Relationships A03 Flashcards
What is the research into Physical attractiveness and their evaluation points?
Research:
The matching hypothesis (1966)
- Based on the assumption that people tend to match up with partners of the same level of attractiveness as themselves are
- uses self rating
- solely used physical attractiveness
- attractive features include: symmetrical faces, baby faces, big eyes
- the halo effect = attractive people are perceived as having more positive personality traits
They found that regardless of compatibility, people will only date based on how attractive the other person is
Evaluation:
- Feingold (1998)
- Meta analysis of research on the matching hypothesis
- Used actual couples
- found that partners tended to be equally attractive
+ Good external validity of the theory as it can be seen in operation in real life
- Notions of ‘what is attractive?’ - highly subjective and prone to individual differences which means that associated theories lack scientific validity
What is the research into sexual selection and their evaluation points?
Research:
Buss (1989)
- Cross cultural study
- 33 countries
- Found that females prefer men who have resources and ambition
- Found that males prefer females who are younger, more attractive and fertile
Evaluation:
+ validity as seen in research findings such as Buss (1989) which can be seen in real world observations of male mating behaviour i.e more common to see a rich, older man with a much younger women than vice versa
- solely concerned with heterosexual mating preferences and reproduction, limited application to homosexual people and to LGBTQ community as a whole
What is the research into self disclosure and their evaluation points?
Research:
Social penetration theory - Altman and Taylor (1973)
- different levels of self disclosure:- superficial, intimate, personal, core
- levels of self disclosure progresses deeper as the person reveals more private information
- onion skin i.e peel a layer back at a time
Evaluation:
+ self disclosure has good application - at least in westernised cultures/nations
+ can be used to guide and inform relationship counselling
- Some relationships remain healthy, yet do not follow the ‘rules’
What is the research into filter theory and what is their evaluation?
Research:
The Filter Theory - Kerchkoff and Davies (1962)
- Involves 3 factors :- social demography, similarity of attitudes, complementarity
- Social demography - we only meet a small fraction of the people living in our area (proximity filter)
- Similarity in attitudes - people will often share beliefs and values, partly due to the previous filter which has left them with those who have significant social and cultural; characteristics in common
- Complementarity - concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each others needs, two partners complement each other when they have the traits that the other lacks
Evaluation:
+ Kerckoff and Davies conducted a follow up study using students in a relationship for less than 18 months (short term) with those in a relationship for over 18 months (long term) - found that closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples who had been together for less than 18 months. For couples in longer term relationships, complimentary of needs was the most important factor.
- Assumes that all relationships after 18 months are committed, some cultures may commit to long term relationships e.g marriage before 18 months (“short term relationships”)
- Modern online dating and “apps” are affecting the first stage of filter theory (social demography) due to allowing an increased area (people out of your normal area) of people for you to meet.
What is the research into social exchange theory and what is their evaluation?
Research: Economic theory
4 stages of relationships - Thibault and Kelly
- Sampling, Bargaining, Commitment, Institutionalisation
- Sampling - explore potential rewards + costs
- Bargaining - beginning of relationship where romantic partners start to exchange rewards and costs
- Commitment - costs and rewards become more predictable, relationship becomes more stable, rewards increase costs lessen
- Institutionalisation - partners are settled down, rewards and costs of the relationship are firmly established
Evaluation:
- Clark and Mills (2011)
- cannot apply this to romantic relationships as they are communal based (do not keep score)
- if they kept score it would destroy the trust that underlies a close emotional relationship
+ Kurdek (1995)
+ asked gay, lesbian, heterosexual couples to complete a questionnaire
+ measured relationship commitment and social exchange theory
+ found that most committed = perceived most rewards and least costs and viewed alternative as unnatractive
+ findings strongly match prediction from SET, strongly confirming the validity of the theory in all types of couples
What is the research into equity theory and what was their evaluation?
