Relationships Flashcards
What is natural selection
Ability to survive in particular environments (fitness)
What is sexual selection
The ability to attract/ find a mate and reproduce successfully
What is intERsexual selection
Preference of one sex (usually females) for members of the opposite sex who have certain qualities. Eg. Good genes, good resources, good parenting…
Humans are pre programmed to attend to someone who displays these indicators.
What is intERsexual selection
Preference of one sex (usually females) for members of the opposite sex who have certain qualities. Eg. Good genes, good resources, good parenting…
Humans are pre programmed to attend to someone who displays these indicators.
What is intRAsexual selection
Males compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex- the victorious pass on their genes to next gen.
What did Buss 2003 say
To ensure your offspring has the best survival chances, it pays off to be picky.
What did Singh 1993 say
Men like women with a low waist to hit ratio. Males prefer mates who show signs of fertility such as youth or broader hips
Why could evolutionary explanations of the formation of relationships be culturally bias?
Kassel and Sharma (1999) study on 37 cultures found that men’s access to resources were more valued in cultures where a women’s status and educational prospects were limited.
Explanation underestimates the impact of social and economic factors on partner preference— focusing only on evolutionary factors.
Why can methodological issues into the research of evolutionary explanations be a limitation for its explanation?
Unrepresentative sample.
Buller (2005), most studies that women want high status partners was done on undergraduate female students.
They aim to achieve high educational Statius and high income jobs. Therefore, not surprising results as their aiming for similar goals.
Sample, not generalisable (doesn’t reflect target population) decreases pop. Validity and limits credibility.
What could we see as a strength for evolutionary explanations in the formation of relationships.
Penton-Voak (1999) believed women’s mate choices varied across the menstrual cycle.
Feminised male face- long term. However, during ovulation (high conception rate) a more masculine face was chosen.
Suggesting potential genetic benefit in prodiuctions more masculine offspring.
-maps up with intersexual selection theory, increased credibility of the theory
What is anisogamy
The difference between male and female reproduction.
Women= large, static egg- produced in intervals of limited years. Male= small sperm cell, highly mobile
What is psychical attractiveness
Refers to how appealing someone’s face is
What are some features of psychical attractiveness
Facial symmetry= more attractive as a sign of good genes (Shackleford and Larsen)
Neotenous faces (baby faces)= super ate large eyes, small chin and nose, triggers caring instinct.
What is the halo effect (dion et al. 1972)
Psychically attractive people are strong, kind and sociable compared to unattractive people. The belief that good looking people will have such characteristics that make them more attractive to us, so we behave more positively toward them—> self fulling prophesy.
What was Walster and Walster’s match hypothesis theory
We look for partners that are similar to us in terms of attractiveness, personality, intelligence etc. instead of choosing the most appealing people.
People must assess their own value and then opt for a partner who is of a similar social desirability to themselves (although of course were most attracted to those who are the most socially desirable) in order to maintain the best success- in their league.
What was Walster and Walster’s match hypothesis theory
We look for partners that are similar to us in terms of attractiveness, personality, intelligence etc. instead of choosing the most appealing people.
People must assess their own value and then opt for a partner who is of a similar social desirability to themselves (although of course were most attracted to those who are the most socially desirable) in order to maintain the best success- in their league.
What was the process of Walster’s (1966) computer dance study that contradicted the matching hypothesis
177 males and 170 female students bought welcome week tickets for a computer dance. When they bought the ticket, they were told that information they gave about themselves would be fed into a computer and this would provide an ‘ideal match’ date.
In fact, they were randomly assigned a partner. When students were giving their data (when they booked their ticket) four unseen observers marked them on attractiveness. Participants had to complete a lengthy questionnaire, to assess personality and intelligence and were told the data results would be culminated to match them with their ideal date- however the pairing was completely randomised. After spending two hours with their dates students were asked how much they liked their partner, and then they were asked to compete a similar question are six months later. Those who were physically attractive were liked the most.
What were the findings of the computer dance study and why did they contradict the matching hypothesis?
