Relationships Flashcards
Self disclosure
Self disclosure
AO1
Trust
Increases slowly intimacy
Satisfaction
Altman Taylor breadth depth peel layers
Reis shaver reciprocity balance intimacy
A03
Research Support
Sprecher +Hendrick (2004) found couples who shared more personal information more satisfied. However, these studies correlational, so happier couples might naturally disclose more rather than self-disclosure causing happiness.
Real-World Application
Hass+Stafford (1998) found encouraging self-disclosure helped couples maintain strong relationships. makes it useful for relationship therapy to improve intimacy.
Cultural Differences
Tang et al. (2013) found people in Western cultures disclose more about sexual experiences than those in Eastern cultures. shows self-disclosure isn’t equally important in all cultures.
Factors effectives : physical attractiveness
AO1
- 1st stimuli
- baby face
- langlois et al better judged
- zebrowtiz+mcdonald less harsher sentence
- halo effect dion et al associated with good
- Kim 1997 USA Korea
- Influenced by media and norms
- matching hypothesis = walsther + walsther 1969 matching levels cognitive mechanism rate
-Walster et al. (1966) found students at dance randomly paired with partner more likely to want a second date if their partner attractive, regardless of their own attractiveness. This challenges matching hypothesis it suggests people value looks over similarity when choosing a partner.
A03
- Halo Effect Support
Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that attractive people are seen as more intelligent and competent. This shows how looks can unfairly influence judgments, even in areas like politics.
- Evolutionary Explanation
Cunningham et al. (1995) found that men from different cultures preferred youthful features like large eyes and a small nose. This suggests attraction is based on evolution rather than personal preference.
- Research Challenging the Matching Hypothesis
Taylor et al. (2011) found that in online dating, people aimed for the most attractive partners rather than matching their own attractiveness. This weakens the matching hypothesis, suggesting people go for the best they can get instead of settling for a similar level.
🔴 Counterpoint: However, Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of real-life couples and found strong support for the matching hypothesis. suggests that while people may aim high in short-term dating, long-term relationships are more balanced in attractiveness.
- Individual Differences
Towhey (1979) found that not everyone values physical attractiveness equally, as some rated it less important. This means attraction isn’t purely based on looks but also personality and values.
Effecting attractiveness = filter theory
AO1
Field of available
Field desirables
3 levels
Social demography = proximity social class education religion
Similarity attitude values Byrne 1997 law of attraction
Complemantarity = opposites attract later one shy one out
AO3
Research Support
- Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)found: Attitude similarity most important sTM relationship Complementarity became key in long-term Supports filter model showing different factors influence attraction at different stages. However Levinger (1974) Many studies failed to replicate these findings. Subjective classification of relationships (short-term vs. long-term) reduces reliability validity of filter model.
Markey & Markey (2013) – Similarity over Complementarity
- Found romantic partners more likely to be psychologically similar not complementary. Challenges idea that complementarity is crucial in long-term
Problems with Complementarity
- Research suggests similarity matters more than complementarity even in long-term
- Couples with high similarity tend to grow closer over time reducing the role of complementarity.
Actual vs. Perceived Similarity
- Montoya et al. (2008) Similarity leads to initial attraction but no effect on long-term satisfaction
- Anderson et al. (2003) Partners become more similar over time
Davis & Rusbult (2001) Attitude alignment happens in long-term meaning similarity can develop rather than being a precondition Challenging filter theory which assumes similarity is fixed from start.
Social Change
- Online dating expands dating pool reducing impact of social demography e.g., location, ethnicity, class).
- Geographical barriers no longer restrict dating, making filter theory less relevant today
Social exchange theory
AO1
- thibult + Kelly economic theory net profit reward exceeded cost sex support.
- comparison level CL what u believe should get past norms effected by self esteem
- comparison in alternatives CaLt
- stages relationship development
1. Sampling – Exploring rewards costs in different relationships.
2. Bargaining – Negotiating testing rewards costs in new relationship.
3. Commitment – Relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase costs decrease.
4. Institutionalisation – Norms expectations established, making relationship predictable.
AO3
Research Support
- Kurdek (1995) Studied all type relations Foundmost committed partners saw more benefits and fewer alternatives Support profit-loss principle we stay when rewards outweigh costs. However Many SET studies ignore equity Research suggests perceived fairness more important than maximizing rewards Shows SET is incomplete without equity theory.
