Relationships

Question 1

What does Rusbult’s investment model suggest?

Answer 1

That commitment to a relationship is based on investment, satisfaction and comparison with alternatives.

Question 2

What is Intrinsic investment?

Answer 2

Any resources that we put directly into the relationship, including tangible items (e.g money) or intangibles (e.g energy and self-disclosures)

Question 3

What is extrinsic investments?

Answer 3

Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it. These include tangible items (children, shared house) and intangibles (shared memories).

Question 4

What did Shackelford and Larson (1997) find?

Answer 4

They found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more physically attractive. This is thought to be because this shows genetic fitness because a symmetrical face requires robust genes. Therefore a partner who selects a person with a symmetrical gave is more likely to produce offspring with robust genes who survive and reproduce themselves.

Question 5

What is the supporting research evidence for Rusbult’s investment model?

Answer 5

Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete a questionnaire over a 7 month period. They kept notes about how satisfactory their relationships was, how it compared with others and how much they had invested in it. Students noted how committed they felt to the relationship and whether it had ended.

Question 6

What weather results of Rusbult’s study on investment?

Answer 6

Those who were committed to the relationship had a high level of investment and satisfaction and a low CL for alternatives whereas those who decided to leave the relationship had a higher CL for alternatives and low satisfaction and investment.

Question 7

Evaluate Rusbult’s study?

Answer 7

It has real world applications
College setting is not normal for relationships and so results cannot be generalised
Only done in USA so poor ecological validity.

Question 8

Rusbult and Martz 1995

Answer 8

Applied the investment model to abusive relationships. They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began. As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.

Question 9

Outline Le and Agnew’s 2003 study?

Answer 9

They reviewed 52 studies including 11,000 from 5 countries and found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longer.

Self report studies were used.

Question 10

Self disclosure

Answer 10

Talking about personal things when talking to a new potential mate. Breadth and depth increase over time.

Question 11

FtF

Answer 11

Face-to-face

Question 12

De individuation

Answer 12

When you loose your identity so your behaviour may be different.

Question 13

Selective self presentation

Answer 13

You can select how you are presented online.

Question 14

Reasons for more self disclosure in virtual relationships compare to face-to-face relationship.

Answer 14

Cannot see their face so you can say what you want.

De-individuated so may self disclose more than they would in real life.

Question 15

Reasons for less self disclosure in virtual relationships compare to face-to-face relationship.

Answer 15

Security
Trust
De-individuation may cause someone to be mean if you self disclose sometching that may be embaressing.

Question 16

Self disclosure in virtual relationships.

Answer 16

Psychologists have long known that self disclosure is an important feature of FtF relationships in the offline world. In recent years psychologists have tune their attention to its role in virtual relationships. The 2 major theories are

• > reduced cues theory
• > the hyperpersonal model

Question 17

What is the reduced cues theory.

Kiesler 1986

Answer 17

• > Non verbal cues, such as physical appearance or cues to emotional state, are lacking an CmC. We rely on these in FtF.
• > This can lead to a person loosing their identity and acting in a way that they usually wouldn’t.
• > So people feel more free from constraints is social norms (disinhibition) can lead to aggressive and blunt communication which leads to reluctant self disclosure.

Question 18

The hyperpersonal model

Walther 1996

Answer 18

• > CMC relationship are more personal and have greater self disclosure that FtF
• > CmC relationships can develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier. They can also be quicker because of a lack of underlying trust.
• > A key feature to self disclosure is the extra time to manipulate emir online image. Selective self-presentation. It is easier to manipulate SD to promote intimacy.

Question 19

What is a gate in relationships?

Answer 19

A feature/obstacle that could interfere with the development of a relationship (FtF) examples include - shyness -facial distortion -awkwardness.

Question 20

Positive of gating in CMC?

Answer 20

The issue may be easier accepted of a relationship and bond is already established?

Question 21

Gating:

McKenna and Bargh (1999)

Answer 21

They argued that the huge advantage of CmC is the absence of gating. This means the relationship can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.
This absence of gating allows an online relationship to ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen in an FtF situation. Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from one might be considered superficial and distracting features.
In other words, online I am more interested in what you tell me rather than what you look and sound like.