Relationships

Question 1

How does research support Rusbult’s investment model in theories of romantic relationships?

Answer 1

Point: Research supports the validity of Rusbult’s investment model in understanding romantic commitment.
Evidence: Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis found that the model’s factors (satisfaction, alternatives, and investment) are consistent predictors of commitment across different cultures, relationship types, and orientations.
Explanation: This suggests the model has broad applicability and effectively explains why people remain committed to relationships.

Question 2

What is a key counterpoint to the research support for Rusbult’s investment model in theories of romantic relationships?

Answer 2

Point: Research supporting Rusbult’s model shows correlation, not causation.
- Evidence: Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis found a strong correlation between model factors (satisfaction, alternatives, investment) and commitment, but did not prove causation.
- Explanation: This means the model may only describe associations, not direct causes of commitment, as other unmeasured factors could influence relationship stability.
- Link: Without causal evidence, the model may oversimplify complex reasons behind commitment in relationships.

Question 3

Question: How does Rusbult’s investment model explain why people stay in abusive relationships?

Answer 3

• Point: Rusbult’s model explains why people may remain committed to abusive relationships.
• Evidence: Research by Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that individuals in abusive relationships often report high investment (e.g., time, resources) and low alternatives, which contribute to their decision to stay.
• Explanation: This highlights that commitment can persist even in highly dissatisfying relationships if investments are significant and alternatives are limited.
• Link: Yet, satisfaction alone doesn’t account for all factors in abusive relationships; other influences may also be important for understanding such complex commitment.

Question 4

What is a limitation of Rusbult’s investment model regarding the complexity of investments in romantic relationships?

Answer 4

Point: A limitation of Rusbult’s investment model is its oversimplified view of what constitutes an “investment.”
Evidence: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue the model primarily focuses on past resources invested, neglecting future plans and goals partners may have.
Explanation: By overlooking future-oriented investments, the model misses key motivations for commitment, such as shared aspirations and long-term goals.
Link: This limits the model’s ability to fully capture the complexity** of what keeps partners invested in a relationship, as not all investments are tangible or past-oriented.

Question 5

How does Duck’s phase model apply to real-world relationship breakdowns?

Answer 5

Point: Duck’s model has practical applications in understanding real-world breakdowns.
- Evidence: In the intra-psychic phase, partners may focus on each other’s negative traits, leading them to reflect on the relationship’s viability.
- Explanation: This suggests that the model’s stages, like focusing on negatives and attempting communication, mirror real behaviors, making it relevant in therapy or counseling.
- Link: The model helps explain how people can use communication and support to improve or end relationships, especially in the dyadic phase.

Question 6

What is a cultural counterpoint to Duck’s phase model in theories of relationship breakdown?

Answer 6

Point: Duck’s model may not be universally applicable across cultures.
- Evidence: Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue that the model is based on breakdowns in Western, individualistic cultures, where relationships are voluntary and termination is acceptable. In collectivist cultures, relationships are often obligatory and less easily dissolved.
- Explanation: This means the model’s emphasis on individual choice and self-reflection may not be relevant in cultures where relationship breakdown is uncommon or discouraged.
- Link: Therefore, Duck’s model may only partially explain relationship breakdown, limiting its effectiveness outside Western contexts.

Question 7

What is a limitation of Duck’s phase model regarding its completeness in explaining relationship breakdown?

Answer 7

Point: Duck’s model is incomplete as it lacks a “resurrection” phase.
- Evidence: Rollie and Duck (2006) proposed a resurrection phase, where individuals apply what they’ve learned from the breakup to future relationships.
- Explanation: This phase addresses personal growth and change after a breakup, which the original model misses.
- Link: Without this phase, Duck’s model may not fully capture the process of moving on, making it less comprehensive in explaining the entire breakdown experience.

Question 8

What is a limitation of Duck’s phase model in terms of explaining the early stages of breakdown?

Answer 8

Point: The early phases of Duck’s model, especially the intra-psychic phase, are less clearly explained.
- Evidence: Research shows that people often recall early phases inaccurately since they occur “long ago” and may spend extended time in this stage.
- Explanation: This suggests that the model’s reliance on retrospective accounts may distort the accuracy of how breakdowns progress.
- Link: Therefore, Duck’s model might be less reliable in explaining the early stages as compared to the later stages.

