relationships Flashcards
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences - ao1
according to evolutionary psychology both males and females choose partners in order to maximise their chances of reproductive success and pass on advantageous traits to their offspring
men and women use different strategies to ensure reproductive success due to anisogamy which refers to the fact that males seem will be produced with little energy expenditure from puberty to old age, whilst females eggs are produced in small time intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require significant energy investment, this means that there is a shortage of fertile females but not fertile males causing both intra and intersexual selection to take place
intersexual selection takes place between the sexes and is the strategies that males use to select females and females use to select males, male strategies include courtship rituals(display genetic potential), size(bigger/stronger), sperm competition(larger balls/bigger ejactulation/faster sperm), sneak copulation(mating with may to increase chance of sucess and diversity)
female strategies include sexy sons hypothesis(want hot men so sons will be leng), handicap hypothesis(males who have handicaps like drinking or drug use have superior genetic quality and fitness)
intrasexual selection takes place within members of one sex where they complete for the attention of the opposite sex, most commonly males compete with other males for the female as they are the rarer one, males want to appear stronger so evolution has made males larger as they are more likely to reproduce, males tend to want younger looking females as those are the fertile ones so evolution has an effect on youthfulness in females, another strategy used in intersexual is mate guarding where a male will guard their female partner to prevent them from leaving him and choosing another male
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences - ao3
+ Clark and Hatfield found support for intersexual selection as they asked psychology students to approach other students with the question I have noticed you around campus and found you attractive, will you go to bed with me tonight?, 75% of males agreed to request but not a single female did, females are choosier than males when selecting partners and have evolved different strategies to males
+ buss surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females value resource based characteristics in males(money, job) whilst males valued good looks and youthfulness, supporting intersexual competition and the different strategies used
- socially sensitive topic as they promote traditional sexist views regarding natural male and female behaviours which no longer apply to modern society, women are now career oriented and do not need resourceful partners, additionally contraception means that evolutionary pressures are less relevant
- fails to explain other types of relationships and partner preferences for example homosexual couples are not looking for genetic fitness to increase reproductive success, additionally we do not know how the theory applies to cultural variations of relationships across the world for example arranged marriages.
factors affecting attraction (self disclosure) - ao1
Self disclosure is the revealing of personal information about the self such as thoughts feelings and experiences to another person which increases attraction and strengthens the romantic bond between partners
as trust is built the breadth and depth of self disclosure increase, in the beginning only the superificial and low risk details of ones life are disclosed (work/hobbies) and as the relationship progresses we gradually reveal more intimate and high risk details (wishes/fears/attitudes/aspirations), however self disclosing too quickly can reduce attraction
for a relationship to develop there needs to be reciprocity in the disclosure, the more self disclosure someone gives, the more they expect in return creating a balance of self disclosure between partners in successful romantic relationships
self disclosure also acts as a central concept in the theory of social penetration devised by Altman and Taylor, it describes the gradual process of revealing your inner self and giving your deepest thoughts and feelings, indicating that for a relationship to prosper partners must keep disclosing personal information with increasing intimacy to allow each other to penetrate more deeply into each others life and form a stronger relationship
factors affecting attraction (self disclosure) - ao3
+ research has shown to support the fundamental concept of self disclosure being a gradual process as analysis of reality tv shows like big brother found that viewers started to dislike contestants who self disclosed too much too early on and preferred those who self disclosed gradually
+ additionally Kito found evidence to support the idea of self disclosure across cultures he investigated relationships between Japanese and American students and found self disclosure was high for those in heterosexual romantic relationships
- sprecher found research that contradicts the idea of reciprocal self disclosure as rather than the amount of self disclosure received the level and depth of the information was a better predictor of the strength of the relationship
- much of the research conducted is only correlational and suggested a relationship between amount of self disclosure and satisfaction in a relationship, therefore there may be a third variable affecting the attraction to a potential partner such as amount of time spent with them
factors affecting attraction (matching hypothesis/halo effect) - ao1
research has shown that physical attractiveness affects attraction in romantic relationships and that both genders place importance on it, there are two theories which look at the role of physical attraction in relationships
