Relationships Flashcards
Discuss the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.
A01
Sexual selection explains why some characteristics that might be disadvantageous actually confer an advantage in human reproductive behaviour because the characteristics are attractive to potential mates.
Anisogamy:
Differences between the male and female gametes.
Male gametes are extremely small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age, and do not require a lot of energy to produce.
Female gametes are relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years.
A consequence of anisogamy is that there is no shortage of fertile males but a fertile woman is a rare resource.
Anisogamy gives rise to 2 different mating strategies.
Inter-sexual selection:
Inter-sexual selection is between the sexes - the processes that the males use to select females or vice versa.
Trivers emphasises that the female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of the offspring.
Both sexes are choosy as both stand to lose if they invest in a substandard partner. Consequences of choosing a wrong partner are much more serious for females.
The female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources.
It is this female preference for a fit male that determines which features are passed on to the offspring.
The runaway process - Encapsulated by Fisher in his sexy sons hypothesis - a female mates with a male who has a desirable characteristic, and this ‘sexy’ trait is inherited by her son. This increases the likelihood that successive generations of females will mate with him.
Intra-sexual selection:
Quantity over quality.
Refers to the competition between males to be able to mate with a female.
The winner gets to mate with the female and pass on his characteristics to the offspring.
It is this strategy that has given rise to dismorphism in humans - the differences between males and females.
Has behavioural and psychological consequences, although these are more controversial.
E.G. for males to acquire fertile females and protect them from competing males, they may benefit from behaving aggressively and thinking in a certain way.
Anisogamy dictates that males should mate with as many females as possible to increase their chances of offspring.
A behavioural consequence of this competition for fertile mates is a distinct preference for youth and a sensitivity to the indicators of youth as well as fertility.
A02
Research support for preferences related to anisogamy:
Buss carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. He asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important.
Found that female respondents put greater value on resource-related characteristics than males did.
Males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity, and preferred younger mates than females did.
These findings reflect sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy.
Support predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory.
Findings can be applied across vastly different cultures, reflecting fundamental human preferences which are not primarily dependent upon cultural influences.
Ignores social and cultural influences:
Partner preferences develop much faster than evolutionary timescales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors such as availability of contraception.
Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them.
Chang et al - compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed but others remained the same, corresponding with the huge social changes in that time.
Mate preferences are therefore the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences.
Limited explanation.
Support from waist-hip ratio research:
These partner preferences can be tested empirically.
What matters in male preferences is not female body sizes as such, but the ratio of waist to hip ratio.
Males generally find any hip and waist sizes attractive so long as the ratio of one to the other is about 0.7.
This combination of wider hips and a narrower waist is attractive because it is an ‘honest signal’ that the woman is fertile but not currently pregnant.
Describe and evaluate self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
A01
Social penetration theory:
Self-disclosure is a major concept within Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory of how relationships develop.
Give away your deepest thoughts and feelings.
Involves the reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners.
When one partner reveals some personal information they display trust; to go further, the other partner must also reveal info.
More and more disclosure = greater understanding of each other.
Doing so means that a relationship has reached a certain stage where such self-disclosure will be welcome and reciprocated.
Breadth and depth:
Self-disclosure has two elements - Breadth and depth.
As both of these increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other.
Many layers of an onion.
The first thing we reveal is superficial which is low risk information we would reveal to anyone.
Breadth of disclosure is narrow because many topics are ‘off limits’ in the early stage of a relationship.
As a relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, progressively removing more and more layers.
Eventually we are prepared to reveal ‘high risk’ information and even secrets.
Reciprocity of self-disclosure:
Reis and Shaver point out that for a relationship to work as well as increase in breadth and depth, there needs to be reciprocity.
You want your partner to respond in a way that is rewarding and them to reveal their own intimate thoughts.
There needs to be a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful romantic relationship.
A03
Real-life applications:
Can help people who want to improve their communication in their relationships.
Romantic partners probably use self-disclosure deliberately and skillfully from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen their bonds.
Hass and Stafford - found that 57% of gay men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships.
If less skilled partners can learn to use self-disclosure then this could bring benefits to their relationship.
Such real-life application demonstrates the value of the psychological insights.
Cultural differences:
The prediction that depth and breadth of self-disclosure will lead to a more satisfying relationship is not true for all cultures.
It depends on the type of self-disclosure.
Tang et al - reviewed the research regarding sexual self-disclosure; they concluded that men and women in the USA self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China.