Question 9

What are the evaluation points for Rusbults model as a theory of romantic relationships?

Answer 9

+) research support
C.P -> correlation not causation
+) explanatory power
-) oversimplifies investment

Question 10

What are the evaluation points of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 10

+) RWA
C.P-> individualist vs collectivist
-) incomplete model
+) early phases less well explained

Question 11

What are the evaluation points for Evolutionary explanations for partner preference?

Answer 11

+) research support for inter-sexual selection
+) research support for intra-sexual
-) culture bias

Question 12

How is research support for inter-sexual selection?

Answer 12

P - research support for inter-sexual selection
Ev - Clark and Hatfield had students ask other students if they would go to bed with them. No female students agreed but 75% of males agreed to the female’s requests
Ex - supports the view that females are more choosy in P.P and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive sucsess

Question 13

How is research support form Buss and Schmidt in 2016 a counter for intersexual selection research support?

Answer 13

P - sexual selection theory is simplistic and primitive
Ev - Buss and Schmidt claim this because one strategy is adaptive for all males and another is adaptive for all females.
Ex - instead both have similar preferences like kindness loyalty
L -more complex and takes context of reproductive behaviour into account

Question 14

How is research support a strength of intra-sexual selection?

Answer 14

P - research support for intra-sexual selection
Ev - Buss (1989) asked 10,000 adults in 33 countries what characteristics they thought were important in partner preferences
Ex - found females valued resource-related characteristics more than males and males sought reproductive capacity
L - these findings reflect the consistent sex differences in preferences, supporting predictions from sexual selection theory

Question 15

How is cultural bias a limitation of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

Answer 15

P - partner preferences have been influenced by changing social norms, cultural practices. These have occurred too rapidly to be explained in evolutionary terms
Ev - wider availability of contraception and changing roles in the workplace mean women’s partner preferences are no longer resource-oreintated
Ex - suggests partner preferences are both likely to be due to both evolutionary and cultural influences, L - a theory that fails to explain both is limited

Question 16

How is research support a strength of the halo effect?

Answer 16

P - Research support is a strength of the halo effect
Ev - Palmer and Petersen found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgable and competent
Ex - implies politicians may be elected because they are attractive
L - Halo effect can be observed irl situations

Question 17

How is correlational research a counter for research support of the halo effect?

Answer 17

P - cannot assume correlation is causation
L - research only provides limited support for the theory

Question 18

How is cultural consistency a strength of the halo effect?

Answer 18

P - cultural consistiency in what is considered attractive
Ev - Cuunningham et al (1995) found large eyes, small nose, prominent cheekbones found attractive by white,asian and hispanic men
Ex - physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots
L - However, not everyone finds physical attractiveness important, not significant in relationship formation for all partners

Question 19

How is real word research not supporting assumptions a limitation of physical attractiveness’s matching hypothesis?

Answer 19

P - online dating has not supported it’s assumptions
Ev - Taylor et al (2011) found that online daters sought dates with people more attractive than themselves and didn’t consider their own attraction levels
Ex - matching hypothesis does not explain preferences regarding physical attractiveness in a useful way and therefore lacks external validity

Question 20

What are the evaluation points for Physical attractiveness?

Answer 20

+) research support for halo effect
-) cultural consistency of halo effect
-) real word research

Question 21

What are the evaluation points for SET?

Answer 21

-) assumes all relationships are exchange based
-) explores concepts that are difficult to quantify
+)research support
C.P - > Studies into SET ignore role of equity

Question 22

How is research support a strength of SET?

Answer 22

P - research support
Ev - Kurdeck (1995) found that committed partners (homosexual and heterosexual) percieved that they had the most rewards the fewest costs and unattractive alternatives
Ex - supports SET’s prediction that rewards and costs and alternatives independently influence commitment
L - findings validate SET across the different types of relationships, enhancing credibility

Question 23

What is a counter of SET having research support?

