Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
AO1
Anisogamy
Inter-sexual selection
Intra-sexual selection
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences AO1
Anisogamy
The difference between male and female sex cells
Natural selection theory: genes that confer reproductive advantage will increase in the gene
pool
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences AO1
Inter-sexual selection
selection of mates between sexes
female strategy:
- quality not quantity
- invest in child rearing qualitites
- physical attributes = healthy offspring
Impact on mating:
preferences of both sexes determine attributes likely to be passed on (height)
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences AO1
Intra-sexual selection
Selection of mates within sexes
male strategy:
- quantity over quality = reproduce frequently
- competition necessary as women limited + choosy
- those compete successfully = more likely to pass on their genes
Impact on mating behaviour:
- leads to pressure to act in a certain way
- most agg = most likely to reproduce
- male preference for young as sign of fertility
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
AO3
+ Clarke + Hatfield 1989: males more likely to seek short term mating strategies
75% males agreed to have sex with attractive stranger
0% females
Therefore, males evolved reproductive mechanism to inc success
+ Wynforth + Dunbar 1995:
lonely heart adverts in US newspapers to see how people describe themselves to potential partners
MALES: offered resources + sought youth
FEMALES: offer physical attraction + sought resources
Therefore, supports evolution explanation
- hard to falsify: correlation not causation (can’t see causation as its evolutionary and can’t test it)
- sexual selection over natural selection
Self Disclosure
Refers to revealing intimate information to another person.
Without it in relationships they will fail.
Social Penetration theory
AO1
Altman and Taylor 1973
Relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone.
Involves reciprocal exchange of info between partners leading to deeper understanding of each others lives.
More disclosure = deeper penetration
Revealing info displays trust and other part er must reveal sensitive info.
Breadth and depth (peeling the onion)
1 superficial 2 intimate 3 personal 4 core
Social Penetration theory
AO1
Breadth: narrow to start as too much info is off putting
Depth: increases as relationship develops (more layers peeled)
Low risk info to start then high risk later on.
Needs to be balanced self disclosure that is received sensitively to have a successful relationship where feelings of intimacy increase and deepens the relationship.
Social Penetration theory
AO3
+ Sprecher and Hendrick 2004: studied heterosexual relationships and found strong positive correlation between satisfaction and self disclosure xcorrelation not causation
+ Laurenceau 2005: writing daily diary entries, found self disclosure in a parter = linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term married couples (+ vice versa) = increases the val of the theory.
+ Hass and Stafford 1998: 57% gay men and women said open and honest self disclosure was how they maintained relationships = demonstrates value of psychological insight (if people understand how important it is they might do it more) = real world app
- Cultural differences Tang et al 2013: reviewed research self disclosure + satisfaction = men and women in USA more likely to self disclose than in China = SD may not be an important factor in romantic relationships for some cultures = can’t generalise theory to everyone.
- Self disclosure is used when couples try to save a relationship by negotiating in the dyadic phase but sometimes this leads to further break down of the relationship.
Explaining the importance of physical attraction
AO1
- Evolutionary: traits associated with attractiveness act as indicators of good health (important because woman needs to bear child and man needs to provide food) = healthy offspring
- Shakelford and Larson 1997: baby face hypothesis: we are attracted to neotenous features (widely spread eyes) as trigger an innate caring instinct. Doesn’t indicate fertility but adaptive feature.
McNulty 2008: evidence that initial attractiveness that brought partners together continued to be an important feature of relationship after marriage for several years. - The matching hypothesis predicts that people select partners of comparable physical attractiveness. This may be to maintain balance (see Equity Theory ), or due to a fear of rejection, or because of the halo effect.
Explaining the importance of physical attraction
The Halo Effect
AO1
- preconceived ideas about the personality traits of attractive people which are almost universally positive (physical attractiveness stereotype) e.g. Kind, strong, sociable, successful.
- because good looking people associated with these traits it makes them more attractive
- halo effect used to describe how one feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s attributes.
Explaining the importance of physical attraction
AO3
+ Palmer and Peterson 2012: found physically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. HE so powerful it persisted even when participants knew these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
- individual diff’s for attractiveness: Towhey 1979: gave males and females a set of photos and biographical info about people, ask to judge how much they’d like an individual based on photo. P’s complete MACHO questionnaire (measures sexist attitudes and beh’s) those scored high = more influenced by attractiveness of photo when judging likeability and vice versa.
+ what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures
Cunningham 1995: found female feature of large eyes , prominent cheek bones, small nose, high eyebrows were v attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males.
Wheeler and Kim 1997: found Korean and American students judged physically attractive people as trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly.