Direction of Cause and Effect
- SET assumes dissatisfaction comes from lack of rewards
- Argyle (1987) We only start thinking about alternatives after we become unhappy not before.
- Miller (1997) Highly committed partners pay less attention to alternatives. Suggests SET may have wrong cause-and-effect relationship
Vague Concepts
- Rewards costs are subjective Difficult to measure comparison levels objectively. Lacks scientific testability lowers validity.
Inappropriate Central Assumptions
- Clark & Mills (2011) SET works for business relationships not romantic one don’t keep track of ‘profit and loss’ like in a business. SET oversimplifies relationships ignores emotional connection
Theories of romantic relationships equity theory
AO1
Economic
Profit roughly same
At start normal to put more
Guilt bitternes anger
How deal with it cognitive revise levels costs profits
A03
Research Support
Utne et al. (1984):
118 recently married couples (measured equity using self-report scales).Couples who felt more equitable were more satisfied.Supports equity theory’s link to relationship satisfaction.however Equity may not be as important as ET suggests.Berg & McQuinn (1986): Found no link between equity & relationship length.Instead, self-disclosure & communication were key to long-term satisfaction.Suggests equity may not predict relationship success.
🌍 Cultural Limitations
Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007):Equity seen as important in Western cultures.In collectivist cultures, satisfaction was higher when partners over-benefited.Equity may not be a universal principle in relationships.
👫 Individual Differences
Not everyone cares about equity the same way.Huseman et al. (1987) identified:Benevolents (who give more without expecting returns).Entitleds (who believe they deserve more without guilt).Suggests equity is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ theory.
Cause or Effect?
Does inequity cause dissatisfaction, or do unhappy couples notice inequity more?Clark & Mills (2011): No clear evidence of direction.Suggests ET may describe dissatisfaction but not fully explain it.
Theory of romantic relations : rusbult investment model
AO1
Success = commitment based CL+CALT
Investment = try to save it
Intrinsic = time
Extrinsic = material
Maintenance mechanism = accommodation - don’t retaliate sacrifice forgive illusions degrade alternatives
AO3
Evaluation of Rusbult’s Investment Model
👍 Strong research support
The model has solid backing from real studies. A big meta-analysis by Le and Agnew (2003) looked at 52 studies with over 11,000 people from five different countries. They found that commitment levels were linked to satisfaction, investment, and lack of alternatives, just like the model predicts. This applied to all sorts of people—men, women, cultures, and even same-sex couples.It shows that Rusbult’s model is reliable and universal across different relationships.
🤔 A counterpoint: Correlation doesn’t prove causeYes, studies show a strong connection between commitment and factors like investment and alternatives. But correlation doesn’t mean causation. We don’t know if commitment causes people to invest more or if investing more makes people more committed.model might not explain the cause of commitment, just patterns.
💑 Explains why people stay in bad relationships
Unlike other theories that focus only on satisfaction, this model explains why people stay in abusive relationships. Even when satisfaction is low, high investment (e.g., time, money, shared kids, or emotional bonds) and few alternatives keep people from leaving makes model more realistic for real-life relationships.
Good friend +agnew future needs to considered
Ducks phase model
AO1
4 stages break down
Interpsyhcic = think
Dyadic = self disclosure
Social
Grave dressing blame
Resusurection use what learnt
AO3
- real life couple council intra
- face validity
- low cultural validity moghammadan et al
🌍 Real-World Application
💡 The model is useful because it suggests ways to save relationships or help people cope after a breakup.
🔎 Example: If a relationship is in the intra-psychic phase, encouraging partners to talk about concerns may prevent a breakup. In later stages, helping individuals improve social skills may help them form better future relationships makes the model practically useful for relationship counseling.
🌎 Cultural Differences (Counterpoint)
The model is based on Western relationships and may not apply to all cultures.Moghaddam et al. (1993) found that in individualist cultures, relationships are usually voluntary and end frequently. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, relationships often involve family influence and are harder to end. means the model may not apply to non-Western relationships.