the halo effect can be described as how one distinguishing feature of an individual tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of personality, in this case research has shown that physically attractive people are consistently rates as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
the matching hypothesis was proposed by Walter and explained the instead of selecting the most attractive person as a prospective partner, instead we choose a romantic partner of similar attractiveness as what we would consider ourselves, creating a pragmatic balance between the desire for the most attractive partner and a realistic awareness of our own level of attractiveness
factors affecting attraction (matching hypothesis/halo effect) - ao3
halo effect
+ research by palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable/competent than unattractive
+additionally has real life applications as in the real world politicians seen as physically attractive would garner more votes which impacts democracy as people are voting for physical attractiveness rather than capability
- Towhey asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph and also to complete a MACHO scale measuring sexist behaviour, found that high macho scale thought physical attractiveness was more important, low macho scale valued physical attractiveness less, therefore its influence is moderated by other factors like personality
matching hypothesis
+ real life applications to dating and marriage websites as we can use the knowledge that people tend t choose partners who are similar in attractiveness to help set up prospective partners with each other
- Walter conducted a study to test his hypothesis where around 350 male and female participants were invited to a dance and were ranked by 4 independent judges on physical attractiveness and were then paired randomly by a computer, after the dance they were asked whether they liked their partner and if they wish to see them again, but the result found that the most liked partners were the most physically attractive with no consideration for own attractiveness
- sometimes physically attractive people form relationships with unattractive people, this is due to complex matching where there is a rebalance of traits and the unattractive person has other traits to make up for it (money/status/personality)
factors affecting attraction (filter theory) - ao1
the filter theory was proposed by Kerchoff and Davis as an explanation of relationship formation by using a set of filters to reduce the field of available partners down to a field of desirable partners
there are 3 levels of filtering, these are
social demography - based on social characteristics, concerning age, sex, education, background, location
similarity in attitude - based on psychological characteristics, whether they have similar attitudes, beliefs and values
complementarity of needs - based on emotional characteristics, needs should be complementary rather than similar to ensure mutual satisfaction that opposing needs are met
factors affecting attraction (filter theory) - ao3
+ Kerchoff and Davis provided their own supporting study where 94 couples from Duke university took part in a longitudinal study, couples took a questionnaire at beginning of study and after 7 months that assessed similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs as a indicator of closeness, findings found that short term couples relied on similarity of attitudes whilst long term relied on complementarity
+in 2010, Taylor found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 had married someone from their own ethnic group which supports the social demography filter, individuals more likely to choose partners similar to them
- theory may lack temporal validity as nowadays the internet and virtual relationships allow us to meet people who live further away, may be of different ethnicity or social group meaning the first filter does not play as much of an important role as it did 30 years ago
- criticism comes due to the proposal of the theory of emotional convergence, Anderson found that from his longitudinal study on cohabiting partners, their attitudes started off different and slowly became similar over time which increased attraction, this contradicts the filter that people look for those with similar attitudes
social exchange theory - ao1
an economic theory developed by thibault and Kelley that considers how partners change rewards and costs, when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive, a satisfying and committed relationship will be maintained
rewards will include things like companionship, sex, emotional support
costs will include time, stress energy, compromise, opportunity for alternatives
we can measure the profit in a romantic relationship:
comparison level - the amount of reward we believe we deserve to receive based of previous relationships, self esteem and social norms
comparison level for alternatives - comparing profit in current relationship with other potential relationships, whether we would gain more profit in another relationships
Thibault and Kelley described 4 stages in which relationships based upon social exchange theory will develop:
Some Bitches Can’t Institutionalise
Sampling - partners consider potential rewards in the new relationship by experimenting in own relationship or observing others
Bargaining - partners exchange rewards and costs, negotiate and identify what is most profitable
Commitment - relationship is stable and maintained by a predictable exchange of rewards and costs
Institutionalisation - established set of norms in terms of rewards and costs
social exchange theory - ao3
+ Gottman found evidence supporting the social exchange theory where individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently reported a lack of positive behaviour exchanges and an excess of negative behaviour exchanges, therefore emphasising the importance of rewards outweighing costs