Both these levels of self-disclosure are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures.
Self-disclosure is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on findings from Western cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
Self-disclosure and satisfaction:
Social penetration theory suggests that romantic relationships become more intimate as self-disclosure deepens.
However, theories of relationship breakdown often recognise how couples discuss and negotiate the state of their deteriorating relationship in an attempt to save it or return to an earlier level of satisfaction.
These discussions frequently involve deep self-disclosures of very intimate thoughts and feelings, and yet these may not be enough to rescue the relationship.
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
A01
The importance of physical attraction:
One explanation draws upon an evolutionary theory.
Shackelford and Larsen - found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive - may be an honest signal of genetic fitness.
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous features such as widely separated and large eyes. These trigger a protective instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
McNulty found that the initial attractiveness that brought the partners together continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage.
The halo effect:
Physical attractiveness may matter because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have; positive.
‘What is beautiful is good’
Dion et al - found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong and sociable compared to unattractive people.
The idea that good looking people have these traits, make them kore attractive to other people and so we behave positively towards them.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe how one distinguishing feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s attributions.
The matching hypothesis:
Common sense tells us that that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people.
Walster proposed that our assessment of our own attractiveness may play a role in our choice of romantic partners.
People chose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other.
To do this we have to make a realistic judgement about our own value to a potential partner.
We desire attractive people but we balance this out with the wish to avoid being rejected by someone out of our league.
A03
Research support for the halo effect:
Palmer and Peterson - found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This persisted even when ppts knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise.
This has obvious implications for the political process.
Perhaps these are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered physically attractive.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships.
Individual differences:
Some people don’t seem to hold much importance over physical attractiveness.
Towhey - asked male and female ppts to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photo and they also completed the MACHO questionnaire.
Found that those who scored highly on the scale were more likely to be influenced by physical attractiveness and those who scored low not so much.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors, and so challenges the notion that it is significant consideration in relationship formation.
Research contradicting the matching hypothesis:
Taylor et al - studied the activity logs of popular online dating websites.
This was a real-life test because it measured actual date choices and not preferences.
Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more attractive than them. It seems they did not consider their own attractiveness level when making these decisions.
HOWEVER:
Feingold - carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.
This is especially supportive of the matching hypothesis because it looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic approach.
Describe and evaluate the filter theory of romantic relationships.
A01
According to Kerckhoff and Davis, there are 3 main factors that act as filters to narrow down our range of partner choices to a field of desirables.
1st filter - Social demography:
Includes: geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, etc.
You are much more likely to meet people who are physically close and share the same demographic features.
We can meet people who live far away but are more meaningful interactions will be with those that are nearby.
The benefit of proximity is accessibility as it doesnt take much effort to meet people who go to the same school as you for example.
Effectively, anyone who is too ‘different’ is discounted as a potential partner.
The outcome of this filter is homogamy; you are ore likely to form a relationship with someone with the same social demographics.
Shared similarities are attractive and appealing.
2nd filter - Similarity in attitudes:
Partners will often share important beliefs due to the first level of filter which has already narrowed down partners to those who share social demographics.
This filter is only important for couples who have been together for less than 18 months.
There is a need for partners in the earlier stages of a relationship to agree over basic values, the things that really matter.
This promotes self-disclosure.
Bryne - described the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction - law of attraction.
The relationship is likely to fizzle out when partners don’t have a similarity in attitudes.
3rd filter - Complimentarity:
The ability to meet each other’s needs.
Complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks.
E.g. one likes to nurture and the other likes to be nurtured.
The need for complementraity was more important for those partners in long-term relationships; at a later stage in the relationship, opposites attract.
Gives partners the feeling that together they make a whole, which adds depth to a relationship.
A03
Support from research evidence:
Filter theory assumes that the key factors in a relationship change over time.
This agrees with most people’s experience and so the theory has face validity.
Winch - found evidence that similarities of personalities, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship.
This echoes the matching hypothesis, nut not just in terms of physical attractiveness. Between partners who are happily married, complementarity of needs is more important than similarity, according to Winch.
DIrection of cause and effect:
Suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar demographically.
There is evidence that this direction of causality is wrong.
Anderson - found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time - emotional convergence.
Davis and Rusbult - discovered an attitude alignment effect in longer-term relationships.
Over time, partner’s attitudes align more with one another.
Suggesting again that similarity is an effect of initial attraction and not a cause.
These findings are not predicted by filter theory.
