Relationships

Question 1

What is the difference between natural selection and sexual selection?

Answer 1

Natural = characteristics that aid survival.

Sexual = characteristic that help genes to be passed on.

Question 2

Define: human reproductive behaviour

Answer 2

Any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce, such as partner preference, mate choice and ones sexual engagement.

Question 3

Describe Anisogamy

Answer 3

The differences between female and male sex cells (gametes).

Females - egg, 400-500 (amount supplied), lifespan is approx 40yrs (puberty-menopause).

Male - sperm, unlimited supply, lifespan is from puberty to death.

Question 4

Describe inter-sexual selection (between sexes)

Answer 4

• Preferred female mating strategy (quality>quantity).
• Females are choosier and select a mate based on whether they are genetically fit and resourceful.
• Females have higher investment in offspring and less chance of reproducing so want the best possible genes/resources.

Question 5

Describe intra-sexual selection (within sexes)

Answer 5

• Preferred male mating strategy (quantity>quality).
• Males compete with eachother, want to mate with as many fertile females as possible so that their genes are passed on.
• Males have less investment in offspring so can afford to do this.

Question 6

Outline Buss (1989): cross-cultural study investigating partner preference

Answer 6

Aim: to investigate of evolutionary explanations in human male preferences are based on values within different cultures/locations/religions.

Procedure: conducted survey of 10,047 participants across 33 countries and 5 islands. Mean age of participants were 23.05 years. Questionnaires answered were culturally relative and analysts were unaware of hypothesis.

Findings: 91% of samples, females values ‘good financial prospects’ more than men (Spain was exception). In all samples males preferred younger mates (with an average difference of 2.66 years) whereas females preferred an older mate.

Question 7

Evaluate sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour

Answer 7

• Research support for evolutionary partner preference - Buss. Supports idea that both sexes have different preferences as they have different investments in the offspring.
• Research support for inter and intra-sexual selection - Clark & Hatfield. Shows that females are choosier than men when it comes to selecting a partner, males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
• Evolutionary theory fails to acknowledge other factors in HRB. Women’s greater role in workplace therefore no longer reliant on men for resources. Therefore mate preferences are no longer resource-oriented. Cultural factors come into play.

Question 8

Outline Clark and Hatfield (1988): sexual selection

Answer 8

Proved inter and intra-selection through a study in which male/female psychologist students were sent across campus to ask students of the opposite sex a question.
‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’.
Not a single female agreed whereas 75% of males agreed, immediately.

Question 9

Define: self-disclosure

Answer 9

Revealing personal information about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops.

Question 10

Why is self-disclosure important at the start of a relationship and what type of information is typically disclosed?

Answer 10

At the start of a relationship, the more we learn about a partner, the more we seem to like/understand them.
Personal information - hopes, fears, interests, attitudes, likes/dislikes.

Question 11

What is the social penetration theory? (Altman and Taylor, 1973)

Answer 11

• Self-disclosure is a key element of SPT. It is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else.
• Penetrating more deeply into eachothers lives gains a deeper understanding. In romantic relationships it involves reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners.
• This reciprocation displays trust, so as one partner self-discloses, the other also reveals sensitive info. More breadth = more depth (onion analogy).

Question 12

Evaluate self-disclosure (between heterosexual and homosexual relationships)

Answer 12

• Research support into its importance and SPT - Sprecher and Hendrick, Laurenceau. Self-disclosure is important, it increases validity of SPT.
• Self-disclosure research can help people who want to improve communication in relationship. Increases intimacy and strengthens bond. Hass and Stafford, demonstrates the value of such insight.
• Prediction that self-disclosure will lead to more intimate romantic relationships is not true for all cultures. Tang et al, therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships based on findings from Western (individualistic) culture only.

Question 13

Outline Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) and its relation to Laurenceau (2005)

Answer 13

S and H found positive correlations between self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction.
L analysed diary entries and found that partners who believed they self-disclosed info with their partner reported higher levels of intimacy compared to those who didn’t.

Question 14

Outline Hass and Stafford (1998) - Self disclosure has real life applications

Answer 14

Found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained/deepened their committed relationships.