Research:
- Equity theory - Walster (1978)
- equity = fairness
- perceived ration of inputs and outputs
- not the size or amount of rewards and costs but the ratio compared to what they put in
Evaluation:
+ supporting research from animal studies - Brosnan and de Waal
+ placed female monkeys in pairs, side by side, in cages
+ given basic tasks to do and were “payed” a slice of cucumber
+ both animals were happy until one saw the other being rewarded with a higher value treat I.e a grape
+ they then refused to complete the task for a cucumber (lower value reward)
+ got angry at the inequity
- individual differences - Huseman (1987)
- not all partners are concerned with receiving equity
- two types of people - Benevolents, Entitleds
- Benevolents - prepared to contribute more to relationship than they get out of it
- Entitleds - believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty
What is the research into Rusbult’s investment model and what is their evaluation?
Research:
- Investment model - Rusbult (2011)
- relationship depends on three factors
- Satisfaction level - rewards outweigh the costs
- Comparison with alternatives - judging potential profit of a new relationship with the comparison level (CL)
- Investment size - people consider how much they have invested in the relationship = resources associated with romantic relationships
- two types of investment - intrinsic and extrinsic
- intrinsic = resources we put in, tangible or intangible, house or emotions
- extrinsic = things that did not previously feature before the relationship, possessions bought recently or mutual friends, intangible or tangible
- 5 mechanisms = accommodation, forgiveness, positive illusions, ridiculing alternatives
Evaluation:
+ investment model can explain abusive relationships
+ satisfaction may be low but they have invested in the relationship - therefore, don’t want to see it go to waste + lack alternative partners
+ Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the model to abusive relationships
+support as the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships - commitment and investment are also factors
- all 3 factors are correlated with commitment, however correlation does not equal causation
- could be that the more committed someone is, the more investment they are willing to make. Therefore, the direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the model
- limitation as it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than its associated factors
What research is there into Duck’s phase of a relationship breakdown and their evaluation?
Research:
Relationship breakdown - Duck
- 4 stages = intra psychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing
- intra psychic = focused on cognitive processes, one partner dissatisfied, mulls over thoughts privately - may share with a trusted friend, weighs up pros and cons and compares with alternatives (“I can’t stand this anymore, something has to change”)
- Dyadic phase = interpersonal processes between partners, confrontation between partners, dissatisfactions aired, complaints about a lack of equity, 2 outcomes: breakup or renewed desire to repair it, self disclosure may become deeper and more frequent - partners express true thoughts and feelings (“id be justified in withdrawing”)
- social phase = focus on involving couples social networks - break up public, partners seek support and try to form pacts with family and friends - mutual friends choose sides, gossip traded and some may provide support whilst others blame one partner or the other, some may disclose secret information however some may try to repair relationship by acting as a go between (“the dissatisfied partner concludes, i mean it” - point of no return - gains momentum)
- Grave dressing phase = focus on aftermath after relationship ‘dead’ and ‘buried’, people spin favourable stories, helps to maintain positive reputation or ‘save face’, usually the other person is shown in a bad light, try to retain social credit, gossip plays important role as partners try to create personal story or rewrite the story to show positive traits as negative, they finally reach the conclusion to move on (“it’s now inevitable”)
Evaluation:
- an incomplete model = oversimplified so they had to modify it to add a fifth phase after grave dressing, the resurrection phase - use experience gained from recently ended relationship in future relationships.
This is a limitation because the original model is a limited explanation because it does not account for the dynamic nature of break - ups with all their inherent uncertainty and complexity.
- description rather than explanation = only focuses on breakdown not how or why the relationship got to the point of breakdown in the first place, it is descriptive rather than explanatory.
In contrast Felmlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis argues that: relationships breakdown because the same quality that caused you to be attracted to someone in the first place leads to the breakup.
+ good real world application = the model is useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than others.
This is a strength because such insights could be used in relationship counselling, a real - life application.
What is the research into virtual relationships in social media and what is their evaluation?
