Relationships - A2 Flashcards
1
Q
What is an evolutionary explanation of sexual selection?
A
- Based on the idea that human beings seek to continue their genetic line using adaptation mechanisms to ensure their survival (via reproductive success)
- Traits are passed down through generations with only the fittest traits surviving -> selecting a partner who is likely to give your offspring the best chance of survival & further reproduction
2
Q
What is inter-sexual selection?
A
- Intersexual selection is the selection between the sexes -> refers to the differences between males and females & the ways in which these differences manifest themselves as attractive qualities in a mate
- Males must have resources to offer security to the female; females must show they are a good ‘investment’ - their child-rearing potential
3
Q
Why is inter-sexual selection the preferred female strategy and what are the features of this strategy?
A
- The preferred strategy for females and represents female preference for quality over quantity
- Female choosiness: females must be more cautious when choosing a sexual partner than males
- Explanation for female choosiness is anisogamy - the idea that ‘sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive’ - eggs require more energy to produce than sperm
4
Q
What is intrasexual selection?
A
- The ways in which one sex competes for the attention of the opposite sex
- Competition takes place between males for the attention of females
- Desirable physical & psychological attributes a male should possess to find reproductive success:
height, physical fitness, aggression
5
Q
What is physical dimorphism and how does it result from intrasexual selection?
A
- Intrasexual selection has caused dimorphism
- Dimorphism: the obvious differences between males & females
6
Q
What is anisogamy?
A
- The differences between male and female sex cells
- Suggests the best male reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible -> they need low energy to produce sperm & have less responsibility in caring for any offspring
7
Q
What research is there investigating evolutionary partner preferences?
A
- Buss (1989) - cross-cultural survey conducted over 33 countries -> found that females prefer male partners with resources & traits e.g. ambition whilst males prefer younger, fertile female partners
- Clarke & Hatfield (1989) - field experiment where female & male students were asked to ‘go to bed with’ an opposite-sex stranger (same age and deemed to be ‘attractive): 75% of the males said yes to this request; no females did
- Fisher ‘Sexy sons hypothesis: females mate with males with desirable characteristics so their sons inherit this ‘sexy’ trait -> increases the likelihood the successive generation will mat with the females offspring - runaway process
- Trivers: females invest more time & resources before and after birth of offspring -> females try and choose a genetically fit partner who is able/willing to provide resources -> leaves males to compete - females are very selective as the consequences of a bad choice are more serious
8
Q
What are the strengths of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences? (A03)
A
- Research support for intersexual selection: Clarke & Hatfield field experiment - female & male students asked to ‘go to bed with’ an opposite-sex stranger (same age & deemed to be ‘attractive): 75% of the males said yes to this request; not one of the females did - females are choosier + males have evolved a different strategy
- Research support for intrasexual selection: Buss - cross-cultural survey conducted over 33 countries -> found females prefer male partners with resources & traits e.g. ambition but males prefer younger female partners who are attractive and fertile -> reflects consistent sex differences in partner preferences
9
Q
What is a counterpoint to research support for sexual selection? (A03)
A
- Too simplistic to assume one strategy is more adaptive for males/females -> sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt) argues both males & females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships - both sexes are choosy + look for loving, loyal partners -> more nuanced view which accounts context of reproductive behaviour
10
Q
What are the weaknesses of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences? (A03)
A
- Evolutionary theory is solely concerned with heterosexual mating preferences & reproduction -> limited applicability to homosexual people & LGBTQ community
- Cultural bias: evolutionary theories assume universal mate preferences, but cultural & social factors also shape attraction - Chang et al. (2011) found that partner preferences in China changed over 25 years, suggesting cultural shifts, not just evolution, influence mate choice
- Lacks external validity as it does not account for social/cultural variations in mating preferences e.g. women are actually able to support themselves and do not necessarily need to rely on a man (Bereczkei et al - social has impacts on woman mate preferences -> not resource-oriented)
- Ignores social & economic factors: evolutionary theories overlook the role of changing societal roles, education, & financial independence in shaping mate preferences -Kasser & Sharma found that women in cultures with greater economic equality placed less emphasis on men’s financial resources
11
Q
What is self-disclosure?
A
- The act of revealing personal information about the self to another person
Depends on a number of factors:
- The person to whom the details are disclosed e.g. a romantic partner
- Stage of the relationship
- The person who is disclosing the information
- The nature of the details being disclosed e.g. banal or controversial
12
Q
What is self-reciprocity as an influence on self disclosure?
