

-Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) used a sample of homosexual and heterosexual couples, some of whom were married or co-habiting
-each individual within the couples completed a questionnaire that measured the importance of social exchange factors in their relationship satisfaction, without discussing their responses with their spouse or partner
-all couples always reported relationship satisfaction as higher when the partners perceived the benefits of the current relationship to outweigh the costs (Comparison Level)
-alternatives to the relationship were deemed as a less attractive option (Comparison Level for Alternatives)
-shows that SET concepts can be applied, with confidence, to homosexual relationships in addition to heterosexual relationships

Question 18

Evaluate Social Exchange Theory.

Answer 18

Strength - research support
-e.g. Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for Alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship, whilst rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women
-can be concluded that some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs (in particular, Comparison Level for alternatives)
-appears that some people do stay in their current relationship while it remains more profitable than the alternatives

Limitation - key concepts are very difficult to define
-notion of rewards and costs is highly subjective
-it is not clear how much more attractive alternatives should become, or by how much costs should outweigh the rewards, for the person to start feeling dissatisfied
-Furthermore, SET assumes that from the beginning of a relationship partners keep some kind of tally of profit and loss
-Clark and Mills (2011) argue that while this may be true of work interactions between colleagues, it is rarely the case in romantic relationships, where rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score
-other research findings suggest that it is not a balance of rewards and costs, but rather perceived fairness of relationships, that keeps partners happy and committed to the relationships
-weakens validity of SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of social relationships
-costs also seem to change over time
-e.g. what seems costly initially may become less costly

Strength - many useful real-life applications
-e.g. Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT)
-Christensen et al. (2004) found that about two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved
-they were feeling much happier as a result of it
-during the therapy sessions partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns
-shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life
-demonstrates its real-world application and benefit for relationships

Limitation - lacks mundane realism
-most research into SET is based on studying strangers that are involved in some kind of game-based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed during the game
-e.g. Emerson and Cook (1978) designed a laboratory experiment where each of the 112 participants were bargaining with a partner to maximise their personal score in a computer game
-the ‘relationships’ between these partners do not accurately reflect real-life romantic relationships
-which are based on getting to know another person and establishing trust
-hence these studies lack internal validity
-makes SET less applicable to real-life romantic relationships

Limitation - nomothetic approach to studying relationships
-tries to uncover universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples
-however, the ways in which relationships are maintained vary significantly from couple to couple
-hence an individually based, in-depth idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships

Limitation - deterministic view of romantic relationships
-according to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship
-however, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships without feeling dissatisfied
-e.g. when one partner is chronically ill
-as a result, the predictive validity of SET is very limited
-cannot establish with significant certainty whether a person will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship, based on the costs and rewards they are getting from it
-undermines the scientific claim of SET
-as unable to predict human behaviour with a degree of certainty
-which is one of the main objectives for psychology to be accepted as a science

Question 19

Outline the Equity Theory of romantic relationships

Answer 19

-suggests that people are concerned about fairness in a relationship
-this is achieved when people feel they get approximately what they deserve from a relationship
-suggests that the winning formula of fairness in relationships is when one partner’s benefits minus their costs, should equal another partner’s benefits minus their costs

-Utne et al. (1984) used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples
-118 participants aged between 16 and 45 had been together for 2 years or more before marrying
-found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them.
-if one partner perceives a relationship as unfair, however, they are going to be dissatisfied with it regardless of whether they are over-benefitting or under-benefitting
-a person who gets more benefits out of relationships than they put in will feel guilt and shame
-those who think they put a lot in but get very little back will be angry and resentful
-the longer this lack of equity goes on, the more likely a couple is to break up their relationship
-not about the number of rewards and costs, but rather about the balance between them
-if a person puts a lot into a relationship and receives a lot, it will feel fair to them

-perception of equity changes over time
-e.g. it is perfectly normal for many people to put in more than they receive at the beginning of a relationship
-but if it carries on like that for too long, it will lead to dissatisfaction
-additionally, a partner’s way of dealing with inequity also changes with time
-what seemed unfair in the beginning may become a norm as relationships progress, or the partner who gives more may start working even harder on the relationship until the balance is restored

Question 20

Describe research examining Equity Theory.