Therefore, stereotype just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures
- there are large individual differences for importance of physical attractiveness
- The computer dance experiment (Walster et al., 1966) did not find support for the matching hypothesis. Nearly 400 male and female students were randomly paired at a dance, and later asked to rate their date. Physical attractiveness (which was independently assessed) proved to be the most important factor in liking, rather than similarity. It was also the best predictor of the likelihood that they would see each other again.
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory - Kerckhoff and Davis
1. Social demographic filter Proximity, age, religion 2. Similarity in attitudes filter Similarity attitudes, values, interests 3. Complementarity filter Fulfilling each others needs
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory: Proximity
Most people form a rel with geographically close people mainly due to the chance they’ll meet, speak, become aware of each other
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory: Physical Attraction
How good looking someone is (v important for initial rel formation + longer lasting rel’s)
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory: Similarity
Most come into contact with same cultural/social background can be same for attitudes or personality traits.
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory: Complement of needs
Not all personality characteristics need to be the same, we are often attracted to people who can give us what we lack (dominating and submissive person)
Factors Affecting Attraction
Filter Theory: Competence
How intelligent one appears, can be influential in how attractive they are
Filter Theory - Kerckhoff and Davis 1962
AO1
- First consider field of availables (pool of people accessible to us)
- From these we select the field of desirables (similarity in attitudes - share beliefs and values, social variables - proximity, social class, age complementarity - meeting each others needs important in long term)
Kerckhoff and Davis studied students in a rel for <18 mths (short term) and thos in >18 mths (long term), used self-report questionnaire = attitude similarity was more important factor in STM but complimenting more important for LTM.
Filter Theory - Kerckhoff and Davis 1962
AO3
+ Winch 1958: found similarities in attitudes, interests and personalities are typical in early stages
+ Festinger et al 1950: found students more likely to form friends in own building and the most popular people lived near stairs/post boxes as most likely to bump into people = functional distance.
- Levinger 1974: difficult to replicate original finding due to social changes and difficult to define depth of rel in terms of length = poor generalizability to homosexuals or rel’s in another culture
- Direction of cause and effect: wrong that initial attraction because of similarity: Davis and Rusbult 2001 found attitude alignment effect on long term rel’s
- based on W culture
- Reductionism: what about biological?
- Outdated: theory 50 years ago
Social Exchange Theory
AO1
- Assumes rel’s are guided by the minimax principle Thibault + Kelley 1959: individuals want to max rewards and min costs for success both have to give and take
- Nature of costs and rewards: rewards must outweigh costs for it to form so commitment depends on profitability
- Comparison Level is a measure of profit: compare own experiences in other rel’s and our general view of what we expect to gain
- Comparison level alternative is an additional measure of profit: compare current rel with what we could get from an alternative relationship
- CLalt depends on our current rel: Duck: we look for alternative when we’re unhappy
- Four Stages of Relationships: sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation
Social exchange theory
AO1
Sampling Stage of Relationships
Exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships and observing others.
Social exchange theory
AO1
Bargaining Stage of Relationships
Occurs at start: romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards.
Social exchange theory
AO1
Commitment Stage of Relationships
Relationship is stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase.
Social exchange theory
AO1
Institutionalisation Stage of Relationships
When partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established.
Social exchange theory
AO3
+ Real world applications: why someone might leave a rel they are satisfied with
+ Explains abusive relationships
- methodological issues: v artificial
- inconsistent empirical research: Clark + Mills 1979 diff styles of couples (communal: positive regard for eachother and over time benefits outweigh costs + exchange: here and now)
- gender differences: Hatfield 1979: found equity more important for females so SET wrong for some people, particularly women.
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO1
Satisfaction
Alternatives = Commitment Level = Future stay/leave?