Lack of temporal validity:
The rise of online dating in recent years has changed beyond recognition the process of beginning a relationship.
It has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables.
Technology has made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we might pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits than would have applied 30 years ago.
Describe and evaluate social exchange theory of romantic relationships.
A01
Rewards, costs and profits:
Thibault and Kelley contend that most behaviour in relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange.
We judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields; rewards minus costs.
What one person considers a significant reward may be less valuable to someone else.
The value of rewards and costs may change over the course of a relationship.
Rewards include companionship, sex and emotional support.
Costs include time, stress, energy, compromise.
Your investment of time and energy in a relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere.
Comparison level:
A measure of profit in relationships.
Comparison level is the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get.
Develops out of our experiences of previous relationships which feed into our expectations of the current one.
Also influenced by social norms that determine what is considered a reasonable level of rewards. (films)
Over time we have more relationships and more experience of social norms so our comparison level adapts.
We consider a relationship worth pursuing if the CL is high.
There is an obvious link with self-esteem; someone with low self-esteem will have a low CL and will be satisfied with gaining just a small profit.
Comparison level for alternatives:
Second measure of profit provides a wider context.
Given that romantic relationships in our culture are usually exclusive, we ask ourselves if we could do better with a different person.
SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship as long as we believe that it is more rewarding than the alternatives.
Duck - the CLalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship.
If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the benefits, alternatives become more attractive.
Stages of relationship development
Sampling stage - explore rewards and costs by experimenting with our relationship.
Bargaining stage - When romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs.
Commitment stage - The sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable.
Institutionalisation stage - The partners are now settled because the norms of the relationship are now established.
A03
Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET:
Clark and Mills argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship.
Suggest that exchange relationships (between colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicts but communal relationships (romantic) are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards, without keeping score of who is ahead.
SET claims that relationship partners return rewards for rewards and costs for costs and that a score is kept.
However, if we felt that this monitoring of costs and benefits was happening at the start of a relationship we would question what kind of commitment our partner wanted.
SET is based on faulty assumptions and therefore cannot account for the majority of romantic relationships.
SET ignores equity:
The focus on comparison level in SET ignores equity which is a crucial factor that may be a big consideration for romantic partners.
There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships, and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs. (Utne and her colleagues)
Neglect of this factor means that SET is a limited explanation which cannot account for a significant proportion of the research findings on relationships.
Artificial research:
One common procedure to measure SET involves 2 strangers working together on a game-playing scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed.
The 2 partners know nothing about each other and their ‘relationship’ depends entirely on the task they are performing together.
More realistic studies using ppts in real life situations have been less supportive of SET, especially noting that snapshot studies cannot account for the properties that emerge from a relationship over time, such as trust.
Discuss equity theory of romantic relationships.
A01
Another economic theory which developed from a significant criticism of SET.
The role of equity:
Walster suggested that what matters the most is that both partner’s level of profit was roughly the same.
This is not the same as equality where levels of rewards and costs are the same, equity is where the levels of profit are perceived as the same.
Both overbenefit and underbenefit are examples of inequity although it is more likely that the underbenefitted partner is the most dissatisfied, in the form of anger and hostility.
The overbenefitted partner will likely feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Equity and equality:
If one partner puts a lot into a relationship but at the same time gets a lot out of it, it is perceived as fair.
Example: if one partner was disabled, chores would not be distributed equally between the 2.
Satisfying relationships are marked by the negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly between the partners.
Consequences of inequity:
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction; equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the 2.
Change in perceived equity:
What makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on.
Dealing with inequity:
The put-upon partner will work harder to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so and the relationship is salvageable.
The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work.
Another consequence is a cognitive instead of a behavioural one. They will revise their perception of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them.
What was considered as a cost earlier is now accepted as the norm.
A03
Supporting research evidence:
Studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as more valid than SET.
Utne carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with 2 self-report scales.
Researchers found that couples who considered their relationship more equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over or under benefiting.
This research confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation.
Cultural influences:
Assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
Aumer-Ryan - found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction.
Researchers compared couples in a collectivist culture with those in an individualist culture.
Partners in a collectivist culture were more satisfied when they were overbenefitting. This was true for both genders.
This suggests that equity theory’s claim that equity is a universal need is unwarranted and therefore this is a limited explanation.
Types of relationship:
Clark and Mills attempted to make sense of the body of evidence that equity is an important feature.
Their conclusion is that we should distinguish between different types of relationships.
