Relationships Flashcards
Discuss filter theory as factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
- filter theory suggests that 3 main factors act as filters to reduce the number of people who we could form a relationship with, known as “field of availables”, down to the people we most want to form a relationship with, known as “field of desirables”. The 3 filters are:
1- social demography
-first level, most likely to pert at with someone we meet due to a range of factors
E.g. shared proximity, social class, ethnicity, religion, levels of education
2- similarity in attitudes
-second level
-our shared social demography means we are more likely to partner with someone who shares similar opinions and values.
-unlikely to find someone with different attitudes- constant disagreement
- we will find someone who shares our views rewarding and will want to spend more time with them to enjoy common interests
Evaluate filter theory as factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-supporting evidence comes from Clark who showed 50% of people in Columbus Ohio married someone who at one point lived within walking distance of their house, whilst Taylor found 85% of Americans married in 2008 did so to someone of the same ethnicity. This shows how similarity in social demography may play a role in who we form. Our long term relationships with.
-a limitation of the role of filter theory as a factor affecting relationships is that it can be criticised as research used to support it has low temporal validity , which is when the results of a study can’t be accurately generalised over time. Levinger notes that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. This could be due to the rise of the internet and dating apps which have reduced the importance of social and demographic variables which increases the likelihood of people pursuing a relationship outside their own social demographic, which questions the overall applicability of this theory to modern day.
-another is that it cannot establish cause and effect. Despite the model suggesting similarity in attitudes is needed earlier in a relationship and complimentary later, others have argued this direction of casually is wrong. This is because it’s impossible to establish the causal relationship, which is when you can’t establish whether the IV caused the DV or the DV caused the IV. For example, Anderson found co-habiting partners became more similar over time, something called
“Emotional convergence”, suggesting similarity isn’t as important at the early stages of a relationship as the model predicts, furthermore similarity between couples in long twerp relationships is more important than complementary. This suggests similarities in attitudes develops the longer a couple is together, which reduces the importance of complementary.
Discuss physical attractiveness as factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-halo effect:
Suggests physical attractiveness tends to have a disproportionate effect on our judgment of a persons other attributes such as their personality. It’s argued people who are seen to be physically attractive are also presumed to have positive psychological characteristics. For example, people perceived as good looking are assumed to be more successful and honest. However those seen as less attractive are presumed to have less positive psychological traits. In this way we are likely to choose a partner who is most physically attractive due to our assumptions they’ll have positive psychological characteristics.
-matching hypothesis- walster et al
Unlike the halo effect, the matching hypothesis suggests that despite possibly desiring the most attractive people, individuals seek partners whose physical attractiveness matches their own. Therefore we compromise because selecting a partner who is more attractive than us may cause anxiety as we may think we are likely to be rejected. On the other hand selecting a less attractive partner may lower our self-esteem. Therefore selecting a partner whose physical attractiveness matches our own increases the chance of a successful relationship
Evaluate physical attractiveness as factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-supporting evidence for filter theory comes from Clark who showed that 50% of people in Columbus Ohio married someone who at one point lived within walking distance of their house, whilst Taylor found 85% of Americans married in 2018 did so to someone of the same ethnicity showing how similarity in social demography may play a role in who we form our long term relationships with
-the role of filter theory as a factor affecting relationships can be criticised as research used to support it has low temporal validity which is when the conclusions and findings of a study have less validity in relation to the progression of time. Levinger notes that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. This could be due to the rise of the internet and dating apps which have reduced the importance of social and demographic variables which increases the likelihood of people perusing a relationship outside their own socail demographic, which questions the overall applicability of this theory to modern day relationships.
-despite the model suggesting similarity in attitudes is needed earlier in a relationship and complimentary later, others have argued this direction of causally is wrong. This is because it’s impossible to establish the causal relationship. For example, Anderson found co-habiting partners became more similar over time, something called ‘emotional convergence’, suggesting similarity isn’t as important at the early stages of a relationship as the model predicts, furthermore similarity between couples in long term relationships is more important than complementary. This suggests similarities in attitudes develops he longer the couple is together, which reduces the importance of complementary.
Discuss self-disclosure
Relationships develop when we disclose personal and intimate information to a potential partner. In the early stages of a relationship, we reveal a narrow breadth of information about ourselves as we talk about a range of ‘low risk’ topics, such as our likes and dislikes, our hopes and fears, our interests and attitudes, etc. Most people are careful about disclosing too much too soon. Ultimately, self-disclosure plays an important role in the development of a romantic relationship.
RECIPROCITY OF SELF-DISCLOSURE (Reis and Shaver, 1988)
For a relationship to develop, disclosure needs to be reciprocal (from both partners) and sensitively received. Non-reciprocal disclosures (an imbalance in how much each partner shares) usually do not lead to the formation of a relationship. In addition, disclosing personal disappointment or accomplishment, and information about previous sexual relationships has a greater influence on relationship satisfaction than more ‘neutral’ types of self-disclosure.