A
- Encouraging self-disclosure from the other person
- Reis & Shaver see it as essential for any romantic relationship to develop
- As we reveal something about our true self, our partner will respond -> increases levels of understanding, empathy -> increases intimacy & deepens the relationship
13
Q
What is social penetration theory?
A
- Altman & Taylor
- The gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else - romantically: the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners
- By increasing these disclosures, partners penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives and gain a greater understanding of each other
14
Q
What are the four levels of self disclosure in SPT?
A
- Superficial self-disclosure details of where someone lives; their job; their hobbies -> some breadth but not much depth
- Intimate self-disclosure: someone’s ambitions; previous relationship history
- Personal self-disclosure starts to go deeper into areas such as hopes; desires; insecurities etc.
- Core self-disclosure has real depth & less breadth as someone may only have a few details buried deep within the layers of their psyche e.g. their innermost fears
15
Q
What research is there into self disclosure?
A
- Collins & Miller (1994) -meta-analysis -> self-disclosure plays an important role in the maintenance of relationships
- Tang et al. (2013) - American couples reported making more intimate/sexual disclosures than Chinese couples; higher relationship satisfaction in both cultures -> self-disclosure has cultural variations - SPT model may be culturally biased
16
Q
What are the strengths of self disclosure? (A03)
A
- Research support: Sprecher & Hnedrick studied heterosexual couples & found strong correlations between satisfaction measures & self-disclosure + men & women using self disclosure were more satisfied & committed -> increased validity
- Real world application: in Westernised nations - with its emphasis on open communication it can be used to guide and inform relationship counselling
17
Q
What are the weaknesses of self disclosure? (A03)
A
- Cultural differences: Tang et al reviewed literature on self disclosure - found that men & women in individualistic USA self disclosed more intimate feelings than those in collectivist China -> despite lower disclosure, satisfaction levels were the same as USA
- Self-disclosure is a difficult variable to operationalise as it is open to subjective interpretation which means that associated theories lack the features of science
18
Q
What is Shackelford & Larsen’s theory of physical attractiveness?
A
- People with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive - honest signal that might imply genetic fitness
- People are attracted to neotenous features -> trigger a caring instinct -valuable for females wanting to reproduce
19
Q
What is the halo effect?
A
- ‘What is beautiful is good’ stereotype - Dion et al
- Occurs when good-looking people are thought to be more socially desirable
- Cognitive bias - involves generalising conclusions & forming an impression about a good-looking person based only on attractiveness & no other available info
- Creates a self-fulfilling prophecy
20
Q
What is the matching hypothesis?
A
- People are more likely to succeed in relationships and claim to like people who are of roughly equal physical attractiveness
- To successfully match ourselves to a potential partner - we make a realistic judgement about our value to them
- We balance our desire for the most physically attractive person possible with our wish to avoid rejection
21
Q
What supporting evidence/studies is there for the matching hypothesis?
A
- Murstein investigated whether married couples chose a partner with a similar level of attractiveness - naive ppts asked to rate photos of married couples for attractiveness -> positive correlation of attractiveness between photos of men & women
- Walster et al randomly paired 752 1st yr students into blind date couples for a dance - each completed questionnaires measuring various qualities e.g. intelligence - physical attractiveness assessed on entry - matching hypothesis wasn’t supported (only cared about attractiveness)
22
Q
What are the strengths of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction? (A03)
A
- Research support for halo effect: Palmer & Peterson - physically attractive people rated as more physically attractive + competent -> halo effect persisted though ppts knew these people had no expertise - dangers for democracy if politicians enter office for being attractive
- Research support for evolutionary processes: Cunningham et al found women with large eyes, small nose etc were rated as highly attractive by white, asian & hispanic men -> consistency in attractivity across cultures - sign of genetic fitness -> perpetuated across cultures
- Real world application to areas of everyday life + explains initial formation of romantic/non-romantic
- Face validity
23
Q
What are the weaknesses of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction? (A03)
A
- Reductionist: people may choose partners based on personality, intelligence etc + doesn’t account for confidence levels
- Research challenging matching hypothesis: Taylor studied activity logs of a popular online dating site (real-world test) - found online daters sought relationships with more attractive partners -> undermining validity
- Matching hypothesis is deterministic: we have free will to choose whatever partner we want not one that matches us
24
Q
What is filter theory? Who suggested it?