Men asked out a partner if they found her attractive, regardless of how attractive they were- does not support matching hypothesis as the individuals did not assess their own physical attributes, they went for someone of a higher level of attractiveness.
The matching hypothesis research evidence goes against the principle that we date people similar to us- explain why those is a weakness of physical attraction in explaining relationships
Walster and Walster (1969) found that those at a university dance would most likely want to pursue second dates with those that they find most psychically attractive, disregarding their own levels of physical attraction and any other similarity of the person.
suggesting that the matching hypothesis may be wrong about how people form relationships with people and that instead of looking at those similar to us and going with our realistic choices, we seek out our most ‘desired’ choices and go with those we find most attractive.
Reduces validity of MH.
What counter argument could you make to prove the matching hypothesis is valid.
findings of the study by Berscheid et al. (1971) which replicated the study by Walster and Walster (1969), however, this time participants chose their own partners. This time participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
shows that when looking who to date we do take into account our own values of attractiveness and go with those that match our levels of attractiveness- reflects the explanation that is proposed by matching hypothesis and adds validity to the explanation.
means that potentially the results by Walster and Walster (1969) were perhaps a result of their methodology- people do indeed look for people that similar to them when they are given the chance to match themselves with a partner first.
Explain how Touhey (1979) research can contradict the matching hypothesis in explaining the formation of relationships.
Touhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical info
also completed a questionnaire to measure sexist attitudes (MACHO scale).
Participants who scored high on MACHO scale were more influenced by psychical attractiveness. Low scores were less influenced.
suggests that the matching hypothesis may be incorrect when suggesting how and why people form relationships- The male participants= extreme political views which can influence the way men value/level attractiveness.
What research could you use to support the theory of psychical attractiveness and facial symmetry by Shackleford and Larsen
Cunningham et al (1995) female features of large cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic, and Asian males. Physical attractiveness therefore is consistent across cultures.
Symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness Importance of this makes sense in terms of the evolutionary explanation
What is self disclosure
Self disclosure involves revealing personal information about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops.
These revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately.
What was Altman and Taylor’s idea about breadth and depth.
- Relationships are a gradual process as you’re slowly revealing your true self to a person. It is also a reciprocal exchange. Only happens when you’ve built and established trust with an individual- reduces embarrassment.
There are two elements to this idea- breadth and depth. Low risk superficial information early on, high risk personal or core information comes out as the relationship progresses.
What is the meaning of depenetration
Tendency for dissatisfied partners to self- disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship.
What did Reis and Shaver say about the relationship between reciprocity and self disclosure
Reciprocity of disclosure is essential to develop a relationship. This increases intimacy and develops your relationship.
What was the produced of spreecher et al.s 2013 study into self disclosure
Interested in whether reciprocal self- disclosure was more influential in determining attraction than one-sided self-disclosure and listening.
Participants= 156 undergraduate students US university paired into two person dyads/ pairs. Approximately two thirds of the dyads were female-female and one third were male-female each dyad of unacquainted individuals engaged in a self disclosure task over Skype.
In the reciprocal condition= dyad members immediately took turns asking questions and disclosing.
The other condition= more of an interview setting. Then the two switched interviewer roles.
After each interaction, the researchers assessed liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment of the interaction.
What did spreecher et al.s 2013 study find about self disclosure
individuals in the reciprocal condition reported more liking, closeness, perceived similarities, and enjoyment of the interaction compared to those in the second conditions.
turn-taking self disclosure reciprocity increases likelihood to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes than extended reciprocity.
What did the supporting research study by Sprecher and Hendricks (2004) show about self disclosure
heterosexual dating couples- Strong connections between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure.
(Only heterosexual, only shows correlation- no causation/ effect?)
What research support is there for self disclosure strengthening relationships/bonds between two people
Sprecher and Hendricks (2004)- heterosexual dating couples. Strong connections between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure.
Heterosexual couples, self disclosure important for relationship satisfactory. Strengthen connection between two partners by eliminating embarrassment of secrecy.