Answer 20

-Schaffer and Keith (1980) investigated relationship satisfaction over the course of a marriage
-focused on equity and depression
-333 married couples of varying ages = stratified sample of the local population
-completed a questionnaire about their feelings of equity in their relationship
-researchers noted that during periods of child-rearing, females were more likely to report that they were under-benefitting from their relationships
-whereas male were more likely to report that they were over-benefitting during these years
-therefore, overall marital satisfaction for wives has peaks (honeymoon period) and troughs (early child-rearing years)

-Hatfield and Rapson (2011) also noted that a couples’ perception of equity changes depending on the stage of the relationship
-in the early days of a fledgling relationship, fairness and equity appears to pay a more important role in satisfaction
-once both partners feel committed to one another and the relationship, day-to-day rewards pale into insignificance
-long-term married partners cite that they do not keep a record, mental or otherwise, of costs and benefits

-Stafford and Canary (2006) investigated role of equity in marriage satisfaction
-over 200 married couples answered questions designed to measure equity in their relationship and overall satisfaction with their relationship
-couples were also asked about the division of household tasks and chores and levels of positivity in their relationship
-some questions focused on maintenance strategies used in the relationship
-e.g. providing assurances of love and commitment and placing an emphasis on demonstrating affection to the spouse
-found that satisfaction was higher in relationships which couples believed were equitable
-next highest cohort who reported satisfaction were those partners who over-benefitted from their spouse
-the least satisfied couples were those where at least one partner under-benefitted from the relationship
-it was noted that males who under-benefitted from their spouse were least likely to demonstrate assurances and affection.
-positive correlation between relationship satisfaction and equity, with spouses reporting higher levels of equitability in their couples being the happiest

Question 21

Evaluate Equity Theory

Answer 21

Strength - research support animal studies
-Brosnan and de Waal (2003) observed behaviour of capuchin monkeys in an attempt to find evidence for the role of equity and fairness in primate relationships
-when female monkeys were playing a game where they received a highly desirable prize of grapes, the researchers noted that females became extremely angry if they were denied this reward
-if a different monkey, who had not participated in the game, was given the prize of grapes instead of the female participating in a bid to win them, the monkeys demonstrated aggression towards the experimenters
-a later study (Brosnan et al (2005)) showed that chimps were most upset by an injustice in a casual relationship with another primate than in a more intimate relationship
-suggests that the explanations for romantic relationships, including Equity Theory, have an evolutionary basis

Limitation - contradictory research
-e.g. Berg and McQuinn (1986) conducted a longitudinal study on 38 dating couples
-did not find any increase in equity over time
-but discovered that a high level of self-disclosure and perceived equity in the beginning of the relationships was a strong predictor that a couple would stay in their relationship
-furthermore, low equity in the beginning was a reliable predictor of a break-up
-so it seems that perceived fairness is either present or not in relationships from the start, and does not develop with time, contrary to the prediction of Equity Theory
-findings oppose the central claim of the theory
-contradicts idea that equity increases over time, after the initiation of a romantic relationship

Limitation - issue with determining cause and effect with Equity Theory
-some researchers suggest that dissatisfaction may be the cause, not the consequence, of perceived inequity
-however, Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) studied married couples
-found that dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships increased with time, not the other way around
-furthermore, there are also some important individual differences in perception of equity
-Hussman et al. (1987) found that some people are less sensitive to inequity and are prepared to give more in the relationships (called benevolents)
-whereas other people, entitleds, believe they deserve to over-benefit from relationships and don’t feel too guilty about this
-means that the notions of Equity Theory cannot be reliably applied to all people
-as cannot expect that it will be able to explain their romantic relationships with confidence

Limitation - ignores important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness
-researchers, such as Sprecher (1992), found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting
-however, DeMaris et al. (1998) suggest that women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to injustices
-results indicate clear gender differences between males and females
-highlights importance of conducting research into males and females separately
-to avoid gender bias
-however, this may result in an alpha bias and exaggerate differences between males and females that do not actually exist

Limitation - does not account for important cultural differences
-Aumer-Ryan et al. (2006) show that the concept of equity is more important in Western cultures than non-Western cultures
-found that both men and women from non-Western (collectivist) cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationships when they were over-benefitting from it, not when the relationships were fair
-highlight a culture bias in this area of research
-suggest that Equity Theory does not explain the development of romantic relationships in all cultures

Question 22

Outline the Investment Model of romantic relationships, including commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.

