Relationships: AO3 Flashcards
Evolutionary AO3
+ research support: Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students across uni campus, approached other students with q “I’ve noticed you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”, not single female student agreed to request whereas 75% of males did immediately, supports idea that men value quantity of relationships over quality, less consequences for men whereas women could get pregnant.
+ research evidence: content analysis on what people offered and sought in ‘Lonely Heart’ columns, found women tended to offer features of physical attractiveness and youth and sought resourcefulness, men offered resources and sought youthfulness and physical features
+ can’t explain preferences of gay men and lesbian women: Lawson et al (2014) looked at ‘personal ads’ placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women, found preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women, evolutionary explanations rooted in idea that partner preferences are driven by reproductive success; however homosexual relationships can’t be explained by this framework.
- overlook social and cultural influences: partner preferences over past century influenced by rapidly changing social norms of behaviour, develop much faster than evolutionary time scales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors (eg increase of contraception), women’s greater role in workplace means no longer dependent on men to provide, Bereczkei et al (1997) argue that this social change has consequences for women’s mate
Self Disclosure AO3
+ research support: Sprecher and Hendrick (2014) studied heterosexual dating couples, found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure for both partners, men and women who used self disclosure (and believed partners did the same) more satisfied with and committed to relationship, later study Sprecher et al (2013) showed relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose (reciprocate), validity of theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships, correlational
+ research helps those who want to improve communication: romantic partners sometimes use self disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy and strengthen bond, Haas and Stafford (1998) found 57% of homosexual men and women said open and honest self disclosure was main way they maintained and deepened relationships.
- cross cultural differences: Tang et al (2013) reviewed research into sexual self disclosure, concluded men and women in the US disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China, lower levels of disclosure in China, levels of satisfaction were no different, limited explanation of romantic relationships because based on findings from individualist cultures which aren’t generalisable to other cultures, displaying culture bias.
Physical Attractiveness and Matching Hypothesis AO3
+ pa associated with halo effect: Palmer and Peterson (2012) found phsyically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent, halo effect so powerful that persisted when ps knew that ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise, dangers for democracy if politicians judged as suitable because considered physicall attractive
+ role of pa support for evolutionary: Cunningham et al (1995) found women who had large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high eyebrows rated as high attractive by white, hispanic and asian men, concluded what considered physically attractive cosistent across societies, attractive features sign of genetic fitness, perpetuated similarly in all cultures
- mh isn’t supported by real world research into dating: Taylo et al (2011) studied activity logs of popular online dating site and measured actual date choices, found online daters sought meetings with potential partners more physically attractive than them, contradicts central prediction
Filter Theory AO3
+ research support for stages: Festinger et al (1950) tracked relationship formation between people living in apartment building, found those who lived closer in distance more likely to form relationship, Winch (1958) found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners typical of earlier stages of relationship, support for social demography and similarity in attitudes
+ useful in real world situations: Duck (1973) suggests allows predictions about future interactions and avoid investing in relationships that won’t work, each person conducts series of explorations diclosing info and making enquiries about other person, based on these partners decide to continue or make decision won’t work and end before becoming too deeply involved
- later studies failed to replicate findings of Kerckhoff and Davis: Levinger at al (1970) had 330 couples ‘steadily attached’ go through same procedures, no evidence either similarity of attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influenced progress toward permanence, no significant relationship between length and influence of these variables, suggests questionnaires used in original study not appropriate given changes in social values and courtship patterns
- support for ‘similarity-attraction’: prediction is most satisfying relationships partners complementary, Markey and Markey (2013) found lesbian couples of equal dominance most satisfied, sample of couples romantically involved for mean time of more than 4.5 years
Social Exchange Theory AO3
- vague and hard to quantify concepts: rewards and costs have been defined superficially in research in order to measure them, real world psychological rewards and costs are subjective and harder to define, concept of comparison levels especially problematic, unclear what values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens relationship, subjective nature of rewards, costs and comparison levels makes them hard to measure, varies between individuals, CL and CLalt lack clear thresholds, difficult to determine when dissatisfaction or alternatives impact relationship, challenging to test and apply consistently