Research support aids credibility.
However, specific sample group limits generalisability of findings.
Why can cultural differences be a weakness of self disclosure?
Tang et al (2013) → sexual self-disclosure of men/women in USA disclose is greater than men/women in China.
Nakanishi (1986)→ Japanese women prefer a lower level of personal conservation than Japanese men…opposite to typical self-disclosure patterns.
- Self disclosure may still be important but not in the same pattern as individualistic cultures = culturally biased
What can we say about internet self disclosure being a limitation for the formation of successful relationships.
Relationships over the internet can have a higher level of disclosure as people feel more anonymous and therefore able to disclose intimate details without embarrassment.
Cooper and Sportolari called this the “boom and bust phenomenon” as you fall in love quickly (boom) but when people meet in person the lack of established trust and knowledge causes the relationship to fail (bust).
What is the filter theory by kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
Filter theory was created as a result to explain how relationships form and develop. We all have a field of available (e.g. all the people we could form a relationship with), but not everyone who is available is desirable. There are a series of factors or filters which narrow down our potential partners to a field of desirables.
What are the three levels of the filter theory?
Social demography 1st level
Similarity in attitudes 2nd level
Complementarity 3rd level
What is social demography aka level 1 in the filter theory diagram
Accessibility is key, our partner choices are narrowed by social circumstances- anyone too far away is discounted.
Results in homogamy = forming relationships with those similar to us
What’s is similarity in attitudes in the filter theory diagram
Common social and cultural characteristics . Kerckhoff and Davi’s- similarity of attitudes important for couples who have been together less than than 18 months
What is complementarity in the filter theory diagram
Couples complement each other by developing traits that the others lack. Kerckhoff and Davi’s= complementarity is essential for long term relationships.
Belief that together they are whole.
What are some A03 negatives of self disclosure- filter theory
Culture= based on western cultures- where we can interact with lots of people in urban setting.
Reductionism: What about biological factors? In Evolution, our ancestors chose a mate on the basis of survival. The men would seek a female who could give birth to and nurture their offspring in order to pass on the best genes.
Individual differences: Ignores the influence of early childhood experience and attachment style. What about personality factors?
Date: Outdated. The theory was created 50 years ago. Have relationships changed since then? There were less transport links and no internet. It is easier to be close in proximity and to be mobile today. Internet dating and long-distance relationships common today!
What points can you make regarding the relationship between temporal validity and the filter theory
- Rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables Mobile apps like Tinder etc have made meeting partners easier than ever. May pursue a relationship with someone outside the usual demographic limits (e.g. Formation of Relationships)
What is Thibaut and Kelley (1959) theory of social exchange
- the rewards of a relationship- the costs of the relationship= outcome.
- We don’t want a loss in relationships- leads to self-dissatisfaction.
- The commitment to a relationship is dependant upon profitability!
What is Thibaut and Kelley (1959) theory of social exchange
- the rewards of a relationship- the costs of the relationship= outcome.
- We don’t want a loss in relationships- leads to self-dissatisfaction.
- The commitment to a relationship is dependant upon profitability!
What type of theory is the social exchange theory
An economic theory
How can you explain the subjectivity of rewards in the social exchange theory
Rewards are subjective. That is what you might find to be rewarding in a relationship, your partner may not see the same thing as a reward.
Similarly, what we see as valuable or costly might change over the course of the relationships.
What are the 4 stages in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
Sampling
Bargaining
Commitment
Institutionalisation
What is sampling in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
The couple explores rewards and costs in all their relationships from platonic, maternal etc.
What is sampling in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
The couple explores rewards and costs in all their relationships from platonic, maternal etc.
What is bargaining in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
Couple negotiations relationship and agrees rewards and costs
What is commitment in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
Couples set into their relationship.
Exchange of rewards becomes predictable
Stability increases
Rewards increase and costs lessen
What is commitment in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
Couples set into their relationship.