Answer 22

-proposed by Rusbult (1980) as a development of Social Exchange Theory (SET)
-SET was developed further as many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards
-hence there must be other factors that keep them together
-Rusbult’s Investment Model attempts to explain what these other factors might be
-there are three major factors that lead to commitment in relationships:
-satisfaction level
-comparison with alternatives
-investment size

Commitment
-partner’s desire to remain in a couple
-reflects their intention to have a long-term future together
-Rusbult believes that commitment acts as a maintenance factor in romantic relationships
-even if the couple encounter difficulties in their partnership, they will not want to see their respective investments going to waste by breaking up
-means that a couple will attempt to work through their ‘rough patch’, to repair their relationship
-commitment can also be seen as a consequence of increasing dependence in a romantic relationship
-e.g. if a partner is relatively satisfied with their relationship, has no suitable alternatives which are more desirable and has investments in the partnership that they do not want to walk away from, dependence upon that relationship may be the result

Satisfaction
-based upon the notion of comparison level as seen in Social Exchange Theory
-partners will have a higher level of satisfaction with their relationship if they receive more rewards
-e.g. companionship, attention, emotional support
-but also incur fewer costs
-e.g. arguments, time)
-to measure satisfaction, a partner must internally offset the perceived positivity from the relationship against any negativity, with an emergent result that feels gratifying to them personally
-satisfaction may be felt with equal domestic task sharing divisions in the household, compassionate interactions between both partners and through the meeting of sexual desires

Comparison with Alternatives
-judgement that is made by one, or both, of the partners in a romantic relationship about whether or not they could receive greater satisfaction by terminating the current partnership
-partners tend to be committed to a relationship if there are no alternatives that are more satisfying

Investment
-most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment
-number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, such as happy memories together, that people will lose if they leave the relationship
-intrinsic investment comprises the things partners put directly into the romantic relationship
-e.g. effort, money, possessions and self- disclosure
-extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people’s life through the relationships
-e.g. children, friends and shared memories
-as both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. (2011) concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in the relationship
-hence it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives

Question 23

Describe research examining the Investment Model.

Answer 23

Strength - plentiful research support
-Impett, Beals and Peplau (2002) conducted a longitudinal study using a large sample of 3,627 married couples over an 18-month period
-age range of the participants was 17-79 years old for the males and 17-77 for the females
-results indicated that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment were all important factors in determining commitment to a marriage
-supports Rusbult’s ideas
-found that stability of the marital relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners
-remained an accurate predictor when measured again 18-months later

-Rhahgan and Axsom (2006) interviewed a group of females who were resident in a women’s refuge
-asked them why they had remained in an abusive relationship
-found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment featured in participants’ decision to stay with their partner
-the highest level of commitment was shown by those women who felt that their investment in the relationship was high and their economic alternatives were poor

Le and Agnew (2003) conducted meta-analysis of 53 studies comprising 60 independent samples and 11,582 participants in total spanning from the late 1970s until the late 1990s
-data from five countries were represented (UK, USA, Israel, Taiwan and the Netherlands)
-division of male and female participants was 54% and 46% respectively
-each piece of research included in the meta-analysis had explored the main components of Rusbult’s Investment Theory: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment and their impact on commitment to the relationship.
-found that satisfaction with the relationship, comparison with alternatives, and investment in the partnership all correlated significantly with commitment to that union
-strongest correlation co- efficient of +0.68 was reported in the relationship between satisfaction and commitment, followed by the association between comparison with alternatives (-0.48) and then investment size and commitment (+0.46)
-lack of commitment to the relationship was a significant predictor of relationship breakdown.
-supports Rusbult’s Investment Theory model of romantic relationships
-as individuals showed the highest level of commitment to a partnership choosing to remain in the relationship
-on the other hand, partners with lower levels of commitment were more likely to leave

Question 24

Evaluate the Investment Model.