Investments
This model is like SET+investments
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO1
- Satisfaction: outcomes > comparison = satisfied
- Alternatives: continue relationship = no better options
- Investments: anything put in will be lost if leave relationship
1+2+3=commitment=stability of relationship(stay or leave)
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO1
Types of Investment
Intrinsic: time, money, less tangible things - self disclosure (put directly in)
Extrinsic: shared things that may be lost (shared pet, memories, friends, children)
If partner high levels of satisfaction (rewards>costs), alternatives less attractive, investment increasing = committed
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO1
Satisfaction vs Commitment
Rusbult argues commitment is what causes people to stay in rel’s not satisfaction (it explains why dissatisfied people stay = committed as made an investment they do not want to see go to waste so will work hard to repair rel)
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO1
Relationship Maintenance Mechanisms
Accommodation - not retaliate but accomodate
Willingness to sacrifice - put partner’s interests first
Forgiveness - for serious offences
Positive Illusions - unrealistically positive about partner
Ridiculing alternatives - negative about tempting positives and other people’s rel’s
Rusbult’s Investment Model
AO3
+ Supporting research evidence: Rusbult:
Heterosexual rel’s questionnaires 7 mth period notes about satisfactory rel was = Found high satisfaction + investment = less likely to break up and if medium alternatives = more likely
-possible researcher bias - need other studies
- heterocentrism + students = dec external validity
+ follow up studies found the same results + across cultures + homo + hetero = inc validity
+ Real life application: Rusbult + Martz 1995: valid and useful in explanation of abusive rel’s: women in refuges why stay not leave when abuse started = felt greatest commitment when economic alternatives poor + investment was great
+ Methodological strengths: self report and questionnaires allow insight into people’s beliefs and perception which matters, not obj reality
+ Le and Agnew 2003: meta-analysis 52 c’s + >10,000 p’s = strong -ve correlation betw satisfaction level and quality of alt’s / strong +ve corr betw investment size and satisfaction level = supports investment model +v good size so sure of conclusions
- Based on correlational research = not causation (could be the more committed feel the more invest)
Duck’s Phase Model of Relationships breakdown
AO1
- Intra-psychic phase - cognitive element, dissatisfied partner think about dissatisfaction privately
- Dyadic Phase - interpersonal exchange betw partners, negotiation
- Social Phase - break up/issue made public/try get support/mutual friends pick sides/break up inevitable
- Grave-dressing phase - a suitable story of break up is prepared for wider consumption: puts them in favourable light, partner negative = necessary to help move on
Duck’s Phase Model of Relationships breakdown
AO3
+ Tashiro + Fraizer 2003: surveyed student who broke up=experienced both emotional stress and personal growth (new insight in self, clearer idea future partners) through grave dressing: put OG rel to rest and get on with lives - Methodological issues
- Evidence is retrospective data: after relationship broke down not during = not reliable as limited to know what happened at time
- Ethical Issues: students vulnerable, privacy, confidentiality - none for other partner
- Rollie + Duck 2007: added fifth resurrection phase = what we learn in past helps have better rel’s in future
Virtual Relationships in Social Media
AO1
- no non-verbal paralanguage as not face to face(FtF) these important as not under conscious control allows up to ascertain truth and emotional meaning = lost in emails
- dependent on solely words
Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
AO1
- Reduced Cues Theory (less SD)
- The Hyperpersonal Model (more SD)
Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
AO1
Reduced Cues Theory
Sproull + Kiesler 1986: computer mediated communication (CMC) rel’s less effective than FtF as lack cues we depend on for interactions.
- can’s see non verbal cues
- deindividuation as identity lost so don’t act as normal
- disinhibition as people feel freer from contraints of social norms = blunt communication and a reluctance in SD
Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
AO1
The Hyperpersonal Model
Walther 1996: VR’s develop more quickly as disclosure happens earlier = once established more intense + intimate
- So can end more quickly as high excitement levels not matched by level of trust - boom and bust phenomenon (Cooper and Sportolari 1997)
- Sender has more time to manipulate online image than would FtF = selective self-presentation + more control over what cues send and what disclose
- easier to promote intimacy in CMC rel’s by self-presenting in a positive, idealised way
- anonymity promotes SD: Bargh 2002: aware other people do not know your identity, feel less accountable for actions/behaviour, so disclose more to a stranger
Absence of gating in virtual relationships
- Gate: obstacle to formation of a rel. FtF rel’s have many gates such as physical unattractiveness, stammer, social anxiety.
- McKenna + Bargh 1999: adv of CMC rel’s is no gating. So rel can develop to a point where SD is more frequent and deeper.
- It allows virtual rel’s ‘get off the ground’ differently from FtF rel’s.
- Absence of gating refocuses attention on SD and away from superficial features. But this can allow people to make up online identities that they could never do FtF.
Virtual Relationships in Social Media
AO3
- Lack of research support for reduced cues theory: there are different non-verbal cues e.g. time taken to reply and use of emoji’s (Walther + Tidwell 1995)
+ Research support for the hyperpersonal model: Whitty + Joinson 2009: found questions on online discussions to be v direct, probing and sometimes intimate + would never have been asked FtF as seen as going too far. FtF discussions usually small talk. People had no issues answering personal questions online and were direct and to the point.
+ Support for the absence of gating: McKenna + Bargh 2000: looked at online use of lonely/socially anxous people + found they were more likely to express true self online than in FtF situations. Of romantic rel’s formed online 70% survived >2 yrs = higher proportion than rel’s formed offline.