Exchange of rewards becomes predictable
Stability increases
Rewards increase and costs lessen
What is institutionalisation in thibault and Kelley’s social exchange model
Norms and expectations are firmly established- settled down
What is a comparison level in social exchange theory
How we measure profit in a romantic relationship. CL = how much of a reward you believe you deserve to get. It is formed based on all of our experiences of previous relationships plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange.
It is also influenced by social norms and media (e.g. Disney princesses!) Our CL changes as we acquire more data to set it by.
What is a comparison level in social exchange theory
How we measure profit in a romantic relationship. CL = how much of a reward you believe you deserve to get. It is formed based on all of our experiences of previous relationships plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange.
It is also influenced by social norms and media (e.g. Disney princesses!) Our CL changes as we acquire more data to set it by.
We also have the comparison level for alternatives (CLALT)…which are?
When we will stay in our relationship as long as we see it to be more rewarding or profitable than the alternatives. If costs of a current relationship are greater than rewards, we assume the grass is greener on the other side.
If we are satisfied we may not even notice any alternatives.- Duck (1994)
What is the equity theory
Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship. Both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same.
This is not the same as equality e.g. costs and rewards are not the same for both partners.
Both under benefiting and over benefitting can lead to problems in a relationship.
What is Walster et al.s 1978 theory of equity
Perceived ratio of inputs and outputs
- Inequality doesn’t necessarily mean inequality.
- Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity.
- It is not about the size or amount of rewards and costs. It’s the ratio of the two. If one partner puts a lot in but gets a lot out of it, this will seem fair.
- This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner.
- If we fear inequality, in our relationship, we may try and change our input and outputs to restore equity.
What are some of the consequences of inequity?
Strong positive correlation between perceived inequity and dissatisfaction e.g. if one goes up then so does the other.
Changes in perceived equity make us most dissatisfied as time goes on. Early on it may feel perfectly natural to contribute mor than you receive but if this continues as the relationship develops will lead to dissatisfaction.
How do we deal with inequity within relationships?
The underbeneffited partners are motivated to make the relationship equitable as long as they perceived this as possible, the more unfair a relationship is the less likely it is to salvage.
Another outcome is a cognitive and not behavioural one e.g. underbenefitted will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs to feel more equitable…what was once a cost is now a norm.
How do we deal with inequity within relationships?
The underbeneffited partners are motivated to make the relationship equitable as long as they perceived this as possible, the more unfair a relationship is the less likely it is to salvage.
Another outcome is a cognitive and not behavioural one e.g. underbenefitted will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs to feel more equitable…what was once a cost is now a norm.
What was the procedure of Stafford and Canary’s 2006 study into the equity theory
interested in how equity and satisfaction predicted the use of maintenance strategies typically used in marriage. Over 200 married couples, completed measures of equity and relationship satisfaction.
In addition, each spouse was asked about relationship maintenance strategies- sharing tasks, and positivity.
What were the findings of Stafford and Canary’s 2006 study into the equity theory
revealed that satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable- followed by over-benefited partners- then under-benefited partners.
What were the findings of Stafford and Canary’s 2006 study into the equity theory
revealed that satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable- followed by over-benefited partners- then under-benefited partners.
What psychologist stated that we don’t use comparative levels if we’re satisfied in our current relationships
Duck (2004)
What is the equity theory in relationship?
Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship. Both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same.
This is not the same as equality e.g. costs and rewards are not the same for both partners.
What did the equity theory by Walster et al. Of 1978 propose
The equity theory is based around the o perceived ratio of inputs and outputs
- It is not about the size or amount of rewards and costs. It’s the ratio of the two. If one partner puts a lot in but gets a lot out of it, this will seem fair.
- This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner.
What did the equity theory by Walster et al. Of 1978 propose
The equity theory is based around the o perceived ratio of inputs and outputs
- It is not about the size or amount of rewards and costs. It’s the ratio of the two. If one partner puts a lot in but gets a lot out of it, this will seem fair.
- This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner.
What are some of the consequences of inequity?
Strong positive correlation between perceived inequity and dissatisfaction.
Changes in perceived equity make us most dissatisfied as time goes on!