Discuss social penetration (Altman and Taylor)
As time goes on, we gradually increase the depth of the self-disclosed information as we begin to reveal more private and personal information about ourselves, showing we want to develop trust and intimacy. For example, we are likely to reveal painful memories, secrets, etc. In this way we gradually reveal our inner-self to ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives. As a result, people gain a greater understanding of each other.
Evaluate self-disclosure
(P) Supportive evidence for the role of Self-Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships comes from (E) Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) (E) who found, in a study of heterosexual couples at the start of their relationship, positive correlations between measures of satisfaction and commitment with reciprocal self-disclosure. (L) This shows that individuals who use self-disclosure are more committed to each other and satisfied with their relationship, at least in its early stages.
😊 Real-life applications
(P) Additionally, the role of Self-Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships has been shown to have real-life applications. (E) Hass and Stafford (1998) (E) found that 57% of gay men and women reported that open and honest self-disclosure was a maintenance strategy. Couples can be encouraged to increase self-disclosure to deepen their own relationships.
(L) ) This highlights the importance of self-disclosure in its role to support
people having relationship problems. Additionally, the factor can be applied
to a range of relationship types, increasing the validity of the explanation
(P) A limitation of Self-Disclosure is that research had
argues that factor is beta-biased,
(E) which is when a theory unfairly minimises the difference between men and women. E)did is and Allen found that women rated intimate disclosures by a partner more favourably than men suggesting women were more likely to respond to this kind of self-disclosure.
This means that the role of self-disclosure may be
a better explanation of attraction in women rather than men.
Discuss virtual relationships (reduced cues and hyper-personal model)
Reduced cues theory (sproull and kiesler) argues that virtual relationships make self-disclosure more likely because of a reduction in cues, like non-verbal cues (body language etc) and our emotions (facial expressions and tone of voice). We use these in FtF relationships but we can’t in virtual relationships. Therefore we become de-individuated (a loss of personal sense of self) which leads to disinhibition (a loss of usual rules that guide our behaviour). This can make CMC appear blunt or aggressive and so we are reluctant to self-disclose and consequently, someone is less likely to want to form a relationship with us.
Alternatively, walther’s hyper-personal model argues the greater anonymity of virtual relationships may mean that individuals may self-disclose more quickly,as there is less risk of being socially embarrassed. In turn, this increased self disclosure means CMC relationships develop deeply and intimately quicker. CMC gives an individual greater control of what to self-disclose and when to do so, engaging in selective self-presentation to reveal info which presents them in a positive and idealised way. This, along with the feeling of anonymity, means they may feel less accountable for their behaviour and self-disclosure more than they would in FtF.
Discuss virtual relationships (absence of gating)
McKenna and Bargh suggest a ‘gate’ in the formation of a relationship is anything which prevents a relationship forming (e.g. physical attractiveness or social anxieties). FtF relationships may not develop because such gates are obvious, but McKenna and Bargh point out that in virtual relationships these often, superficial gates are absent, meaning the relationship is more likely to be based on more stronger and quicker than a FtF one because there’s a greater focus on self-disclosures rather than being distracted by superficial factors.
The absence of gates makes it easier to make online identities which an individual would find difficult to manage in FtF relationships. For example a person who is shy in public may feel more confident when online. Once a virtual relationship had progressed to a deeper level any revelations which come about from physically meeting, such as not being able as physically attractive, may be less damaging to the relationship due to level of intimacy reached when communicating online.
Evaluate virtual relationships
-supportive evidence for the effect of the absence of gating in virtual relationships comes from McKenna who found that lonely and socially anxious people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more in CMC situations. They reported liking a ‘partner’ more and made more intimate disclosures when they interacted with online than FtF, despite not knowing they were the same person. This suggests that the absence of gating can support people who are socially anxious to build confidence in forming relationships.
Supportive evidence for the hyper-personal model comes from Whitty and Joinson who found, CMC tended to be very direct , probing and intimate with a view to presenting ourselves ourselves in an exaggerating positive light, compared to the more general ‘small talk’ made in FtF communication. This suggests the greater anonymity allows for more intimate self-disclosures that allow people to selectively self-present in a way that makes them seem more desirable, which can lead to relationships developing quicker than FtF ones supporting the claims of the hyper-personal model.
However there is evidence against reduced cue theory. Walther and Tidwell note that cues are not completely removed from CMC, rather they are simply different than those in FtF ones. Emoticons and timing of messages are considered effective substitutes in CMCs for the absence of non-verbal cues.