Parasocial Relationship
AO1
Individual is attracted to another individual (celebrity) even though the target individual is unaware.
Horton + Wohl 1956
Measuring Attraction to Celebrities
Level of Parasocial Relationships
AO1
- Sub-scale 1: Entertainment social (source of gossip, contributes to social life)
- Sub-scale 2: Intense-personal (intensive, compulsive, over-identification with celebrity)
- Sub-scale 3: Borderline pathological (uncontrollable + irrational behaviour, obsessive, intense fantasies about celeb, lack of self-control, confusion of reality/identity)
- Motivational forces drive absorption which can lead to addiction and more extreme behaviours to sustain satisfaction with the parasocial rel they developed with celeb.
Attraction of Parasocial Relationships
AO1
Attraction of celebs:
- appealing
- few demands
- no ‘real’ relationship
- no risk of rejection
Attraction more likely if:
- attractive
- similar to us
- perceive as real
- viewer is female
- viewer is lonely and shy
Absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships
AO1
McCutcheon (2002)
600p’s complete celebrity attitude scale (questionnaire made by self)= 20% ent-social, 10% int-personal, 1% borderline pathological
- parasocial relationships make up for deficits in real life relationships
- parasocial relationships enable a sense of identity, help find fulfilment and escape reality
- addictive nature means that parasocial relationships escalate through series of stages (entertainment social, intense personal, borderline pathological)
- someone initially entertainment social may be triggered into more intense involvement by a personal crisis or stressful life event.
Absorption
Seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship, motivates them to focus much of their energy and attention on celebrity, becoming more absorbed in celebrity’s existence and identify with them.
Addiction
The person has to increase their dose to continue to feel satisfied, may lead the, to progress further down the stages to more extreme behaviour.
Attachment theory and parasocial relationships
AO1
Insecure resistant: most likely to form PSR, worried others will not reciprocate desire for intimacy, needy
Insecure avoidant: least likely develop PSR, find it difficult to develop rel’s so unlikely to seek them from real or fictional people
Secure: not likely, often have satisfactory real life rel’s and don’t seek an additional rel with a celebrity
Parasocial relationships
Absorption Addiction Model
AO3
+ Real Life App: Maltby 2005: looked in particularly at females aged 14-16 who had a PSR with a female whose body shape they admired. They found these females had a poor body image = could be a precursor to the dev of anorexia.
+ Links to mental health: Maltby et al (2003) used the Eysenck personality questionnaire to assess the rel’s betw PSR level and personality.
Entertainment Social = Extraversion (socialable, lively)
Intense Personal = Neuroticism (tense, emotional, moody)
(Neuroticism is also linked to depression and anxiety)
Borderline Pathological = Psychoticism (anti social, ego centric)
- provides a description not explanation for processes involved in PSR’s so it doesn’t help us prevent the more dangerous forms of PSR’s (no treatment)
- hard to show cause and effect
- limited availability of evidence = problems of testability
Parasocial Relationships
Attachment Theory
AO3
- McCutcheon (2006) measured attachment styles and celebrity related attitudes in 299 participants. Found that the p’s with insecure attachments were no more likely to form PSR’s with celebrities than participants with secure attachments. So insecure attachment is a pre-disposing factor.
- Methodological Issues:
Correlational study: maybe PSR caused women have poor body issues
Ethics: socially sensitive to classify people with insecure attachments
Use of questionnaires: socially desirable answers, misinterpret questions, biased questions
+ Cultural Influences: research into PSR’s with Harry Potter: Schmid and Klimmt 2011: tendency not culture specific as used online questionnaire found similar levels of PS attachments to Harry Potter in an individualistic culture (Germany) and a collectivist culture (Mexico). +universality: lack of cultural bias +good pop val -self report technique= socially desirable answers = poor internal val
Equity theory
AO1
Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships.
Any kind of inequity can make people feel distressed.
Equity = fair; a very subjective opinion
So if one person thinks they are putting in less, it’s still judged equitable if they think they are getting out less.
Perceived ratio of inputs and outputs
Equity theory
Restoring equity
AO1
If we perceive inequity in our relationship we try to restore it.
- Put in less / more
- Change the amount you demand from it
- Change perception of inputs/outputs
Equity theory
AO3
\+ Stafford and Canary 2006 Found marital satisfaction to be lowest in people who considered themselves to be under-benefited and highest in those who felt they were in equitable relationships. \+ Hatfield et al Newlyweds: least satisfied: underbenefited, next least: over-benefited, most satisfied: equal - Gerghen et al 1980 American students preferred equity European preferred equality - Hard to judge equity