Question 15

Outline Tang et al (2013)

Answer 15

Reviewed the research literature regarding sexual self-disclosure. Concluded that men and women in the USA (individualistic culture) self-disclosed significantly more sexual thoughts and feeling than men and women in China (collectivist culture).
Both these levels of self-disclosure are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures.

Question 16

Define: Physical attractiveness

Answer 16

The degree to which a persons physical features are considered aesthetically pleasing or beautiful.

Question 17

What type of faces are people most attracted to?

Answer 17

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: Shackleford and Larsen (1997)

• Symmetrical - may be a signal of genetic fitness
• Neotenous (baby-face) - trigger a protective/caring instinct in males/females, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.

Question 18

Is physical attractiveness only important at the start of the relationship?

Answer 18

Not only important at the start of the relationship.
McNutty et al (2008) found evidence that the initial attractiveness that brought the partners together continued to be important for at least several years.

Question 19

Describe ‘The halo effect’ (in relation to physical attractiveness)

Answer 19

• We have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, almost universally positive.
• Karen Dion and her colleagues (1972) summed it up: ‘What is beautiful is good’. Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as more kind, strong, sociable and successful.

Question 20

Define: ‘The halo effect’

Answer 20

How one distinguishing feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a persons other attributes.

Question 21

Describe Matching hypothesis

Answer 21

Proposed by Walster et al (1966)
• Although physical attractiveness is desirable, common-sense tells us that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people.
• Our assessment of our own attractiveness plays a role in our choice of partner. We therefore choose a partner who is of similar physical attractiveness. Our choice of partner is basically a compromise, as we fear rejection.

Question 22

Evaluate physical attractiveness

Answer 22

• Research support for halo effect - Palmer and Peterson. Positive attributes associated with attractive people. This has been applied to everyday life.
• Research support for matching hypothesis - Feingold. Supportive as the study looks at actual partners which is more realistic.
• Individual differences are a factor in physical attractiveness - Towhey. Physical attractiveness is not important for every individual, can be argued that the more sexist you are the more important it is to you.
• Research contradicting matching hypothesis - Taylor et al. Level of attractiveness is not considered when making decisions about who to date online.

Question 23

Outline Towhey (1979) - individual differences in physical attractiveness.

Answer 23

Asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual, based on their photograph and some biological info.
Participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale - designed to measure sexist attitudes/behaviours.
Found that those who scored high on the scale were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making judgements of likeability.

Question 24

Outline Feingold (1988) - supports matching hypothesis

Answer 24

Carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.

Question 25

Outline Palmer and Peterson (2012) - supports halo effect

Answer 25

Found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable.
The halo effect was so strong that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
This demonstrates possible danger of democracy, eg. Voters will elect physically attractive politicians rather than those with expertise.

Question 26

Outline Taylor et al (2011) - contradicts matching hypothesis

Answer 26

Studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site, to test its ecological validity.
However online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. In this case, rejection is not feared.

Question 27

Describe the filter theory

Answer 27

• Devised by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
• Compared the attitude and personalities of students in short term relationships. Devised the filter theory to explain how relationships form and develop.
• Three main levels of filter we use to narrow down our ‘field of availables’: social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.

Question 28

Describe the 1st level of filter: Social demography

Answer 28

• Demographics are features that describe; social demographics include geographical location and social class. Such factors filter out a large number of available partners.
• Homogamy: you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially/culturally similar.
• Some geographical location means more chance of meeting (accessibility).

Question 29

Describe the 2nd level of filter: similarity in attitudes

Answer 29

• We find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of a relationship, so tend to discount available individuals who differ.
• Encourages deeper communication, promotes self-disclosure.
• Donn Byrne (1997): law of attraction.

Question 30

Describe the 3rd level of filter: complementary

Answer 30

• Similarity becomes less important as the relationship develops and is replaced by a need for your partner to balance your traits of opposite ones of their own.
• eg. One partner prefers to cook dinner, the other prefers to wash up. Gives 2 partners the feeling that together they form a whole - adds depth to relationship.

Question 31

Evaluate the Filter theory

Answer 31

• Research evidence to support filter theory - Winch (1958). Assumes that the key factors in a relationship change over time therefore has face validity.
• Research contradicts the filter theory (as it suggests a direction of cause and effect) - Anderson et al (2003).