Research studies strongly support the view that equity plays an important role in friendships and acquaintances.
However, the evidence that equity is important in romantic relationships is mixed. (i.e. cultural)
Therefore it is hard to say whether equity is a valid theory of romantic relationships.
Describe and evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of romantic relationships.
A01
This is a development of SET.
Suggests that commitment depends on 3 factors.
Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives:
Satisfaction is based on the concept of comparison level.
A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs.
Each partner is generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expected based on previous experience and social norms.
Comparison with alternatives - explain what is meant by this.
CLalt can also refer to the possibility of having no relationship as well.
Investment size:
Rusbult realised that the CL and CLalt derived from SET were not enough to explain commitment; if they were then relationships would end as soon as the costs were higher than rewards.
Investment refers to the extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship.
Intrinsic investments:
Any resources that we put directly into the relationship.
They can be tangible things such as money and possessions.
Can also energy and emotions and self-disclosure.
Extrinsic investments:
Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it.
E.g. shared memories or a dog.
If partners in a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction and the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investment are increasing then we can predict that they will stay together.
Satisfaction Vs commitment:
Argues that the main psychological factor that makes someone stay in a relationship isn’t satisfaction but commitment.
Can help explain why a dissatisfied partner may stay in a relationship.
They are so committed to their partner because they have made an investment that they don’t want to waste.
Therefore, they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms:
According to the model, enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation but instead act to promote the relationship.
They will also put their partner’s interests first, and forgive them for any serious damage.
Committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in a specific way - unrealistically positive about their partner, and negative about tempting alternatives or other relationships.
A03
Supporting research evidence:
Le and Agnew - meta-analysis.
Reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970s.
Found that satisfaction, investment size and CLalt all predicted relationship commitment.
Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest.
These outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples.
This suggests that there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that theses factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.
Explains abusive relationships:
It seems surprising that any rational person subjected to violence by a partner should stay committed to the relationship.
The key factor is clearly not satisfaction.
Rusbult and Martz - study into battered women.
Found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
The model recognises that a victim of an abusive relationship does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.
Based on correlational research:
Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the model.
Even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation.
Most studies do not allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment.
It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make.
So the direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the model.
Describe and evaluate Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown.
A01
Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through 4 distinct phases.
The road to break up begins when a partner realises they are dissatisfied with the relationship.
Intra-psychic phase:
Threshold - ‘I can’t take this anymore’
The focus is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual.
The dissatisfied partner broods on the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner’s shortcomings.
Private thoughts that may be shared with a trusted friend.
Weigh pros and cons of relationship and evaluate against alternatives.
Dyadic phase:
Threshold - ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’
The focus is on interpersonal processes between the 2.
Can no longer avoid talking about the relationship.
Series of confrontations over a long time.
Dissatisfactions are aired.
There are 2 possible outcomes - a determination to continue breaking up, or a renewed desire to repair it.
If the rescue attempt fails, a new threshold is reached.
Social phase:
Threshold - ‘I mean it’
The focus is on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks.
Break-up is made public.
Mutual friends find they are expected to chose a side.
Gossip is traded and encouraged.
Some friends will provide reinforcement.
Some will be very judgemental and place the blame on one partner.
Others may pitch in and try to repair the relationship.
This is the point of no return - the break up takes a momentum driven by social forces.
Grave-dressing phase:
Threshold - ‘it is now inevitable’
Focus is on the aftermath.
A favourable story is spun about the break-up for public consumption.
Allows partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation.
Gossip plays an important role in this phase.
It is crucial that each partner maintains some social credit by blaming circumstances on anyone but themselves.
Involves creating a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one.
The traits you found endearing at the start of the relationship are now reinterpreted in a negative way.
On the other hand, partners may just agree to let everything go and say that they were never meant for each other.
A03
An incomplete model?
Rollie and Duck - model describes is oversimplified.
They modified it to have a 5th phase; the resurrection phase.
Ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experienced gained from the previous.
They also make it clear that progression from one stage to the other is not inevitable.
The new model also emphasises the processes that occur in relationship breakdown rather than linear movement from one phase to the next.
These changes overcome a weakness in the previous model, that is a limited explanation because it doesn’t account for the dynamic nature of break ups.
Useful real-life applications:
Helps us to identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown but also suggests various ways of reversing it.
Recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular stages in the breakdown.
In the intra-psychic phase partners would be encouraged to focus on positive aspects of the relationship.
In the dyadic phase, communication needs to improve.