Research:
- two major and contrasting theories
- Reduced cues theory = Sproull and kiesler (1986)
Suggest that virtual relationships are less effective than face to face (FTF) because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FTF interactions. Virtual relationships don’t have non - verbal cues such as physical appearance, facial expressions, tone of voice etc. people also act different online due to disinhibition - feel free from social norms
- The hyperpersonal model = Walther (1996, 2011)
Contrastingly argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure than FtF ones. This is because virtual relationships can develop more quickly as disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate. Relationship can end more quickly due to excitement without trust or the boom and bust phenomenon. Two features involve the sender of the message having greater control over what to disclose and what cues to send meaning that self disclosure can be intensely truthful (hyper honest) and intensely false (hyper dishonest), the other is when the receiver gains a positive impression of the sender they offer positive reinforcement which enforces selective self - presentation.
- John Bargh said the role of anonymity is key due to the “stranger on a train” phenomenon where individuals rapidly reveal personal information with complete strangers in public spaces
- Absence of gating in virtual relationships, gate = any obstacle that stops someone forming a relationship i.e stutter or hair, whereas FTF relationships are gated - can affect the development of a relationship.
- absence of gating = self disclosure becomes deeper and more frequent and online relationships can get off the ground in a way that is less likely to happen in a FTF relationship, online more interested in what you tell me rather than what you sound or look like. However absence of gating can cause individuals to be more free (like their “true selves”) or create identities they could not manage (catfish).
Evaluation:
Reduced cues theory
- lack of research support for this theory
The theory is wrong as it suggests that nonverbal cues are mussing from virtual relationships, when in reality they are different rather than absent. Online interactions use other cues such as the style and timing of a message, or using acronyms such as LOL or the use of emojis, these are used as a substitute for facial expressions etc.
Hyperpersonal model
+ study found that when researching a number of online discussions they found that: they published a paper called “truth, lies and trust on the internet”, examining whether the internet is an unsafe space. They found that online discussions tend to be more distinct probing and intimate than FTF interactions.
Absence of gating
+ shy people were more likely to form a long term relationship online than in the real world, this suggests that the absence of gating enables these types of people to be their true selves and create long lasting relationships online.
What is the research into parasocial relationships and what is their evaluation?
Research:
Absorbtion addiction model
Attachment theory
- measuring attraction to celebrities: levels of parasocial relationships
Stage 1 = entertainment social - least intense level, celebrities are entertainment, may discuss with friends or source of gossip in offices
Stage 2 = Intense-personal = this level reflects greater personal involvement, a fan may have obsessive thoughts an intense feelings (perhaps considering them solemates, commonly teenagers have an intense interest
Stage 3 = borderline-pathological = most intense level, person has obsessive fantasies about the celebrity, spends lots of money, may commit illegal activities, they think the celebrities feelings would be reciprocated.
Absorbtion addiction model = can be caused by a personal crisis or a stressful life event
Absorption = looking for satisfaction in a celebrity worship makes a person focus intensively on parasocial relationships and achieving a sense of fulfillment motivates them to become more intensely attached to the celebrity.
Addiction = individuals need to keep upping “their dose” to gain satisfaction. Leads to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking, i.e try get closer to the celebrities by engaging in stalking.
Attachment theory = Insecure resistant (type c) leads to an interest in celebrities due to having unfulfilled needs met, but in a relationship that is not accompanied by the threat of rejection, break - up and disappointment that real life relationships bring.
Evaluation:
+ good predictive validity
They found that people who scored higher on the CAS scale tended to experience a high degree of anxiety compared to to people who scored lower did not.
- counter evidence problems with the attachment theory
McCutcheon (2006) measured the attachments styles and celebrity related attitudes in 299 US participants. The researchers found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than participants with secure attachments.
+ support for the Absorbtion addiction model
Fermales aged 14-16 tended to have poor body image due to admiring famous celebrities = caused eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa
+ good cultural validity
Researchers found similar results form countries such as US (individualistic) and Kuwait (collectivist)
+ further research found that parasocial relationships are not culturally specific = using an online questionnaire, they found similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter in an individualistic culture (Germany) and a collectivist culture (Mexico)