Answer 24

Limitation - most evidence for the Investment Model comes from interviews and questionnaires
-known to be subjective and unreliable
-however, other researchers argue that, as satisfaction, investment and commitment are subjective values and depend on people’s perception, using self-report techniques is an appropriate way to test the Investment Model
-hence data obtained through self-report techniques may provide a more realistic picture of reasons for relationship satisfaction and how it is related to investment and commitment
-increases validity of the Investment Model

Strength - provides an explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships
-according to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few
-research into abusive relationships supports this idea
-e.g. Rusbult and Maltz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women
-found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they did not have any appealing alternatives
-shows that the Investment Model can be applied to a wide range of relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain
-can be generalised to everyday relationships

Limitation - majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational
-psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships
-hence limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment, and how much investment, is needed for a long-term commitment to a relationship to develop
-furthermore, lack of predictive validity makes the theory less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people’s behaviour is one of the main goals of psychology as a science

Strength - does not suffer from cultural bias
-Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA
-furthermore, the Investment Model is shown to be valid for different sub-groups, e.g. friendships, homosexual relationships, cohabiting couples
-suggests Investment Model is universal
-can generalise to wide range of relationships

Strength - as evidence is found across cultures, it is possible that the human need for investment and commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive and reproduce
-e.g. parents who are committed to their relationship and invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children’s survival
-hence more likely to pass on their genes
-means that the Investment Model supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate

Question 25

Outline Duck’s model of relationship breakdown, including intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing phases

Answer 25

Intra-psychic stage:
-person admits to themselves that they are dissatisfied with their relationship
-will spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons for this dissatisfaction and possible ways to move forward
-threshold reached: “I can’t stand this anymore”

Dyadic phase:
-person confronts their partner and voices their dissatisfaction
-there are many complaints coming from the partner initiating the break-up
-common complaints involve a partner’s level of commitment to the relationship
-dissatisfied partner also rethinks the alternatives to their current relationships
-threshold reached: “I would be justified in withdrawing”

Social phase:
-involves friends and relatives by making their distress public
-friends and family will take sides, intervene in the couple’s relationship and offer advice
-makes reconciliation much more problematic
-usually leads to dissolution of the relationship
-threshold reached: “I mean it.”

Grave-dressing:
-closure of previous relationship and readiness to start new one
-both sides construct their version of why their relationship broke down
-usually minimise their faults and maximise their partner’s
-at the same time they try to show themselves as trustworthy and loyal to attract a new partner
-threshold reached: “It’s time to start a new life”

Question 26

Describe research examining Duck’s model of relationships breakdown.

Answer 26

Monroe et al (1999): the dissolution of a relationship is a very stressful event and many people experience anxiety and depression whilst going through it

Tashiro and Frazier (2003): ex-partners tend to view the end of a relationship more positively if they felt the situation was responsible for the break-up instead of themselves

Duck and Rollie (2006) proposed the resurrection phase as an additional phase
-after initial distress, people experience personal growth
-supported by Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study on undergraduates

LeFebvre et al. (2012) found that during breakups, 22% of students avoided Facebook, 22% changed their status, 10% checked on ex-partners, while many blocked or unfriended them

Question 27

Evaluate Duck’s model of relationships breakdown

Answer 27

Limitation - relies on retrospective data
-questionnaires or interviews used to ask participants about the break-up occur sometime after it happened
-people’s memories of the event may not be accurate
-may also be distorted by their current situation
-means that their answers may not be reliable
-as a result, Duck’s phase model, even though it seems to be supported by research, does not necessarily describe how break-up happens in real life
-weakens the model’s ability to present an accurate picture of relationship breakdown

Limitation - significant ethical issues involved in investigating relationship breakdown
-e.g. confidentiality and protection from psychological harm
-participants may experience distress in the process of the research
-particularly problematic if the research involves victims of domestic abuse
-makes the topic particularly difficult to investigate, as researchers need to conduct a study where the benefits of research outweigh a possible negative impact on participants