One final limitation is that theories don’t account for the fact that relationships are conducted both online and offline. For example, the interaction between people online will influence the interaction in the FtF relationship, including the level of self-disclosure. Therefore these two kinds of communication need to be considered together instead of separately. This suggests that current theories may underestimate the complexity of virtual realtionships.
Discus SET
-according to SET individuals perceive a relationship to be satisfactory based on the exchange of rewards gained and costs incurred by being in that relationship. Commitment to a relationship is dependent on how profitable it is to the individual. We measure profitability on 2 levels. One being comparison level (CL) which is the level we judge a relationship against.its based on our perceptions of other relationships we’ve had or seen and if a new relationship compares highly to our individual CL then we are likely to want to form that one. Our CL is a subjective measure and can be affected by factors such as self-esteem (hence an individual may maintain an unhealthy relationship). The other is comparison level for alternatives (CL Alt) which involves a similar level of cost-benefit analysis, but we compare the costs vs benefits in our current relationship with those of other potential relationships. If the potential rewards of being in a new relationship outweigh the costs of the current then we are likely to end the current. The outcome of this analysis is a payoff matrix and we will form and maintain a relationship in the event of a positive payoff matrix (benefits outweigh costs) and will quit a relationship if it becomes too costly.
Explain the 4 stages of social exchange
- Sampling : before forming a relationship , we experiment with the costs and benefits we receive in different relationships in our lives.
2.bargaining: at the start of a relationship we begin to negotiate various costs and benefits to maximise our profit. - Commitment: a relationship is maintained as we begin to predicts what the exchange of our costs and benefits will be
- Institutionalisation: a relationship becomes lasting once our costs vs benefits are firmly established allowing couples to develop a pattern of mutually beneficial exchanges.
Evaluate SET
- a strength of SET is that is has convincing evidence to support it from sprecher who measured satisfaction in 101 couples at a US university. She found that CL Alt were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were an important predictor of satisfaction, especially for women. This suggests that CL ALt is a level that people use to assess how profitable their relationships are to determine their commitment, supporting the economic assumptions of SET.
-a limitation of SET is that its criticised as its not applicable to all couples. Clarke and Mills argue that SET doesn’t apply to all couples. They identified 2 types of couples, the ‘communal couple’ and the ‘exchange couple’ as the ‘communal couple’. According to them, SET only applies to the ‘exchange couple’ as the ‘communal couple’ are less concerned with keeping score. This weakens the validity of SET as it shows it’s not relevant to all couples so may be hard to generalise to wider settings.
-a limitation of SET is that its beta biased which is when a theory, model, or explanation inappropriately minimises the differences in men and women in relationships. Prins suggests that women place more importance on exchange in a relationship, and those who felt under-benefited were more likely to have an affair or consider one. Therefore SET may be a more valid reason how women experience relationships than men.
Discuss equity theory -waltser
-equity theory assumes both partners will have a fair and similar level of costs vs benefits. This balance may not be equal but should be perceived as equitable. There are 4 principles: 1. Profit, at the start of a relationship we may seek to ‘profit’ from a relationship by maximising benefits and minimising costs before establishing a more equitable distribution. 2. Distribution, the distribution of costs and benefits is negotiated to ensure equity. For example one partner may cook and the other cleans. 3. Dissatisfaction. An inequitable relationship Causes dissatisfaction. The partner who feels they are experiencing inequity may seek to realign the relationship. 4. Realignment may occur if the partner experiencing dissatisfaction works hard to reestablish equity through a change in their behaviour or cognitions. They may change their perceptions of rewards and costs so their relationship seems fair. If this doesn’t occur they may quit the relationship
Evaluate equity theory
- supporting evidence for the roles of equity in the maintenance of romantic relationships from Stafford and Canary , who found that , in a survey of 200 married couples , participants who perceived their relationship as equitable reported being the most satisfied and used the most positive maintenance strategies. Whilst those who under-benefited reported the lowest level of satisfaction and the fewest maintenance strategies. Thissuggests the fair distribution of costs in a relationship is likely to be used in the maintenance of relationships, as participants satisfaction within their relationship depends on the equitable distribution of costs vs benefits.
-the concept of equity is culturally universal, whic is when a theory argues that a behaviour is the same across all groups regardless of culture. Aumer-Ryan found that although the level of equity in relationships varies across the globe (US couples being most and Jamaican being least), in all cultures studied people consider equity an important role in relationships. This means equity theory accounts for relationships across the world.
-a limitation of equity theory is that research has contradicted the claim that satisfying romantic relationships should become more equitable over time. Berg and McQuinn conducted a longitudinal study on 38 dating couples. They found equity didn’t increase overtime and didn’t correlate with longevity. Instead, they suggest factors like self-disclosure may play a role in relationship success. Therefore equity theory alone may not explain the maintenancej of romantic relationships .