Answer 23

P - fails to consider equity
Ev - Research suggests fairness in percieved rewards and costs is more important than the balance itself
Ex - Kurdex’s study overlooks how the partners sense of inequity impacts relationship satisfaction
L - limits SET as it cannot exlplain findings highlighting equity’s significance in relationships

Question 24

What are the evaluation points of Self-disclosure?

Answer 24

+) research studies support
C.P - > correlation is not causation
-) doesnt satisify all cultures
+) RWA to improve communication

Question 25

How is research studies support a strength of self-disclosure?

Answer 25

P - Support from research studies
Ev - Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found strong correlation between self-disclosure in heterosexual couples and satisfaction
Ex - men and women who used self-disclosure were more satsified with and committed to their romantic relationship
L - supports validity of the view that reciprocated self-disclosure is a key part of satisfying romantic relationship

Question 26

What is a counter of Sprecher and Hendrick’s research evidence?

Answer 26

P - S+H found strong positive correlation but correlation is not causation
Ev - self-disclosure might not be the only factor causing satisfaction as satisfied partners may disclose more or they are satisified by spending time together
Ex - self-disclosure does not directly cause satisfaction
L - reduces validity of social penetration theory

Question 27

How is having RWA to improve communication a strength of social penetration theory?

Answer 27

P - RWA to improve communication
Ev - Hass and Stafford (1998) found 57% of homosexual men and women reported that they used open and honest self-disclosure as a relationship maintenance strategy
Ex - couples who limit communication to small talk can be encouraged to increase self-disclosure in order to deepen their own relationships
L - highlights importance of self-disclosure and suggests theory can be used to support people having problems

Question 28

How is social penetration theory not satisfying all cultures a limitation of self-dislcosure?

Answer 28

P - self-disclosure doesn’t satisfy all cultures
Ev - Tang et al (2013) concluded that people in the US disclose more feelings than people in china
Ex - even though the level of disclosure was lower in china,collecivist, satisfaction was the same as in the US, individualist
L - SPT is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because they are not generalisable to all cultures

Question 29

What are the evaluation points for filter theory?

Answer 29

+) research support
C.P - > Levinger did not replicate original findings
-)complementarity doesnt not always predict satisfaction
-) social changes

Question 30

How is research support a strength of filter theory?

Answer 30

P - research support
Ev - Kerchkoff and Davis (1962) found couples who had been together less than 18 months valued similarity while longer term couples valued complimentarity
Ex - supports idea thay filters apply at different stages of a relationship
L - credible theory that aligns with research findings

Question 31

What is a counter of research support for filter theory?

Answer 31

P- findings on filter theory lack replication
Ev - Levinger (1974) argued social and cultural changes limit the generalizability of earlier research
Ex - raises doubts about filter theory’s reliability and temporal validity
L - theory may not be applicable to modern relationships

Question 32

How is complimentarity not always predicitng satisifaction a limitation of filter theory?

Answer 32

P - Complimentarity’s role is questioned
Ev - Markey and Markey (2013) found that similarity rather than complementarity predicted satisfaction in romantic relationships
Ex - challenges filter theory’s claim that complementarity is vital for long-term relationships
L - theory may over simplify factors influencing relationship satisfaction

Question 33

How is social changes a limitation of filter theory?

Answer 33

P - social changes reduce filter theory’s relevance
Ev - Online dating expands the field of variables, making locations and demogaphic filters kless significant
Ex - modern relationships often form beyond traditional first-level filters
L - filter theory needs updating to explain modern relationship trends

Question 34

What are the evaluation points for Equity theory?

Answer 34

+) research support
C.P-> contradictory research
-) not valid in all cultures
-) equity as cause or effect

Question 35

How is research support a strength of the ET?

Answer 35

P - research support
Ev - Utne et al found couples who percieved equity in their relationships reported higher levels of satisfaction than those who felt under-benefitted or over-benefitted
Ex - supports ET’s prediction that fairness is essential for relationship satisfaction
L - ET is validated by research demonstating it’s practical relevance

Question 36

What is a counter of research support for ET?

