Relationships

Question 1

Sexual selection: anisogamy

Answer 1

• Difference between male and female sex cells…
  Sperm = continuously produced from puberty - old age, small, mobile. Ova = larger, static and produced at intervals for a limited number of years.
• Mating strategies…
  Plenty of fertile males, fewer females.

Question 2

Sexual selection: inter-sexual selection

Answer 2

Selection of mates between sexes.

• Female strategy: quality over quantity. Greater investment of time so they need to be choosier than males - seek a man who will provide healthy offspring.
• Impact on mating behaviour: preferences of both sexes determine attributes that are passed on, e.g. height.

Question 3

Sexual selection: intra-sexual selection

Answer 3

Selection of mates within sexes.
- Male strategy: quantity over quality. Competition is necessary because females are a limited resource and are choosy.
- Impact on mating behaviour: pressures lead to certain patterns of human reproductive behaviour -
Male aggression: most aggressive males = more likely to reproduce.
Male preference for youthful and fertile women because these are signs of fertility leading to reproductive success.

Question 4

Evaluation of sexual selection

Answer 4

✓ Buss - surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking about partner preferences. Females valued resource-related characteristics more than males. Males valued reproductive capacity - supports intra-sexual selection.
✓ Clark and Hatfield - no females agreed to requests, 75% of males agreed. Shows choosiness of females.
✓ Waist-hip ratio research - Singh measured waist-hip ratio preferences of males for females. Ratio of one to the other = 0.7 (thought to signify fertility) - evolutionary factors are reflected in patterns of HR behaviour through partner preferences.
✓ Support from lonely hearts research - Waynforth and Dunbar: lonely hearts ads in newspapers, found women tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth

✗ Ignores social and cultural influences - Chang et al. found some preferences have changed and others have remained the same over 25 years in China - evolutionary and cultural influences must be taken into account.

Question 5

Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

Answer 5

Important early in a relationship, involves revealing intimate information e.g. likes, hopes, fears, attitudes.

Question 6

Self-disclosure: Social Penetration Theory, Altman and Taylor.

Answer 6

• Self-disclosure is limited at the start.
• Revealing personal information = a sign of trust.
• Partner has to reciprocate and reveal personal information.
• ‘Penetration’ leads to development = greater understanding of each other.
• Breadth is narrow at the start of a relationship, if too much information is revealed it is off-putting.
• Depth - as the relationship develops, more layers are gradually revealed.

Question 7

Reciprocity of self-disclosure, Reis and Shaver

Answer 7

Reciprocity is key.
Successful relationships all involve disclosure from one partner, and this should be received sensitively by the other partner. This leads to further self-disclosure.

Question 8

Evaluation of Self-Disclosure

Answer 8

✓ Sprecher and Hendrick: strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure in heterosexual couples. Those who reciprocated self-disclosure were more committed to their romantic relationship.
✓ Real-life applications: Hass and Stafford - 57% of gay men and women reported that open and honest self-disclosure was a maintenance strategy. Theory can be used to support people having relationship problems.
✓ Links to relationship breakdown: Duck’s phase model of the breakdown of relationships - couples often discuss their relationship with each other in intimate detail yet this may not be enough to save their relationship.

✗ Doesn’t apply to all cultures: Tang et al. found individualist cultures self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than collectivist cultures. Pattern of self-disclosure is different.

Question 9

Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

- Symmetry

Answer 9

Shackelford and Larsen found people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive = signal of genetic fitness.
The associated ‘robust’ genes are likely to be passed on and symmetry is perpetuated.
We have evolved a liking for attributes that signal high quality = evolutionary.

Question 10

Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

- Baby face features

Answer 10

Neotenous features trigger protective and caring instincts relating to the formation of attachment in infancy.
- features that strengthen attachment are adaptive.

Question 11

Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

- McNulty

Answer 11

Attractiveness is an important feature of the relationship throughout, even after marriage.

Question 12

Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

- Halo effect

Answer 12

Physical attractiveness is generalised.

Dion et al. found physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, successful.