What are some ways partners deal with inequity within their relationship
The underbeneffited partners are motivated to make the relationship equitable as long as they perceived this as possible, the more unfair a relationship is the less likely it is to salvage.
Another outcome is a cognitive and not behavioural one = underbenefitted will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs to feel more equitable…what was once a cost is now a norm.
What was the procedure of Stafford and Canary’s (2006) study?
interested in how equity and satisfaction predicted the use of maintenance strategies typically used in marriage.
Over 200 married couples, completed measures of equity and relationship satisfaction —> each spouse was asked about relationship maintenance strategies- sharing tasks, and positivity.
What was the procedure of Stafford and Canary’s (2006) study?
interested in how equity and satisfaction predicted the use of maintenance strategies typically used in marriage.
Over 200 married couples, completed measures of equity and relationship satisfaction —> each spouse was asked about relationship maintenance strategies- sharing tasks, and positivity.
What did the findings of Stafford and canary’s 2006 study reveal about partner satisfaction
satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable, followed by over-benefited partners and then under-benefited partners.
What did Byers and Wang find out about the relationship between long term relationships and relationship equitability
found that couples in equitable relationships were far less likely to have extra marital affairs and had longer lasting relationships
What did Schaffer and Keith find about the equitability of relationships?
surveyed hundreds of married couples of all ages noting those that felt there was an unfair split of household duties.
During child rearing years wives felt under benefited while husbands were over benefited. This led to high levels of dissatisfaction.
During the honeymoon stage before having children and after children leaving home marriages are much more equal and therefore satisfactory.
What is the investment model of relationships
An economic theory that suggests that the maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment. In this context commitment refers to the likelihood that relationship will persist.
– investment model of relationships Rusbult (1983)
What does the investment model of relationships suggest about commitment
Commitment depends on three factors, satisfaction, investments and the quality of alternatives. These all affect partners commitment levels to each other. These commitment levels determine if a couple stays together or not
What is factor 1 in the investment model of relationships
Satisfaction=
➢ Based on comparison level. Determined by comparing rewards and costs, relationships are profitable if there are many rewards and few costs.
➢ Satisfied if we get more out of a relationship than is expected based on previous experience and norms —> Outcome of relationship (Rewards – C) surpasses Comparison Level = SATISFACTION
What is the second factor of the investment model if relationships
Comparison (CLALT)
‘Could my needs be better met outside of my current relationship? Are the alternatives more rewarding and less costly?’
Alternatives not just relationships with other people- also the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all.
What are is the third factor of the investment model of relationships
INVESTMENT
Investment is anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends.
What is intrinsic investment?
Intrinsic Investment is anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends.
What is intrinsic investment?
Intrinsic Investment is anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends.
What is extrinsic investment?
Extrinsic Investments: Shared things that may be lost: Shared pet, network of friends, children
What happens if all factors of the investment model work in harmony
If all the factors are put together, Partners experience a high level of satisfaction. Alternatives are less attractive. Size of investment is increasing Then we can confidently predict that partners will be committed to the relationship
What did rushbult et al. 2011 suggest about commitment in relationships, and how could this explain partner dissatisfaction
Rushbult et al. (2011) commitment is the main factor for staying in relationships, satisfaction a contributory factor.
This can explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship, they are committed due to the investment they put it in and they don’t want to see this go to waste.
What were some reasons by Duck why relationships breakdown
- marriage in which partners were very young- early parenthood
- lack of stimulation or sexual satisfaction
- lack of social skills- poor at conversation
- marital affairs
What were the two factors that duck said threatened relationships
Predisposing
Precipitating
What is predisposing (Duck)
A liability or tendency to suffer from a particular condition, hold a particular attitude, or act in a particular way. Therefore, beliefs or attitudes that the person holds which make breakup more likely
What is precipitating (Duck)
Cause (an event or situation, typically a bad one) to happen suddenly, unexpectedly, or prematurely.