Answer 36

P - Equity theory’s importance is questioned.
Ev - Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not distinguish between relationships that ended and those that continued—other factors, like commitment, were more important.
Ex - This challenges the idea that equity is a key predictor of relationship outcomes.
L - The theory’s validity is weakened if its predictions are not supported by research.

Question 37

How is not being valid in all cultures a limitation of ET?

Answer 37

P - Equity theory may not apply universally.
Ev - In collectivist cultures (e.g., Jamaica), partners reported satisfaction even in inequitable relationships.
Ex - This indicates that cultural norms influence whether equity is prioritized in relationships.
L - Equity theory lacks universal applicability and needs cultural consideration.

Question 38

How is cause and effect a limitation of ET?

Answer 38

P - The relationship between equity and satisfaction may not be straightforward.
Ev - Utne et al. and Grote and Clark (2001) suggest that dissatisfaction may lead to perceptions of inequity, creating a cycle of misery.
Ex - This challenges the theory’s claim that inequity is the root cause of dissatisfaction, suggesting it may also be a result.
L Equity theory provides only a partial explanation of relationship dynamics.

Question 39

Wha are the evaluation points for Rusbult’s investment model?

Answer 39

+) Research support
C.P - > correlation is not causation
+) RWA to abusive relationships
-) oversimplifies investment

Question 40

How is research support a strength of the investment model?

Answer 40

P: The investment model is supported by meta-analysis research.
Ev: Agnew et al. (2003) found that commitment was consistently linked to satisfaction, alternatives, and investment across genders and relationships.
Ex: This demonstrates the universal applicability of Rusbult’s model to diverse relationships.
L: The model’s strength lies in its ability to explain commitment in a wide range of contexts.

Question 41

How is application to abusive relationships a strength of the investment model?

Answer 41

P: The model explains why people stay in abusive relationships.
Ev: Rusbult and Martz found that women who stayed in abusive relationships often felt committed due to investment and lack of alternatives.
Ex: This shows that commitment can persist even when satisfaction is low, highlighting the model’s explanatory power.
L: The investment model accounts for real-world relationship complexities.

Question 42

How is over-simplifying investment a limitation of the investment model?

Answer 42

P - The model oversimplifies the nature of investment.
Ev - Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that future plans, not just past investments, are key motivators for commitment.
Ex - This suggests the model is incomplete as it does not consider future-focused investments.
L - Rusbult’s model needs refinement to capture the full complexity of investments.

Question 43

What is a counter for research support in the investment model?

Answer 43

P - The model’s research shows correlation, not causation.
Ev - Strong links exist between commitment and factors like satisfaction, but commitment itself may drive these factors.
Ex - This challenges the model’s ability to establish clear causal relationships.
L - Rusbult’s model may explain associations, but it does not prove the causes of commitment.

Question 44

What are the evaluation points for Virtual relationships in social media?

Answer 44

+) Research support for the absence of gating
-) lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model
C.P - > hyperhonest and hyperdishonest disclosures
-) Online relationships may be multimodial

Question 45

How is research support for the absence of gating a strength of virtual relatioships in social media?

Answer 45

P - Virtual relationships benefit from the absence of gating.
Ev - McKenna and Bargh (2000) found that 71% of online relationships among shy and socially anxious people survived over two years compared to 49% offline.
Ex - This highlights how the lack of physical or social barriers (gates) allows these individuals to form successful relationships online.
L - Absence of gating increases opportunities for connection, supporting the model’s claim about virtual relationships.

Question 46

How is hyperpersonal model evidence a limitation for virtual relationships in social media?

Answer 46

P - Research supports the hyperpersonal model.
Ev - Walther and Tidwell found online communication often involves emojis and acronyms, which replace nonverbal cues like facial expressions.
Ex - This suggests virtual communication can be just as personal and effective as face-to-face interactions.
L - The hyperpersonal model explains how online relationships can feel more intimate despite lacking nonverbal cues.

Question 47

What is a counter for the lack of research support on the hyperpersonal model?