Limitation - social phase of Duck’s model is greatly affected by individual differences
-Dickson (1995) found that friends and relatives tend to see teenagers’ break-ups as less serious
-hence they will not put as much effort into reconciling partners as they perhaps would for an older couple
-termination of long-term relationships is seen as more distressing
-more effort is put into reconciliation due to reduced possibilities for finding an alternative partner in the future
-shows that Duck’s model cannot necessarily be applied to all couples
-suggests that it cannot accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship

Strength - useful real-world applications, especially in relation to couples’ counselling
-couples at different stages may be advised to use different strategies
-e.g. Duck (1994) recommends that a person in the intra-psychic phase should shift their attention to the positive aspects of their partner’s personality
-however, a couple in the dyadic phase must communicate with their partner about dissatisfaction and ways to balance the relationship
-furthermore, couples in the social stage should seek support from family or friends
-shows that Duck’s model of relationship breakdown can be used successfully to help couples contemplating break-up to improve their relationships and stay together

Limitation - based on relationships from individualist cultures
-ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma
-however, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement
-makes the relationship difficult to end
-means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck
-hence culturally biased

Limitation - successfully describes how relationships break down, but not why
-takes nomothetic approach
-focuses on establishing universal laws of behaviour
-but not possible, as the break-up process is greatly affected by several factors
-e.g. partners’ individual differences, cultural norms and values
-however, a more detailed idiographic approach may reveal more about reasons for break-up and the experiences of different couples
-gives psychologists a better understanding of the issues
-can be used to improve relationship counselling

Question 28

Outline virtual relationships in social media, including self-disclosure in virtual relationships and absence of gating.

Answer 28

-nature of virtual relationships is similar to Rubin’s (1975) ‘stranger on the train’ phenomenon
-suggests we are more likely to share personal information with a stranger as we are likely never to see them again

Reduced cues theory:
-Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggested that online relationships might be less open and honest than face-to- face ones
-because in real life we rely on subtle cues that are absent in virtual communication
-e.g. facial expressions and tone of voice
-leads to de-individuation as it diminishes people’s feelings of individual identity
-brings on behaviours that people usually restrain themselves from displaying in face-to-face interactions
-may make online communications more aggressive
-leads to less self-disclosure from other people, as they fear becoming the victim of verbal violence

Absence of gating:
-in real life, our attraction to other people is greatly influenced by their appearance, mannerisms, age etc
-limits our choice of potential partners
-but in virtual interactions, these barriers (‘gates’) are absent
-creates more opportunities for shy and less attractive people to develop romantic relationships
-even when these gates are discovered later, they rarely decrease an already-developed attraction
-due to feeling of intimacy brought by more open self-disclosure when it moves from virtual to face-to-face communication
-also means that people can establish virtual identities they could never create face-to-face

Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
-self-disclosure occurs faster in virtual relationships, possibly due to anonymity
-people are reluctant to disclose personal information in real life for fear of ridicule or rejection, unless they are confident that they can trust the person and that information will not be leaked to mutual friends
-however, there is much less risk of this happening in online virtual relationships
-leads people to share personal experiences and thoughts without much risk of the intimate information getting to the people they know
-Whitty and Joinson’s (2009) found that in online discussion forums, both questions and answers tend to be more direct, probing and intimate than in everyday face-to-face interactions

Hyperpersonal Model
-proposed by Walther (1996, 2011)
-suggests, as self-disclosure in online relationships happens earlier than in face-to-face ones, relationships quickly become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful
-conversely, they tend to also end more quickly, as it is difficult to sustain the same level of intense self-disclosure for an extended time period
-also suggests that virtual relationships may feel more intimate because it is easier to manipulate self-disclosure online than face-to-face
-participants in online conversation have more time to ‘edit’ their responses to present themselves in a more positive light (selective self-presentation)
-projecting a positive image will then make an online partner want to disclose more personal information
-increases intensity and feelings of intimacy towards the relationship.

Question 29

Describe research examining virtual relationships.