A
- Kerchoff & Davis
- People apply a set of filters which help them to narrow down the field of availables to a field of desirables - represents the best choice in terms of a potential partner
25
Q
What is the first filter of filter theory?
A
- Social demography
- Refers to factors that influence chances of potential partners meeting each other
- E.g. proximity, class. education, religion etc
- Less effort to meet someone in close proximity
26
Q
What is the second filter of filter theory? Why is it important in the early stages? What did Byrne say?
A
- Similarity in attitudes
- Important to the development of romantic relationships where couples had been together less than 18 months (Kerchoff & Davis)
- Partners in the early stages need to agree on basic values -> deeper communication & self-disclosure
- Byrne: similarity -> attraction - relationship more likely to last
27
Q
What is the third filter of filter theory?
A
- Complementarity: happens when one partner has traits the other lacks
- Creates the feeling that together the two form whole -> adds depth -> more likely to flourish
- More important for long term couples (Kerchoff & Davis)
28
Q
What are the strengths of filter theory as a factor affecting attraction? (A03)
A
- Holistic: considers 3 levels
- Face validity: reflects most real-world romantic relationship experiences + how relationships change over time
- Research support: Kerchoff & Davis longitudinal study - couples filled questionnaires to assess complementarity & similarity in attitudes - relationship closeness was measured 7 months later in another questionnaire -> closeness associated with similarity <18 months, complementarity for long-term couples
29
Q
What are the weaknesses of filter theory as a factor affecting attraction? (A03)
A
- Lacks temporal validity: rise of the internet has reduced importance of some social/demographic variables
- Problems with complementarity: Markey & Markey found lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied + had been together for a mean of 4.5yrs -> similarity more important in long-term couples
30
Q
What is social exchange theory? Who created the theory?
A
- Thibault & Kelley
- Uses economic assumptions of exchange to study relationships
- The theory states that partners try to minimise losses and maximise gains (min-max principle)
- People judge their satisfaction with a relationship based on the profit it yields, minus the costs
31
Q
Why do the outcomes of rewards and costs in relationships differ according to social exchange theory?
A
- Rewards & costs are subjective
- Rewards e.g. companionship, emotional support
- Costs e.g. time, stress
- What someone considers rewarding/costly can change over the relationships course
32
Q
What did Blau say about social exchange theory?
A
- Relationships can be costly in terms of time, energy, compromise etc
- Relationships also incur an opportunity cost - the investment of time/energy /resources someone can’t invest elsewhere
33
Q
What is the first way to measure profit in romantic relationships?(social exchange theory)
A
- Comparison level (CL): the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
- Develops from experiences of previous relationships -> influences expectations of our current relationship
- CL is influenced by social norms of what is deemed a reasonable level of reward
34
Q
How is CL determined? (high vs low)
A
- A relationship is worth considering if CL is high
- Low self-esteem = low CL -> would be satisfied with a low profit
- Someone with a high self-esteem sees themselves as worth more
35
Q
What is the second way to measure profit in romantic relationships? (social exchange theory)
A
- Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt): refers to a person assessing the costs/rewards of their current relationship & comparing this to an alternative relationship/ being single
- Offers a wider context for our current relationship
- Duck - CLalt depends on the state of our current relationship
- SET predicts we stay in our current relationship if we believe it more rewarding than alternatives
36
Q
What are the 4 stages of relationship development according to social exchange theory?
A
- Sampling stage - explore the rewards/costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our relationships or observing others do so
- Bargaining stage - marks the beginning of a relationship when romantic partners start exchanging many rewards/costs, negotiating/identifying what is most profitable
- Commitment stage - as relationships move on, sources of costs/rewards become predictable - rewards rise, costs fall as stability increases
- Institutional stage - partners are settled as the norms of the relationships (rewards/costs) are established
37
Q
What are the strengths of social exchange theory? (A03)
A
38
Q
What are the weaknesses of social exchange theory? (A03)
A
39
Q
What is equity theory? Who created the theory?
A
- It’s the ratio, rather than size of reward/costs that’s most important
- If one partner puts a lot into the relationship but benefits a lot -> fair
- Developed out of criticism of SET - failed to account the need most people have for balance rather than profit in relationships
- Walster et al - important that both partners’ profit levels are the same
- Equity = fairness
40
Q
How does relationship satisfaction result according to equity theory?