Question 32

Outline Winch (1958) - support for filter theory

Answer 32

Found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of the earlier stages of a relationship.

Question 33

Outline Anderson et al (2003) - contradicts cause and effect for filter theory

Answer 33

Found in a long longitudinal study, that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon they called emotional convergence.

Question 34

Briefly outline the social exchange theory (SET)

Answer 34

Proposed by Thibualt and Kelley (1959).

• Economic theory that emphasises the importance of exchange in relationships. We want to maximise rewards and minimise loss, our relationship satisfaction is based on the profit it yields.

Question 35

Describe the Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Answer 35

• To be satisfied in a relationship rewards (sex, companionship, emotional support…) must outweigh the costs (energy, compromise, negative emotions…) so that we are in a state of profit.
• Such rewards and costs are subjective, and will change during the course of the relationship.
• 2 ways to measure profit: Comparison level (CL) and Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt).
CL develops from expectation of social norms/experiences of previous relationships. If CL is high the relationship is seen as not satisfying, a low self-esteem will contribute to a low CL therefore satisfaction will be gained from little profit.
CLalt means that we compare rewards to see if we can get more profit elsewhere.

Question 36

Evaluate Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Answer 36

• Various researchers don’t accept the economic metaphor that underpins SET - Clark and Mills (2011).
• The direction of cause and effect that SET suggests is incorrect, that we only become dissatisfied when costs outweigh rewards and alternatives are more attractive - Argyle (1987).
• SET is seen as culturally bias. In an individualistic culture, satisfaction is gained when rewards are maximised for the individual. However in collectivist cultures the reward may be providing for others and putting their needs first, regardless if rewards outweigh costs.
• Research supporting SET lacks mundane realism and ecological validity. One common procedure involves 2 strangers working on a game where rewards and costs are distributed. Their ‘relationship’ depends entirely on the task they are performing.

Question 37

Outline Clark and Mills (2011) - inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

Answer 37

Argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationships:
• ‘Exchange’ relationships - do involve social exchange, but are typical of work colleagues.
• ‘Communal’ relationships (between romantic partners) - do not involve ‘scorekeeping’ when it comes to giving and receiving rewards.

Question 38

Outline Argyle (1987) - direction of cause and effect, SET

Answer 38

Argyle points out that we do not measure costs and rewards in a relationship or consider alternatives until we are dissatisfied with the relationship.

Miller (1997) further supports this argument, as it was found that people who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people (alternatives).

Question 39

Briefly outline the Equity theory (ET)

Answer 39

Proposed by Walster (1978).

An economic theory of how relationships develop - it acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction. But criticises SET for ignoring the central role of equity - the perception that partners have that the distribution of the rewards and costs in the relationship are fair.

Question 40

Describe Equity theory (ET)

Answer 40

• The main assumption is that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness.
• When there is a lack of equity (inequity), one partner will overbenefit from the relationship whilst the other partner underbenefits - leads to dissatisfaction. Underbenefitted partner feels most dissatisfied in the form of anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation. Overbenefitted partner likely feels guilt, discomfort and shame.
• 2 consequences of inequity: changes in perceived inequity (behavioural solution) or dealing with inequity (cognitive solution).

Question 41

Evaluate the equity theory (ET)

Answer 41

• Cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction - Ryan et al (2007) and and Moghaddam (1998).
• Individual differences, not all partners worry about equity - Huseman et al (1987) and Dwyer (2000).
• ET is a more valid theory than SET - Mary Utne and her colleagues (1984).

Question 42

Outline Ryan et al (2007) and contradict with Moghaddam (1998) - cultural differences in ET

Answer 42

Ryan et al compared couples from both collectivist and individualistic cultures. Found that individualistic culture considered their relationship to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas collectivists found it most satisfying when they were over benefiting.

Moghaddam (1998) contradicts these cultural influences as it suggests that all economic theories only apply to (students in short-term) western relationships. With little time to develop commitment, it makes sense to be more concerned with ‘give and take’.