Answer 29

Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012)
-71.8% of 4000 participants with internet access were married or had a romantic partner, compared to only 35.9% of those without internet access
-shows importance of online communication in a virtual environment for developing romantic relationships

Baker and Oswald (2010):
-shy individuals with high internet use rated their friendships as better
-this correlation was absent for people with low shyness scores
-implies online communication helps people to overcome their shyness
-so the quality of their face-to-face communication also improves

Hollenbaugh and Everett (2013)
-content analysis of 154 bloggers aged 18+
-younger and female bloggers disclosed more personal info
-bloggers posting pictures/videos shared more than anonymous ones
-suggests self-disclosure is common on social media
-not driven by anonymity, but by selective self-presentation
-individuals carefully curate an online image
-inter-rater reliability was established by correlating results.

Question 30

Evaluate research into virtual relationships

Answer 30

Limitation - online self-disclosure varies depending on the type of computer mediated communication being used
-Paine et al. (2006) suggest that the degree of self-disclosure is dependent on who a website user thinks will see it
-people may present an ‘edited’ version of themselves, trying to create a socially desirable identity, but may disclose more personal information if they are relatively confident in their friends’ acceptance
-hence contradicts claim that gating is absent in all virtual relationships
-as the possibility that information becoming publicly available may reduce the quantity and quality of self-disclosure
-lowers validity of hyperpersonal model

Limitation - argument that face-to-face relationships can also have a virtual element to them
-Lenhart and Duggan (2014)
-found that 25% of Americans in long-term relationships had texted their partners despite being home together at the time
-21% of those surveyed about their mobile phone use said that it had helped them to feel closer to their partner, especially when they had unresolved disagreements
-however, 8% said that their partnership had suffered due to their spouse’s virtual relationships online with other people
-means that face-to-face relationships can be positively or negatively impacted by virtual communications between the two partners and other third parties

Limitation - virtual relationships are affected by changes in a fast-paced society
-most research examining virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s/early 2000s
-as technology is changing rapidly, so is the nature of online relationships
-hence psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated by the time it is published
-lowers temporal validity of research into online relationships
-means that findings may not necessarily apply to the current situation

Limitation - research into virtual relationships is based on experiences of mainly Western countries
-technology is not readily available in some countries
-hence conclusions about the development and effects of virtual communication on romantic relationships cannot be generalised
-suggests cultural bias
-furthermore, attitudes to self-disclosure are different in different cultures
-e.g. Nakanishi (1986) found that, in contrast to American culture, women in Japan preferred lower levels of self-disclosure in close relationships
-hence level of self-disclosure depends on cultural norms and may affect virtual communication styles
-lowers validity of research into virtual relationships
-limits the range of relationships it explains

Limitation - gender differences in virtual relationships
-McKenna et al. (2002) found that women tended to rate their online relationships as more intimate and valued self-disclosure, especially in terms of emotion
-however men preferred activities-based disclosure (e.g. common interests in motorsports) and rated their online relationships as less intimate than face-to-face ones
-suggests alpha-bias
-as it assumes that males’ and females’ experiences on virtual relationships are different
-however, male and female experiences of virtual relationships may be similar
-perhaps methodological issues with the research in this area exaggerate the differences (e.g. the choice of interview/questionnaires as a research tool)

Question 31

Describe parasocial relationships, including the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation

Answer 31

-one-sided relationships with celebrities, a prominent person in the community, or a fictional character
-often a ‘fan’ will know everything about the person and feel very close to them, despite the fact that there is no chance of reciprocity

Absorption Addiction Model:
-proposed by McCutcheon (2002)
-suggests that people engage in celebrity worship to compensate for some deficiencies in their life
-e.g. difficulty forming intimate relationships, poor psychological adjustment and lack of identity
-allows them to achieve the fulfilment they lack in everyday life
-motivates them to become even more intensely attached to the celebrity (absorption)
-sense of fulfilment then becomes addictive for the person
-leads them to engage in riskier behaviours such as stalking, in order to get mentally, and sometimes physically, closer to the celebrity they worship (addiction)

-Giles and Maltby (2006) further identified three levels of parasocial relationships, using the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) in a large-scale survey
Stage 1: Entertainment – Social Level: celebrities are seen as a topic for lighthearted gossips with friends (least intense level of celebrity worship)
Stage 2: Intense – Personal Level: may see them as a soulmate and have an intense interest in the celebrity’s personal life, e.g. their dress sense, hobbies, favourite foods
Stage 3: Borderline Pathological Level: person has obsessive fantasies about the celebrity, spends large sums of money to obtain memorabilia and may engage in illegal activities such as stalking. It is also usual for people to believe that, if only they were given a chance to meet their favourite celebrity in person, their feelings would be reciprocated (most intense level)