A
- For a relationship to be satisfying, there needs to be negotiation to ensure there is equity -> rewards/costs are distributed equally between partners
- Involves inevitable trade-offs - problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into a relationship but gets little out of it
41
Q
What are the consequences of inequity?
A
- A lack of equity -> one partner over-benefits, the other under-benefits -> dissatisfaction & unhappiness
- Under-benefitted partner: likely to feel most dissatisfied in the form of hostility, anger, resentment
- Over-benefitted: guilt, discomfort
- Satisfaction is about perceived fairness
- What makes us most dissatisfied - change in perceived equity
42
Q
How do partners deal with inequity?
A
- Underbenefitted: usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable as long as they beleive its possible to do so - the more unfair the relationship feels -> harder they work
- Also revise their perceptions of rewards/costs so the relationship feels more equitable - costs -> accepted norm
43
Q
What are the advantages of equity theory? (A03)
A
- Research support: Utne et al - survey of 118 recently married couples (had been together 2yrs prior) & measured equity with 2 self report scales -> couples who considered their relationships equitable were more satisfied than those over/under-benefitting
- Counter: Berg & McQuinn found equity didn’t increase over time as predicted + found no difference in equity between ended & continued relationships (other variables e.g. self-disclosure, were more important)
44
Q
What are the disadvantages of equity theory? (A03)
A
- Cultural limitations: Aumer-Ryan et al compared couples in collectivist & individualist cultures - individualistic = most satisfied when the relationship was equitable, collectivist = satisfied when over-benefitting -> true of both men & women
- Largely based on self report measures -> lacks scientific rigor & testability
- Individual differences:
45
Q
What is Rusbult’s investment model?
A
States that commitment depends on 3 factors: satisfaction, investment, and comparison with alternatives
46
Q
What is the first factor of Rusbult’s investment model?
A
- Satisfaction - based on CL in SET
- A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards/costs - profitable = many rewards, few costs
- Each partner is satisfied with the relationship if they benefit more than they expect - based on previous experiences/social norms
47
Q
What is the second factor of Rusbult’s investment model?
A
- Comparison with alternatives: involves romantic partners asking questions about their romantic situation e.g ‘Could my needs be met better outside my current relationship?’
- Rusbult - CLalt isn’t enough to explain commitment - many relationships would end when attractive alternatives arose
48
Q
What is the third factor of Rusbult’s investment model?
A
- Investment: refers to the extent & importance of resources associated with the relationship
- Anything we would lose if the relationship were to end
49
Q
What are the 2 types of investment according to Rusbult’s investment model?
A
- Intrinsic investment: represents the resources we put directly into the relationship e.g. money, possessions, or intangibles (emotion, energy)
- Extrinsic investment: resources that previously didn’t feature in a relationship but are now closely associated with it e.g possessions bought together (house, mutual friends), or shared memories
50
Q
What is the significance of satisfaction & commitment according to Rusbult’s model?
A
- Commitment is the main psychological factor causing people to stay in romantic relationships - satisfaction is a contributory factor
- Explains why dissatisfied partners stay in a relationship
- Commitment develops as a coupe have made an investment they don’t want to see go to waste -> they’ll work hard to repair a damaged relationship
51
Q
What are relationship-maintenance mechanisms according to Rusbult’s model?
A
Enduring relationships don’t engage in tit-for-tat retaliation, instead:
- Act to promote the relationship (accommodation)
- Put their partners interest first (willingness to sacrifice)
- Forgive them of any serious transgressions
52
Q
What is the cognitive element to relationship maintenance mechanisms? (Rusbult)
A
Committed partners think about each other/potential alternatives in specific, unpredictable ways:
- Being unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions)
- Being negative about tempting alternatives & others relationships (ridiculing alternatives)
53
Q
What are the advantages of Rusbult’s investment model? (A03)
A
- Research support:
54
Q
What are the disadvantages of Rusbult’s investment model? (A03)
A
- Reliance on self-report measures: social desirability bias
- Most studies use correlational design - can’t conclude causation
55
Q
What is Duck’s Phase model?
A
- Argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event, but a process that takes time & goes through 4 distinct phases
- Each phase is marked by one/both partners reaching a threshold (changed perception)
56
Q
What is the first phase of Duck’s phase model?
A
- Intrapsychic phase: focuses on cognitive processes happening within the individual
- Dissatisifed partner considers reasons for their dissatisfaction, focusing on the shortcomings
- Mulls their thoughts privately - may share with a trusted friend
- Weighs the pros/cons of their relationship + evaluates these against alternative
- Begin to make plans for the future
57
Q
What is the second phase of Duck’s phase model?