+ research support: Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables, found partners who most committed also perceived most rewards and costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive, first study to demonstrate main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other, match predictions from SET, strongly confirming validity of theory in gay and lesbian couples - economic metaphor: Clark and Mills (2011) argue two types of relationships, exchange relationship which do involve social exchanges and communal relationships which are marked by giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score, if monitoring reciprocal activities in relationships doubt commitment, collectivist cultures more evidence of communal relationships than exchange as less influence of western capitalist ideas which economic metaphor based on
- don’t truly keep eye on alternatives: Miller (1997) found people who rated themselves as being in highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people, question whether truly constantly weighing current relationship against more attractive alternatives, don’t start counting rewards and costs or considering alternatives until we are dissatisfied (Argyle, 1987), artificial research may lack internal validity asking people about commitment level in relationships that may produce socially desirable response which may not accurately reflect actual relationship
Equity Theory AO3
+ real world studies: Utne et al (1984) conducted survey of 118 recently married couples, two self report scales to measure equity, ps aged between 16 and 45 together over 2 years before marriage, found couples who viewed relationship equitable reported higher satisfaction than who felt over benefitting or underbenefitting, fairness strongly linked to relationship satisfaction
- doesn’t play significant role: Berg and McQuinn (1986) found equity didn’t increase over time, relationships that ended and those that continued didn’t suffer in terms of equity, wasn’t determining factor, other variables found more significant, fairness and balance aren’t crucial for long term satisfaction and stability as claims
- cross cultural differences: Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found cultural differences in how equity relates to relationship satisfaction, individualist couples reported highest satisfaction when equitable, collectivist partners most satisfied when overbenefitting, pattern was observed in both men and women, ruling out gender as confounding variable, satisfaction isn’t solely dependent on equity, shaped by cultural norms, imbalance may be more accepted or even preferred
- individual differences: Huseman et al (1987) suggested people differ in how much they value equity, benevolents willing to contribute more than receive, without feeling dissatisfied, entitled believe deserve to overbenefit and accept without distress or guilt, don’t fit assumption that all partners seek balance, existence of benevolents and entitled suggests satisfaction isn’t dependent on fairness
Investment Model AO3
+ meta analysis: Le and Agnew (2003) reviewed 52 studies, involving approximately 11,000 participants from five different countries, findings showed satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size predicted relationship commitment, relationships with higher commitment more stable and lasted longer, applied across genders, cultures, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples, key factors universal and not limited to specific groups, consistency strengthens the model’s credibility.
+ explains abusive relationships: Rusbult and Martz (1995) examined domestically abused women residing in shelter, discovered most likely to return to their abusive partners have made significant investments in and perceived few attractive alternatives, commitment was driven by these other factors, satisfaction alone not sufficient to explain why people remain, commitment and investment play crucial roles, even in adverse situations
- correlational: predicts investment positively correlated with commitment, no evidence of causation, don’t allow to conclude any factors cause commitment, may be third variable that causes commitment, bidirectional ambiguity, more committed feel, more invest, direction of causality reverse of model.
- oversimplified: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue investment more than just resources already put in, early stages couples may have made few tangible investments, expanded Rusbult’s model by including future investment—commit because want to see future plans together succeed, commitment not just about past investments also about anticipated future rewards, failure to consider this makes model less comprehensive.
Phase Model AO3
+ research support for importance of grave-dressing in dealing with aftereffects: end of relationship can be stressful, Monroe et al. (1999) found students who experienced unfavourable end of relationship in previous year had greater risk of developing major depressive disorder for first time, supports grave-dressing as students hadn’t laid relationship to rest, Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found individuals able to feel better about ending relationship when focus on how situation, rather than own flaws, responsible
+ useful for helping couples medn relationship: Duck (1994) said during intra-psychic if individuals focused on positive aspects of partner and improved communication skills during dyadic, could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in relationship, insights used by relationship counsellors to enable couples to work through and mend relationship during either of two stages rather than passing into social or grave dressing
- overlooks role of individual: Akert (1992) discovered that partners who didn’t initiate break-up tended to be most miserable, reporting high levels of loneliness, depression, and anger in weeks after end, those who initiated break-up found end least upsetting, painful and stressful, reported feeling guilty and unhappy, fewer negative symptoms, suggest individual differences in effects of dissolution that model does not explain, self-report technique may allow individuals to under or overplay role
- cultural bias: Moghaddam et al. (1983) states differences between individualist and collectivist cultures exist into nature of relationships, individualist cultures, relationships are voluntary, and divorce common, collectivist cultures relationships can be involuntary and more difficult to end, differences mean that breakdown process unlikely to be same cross culturally, social may happen sooner in collectivist with discussion with family taking place even before discussion with partner.
Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships AO3
+ HM research support: Whitty and Joinson (2009) found online interactions often involve more direct, probing, and intimate qs compared to ftf conversations, which tend to include more ‘small talk.’, online self-presentation can be exaggerated or deceptive, such as dating profiles, supports claim online communication allows for both hyper honest and hyper dishonest self disclosures, key differences between ftf and vr
- RCT online nonverbal cues different not absent: Walther and Tidwell (1995) point out people in online interactions use other cues, style and timing of messages, taking time to reply to social media status update more intimate act than immediate response, taking too much time interpreted as snub, many nuances in vr just as subtle as in FtF, acronyms and emojis can be used as substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice, existence of alternative cues challenges, suggests digital interactions not necessarily impersonal, instead of being limited by absence of traditional nonverbal cues, adapt by using emojis, punctuation, acronyms, and message timing to convey emotions and meaning.
- HM refuting research: Ruppel et al (2017) meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in FtF and virtual interactions, found self-report studies showed frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures all greater in FtF, experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and vr in terms of self-disclosure, challenge showing that self-disclosures more frequent and in-depth in ftf
Absence of Gating AO3
+ shy, lonely and socially anxious find vr valuable: McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious, found able to express ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations, of romantic relationships initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived 2+ years, compares well with relationships for shy people formed in offline (e.g. 49% in study by Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994), highlights online communication removes social barriers present in ftf, allowing shy people to build more meaningful and lasting relationships.
+ beneficial for shy individuals: Baker and Oswald (2010) investigated by surveying 207 students about shyness, Facebook usage, and friendship quality, showed for students with high shyness scores, greater Facebook use linked to higher perceptions of friendship quality, for less shy individuals, Facebook usage had no significant impact.
+ online and offline interconnected: Zhao et al. (2008) argue online relationships help individuals bypass gating obstacles and create identities struggle to establish offline, ‘digital selves’ can enhance self-image, increasing confidence and improving social connections in offline world.
- overlooks gender differences: evolutionary theory suggests females focus on appearing more attractive and youthful, while males may prioritize seeming resourceful when forming relationships, indicates potential beta bias in research, assumes gating affects men and women similarly, despite evolutionary differences.
Levels of PSR + A-A Model AO3
+ link between celeb worship and body image: a-a model suggests deficiency in life predispose them to forming psr, Maltby et al (2005) assessed boys and girls aged 14-16, particularly interested in girls who reported i-p psr with adult female celeb whose body shape admired, found girls tended to have poor body image, may contribute to development of ED, Maltby (2003) used Eysenck personality questionnaire to assess relationships between PSR level and personality, linked e-s level with extrovert personality, i-p level with neurotic traits, b-p level with psychotic personality traits.
+ research support: McCutcheon et al (2016) used CAS to measure level of psr, also assessed ps’ problems in intimate relationships, ps who scored as b-p or i-p tended to experience high degree of anxiety in intimate relationships, e-s level generally didn’t.
- lack explanatory power: describe characteristics of people at different levels of celeb worship but don’t explain why different forms develop, proximal explanation as addresses how and not distal explanation as doesn’t address why, doesn’t help prevent more dangerous and disturbing forms of PSR
- methodological issues: self-report data has issues of social desirability bias (e.g. celebrity attitude scale), correlational analysis problem, e.g. celebrity worship and body image, no causal link between psr being caused by specific experience being scientifically and objectively tested without biases.
Attachment Theory of PSR AO3
+ research support: Kienlen et al (1997) found 63% of stalkers experienced loss of pcg during childhood, usually due to parental separation, >50% reported childhood emotional, physical, or sexual abuse by pcg, supports idea that disturbed attachment patterns related to extreme forms of psr, Cole and Leets (1999) found adolescents with i-r more likely to have psr with tv media personalities than those with secure and i-a, supporting idea that those with i-r more attracted to psr.
+ explains why people all over the world have desire to form psr: Dinkha et al (2015) compared 2 contrasting cultures - Kuwait (collectivist) and US (individualist), found people with IA type most likely to form intense psr with TV personalities and characters, true in both types of culture, ‘driver’ for forming a psr independent of cultural influences.
- refuting research: McCutcheon (2006) found no relationship between childhood attachment patterns and mild forms of celeb worship, suggesting that it’s only more intense forms of psr related to attachment types, raises crucial questions about explanations validity.
- methodological issues: most research into celeb worship/psr is correlational, cause and effect cannot be clearly established, lowering scientific explanatory power, research relies heavily on self-report methods, such as interviews and questionnaires, may not reflect true picture, as ps may want to answer in way that reflects them in better light (social desirability bias) and may not respond truthfully to qs.