Answer 47

P - Virtual relationships differ significantly from face-to-face ones.
Ev - Whitty and Joinson (2009) found online communication can be hyperhonest (direct, revealing) or hyperdishonest (exaggerating qualities, e.g., on dating profiles).
Ex - This supports the model’s claim that self-presentation online is often exaggerated but highlights key differences from face-to-face relationships.
L - Virtual relationships enable unique behaviors that cannot always be replicated offline.

Question 48

How is online relationships being multimodial a limitation of virtual relationships?

Answer 48

P - Virtual relationships are often intertwined with offline interactions.
Ev - Walther (2011) argues that most relationships are “multimodal,” combining online and offline interactions.
Ex - This shows that virtual relationships don’t occur in isolation, making it simplistic to study them purely online.
L - Models like the hyperpersonal model should integrate multimodal perspectives to remain relevant.

Question 49

What ar ethe evaluation points for parasosocial relationships?

Answer 49

+) Universal application of attachment theory
C.P-> contradictory research
-) Correlational research
+)Research suport for the absorption adiction model

Question 50

How is universal application of attachment theory a strength of parasocial relationships?

Answer 50

P - Attachment theory applies across different cultures.
Ev - Kinkha et al. (2015) found that people with insecure attachments were more likely to form intense parasocial relationships, regardless of cultural background (e.g., collectivist Kuwait vs. individualist US).
Ex - This supports the idea that attachment type is a universal explanation for parasocial relationships.
L - The need for parasocial relationships may stem from a basic, cross-cultural human attachment tendency.

Question 51

How is research support for the absorption addiction model a strength of parasocial relationships?

Answer 51

P - The absorption-addiction model is supported by research.
Ev - Maltby et al. (2005) found female adolescents with intense parasocial relationships and poor body image were at higher risk of developing eating disorders.
Ex - This demonstrates a link between parasocial relationships, absorption, and psychological issues.
L - The model effectively explains how parasocial relationships may be linked to maladaptive behaviors.

Question 52

How is correational research a limitation of the parasocial relationships?

Answer 52

P- Many studies on parasocial relationships rely on correlational data.
Ev - McCutcheon et al. (2016) argue correlations cannot show causation, meaning parasocial relationships may not cause psychological issues, or vice versa.
Ex - This limits our understanding of the direction of influence or other unmeasured factors (e.g., personality traits).
L - Correlational data must be interpreted cautiously when evaluating the effects of parasocial relationships.

Question 53

What is a counter of attachment theory applying universally being a strength in parasocial relationships?

Answer 53

P - Attachment theory is challenged by contradictory findings.
Ev - McCutcheon et al. (2006) found no link between insecure attachment styles and the likelihood of forming parasocial relationships.
Ex - This questions the universality of attachment theory as an explanation for parasocial connections.
L - Other factors, such as personality traits or situational variables, may play a larger role.

Question 54

What is Social Exchange Theory?

Answer 54

SET describes relationships as an economic exchange to maximize rewards and minimize costs.

Question 55

Definition of Costs and Rewards

Answer 55

Rewards include companionship, praise, and intimacy. Costs include stress, loss of time, and emotional investment.

Question 56

What is opportunity cost?

Answer 56

the cost of expending resources on one relationship instead of elsewhere.

Question 57

Comparison Level (CL)

Answer 57

CL is a standard used to measure the rewards one believes they deserve in a relationship.

Question 58

Factors Influencing Comparison Level (CL)

Answer 58

CL is shaped by past relationship experiences and societal norms

Question 59

Low vs. High CL

Answer 59

People with low self-esteem may have lower CLs, pursuing less rewarding relationships.

Question 60

Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt)

Answer 60

CLalt assesses whether someone might gain more rewards or fewer costs in a different relationship (or being single).

Question 61

Impact of Satisfying Relationships on CLalt

Answer 61

Satisfying relationships make alternatives less noticeable, while unsatisfying ones increase CLalt’s appeal.

Question 62

Four Stages of Relationship Development

Answer 62

Sampling: Exploring rewards and costs.
Bargaining: Negotiating rewards and costs.
Commitment: Stabilizing as costs decrease and rewards increase.
Institutionalization: Norms are established.

Question 63

SET Summary

Answer 63

: Relationships continue when rewards exceed costs; they fail when costs outweigh rewards.