Question 43

Outline Huseman et al (1987) and support with Dwyer (2000) - individual differences in ET

Answer 43

Huseman suggests that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Partners are either benevolents (prepared to contribute more) or entitleds (believe they deserve to overbenefit without feeling guilty).

Dwyer argued that lesbian couples put more value on equity and equality within a relationship. Maybe because they reject traditional ideas of heterosexual relationships, which are often characterised by power differences between men and women.

Question 44

Outline Mary Utne and her colleagues (1984) -ET more valid than SET

Answer 44

They carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples ranging from age 16 to 45 and measured equity with two self-report scales.
Researchers found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting.

Question 45

Describe the Investment Model (IM)

Answer 45

Proposed by Rusbult (2011).

• IM emphasises the importance of commitment in relationships, also addresses the limitations of SET (which only mention satisfaction and CLalt, not investment).
• Investment may be intrinsic (intangible/tangible resources out into relationship, eg. Energy and money) or extrinsic (resources which did not previously feature in the relationship, eg. children or shared memories).
• IM can explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship, because they are committed through investments.
• According to the model, enduring partners engage in everyday maintenance behaviours such as forgiveness.

Question 46

Evaluate the Investment Model (IM)

Answer 46

• Research support for IM - Rusbult. Commitment (esp. in the form of investments) plays a key role in maintaining relationship.
• IM sufficiently explains abusive relationships, unlike SET - Rusbult and Martz (1995).
• Most evidence supporting IM relies on self-report measures. Usually considered as a weakness but not in this case. Factors are not objective, individuals perception is.
• Supporting research evidence for IM - Le and Agnew (2003).

Question 47

Outline Rusbult - research support for IM

Answer 47

Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period.

Found that those who had high levels of satisfaction and more investments (with less alternatives) stayed in the relationship, therefore were more committed. Whereas those who decided to break up had low levels of satisfaction and less investment (with more alternatives).

Question 48

Outline Rusbult and Martz (1995) - importance of investment in abusive relationships

Answer 48

They asked women living in a shelter why they stayed with abusive partners, instead of leaving them as soon as abuse began.

As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and investment was great - satisfaction played no part.

Question 49

Outline Le and Agnew (2003) - supporting research evidence for IM

Answer 49

A meta analysis reviewed 52 studies from late 1970s-1999 which included 11,000 participants from 5 countries.
Found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Universally, relationships where commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longer.

Question 50

Describe Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Answer 50

Relationship termination is not a one off event, but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases:

1. Intra-psychic phase: dissatisfied partner considers the dissatisfaction privately and possibly with close friends (cognitive process).
2. Dyadic phase: both partners start talking about the relationship, resulting in arguments/negotiations (interpersonal process). Characterised by hostility, anxiety and complaints about inequity. There are 2 outcomes: either moves on to next phase or relationship is sorted.
3. Social phase: Partners involve their social networks in an attempt to save the relationship and also muster support. Break up is given by social forces.
4. Grave-dressing phase: The now ex-partners tidy up the loose ends of the relationship by constructing a favourable public and private story. Gossip plays an important role, crucial that each partner retains some social credit.

Question 51

Evaluate Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Answer 51

• Original model was oversimplified, Rollie and Duck (2006) added a 5th phase - the resurrection phase. Here ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained. They also make it clear that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable, it is possible to return.
• Most research supporting Duck’s model is retrospective therefore less accurate. Data is also only obtained from heterosexual couples - lacks validity and reliability.
• Real-life applications, helps identify the stages of relationship breakdown and suggest ways of reversing it - Duck (1994).
• Most research is conducted in western cultures (USA), cultural bias - Moghaddam et al (1993)

Question 52

Outline Duck (1994) - real life applications of phase model

Answer 52

Recommends that people in the intrapsychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on the positive aspects of their partner.
Also as a feature of the dyadic phase is communication, any attempt to improve this could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship.

Question 53

Outline Moghaddam et al (1993) - phase model cultural bias

Answer 53

Relationships in individualistic cultures are generally voluntarily and frequently come to an end (e.g. divorce or separation).
Relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, less easy to end, involve the wider family, and in some cases are even arranged.