+ has real life applications to integrated couples therapy, helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviour and exchanges whilst increasing positive ones, teaching couples how to maximise profit in the relationship to make it more satisfying
- Research found by Little John saw that it is difficult to define a cost and a reward in a relationship as for example a child one partner may consider it a cost whilst the other sees it as a reward
- there is a disagreement with the argument that people spend a great deal of time monitoring the costs and rewards within their relationships, instead they are only monitored when the relationship becomes dissatisfying
equity theory - ao1
the equity theory is an economic model of relationships that is based on the idea of fairness for each partner
if one partner starts to perceive the relationship is unfair they will become dissatisfied regardless of whether they are over or under benefitting, according to this theory if it is over they will feel a sense of guilt/shame whilst if it is under they will feel angry/resentful
by equity the theory does not mean equality it means fairness, both must feel it is fair in terms of rewards and costs for both individuals
Walter saw equity as based upon 4 key principles: Please Don’t Dis Regard
Profit - trying to maximise rewards and minimise costs in the relationship
Distribution - Negotiation of distribution of rewards and costs in order to create fairness
Dissatisfaction - if the relationship becomes unfair or inequitable it will produce stress or dissatsifaction
Realignment - the disadvantaged person will try to restore equity to allow the relationship to continue
equity theory - ao3
+- Stafford and Canary conducted a study on 200 married couples who completed questionnaires on equity and satisfaction in their relationship, they found that partners who perceived their relationship as being fair showed the most satisfaction but also found that those who seemed to over benefit in their relationship had a high level of satisfaction whilst those who underbenefited had the lowest levels of satisfaction
+ Brosnan conducted a study on monkeys surrounding equity and found that if the neighbouring monkey received the reward but they were denied it they got angry suggesting the importance of equity has ancient origins that span across species
-subject to culture bias as is more applicable to individualistic cultures rather than collectivist, in individualistic cultures we are more concerned with equal rewards and costs for success in relationships, however in collectivist extended family networks and family values may be of more importance therefore does not explain the economic development of relationships in all cultures
- there may be individual differences in the perception of equity, there are some individuals who’s personalities are less sensitive to inequity and are more willing to give more (benevolents) whilst there are some individuals who feel they deserve to over benefit in relationships without guilt (entitleds)
investment model - ao1
Rusbult extended on the social exchange theory by proposing his investment model, consists of of 3 key factors that will decide the level of commitment and whether or to leave or stay in the relationship
these factors are satisfaction levels, quality of alternatives and investment size
satisfaction - the positive/negative emotional experiences one feels during the relationship, influenced by the extent to which their individual needs are fulfilled
quality of alternatives - whether ones important needs may be fulfilled better outside of the relationship, if there is an attractive alternative they may want to leave
investment size - there are two types intrinsic (direct investments like time money energy) and extrinsic (developed through relationship like children memories) investment is a powerful psychological force that motivates people to continue the relationship and contributes to the stability of it
based on the levels of the three factors the commitment level can be determined and the decision can be made whether to leave or stay, ideally the high commitment levels will result from high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives, high investment size
investment model - ao3
+ meta analysis conducted by Le and Agnew of 52 studies between 1970-1999 consisting of 11000 participants from 5 countries (uk,usa,israel,taiwan,netherlands) the findings showed the correlation between the three factors and commitment levels
significant correlation between satisfaction and commitment (+0.68)
quality of alternatives had lowest correlation with commitment levels (-0.48)
investment size correlated with commitment at (+0.46)
+ helps explain the behaviour of infidelity as the person may have low levels of satisfaction in current relationship but there may be high quality of alternatives, both these factors will cause commitment levels to drop additionally and the relationship to end
+ additionally explains why people may remain in abusive relationships as though the satisfaction may be low there may be no attractive alternatives and high investment that the commitment levels are too high to leave the relationship
- ciriticism due to fact it is very difficult to measure the factors of commitment/satisfaction/investment/alternatives, however rustbult responded to this by constructing the investment model scale which measures the key variables in a reliable and valid way
- does not take into account gender differences as psychologist Lin found that females tend to report higher satisfaction, poorer quality of alternatives, greater investment and stronger commitment compared to males
relationship breakdown - ao1
relationship breakdown occurs when one or both people in the relationship feel that it is not working and wish for the relationship to end
duck developed 4 phases of relationship breakdown:
I Don’t Suck Gay dick! Real!