Such insights could be used in relationship counselling.
Cultural bias:
The model is firmly based on the experience of relationships in the western cultures.
Moghaddam - relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end.
Relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory and less easy to end.
The whole concept of a romantic relationship differs within cultures.
It is therefore very unlikely that the process of relationship breakdown is identical across different cultures.
Describe and evaluate research into virtual relationships in social media.
A01
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships:
Two contrasting theories in how self-disclosure works in CMC relationships.
Reduced cues theory:
Sproull and Keisler: CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many of the cues that we normally depend on.
Include nonverbal cues.
CMC particularly lacks cues to our emotional state and this leads to de-individuation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity which encourages disinhibition.
CMC relationships are more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication.
Reluctance to self disclose.
The hyperpersonal model:
Walther: argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure.
Online relationships can develop very quickly and self-disclosure happens earlier.
Can also end more quickly.
A key feature of self-disclosure in online relationships is that the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image - selective self presentation.
It is much easier to manipulate self-disclosure and promote greater intimacy by self-representing in a positive way.
Anonymity also promotes self-disclosure.
When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour.
SO you may well disclose more to a stranger.
Absence of gating in virtual relationships:
Any obstacle to the formation of a relationship.
FtF interaction is said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with the development of a relationship.
The absence of gating in CMC relationships means that relationships can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.
Refocuses attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial features.
Poeple are also free to create online identities that they could never manage FtF.
A03
Lack of research support for reduced cues theory:
Theory is wrong in suggesting that nonverbal cues are missing from CMC.
They are different rather than absent.
Other sues- style and timing of their messages and the use of emojis.
There are nuances that are just as subtle as in FtF relationships.
The success of such online relationships is difficult for the reduced cues theory to explain, because it shows that CMC interactions can be just as personal as FtF ones and it is possible to express emotional states in virtual relationships.
Types of CMC;
It’s extent and depth depend very much on the type of CMC being used.
In the case of social networking sites, people interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world.
People self-disclose more in their Fb status updates than they are willing to share on e-commerce webform.
In online dating with complete strangers self-disclosure is reduced because both communicators anticipate future meetings FtF , a consideration that doesn’t generally exist in chatrooms.
ANy theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects its richness and variety, and is unlikely to be a completely valid explanation.
Support for absence of gating:
McKenna and Bargh looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people.
They found that people were able to express their true selves more than in FtF situations.
Of the online relationships that initially formed, 70% lasted more than 2 years.
This is a higher proportion of those formed in online relationships.
Describe and evaluate one or more explanations of parasocial relationships.
A01
Levels of parasocial relationships:
Entertainment-social:
Least intense level of celebrity worship.
Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction.
Intense-personal:
Intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity.
Borderline pathological:
Strongest level of worship.
Uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours.
The absorption-addiction model:
McCutcheon - the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their lives.
Could be poorly adjusted psychologically.
Allows them an escape from reality or a way of finding a fulfilment.
Absorption - seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity.
Addiction - The individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity.
May lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.
The attachment theory explanation:
There is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in teens an adulthood because of attachment difficulties in earlier life.
Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested that early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later.
Insecure-resistant types are more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults.
This is because they need to have unfulfilled needs met, but in a relationship that isn’t threatened by rejection.
Insecure-avoidant types prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether.
A03
Support for the absorption addiction model:
Maltby investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in males and females.
Females reported an intense-personal parasocial relationship to a female celebrity whose body they admired.
These females tended to have a poor body image and speculated that this link may have been influential in the development of eating disorders.
Other research links the entertainment-social category with extroverted personality traits; intense-personal, neurotic; and borderline pathological with psychotic.
Both studies support the model because they confirm the prediction of a correlation between the level of celebrity worship and poor psychological functioning.
Methodological issues:
Most research studies on this topic use self-report methods to collect data.
Subject to a number of effects that can create bias.
Most studies also use correlational analysis.
Strong correlations are found between celebrity worship and body image but the conclusion that an intense-personal relationship causes young women to have a poor body image is wrong.
The issue of cause and effect could be solved by longitudinal research but this is lacking in this area.
There remains questions about the validity of these models as an explanation of parasocial relationships.
Cultural influences:
Research studies have identified a tendency for some people to form a parasocial relationship with Harry Potter, a fictional character.
Schmid and Klimmt report that this tendency is not culturally specific.
Using an online questionnaire they found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in individualist cultures and collectivist cultures.