Question 13

Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

- Matching hypothesis

Answer 13

Walster et al. found we choose a partner whose attractiveness matches ours.
Choosing a partner is a compromise - evolutionary theories suggest women should seek the most attractive males. However, we have to balance the potential for being rejected.

Question 14

Evaluation of Physical Attractiveness

Answer 14

✓ Research support for halo effect - Palmer and Peterson: physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent. This suggests politicians may be elected based on attractiveness. Halo effect can be observed in real-life situations.
✓ Cunningham et al. found large eyes, small nose and prominent cheekbones were rated as highly attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males. Physical attractiveness is culturally consistent and may have evolutionary roots.

✗ Individual differences in the importance placed upon physical attractiveness - may not be as significant a consideration in relationship formation for all partners.
✗ Online dating research hasn’t supported its assumptions - Taylor et al. found online daters sought dates with partners who were more attractive than themselves. Doesn’t support matching hypothesis.

Question 15

Factors affecting attraction: filter theory, Kerckhoff and Davis

Answer 15

Explains attraction in terms of attitudes and personalities.

• We consider the filed of availables.
• We select the field of desirables via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship.

Question 16

First level of the Filter Theory

Answer 16

Social Demography

• Geographical locations, social class, education - more likely to meet and have meaningful encounters with people who are physically close and share other features with yourself.
• Anyone who is too ‘different’ is filtered out before the next stage.

Question 17

Second level of the Filter Theory

Answer 17

Similarity in Attitudes

• Sharing values and beliefs.
• Agreeing on basic values promotes better communication and self-disclosure in early stages of a relationship.

Byrne found similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction - often, without this, the relationship fades after only a few dates.

Question 18

Third level of the Filter Theory

Answer 18

Complementarity

• Partners need to meet each other’s needs.
• Important for longer term/ later stages of a relationship.

Question 19

Evaluation of the Filter Theory

Answer 19

✓ Research support: Winch found similarity of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of early stages of a relationship. This suggests that filters may determine the development of the relationship = validity.

✗ Lack of replication of original findings: Levinger found social change and difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship could be a reason for the lack of replicability.
- Kerckhoff and Davis assumed partners together over 18 months were more committed, may not be the case in cultures today.

✗ Lack of temporal validity - dating world has changed. Online dating means social demography has taken less importance. Dating someone outside our culture not predicted in original filter theory.

Question 20

Theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory, Thibault and Kelley

Answer 20

Relationships can be explained in terms of economics.

• Satisfaction is judged in terms of profit. Partners are motivated to minimise the costs to themselves whilst maximising rewards.
• Costs include loss of time, stress.
• Rewards include sex, praise and companionship.

Question 21

Social Exchange Theory: CL and CLalt

Answer 21

• CL: Comparison level = a judgement of the reward level we expect in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms.
• CLalt: Comparison level for alternatives = considering whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship.

Duck - if costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more attractive. If we are in a satisfying relationship, we may not even notice them.

Question 22

Social Exchange Theory: 4 Stages of a Relationship

Answer 22

Sampling: exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships and observing others.

Bargaining: at the start of a relationship - partners negotiate around costs and rewards.

Commitment: relationships become more stable. Costs reduce, rewards increase.

Institutionalisation: when partners become settled because the norms of the relationships are established.

Question 23

Evaluation of SET

Answer 23

✗ Research involves artificial tasks and conditions - ‘partners’ are together just for a study. More realistic studies use real partners who have been less supportive of SET. Lack of validity of studies.

✗ Doesn’t consider equity - focuses on comparison levels but ignores the fact that many romantic partners desire fairness or equity. Hatfield found that couples in equitable relationships were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over/ under-benefitting. Limited exp of relationships.

✗ Assumes all relationships are exchange based: Clark and Mills - exchange relationships may involve profit (work colleagues) but communal relationships (romantic partners) involve giving and receiving without thinking of profits. SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships.

Question 24

Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

Answer 24

Role of equity: Walster et al. propose that equity is more important where both partner’s level of profit should be roughly the same.
Under-benefitting and over-benefitting can lead to dissatisfaction.
Equity is about the fairness of the ratios.