A
- Dyadic phase: focuses on the interpersonal processes between the 2 partners
- Couple has reached a point where they can’t avoid talking about their relationship anymore
- Results in many confrontations over time where dissatisfactions are raised
- Involves: complaints about inequity, hostility, rethinking of commitment
- Possible outcomes: decision to continue break-up or renewed desire to repair it
- Self disclosure may increase
58
Q
What is the third phase of Duck’s phase model?
A
- Social phase: concerns wider processes involving the couple’s social networks - break-up made public
- Partners seek support from their circle + mutual friends expected to choose sides
- Some friends will provide reassurance, others judgment + may reveal previously secret info
- Some friends may act as a go-between to help repair-> point of no return
59
Q
What is the fourth phase of Duck’s phase model?
A
- Grave-dressing phase: focuses on the aftermath where both partners try to spin a favorable story about the breakdown
- Allows them to save face & maintain a positive reputation
- Gossip plays an important role - each partner tries to retain some social credit by blaming others/their ex for the breakdown
- Involves tidying memories of the relationship -> a degree of rewriting history
60
Q
What are the advantages of Duck’s phase model? (A03)
A
- High face validity
- Real world application: helps identify & understand stages of relationship breakdown + allows suggestions for how it can be reversed + recognised different repair strategies are more effective at particular stages of the breakdown e.g. Duck says those in the intrapsychic phase could be encouraged to focus on the positive aspects of their partner -> counselling
- Counter: research focuses on individualist breakdowns - Moghadam: individualist relationships frequently end (e.g. divorce) but collectivist are harder to end + involve wider family
61
Q
What are the disadvantages of Duck’s phase model? (A03)
A
- Cultural bias: research is based on experience of relationships in Western cultures - the concept of a romantic relationship differs across cultures -> breakdown process differs
- Most research is retrospective: ppts give their experience of the breakdown after the relationship has ended - recounts may be inaccurate/unreliable + hard to study early phases -> researchers are reluctant to study due to fear of speeding up the break up of salvageable relationship
- Incomplete model: Duck & Rollie added ‘resurrection phase’ - ex-partners turn attention to future relationships using experience learned + progression from one phase to the next isn’t inevitable (could go backwards) -> doesn’t account for dynamicity
62
Q
What is ‘reduced cues theory’ as a theory of how self-disclosure operates in virtual relationships?
A
- Implies that CMC relationships are less effective than FtF relationships - they lack many of the cues (e.g. tone, physical appearance) we normally depend on in FtF interactions
- Results in de-individuation due to the reduction in our sense of identity
- Virtual relationships often involve blunt/aggressive communication -> reluctance to self-disclose with someone who appears impersonal
63
Q
What is CMC?
A
Computer mediated communication
64
Q
What is the ‘hyperpersonal model’ as a theory of how self-disclosure operates in virtual relationships?
A
- Argues that online relationships can be more personable & involve greater self-disclosure than FtF ones
- This is because CMC relationships can develop very fast as self-disclosure happens earlier + more intense once established
- CMC relationships can also end more quickly - high excitement level of interaction isn’t matched by trust level between partners (Boom & Bust - Cooper & Sportolari)
65
Q
What are the key features of the hyperpersonal model?
A
- Selective self presentation: sender of the message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in a FtF interaction -> to acheive this, self-disclosures can be hyper-honest /hyper-dishonest
- The receiver gains a positive impression of the sender & may give feedback that reinforces selective self-presentation e.g. liking a post
- Anonymity: makes relationships more hyper-personal - feel less accountable for your behaviour -> can disclose much more about themselves to a stranger
66
Q
What is the difference between hyper honest and hyper dishonesty? (hyper personal model)
A
Hyper-honest: intensely truthful self-disclosures
Hyper-dishonest: intensely false self-disclosures
67
Q
What is a gate? Give examples.
A
An obstacle that can interfere with the early development of a relationship
Examples: social anxiety, stammer, physical unattractiveness
68
Q
What are the effects of an absence of gating in virtual relationships? What did McKenna & Bargh say?
A
- McKenna & Bargh - relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent & deeper
- Refocuses attention away from superficial features -> self-disoclosure
69
Q
What are the benefits & drawbacks of absence of gating?