📏 Limited Explanation
The model only focuses on breakups—it doesn’t explain why relationships fail in the first place.Felmee (1995) suggests that relationships don’t just end due to problems but also because of what attracted partners in the first place (e.g., humor, kindness) becoming less appealing.model doesn’t account for changing attraction, which is key in relationships.
🔄 Early Stages Are Less Understood
💡 The first two phases (intra-psychic & dyadic) are mostly internal, making them hard to study.Many studies on breakup experiences are retrospective, meaning participants recall past events after the breakup happened. This may lead to biased or incomplete memories.early stages of the model lack strong research support.
📖 Description Rather Than Explanation
💡 The model describes relationship breakdown well but doesn’t explain why breakups happen. outlines the breakup process but doesn’t consider biological, psychological, or situational factors that may cause a relationship to fail.Without an explanation, the model lacks predictive power—it tells us what happens, but not why
Virtual
AO1
Social media
Sproul+kisler 1986 less que
Either less self disclosure or deinvdiualistaion
Ruppel et al 2017 self disclosure more
Hyper personal model Walter 1966 more self
Selective self personal presentation
No ages
Excitement dipoomaine
AO3
#### 🚫 Reduced Cues Theory may be wrong
💡 The Reduced Cues Theory says online relationships are less personal because they lack body language and facial expressions. But research disagrees!** Walther & Tidwell (1995) found people use other cues—like emojis, punctuation, and message timing—to express emotion. Online communication isn’t as emotionless as the theory suggests.
Is the Hyperpersonal Model always right?**
💡 The Hyperpersonal Model claims people self-disclose more online, making relationships deeper.
🔎 But Ruppel et al. (2017) reviewed 25 studies and found no big difference between self-disclosure online and in real life. Virtual relationships aren’t always more intense—it depends on the person.
💡 “Gating” = barriers (like looks, shyness, social anxiety) that can block relationships in real life. McKenna & Bargh (2000)** found online couples were more likely to last because they focused on personality, not superficial traits. The internet removes barriers, helping people form deeper connections.
⚖️ Balancing the Arguments
- Strengths: Virtual relationships can be personal and meaningful, and they help people who struggle socially.
- Weaknesses: The intensity of online relationships varies, and not all theories fully explain how they work.
Parasocial
AO1
One side cleb
3 levels maltby et al 2006
Entertainment = casual
Interpersonal = obsessive thoughts
Borderline pathological = uncontrollable
Absorption addiction model consumed fulfilment
Low self esteem
Attachment bowl by insecure resistance insecure avoidant no fear addiction
Learning approach = model behaviour
AO3
#### 📊 Research support for Levels of Parasocial Relationships McCutcheon et al.
💡 The three levels of parasocial relationships (entertainment-social, intense-personal, borderline-pathological) are backed by research.
🔎 McCutcheon et al. (2002) used the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) to measure people’s attitudes toward celebrities. They found that higher levels of parasocial relationships were linked to poorer mental health and problem behaviors.supports the idea that celebrity worship can become unhealthy at higher levels.
💡 This model suggests that people with psychological deficits (e.g., low self-esteem, stress) are more likely to develop intense parasocial relationships. Research shows that celebrity worship and body image issues are linked, especially in teenagers. Some studies suggest people use parasocial relationships to escape reality or boost self-esteem. model explains why some people become obsessed with celebrities, but it doesn’t fully explain why only some people develop these relationships.
💡 Parasocial relationships happen in all cultures, showing they’re a common human behavior.
🔎 Schmid & Klimmt (2011) found that people in both individualistic cultures (e.g., USA) and collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan) formed strong parasocial relationships with Western media celebrities. suggests parasocial relationships aren’t just a Western phenomenon—they exist worldwide.
💡 Attachment theory suggests that people who had insecure attachments as children are more likely to form parasocial relationships. Studies show that insecure-resistant individuals are more likely to have intense parasocial relationships, possibly because they fear real-life rejection and find celebrities a “safe” emotional investment. explains why some people cling to celebrities but struggle with real-life relationships.
✅ Strengths: Research supports different levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption-addiction model, and links to attachment theory. Weaknesses**: Most research is correlational—it’s unclear whether parasocial relationships cause problems or if people with existing issues are just more likely to have them.
Dinka et al 2015 constant findings across cultures
Self report
Most correlational