Intrapsychic Phase - the dissatisfied person privately thinks about their relationship and problems they have identified
Dyadic Phase - private confrontation between the partners where the problems are raised, investments like kids/properties are considered, potential reconciliation or breakdown continues
Social Phase - breakup disclosed to family and friends, able to receive external advice/support, time of negotiation and settlement of arrangements
Grave Dressing Phase - each partners come to terms with breakdown and construct a narrative of how the relationship ended and partners rebuild their lives
relationship breakdown - ao3
+ though it is an old model developed in 1982 and could be considered to lack temporal validity, as time has passed improvements have been made to develop the theory and keep it up to date for example, in 200 Rollie introduced a fifth phase called resurrection phase where a person engages in personal growth and gets over there past relationship and prepares for new ones
+additional support comes from the social exchange theory proposed by kelley, the theory supports ducks model as states that if a relationship has high costs and minimal rewards then the relationship is not worth continuing and instead will breakdown
- akert suggested that the model does not take into account the role people played in the breakdown of the relationship, in a study he conducted he found that those who did not initiate the breakup were the most miserable, lonely, depressed and angry in the weeks after, whereas those who initiated it were less stressed and upset but did feel guilty.
- ducks model does not acknowledge gender differences that exist when a relationship breaks down, for example kassin found that when giving reasons for a break up females emphasised unhappiness/lack of emotional support/incompatibility whereas males emphasise lack of fun/sex, additionally post break up females often wish to remain friends whereas males prefer a clean slate
virtual relationships - ao1
with social media increasing in popularity in recent years the number of virtual relationships forming also increases
virtual relationships form slightly differently to ftf due to the fact that self disclosure tends to occur much faster, this can be explained by two theories - the hyper personal model and the absence of gating
the hyper personal model was proposed by Walther and explains how as self disclosure happens earlier and faster, virtual relationships can develop quickly into intense and intimate relationships, with hyper personal self disclosure the sender of the message has greater control over what they disclose than ftf relationships and means that the sender can manipulate their self image and present themselves in an idealised way (selective self presentation) and this can be done by being hyper honest or hyper dishonest, the receiver will then gain a positive impression of the sender and may send positive feedback which reinforces the sender’s selective self presentation
with the absence of gating theory we see how virtual relationships are not affected by the usual barriers/gates that interfere with relationship formation in ftf relationships (these include physical attractiveness, distance, social anxiety), as these barriers are absent it creates more opportunities for shy or less attractive people to develop romantic relationships and for people to establish virtual identities they would otherwise be unable to recreate in ftf interactions
virtual relationships - ao3
+ there is research support for the absence of gating in virtual relationships allowing shy and socially anxious people to form relationships, McKenna and Bargh looked into online communication by shy/lonely/socialanxious people and found that they could express their true selves more online than ftf, of the romantic relationships formed by the shy people 71% lasted at least 2 years compared to those who met ftf
- Rupel et al carried out a meta analysis of 25 studies that compared self disclosure in ftf and virtual relationships and these showed that the frequency/breadth/depth of self disclosure were all greater in ftf relationships which directly contradicts the argument of the hyper personal model
- we may be unable to generalise our findings to other cultures as many of the studies have been carried out in western countries, additionally internet technology is not readily available in some countries meaning virtual relationships may form and develop differently in these countries compared to western countries which we do not have explanations for yet, therefore the theory is subject to culture bias and is limited to only explaining virtual relationships in western countries.
parasocial relationships (absorption addiction) - ao1
parasocial relationships are similar to normal relationships but lack a key element in that they are a one sided unreciprocated relationship usually with a celebrity where the fan expends lots of emotional energy/committment/time.