What are the four stages of the phase model of relationship breakdowns
Stage 1= Intra psychic phase
Stage 2= Dyadic phase
Stage 3= social phase
Stage 4= Grave dressing phase
What happens in stage 1 off the phase model of relationship breakdowns, and what is the threshold
threshold- a determination that something has to change.
One of the partners/friends becomes more and more dissatisfied with the relationship.
They do not tell their partner yet, instead the mull over the pros and cons of a relationship privately —> begin to make plans for the future. If the dissatisfaction is great enough there is progression to the next phase… (e.g. another threshold is reached)
What is stage 2 in the phase model of relationship breakdowns
Threshold- i would be justified in withdrawing
Here the other person becomes involved. Series of confrontations and dissatisfactions aired e.g. may complain about inequity. May lead to either a determination to repair the relationship or to continue break down of relationship.
What is stage 3 of the phase model of relationship breakdowns
Threshold- public knowledge, justified and determined to end things- breakup becomes more of a reality.
This is where the break-up is ‘aired’ and made public, e.g. to wider social network such as to family and friends. It is also where the social implications (such as care of children) are negotiated —> Mutual friends may take sides.
What is stage 4 of the phase model of relationship breakdowns
Threshold- its now inevitable, parents are going to break up
Here the ex-partners begin the organisation of their post-relationship lives. They begin publicising their own accounts of the breakdown and what (if any) is the nature of the new relationship with the ex-partner —> Want to increase their own individual social credit.
How does Ducks 4 stage model of relationship breakdown have some potential real world application
Duck (1994) said during the intra-psychic phase, if individuals focused on positive aspects of their partner and improve communication skills during dyadic phase
—> greater sustainability!
Possibility to be used in counselling, enables couples to work through relationship. Betters quality of life= overall society benefit!
How does Ducks 4 stage model of relationship breakdown have some potential real world application
Duck (1994) said during the intra-psychic phase, if individuals focused on positive aspects of their partner and improve communication skills during dyadic phase
—> greater sustainability!
Possibility to be used in counselling, enables couples to work through relationship. Betters quality of life= overall society benefit!
How is Ducks 4 stage model of relationship breakdown potentially deterministic
Difficult to study- people going through a breakup may find it traumatic and upsetting to talk about.
—> possibly unethical, cost benefit analysis needed.
Duck also believes we must following stages in set order (invariant) - and they apply to everyone (universal). Means we have no free will we the theory is deterministic
How can ducks 4 stage model of relationship breakdowns be seen as an incomplete explanation
In a later model by Rollins and Duck, introduced resurrection stage, which focuses on personal growth- glow up!
—> this stage is supported by fellow psychologist researchers, proving personal growth to be an important part in the breakdown process.
- lowers validity of original model
How can Moghaddom eat al.s 1983 study prove cultural bias within Duck’s 4 stage model of relationship breakdowns
- their study looked at the culture difference between individualistic and collectivist culture’s
Individualistic = relationships are voluntary and divorce is more common.
Breakdown process therefore less similar across cultures.
—> in particular social stage- collectivist cultures will go to family more likely before partner.
- model is unrepresentative, decreases population validity.
What are virtual relationships
any form relationship over electronic communication e.g. texts, emails, social media etc.- in this context we will look at romantic relationships
What are the two contrasting theories about virtual relationships
- Reduced cues theory
- Hyper personal theory
What is the reduced cues theory
Sproull and Kiesler 1986 - online relationships are less effective the F2F ones as they lack cues that we depend on.
Non verbal cues such as our physical appearance, emotional states, facial expression and tone of voice.
This lead to deindividuation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity which encourages disinhibition in relating to others. Virtual relationships are more likely to involve blunt/ aggressive communication. -> reluctant to self disclose
What is the hyper personal model
Walther 1996, 2011 argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self- disclosure that F2F ones. This is because they can develop very quickly and can become more intense/ intimate.
They can also end more quickly because the high excitement level of the interaction isn’t matched by the level of trust between relationship partners. —> linked to Cooper and Sportolari called this the boom-and-bust phenomenon.
According to the hyper personal model, a key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is that the sender on a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in FSF scenarios.