A
Benefit:
- Individual is freed to be more like their true selves
Drawback:
- Scope for people to create untrue identities they could never manage FtF e.g. change gender, age, introvert -> extrovert
70
Q
What are the advantages of research into virtual relationships in social media? (A03)
A
- Support for absence of gating: McKenna & Bargh investigated CMC use by lonely & socially anxious people -> found they were able to express more than in Ftf & of the romantic relationships initially formed online, 70% lasted more than 2 yrs (49% in offline world)
- High ecological validity:
much of the research examines real-life online interactions e.g. on dating apps, social media -> findings more applicable to real-world virtual relationships - Objective measures:
digital communication leaves a record (e.g., message logs, timestamps), which can be analyzed quantitatively to identify patterns of behavior/interaction - provides objective data not reliant on self-reporting
71
Q
What are the disadvantages of research into virtual relationships in social media? (A03)
A
- Lack of support for hyperpersonal model: Ruppel et al meta-analysis of 25 studies comparing self-disclusres in FtF & virtual interactions -> frequency, breadth & depth all greater in FtF relationships + experimental studies showed no significant differences -> contradicts
- Counter: Whitty & Joinson summarise evidence showing how self presentation is maintained in virtual relationships e.g. questions asked in online discussuons tend to be direct (hyperhonest) - FtF (small talk) or hyperdishonest fake dating profiles
- Ethical issues: research often involves analyzing online communication logs, raising privacy concerns:
ppts may not always provide informed consent for their messages to be studied + anonymity and & confidentiality can be challenging to ensure - Lack of control over variables: virtual relationships are influenced by many uncontrolled factors e.g type of platform used (dating apps vs. social media); frequency & quality of communication.; external influences e.g. individual personality traits
72
Q
What is a parasocial relationship?
A
A one-sided, unreciprocated relationship, usually with a celebrity, on which the fan expends a much energy, commitment & time
73
Q
What are the 3 levels of parasocial relationsips?
A
- Environment-social level: least intense - celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment & fuel for social interaction e.g. discussing actors in magazines with friends (Giles found parasocial relationships a fruitful source of office gossip)
- Intense personal level: intermediate - reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship e.g. frequent obsessive thoughts
- Borderline pathological: strongest level - uncontrollable fantasies + extreme behaviours e.g. willing to perform illegal acts on the celebrity’s say-so
74
Q
What is the CAS (Celebrity Attitude Scale), who created it, and how was it used?
A
- McCutheon et al
- Used in a large scale survey by Maltby et al who identified 3 levels of parasocial relationships
75
Q
What is the absoprtion addiction model and what are its 2 components?
A
- McCutheon - the tendency to form parasocial relationships arises from deficiencies people have in their lives e.g. low self-esteem
1) Absorption: focus their attention entirely on the celebrity to become pre-occupied with their existence & identify with them
2) Addiction: the individual needs to sustain their commitments to the relationship by feeling a stronger involvement with the celebrity -> increasingly extreme/delusional behaviours e.g. stalking
76
Q
What is the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships?
A
- Insecure resistant are more likely to form parasocial relationships - seek to have unfulfilled needs met without the threat of rejection real life relationships present
- Insecure avoidant prefer to avoid the pain/rejection of relationships altogether -> social or parasocial
77
Q
What are the advantages of explanations of parasocial relationships? (A03)
A
- Support for absorption-addiction model: Maltby et al investigated the link between celeb worship & body image in boys/girls (14-16yrs) - focsued on girls who reported an intense personal parasocial relationship with a female celeb who’s body shape they admired -> found these females tended to have poor body image + speculated this may contribute to development of eating disorders
- Universal tendency: Dinkha et al compared collectivist Kuwait to individualist USA -> found insecure attached more likely to form intense parasocial relationships with TV characters - true of both cultures
- Counter: McCutheon et al measured attachment & celebrity related attitudes in 299 US ppts -> ppts with insecure attachments no more likely to form parasocial than secure -> contradicts central prediction -> less validity
- High ecological validity:
much research involves observing real-life media consumption & fan behaviors -> findings reflect actual experiences of parasocial relationships rather than artificial lab scenarios
78
Q
What are the disadvantages of explanations of parasocial relationships? (A03)
A
- Most studies use correlational analysis e.g. strong correlations are found between celebrity worship & body image (Maltby et al) - conclusion that an intense personal parasocial relationship -> poor body image can’t be established
- Most research studies use self report to collect data e.g. online questionnaires -> social desirability bias -> biased findings