McCutcheon developed the celebrity attitude scale which was based on a large scale survey and it identifies 3 levels of parasocial relationships:
entertainment social - celebrities are seen as a source of entertainment and topic for lighthearted gossip (least intense)
intense personal - celebrity seen as soulmate, intense interest into personal life like dress sense, food, entertainment, obsess over details of their life (deeper)
borderline pathological - celebrity worship, obsessive fantasies, large sums of money spent on memorabilia, illegal activities like stalking, believes feelings would be reciprocated (most intense)
absorption addiction model was developed by mccutcheon and argues that parasocial relationships are used to compensate for deficiencies in a person’s real life relationships, allows them to achieve the sense of fulfilment they lack and add a sense of purpose
first stage is absorption where the individual becomes consumed with the life of the celebrity and achieving the sense of fulfilment from the relationships
next stage is addiction where the individual needs to increase their dose of involvement with celebrity to gain the sense of satisfaction leading to more extreme behaviours and the relationship becoming all consuming
parasocial relationships (absorption addiction) - ao3
+ supporting evidence by mccutcheon where participants level of CAS and their problems in their own intimate relationships were analysed, they found that those at level 2 and 3 had high degrees of anxiety in their intimate relationships, level 1 had problems in other parts of their relationship. this shows that the cat scale and level of parasocial relationships is a good indicator of ones actual behaviour and whether they may be trying to compensate for a deficiency in their relationship
+research support by Greenwood and Long also find a link between loneliness and engaging in parasocial relationships additionally supporting the argument that parochial relationships are used to compensate for deficiencies
- does not consider gender differences and its influence on parasocial relationships, as it may be that males and females engage in parasocial relationships in different ways and for different reasons
- this argument also does not show cause and effect as we are unsure whether parasocial relationships are formed due to deficiencies in real life or whether the all consuming aspect of parasocial relationship is causing deficiencies in real life.
parasocial relationships (attachment theory) - ao1
parasocial relationships are similar to normal relationships but lack a key element in that they are a one sided unreciprocated relationship usually with a celebrity where the fan expends lots of emotional energy/committment/time.
Another explanation of the parasocial relationship is using Bowlby’s attachment theory and the supporting evidence from Ainsworth’s strange situation and attachment types
Bowlby predicted that individuals who did not form a strong and secure bond with their primary caregiver will try to find an attachment substitute as an adult, for example parsocial relationships.
Additionally, Ainsworth suggested that those who formed insecure resistant relationships with their caregiver in early childhood will be more likely to form parasocial relationships, as they are too afraid of the criticism and rejection that may come with real life relationships
in the strange situation experiment, insecure resistant children were very clingy, did not want to explore, distressed when mother left, behaviour now translates to clingy and jealous behaviour in relationships making lasting/committed relationships difficult (haven shaver)
parasocial relationships (attachment theory) - ao3
+ supported by research by Kienlen who found evidence that disturbed attachment in childhood leads to the development of borderline-pathological parasocial relationships as 63% of stalker participants experiences the loss of a caregiver and 50% experienced emotional/physical abuse
+ Cole and Leets found that teenagers who had the insecure resistant attachment developed paracsocial relationships with tv personalities allowing us to support the link and potentially consider using it as a predictor for insecure resistant children growing up to develop these relationships
- evidence from mccutcheon in 2006 assessing around 230 participants found that there was no link between the attachment type and celebrity worship levels in these participants which contradicts the claims of the attachment theory
- does not show cause and effect, only shows a relationship but we cannot be sure its not due to another variable such as intelligence which mccutcheon found to have shown low intelligence correlates with high levels of parasocial relationships.