Walther calls this selective self- presentation.
People online have more control over what that disclosure and the cues they send.
What is anonymity in the virtual relationships topic
Anonymity- Bargh et al. 2002 points out that they outcome of this is rather like strangers on a train effect in F2F relationships.
When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your actions/ behaviour, so you may well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to a personal close to you.
What are gates in virtual relationships?
Gate= obstacle to the formation of relationships
• F2F interaction is gated (features can interfere with early development)
• Examples of gates; physical unattractiveness, a stutter, social anxiety.
What did McKenna and Bargh say about gates in virtual relationships
McKenna and Bargh 1999 said that a huge advantage of virtual relationships is the absence of gates.
Relationships can develop where self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.
What are 6 main bullet points you can use to A01 virtual relationships
Virtual relationship definition
- 2 theories on how SD operates online= reduced causes and hyper personal model
- Reduced cues= Sproull and Keisler, lack of 111nonverbal cues, deindividuation
- Hyper personal model= Walther, Boom + Bust, selective self- presentation, anonymity
Gates, McKenna and Bargh, personality over appearance
What are parasocial relationships?
Relationships which are similar to ‘normal’ relationships but lack a key element- they are one sided, unreciprocated relationships.
They are usually with celebs where fans spend a lot of relationships emotional energy, commitment and time.
What are the levels of parasocial relationships
McCutcheon et al. 2002 developed the celebrity attitude scale which was used in large-scale surveys by Maltby et al. 2006.
They identified 3 levels of PR=
- entertainment-social
- intense-personal
- borderline pathological
What this entertainment- social in parasocial relationships
Intense level of celebrity worship
Celebrities viewing as source of entertainment and fuel for social interaction.
Giles 2002 found that parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices
What is intense-personal relationships in parasocial
Intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celeb.
People may consider Kim Kardashian as a soul mate
What is the borderline pathological level in parasocial relationships
The strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours.
They spend a large sum of money on a celebrity related object, and may be willing to perform illegal acts
What is the absorption addiction model
McCutcheon 2002 explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives.
If you have a weak sense of self-identity and lack of fulfilment in everyday situations you may be more likely to form a parasocial relationship.
Allows them to escape reality.
Stress or personal crisis may increase their parasocial relationship
What are the two components of the absorption addiction model
Absorption: seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity
Addiction: just as with an addiction to a substance, the individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity.
This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.
How does the attachment theory explain parasocial relationships
Various psychologists have suggested that there is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence due to attachment difficulties in early childhood
Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested these difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in life
Ainsworth 1979 identified 2 attachment types that may be related to parasocial relationships; insecure resistant and insecure avoidant.
How likely are individuals with insecure resistant attachment to form parasocial relationships in comparison to insecure avoidant
Insecure resistant are most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults as they have the need to have unfulfilled needs met
Insecure avoidant are least likely to engage in parasocial relationships.
They use parasocial because they can’t be let down
How does the attachment theory link to the development of parasocial relationships
If needs aren’t met in early childhood development, the individual is more likely to develop parasocial relationships as a way of gaining that secure attachment they may have been lacking
How can Maltby’s 2003 research support the parasocial relationships theory
Support for the absorption-addiction model.
Maltby et al 2003 linked entertainment-social category of celebrity worship with extraverted personality traits, the intense-personal category with neurotic traits and the borderline pathological category with psychotic personality type.
Higher absorption and addiction rates increase possibility of entering the borderline pathological level of PR. Because you’re absorbing so much content of a celebrity at an obsessive and uncontrollable rate, which can be linked to individuals with psychotic personality traits.
Correlation between the level of celebrity worship and poor psychological functioning, valid explanation.
How can further research into the correlation between attachment types and parasocial relationships disprove the original prediction that attachment influences relationships
Problems with the attachment theory predicting the development of parasocial relationships and why we form them.
McCutcheon et al. 2006 measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 participants. The researchers found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships, than those with secure attachments.
This fails to support the prediction, decreases validity and applicability