Question 25

Consequences of inequity

Answer 25

Greater inequity = greater dissatisfaction.

• Equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the two.
• At the start of a relationship it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive.
• If that carries on during the relationship, and one person continues putting in more and getting less out this leads to dissatisfaction.
• The greater the inequity, the more work required to restore it.

Question 26

Strengths of equity theory

Answer 26

✓ Equity theory has research support - Utne et al. found that newly weds who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who considered themselves as over/ under-benefitting. Equity is the key issue. Good validity.

Question 27

Limitations of equity theory

Answer 27

✗ May not be valid in all cultures - Aumer- Ryan et al. found couples in an individualist culture linked satisfaction to equity, but in collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting.

✗ Individual differences - Huseman et al. found some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some are happy to contribute more than they get (benevolents) others believe they deserve to be overbenefitted and accept it without feeling guilt (entitleds).

✗ Equity may not apply to all relationships - Clark and Mills suggest a need to distinguish between types of relationship (romantic and business). There is limited support for equity theory in terms of romantic.

✗ Berg and McQuinn - equity didn’t increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples, as equity theory would predict.

Question 28

Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 28

Rusbult futher developed SET, suggesting that commitment depends on satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.

• Satisfying relationship = partners are getting more out than they expect.
• Commitment matters more than satisfaction.

Question 29

Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 29

Investment: resources associated with a romantic relationship would be lost if a relationship ended.

Satisfaction level: extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs.

Comparison with alts: a judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would reduce costs and increase rewards.

Question 30

Intrinsic investment

Answer 30

Any resources put directly into relationship (money, energy).

Question 31

Extrinsic investment

Answer 31

Investments that previously didn’t feature in the relationship which are now closely associated to it (a house, children).

Question 32

Rusbult: Relationship maintenance

Answer 32

Relationship maintenance mechanisms keep a relationship going:

• Promoting a relationship (accommodation)
• Putting their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
• Forgiving them for any serious transgressions (forgiveness)
• A partner may be unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions)
• A partner may be negative about tempting alternatives/ other people’s relationships (derogation of alternatives)

Question 33

Evaluation of Rusbult’s model

Answer 33

✓ Research support for investment model: Le and Agnew’s review found that satisfaction, comparison and investment all predicted relationship commitment. Where commitment was greatest, relationships were most stable and lasted longest. True for those in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Universally valid.

✓ Explains why people may stay in abusive relationships - Rusbult and Matz found that women who reported making the greatest investment and who had the fewest attractive alternatives were the most likely to return to the partners who had abused them.

✓ Supporting evidence is based on self-reporting techniques - the model is based on subjective judgements - valid.

Question 34

Theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model

Answer 34

Duck proposed that breakdown of relationships goes through 4 processes.
Each phase is characterised by a partner reaching a threshold where the perception of the relationship changes
The partner may reassess the relationship.

Question 35

Duck’s Model: Intra-Psychic Phase

Answer 35

Threshold - ‘I can’t stand this anymore’

• Partner becomes dissatisfied with the relationship in its current form.
• They tend to keep this to themselves, but may share their thoughts with a trusted friend, weighing up the pros and cons of continuing.

Question 36

Duck’s Model: Dyadic Phase

Answer 36

Threshold - ‘I would be justified in withdrawing.’

• Once they’ve justified its ending they have to discuss with their partner.
• Dissatisfactions about equity etc.
• Phase may vary in length and in intensity of hostility and anxiety.

Question 37

Duck’s Model: Social Phase

Answer 37

Threshold: dissatisfied partner concludes ‘I mean it.’

• They will seek support particularly from joint friends.
• They may be encouraged to choose a side.
• Once the news is public, this is the point of no return.

Question 38

Duck’s Model: Grave-Dressing Phase

Answer 38

Threshold - ‘it’s now inevitable.’

• A suitable story of a relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption likely to include an attempt to ensure that the storyteller will be judged more favourably.
• This necessary so the partner can move on.

Question 39

Evaluation of Duck’s Model

Answer 39

✓ Application to helping people reverse the process: some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage rather than another (e.g. intra-psychic stage partners could brood more positively). Less helpful to encourage brooding to someone already at social phase.