Question 54

Describe virtual relationships in social media

Answer 54

• REDUCED CUES THEORY
-proposed by Sproull + Kiesler, 1986
-CMC relationships less effective than FtF because they lack many social interaction cues. Eg. Physical appearance, facial expressions or tone of voice. Leads to de-individuation and encourages disinhibition.
• HYPERPERSONAL MODEL
-proposed by Walther, 2011
-CMC relationships can be more intimate than FtF, as greater self-disclosure happens much earlier (anonymity). Cooper + Sportilari ‘boom and bust’.
• ABSENCE OF GATING
-many obstacles can interfere with formation of FtF relationships, eg. Physical unattractiveness or shyness. Absence of these also allows people to create an identity online, that they couldn’t FtF.
-McKenna + Bargh argue that CMCs absence of such gating allows self-disclosure to be more frequent and deeper, as it focuses attention away from any distracting features.

Question 55

Evaluate virtual relationships in social media

Answer 55

• The reduced cues theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing my from CMC - Walther and Tidwell (1995).
• Evidence to support greater self disclosure, which the hyperpersonal model predicts - Whitty and Joinson (2009).
• The extent of self disclosure depends on the type of CMC used, therefore both theories are simplistic. Eg. In some social networking sites (Facebook), people interacting with each other generally have relationships in reality so happen to disclose more than in online e-commerce (eg. Twitter) which are less private as they may not know everyone in reality - Paine et al.

Question 56

Outline Walther and Tidwell (1995) - reduced cues theory

Answer 56

Pointed out that people in online interactions use other cues, such as timing of their messages (can imply how interested they are). Acrostics/emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice in FtF interactions.

Question 57

Outline Whitty and Joinson (2009) - hyperpersonal model prediction

Answer 57

• Summarised a wealth of evidence that show people are motivated to self disclose in CMC relationships.
• E.g. questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. FTF conversations however are often centred around ‘small-talk’ (in terms of relationship development).
• These findings support the idea that we self disclose to present ourselves in an exaggerated positive light.

Question 58

What are the 3 levels of parasocial relationships?

Answer 58

Proposed by McCutcheon (2002).
1. Entertainment-social: least intense level of celeb worship. Celebs are purely sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction.

2. Intense-personal: intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celeb. Eg. A fan may consider the celeb to be their soul-mate.
3. Borderline pathological: strongest level of celebrity worship. Featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. Eg. Spending lots of money on surgery to look like the celeb.

Question 59

Describe the two aspects of parasocial relationships

Answer 59

• The absorption-addiction model

• McCutcheon explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives. Eg. May have a weak sense of self-identity or lack fulfilment in their everyday relationships.
• Individual becomes preoccupied in the celebs existence/focuses attention (absorption), and feels the need to sustain their commitment to the relationship via a strong involvement with celeb - includes acts such as stalking (addiction).

• The attachment theory explanation

• Suggests a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence/adulthood because of poor attachments in childhood. Need to have unfulfilled needs met, but in a relationship without the threat of rejection and disappointment.
• Bowlby’s attachment theory + Ainsworths attachment types (insecure).

Question 60

Evaluate parasocial relationships

Answer 60

• Research support for A-A model - Maltby (2005).
• The A-A model had been criticised for being a better description of how parasocial relationships develop than an explanation. Describes characteristics of individual but doesn’t explain how such characteristics come about - undermines validity.
• Research into the relationship between attachment type and development of parasocial relationships has questioned validity of A-A explanation. McCutcheon et al (2006).
• Methodological issues within research on parasocial relationships - problems of self-report and correlations like research. A-A model is based on such research - validity?

Question 61

Outline Maltby (2005) - research support for A-A model

Answer 61

• Investigated the link between celeb worship and body image in males and females aged 14 to 16.
• Females reporting an intense-personal parasocial relationship with a female celeb whose body shape they admired, tended to have a poor body image.
• Other research by Maltby links the entertainment-social category with extraverted personality traits, the intense-personal category with neurotic traits, and the borderline pathological category with psychotic personality type.

Question 62

Outline McCutcheon et al (2006) - link between attachment type and developing parasocial relationships

Answer 62

• Measured attachment types and celeb-related attitudes in 299 participants.
• Found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebs than participants with secure attachments.
• Questions validity of the attachment theory explanation.