Attachment Theory Explanation
-Bowlby’s theory predicts that children who did not form a strong bond with a primary caregiver will try to find an attachment substitute as adults through parasocial relationships
-individuals with insecure-resistant attachment type from early childhood are more prone to this
-Ainsworth’s findings in Strange Situation study suggests that insecure-resistant children were very clingy to their mothers, showing great distress when she left the room
-also showed less explorative behaviour than children of other types, as they didn’t feel safe enough to leave a parent
-according to Hazan and Shaver (1987), this behaviour translates into clingy and jealous behaviour in adulthood
-makes it difficult to develop long-term romantic relationships
-parasocial relationships allows them to engage in fantasy about the perfect relationship, without heartbreak and rejection
-Cole and Leets (1999) found teenagers with insecure-resistant attachment types were more likely to develop parasocial relationships with TV personalities

Question 32

Describe research examining parasocial relationships

Answer 32

-Greenwood and Long (2009) found that people may develop celebrity worships as a way of dealing with a recent loss or loneliness

-However, Chory-Assad and Yanen (2005) failed to find any significant correlation between intensity of loneliness and intensity of a parasocial relationship

-Kienlen et al. (1997) found 63% of participants who were all stalkers experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood while 50% experienced emotional and physical abuse
-supports idea that disturbed attachment in childhood may lead to the development of borderline-pathological level of parasocial relationships

-McCutcheon et al. (2006) tested the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships
-299 students completed the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) and an attachment style questionnaire
-found no association between attachment style of the participants and their likelihood to form parasocial relationships with celebrities
-but it was noted that those individuals with an insecure attachment style were more likely to approve of stalking-type behaviours if expressed towards celebrities
-suggests there is limited evidence to support the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships

Question 33

Evaluate research into parasocial relationships

Answer 33

Strength - useful real-world applications
-Maltby (2003) found that extraverts were more likely to be at the entertainment-social level, neurotics at the intense-personal level and psychotics at the borderline-pathological level
-Furthermore, Maltby et al. (2005) found that young girls who were at the intense-personal level tended to have a poor body image
-especially true if they particularly admired a celebrity’s physical appearance
-suggests that research into parasocial relationships can be used to improve professionals’ understanding of psychological disorders
-helps people struggling with psychological disorders

Limitation - correlational research
-cause and effect cannot be clearly established
-lowers the scientific explanatory power
-e.g. Maltby et al. (2005) found a significant correlation between poor body image and intensive celebrity worship in teenage girls
-but this does not mean that intense celebrity worship causes poor body image
-perhaps girls who already have a poor body image tend to engage in a more intensive level of parasocial relationships to enhance their self-esteem
-problematic for research in this area where questions remain about the validity of its claims

Limitation - studies rely heavily on self-report methods, e.g. interviews and questionnaires
-may not reflect an accurate picture of reality
-participants may demonstrate social desirability bias
-may answer in a way that reflects them in better light rather than responding truthfully to the questions
-means the reasons for developing parasocial relationships may be different from the ones uncovered by research
-lowers the internal validity of these explanations
-makes them less applicable to real life
-however, advantage of this technique is that it provides insight into unique relationship experiences
- can be used to further develop understanding of parasocial relationships

Limitation - Absorption-Addiction Model is better suited to describing levels of celebrity worship than explain how people develop these attitudes
-takes a nomothetic approach
-attempts to establish universal principles of behaviour
-misses out on deep insight into the reasons for behaviour
-however, an idiographic approach may be better suited to the reasons for why people develop them
-e.g. looking into particular instances of parasocial relationships

Strength - research into celebrity worship seems to be describing a universal phenomenon
-e.g. Schmid and Klimmt (2011) studied levels of parasocial relationships with characters from the Harry Potter books in different cultures
-found similar levels of worship in Germany (individualist culture) and Mexico (collectivist culture)
-suggests that the absorption-addiction model is universally applicable