✗ Based on retrospective data: interviews take place after rather than during a relationship breakdown. May not produce reliable data. Limited information about the start of the breakdown process. Incomplete.

✗ Focuses on how, not why breakdown occurs: Flemlee - ‘a fatal attraction’ theory states attributes partners found attractive at the start of a relationship can often become too much.

✗ Research is biased on individualist cultures: Moghaddam - relationships in individualist cultures are most voluntary and end quite often unlike collectivist relationships.

Question 40

Virtual Relationships in Social Media: Self-Disclosure

Answer 40

• Self-disclosure is crucial in face-to-face relationships.
• Reduced cues in computer-mediated communication (e.g. physical appearance, emotional responses) means there is less self-disclosure and so they are less effective.
• Lack of cues about emotional state leads to de-individuation.

Question 41

Virtual Relationships in Social Media: Hyper-personal model, Walther

Answer 41

• It may involve more self-disclosure: early self-disclosure means computer-mediated communication relationships develop quicker and become more intense.
• They can also end quicker due to low levels of trust.
• Self-disclosure in CMC - online images can be manipulated. Anonymity means partners may feel less accountable for their behaviour and disclose more.

Question 42

Virtual Relationships in Social Media: Absence of Gating

Answer 42

Mckenna and Bargh: facial disfigurement/ a stammer may be obstacles to FTF relationships.
‘Gates aren’t there online.
A relationship can develop and once self-disclosure becomes deeper the gates become less of an issue.

This has benefits: without obstacles of FTF communication, people are free to create different online identities.

Question 43

Evaluation of Virtual Relationships

Answer 43

✗ Lack of research support for reduced cues theory - cues in CMC are different from those in FTF ones. There are verbal cues in CMC. Emoticons and acrostics are effective substitutes. May suggest there’s no difference in self-disclosure between CMC and FTF.

✓ Strength of hyperpersonal model - Whitty and Johnson found evidence for both hyperhonest and hyperdishonest online disclosures. Questions asked online tend to be direct and intimate. Consistent with prediction of the model that there are distinctive types of disclosure in CMC.

✓ Support for the absence of gating - McKenna and Bargh found socially anxious people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more in CMC that FTF. Of romantic relationships started online, 70% survived more than two years, higher than those formed offline. Helpful for socially anxious individuals.

Question 44

Parasocial Relationships: Celebrity Attitude Scale (Maltby)

Answer 44

Entertainment-social level: least intense, celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction.
Intense-personal level: intermediate level, someone becomes more personally involved with celebrity, may include obsessive thoughts.
Borderline pathological level: strongest level of celebrity worship where fantasies are uncontrollable and behaviour is more extreme.

Question 45

Parasocial Relationships: Absorption Addiction Model

Answer 45

McCutcheon: parasocial relationships can make up for personal deficiencies. Provide an escape from mundane lives.
Absorption - celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention on the celebrity, absorbed in celebrity’s existence.
Addiction - individual needs to increase their ‘dose’ of involvement to gain satisfaction. May lead to delusional thinking.

Question 46

Parasocial Relationships: Attachment Theory Explanations

Answer 46

Bowlby - maternal deprivation may lead to difficulties forming successful relationships later in life.
Ainsworth - unhealthy emotional development (insecure-resistant & avoidant).
- Resistant: more likely to form parasocial - want unfulfilled needs met where there is no real threat of rejection.

Question 47

Evaluation of Parasocial Relationships

Answer 47

✗ Lacks explanatory power: doesn’t explain why the different forms develop. Doesn’t help us to prevent more dangerous forms of parasocial relationships. Limited in application for supporting celebrity worship has become problematic.

✓ Cross-cultural support: Schmid and Klimmt found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in an individualist culture (Germany) and collectivist culture (Mexico). Tendency isn’t culturally specific. May be universal and innate, may be an adaptive behaviour.

✗ Methodological issues limit validity of research: use self-report techniques. Can be affected by forms of bias (social desirability). Most studies are correlational analysis, causal links cannot be made. No evidence to show that parasocial relationships are caused by specific experiences.