Topic 11: Relationships Flashcards
AO1: Evolutionary explanations for partner preference
Evolutionary explanations: Focus on the adaptive nature of behaviour and aim for survival which mate influence our partner preference.
Natural selection: where certain physical and psychological traits have been passed down from one generation to another due to their advantages in survival and reproduction.
Sexual selection: Certain physical & pscyhological traits have been passed down from one generation to another, due to their advantages in attracting a mate.
Intersexual selection (between sexes): Refers tothe process where one sex evolves to actively chooses mates from the opposite sex based on specific traits or characteristics they find desirable. Members from the opposite sex who posses these characteristics gain a mating advantage over those who do not.
Intrasexual Selection (within a sex): The competition between members of the same sex for access to mates. Successful individuals will mate and pass on their genes so overtime their desirable characteristics will become more widespread in the gene pool.
Anisogamy:The difference between male and female sex cells. For females, they have a finite supply of eggs, only one of which is released each month, meaning it requires much more effort to produce the sex cells (gametes) than males. They are also immobile. Males produce large numbers of sperm continuously, which are highly mobile. This leads to a difference in mating strategies between males and females, and within the genders. This means that males should have as many mates as possible, so they tend to compete with one another for female partners (intra-sexual selection). Means that the cost of reproduction is higher for females, so they tend to be more selective and actively select male partners (inter-sexual selection).
The Runaway process: the process of characteristics and preferences being passed down through generations.
Key Study: Buss (1989)
A: To explore what makes and females looked for in a long-term partner.
P: Surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries about mate choice preference. Reserach was collected by natives in each country and posted tp the US, and researchers were unaware of his hypothesis. Translators were available for certain non-english speaking countries. Used two questionnaires: one involved biographical data, mate preference and ranking 18 characteristics, and the second involved rating 1-30 most-to-least desirable characteristics.
F: Resources: women more than men desired mates who were ‘good financial prospects.’ This translated into a desire for men with resources, or qualities such as ambition and indistriousness. Physical attractiveness: Men placed more importance on physical attractiveness. This provides cues to a woman’s health and hence here fertility and reproductive value. Youth: Men universally wanted mates who were younger than them - an indication that men valued increased fertility in potential mates. Other important characteristics: Both sexes wanted mates who were intelligent (linked to skill at parenting) and kind (linked to an interest in long-term relationship.
C: females preferred resource-based characteristics (such as a good career), whereas males preferred physical attractiveness and youth. This was true across all the countries surveyed. This supports the difference in mate choice preferences related to anisogamy.
Evaluations:
- Large sample size from 37 different cultures - sample is representative and more reliable. Findings more universally generalisable and eliminates any ethoncentrism from the research.
- Questionnaires use ordinal data, which is quantitative and therefore easier to analyse and test for significance using statistic tests. However, subjective and vulnerable to social desirability bias.
- Researchers were unaware of his hypothesis - eliminates reasearcher bias, increasing validity of the findings.
- Preference or reality? Arguably this study lacks validity as it gives ann indication of expressed preferences rather than a refelction of real life. However, in a study of actual marriages in 29 cultures (Buss) confrimed that men do choose younger women.
AO3: Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences
Buss (1989) questioned 10,000 adults in 33 countries about mate choice preference- what they would look for in an ‘ideal’ partner. He found that females preferred resource-based characteristics (such as a good career), whereas males preferred physical attractiveness and youth. This was true across all the countries surveyed. This supports the difference in mate choice preferences related to anisogamy.
- Singh found that men were attracted to a hip-waist-ratio of 0.7, which is an indicator of fertility.
- Clark and Hatfield (1989) found that when male and female university students were propositioned by an opposite-sex stranger on campus, 75% of males agreed to the request to spend the night together, whereas no females did. This supports the evolutionary theory that females are much choosier than males when it comes to selecting a mate.
- The theory does not account for major social and cultural changes which may affect reproductive behaviour. There is some evidence of changes to mate choice preference following changes such as the lack of female dependency on a partner. Therefore, mate choice is likely to be influenced by more factors than just evolutionary preferences. Women are no longer dependent on males and so this may not apply to modern society: An analysis of 37 cultures (kasser and Sharma, 1999) showed that women valued potential mates’ access to resources far more in those cultures where women’s status and educational opportunities were sharply limited. The majority of studies into mate preferences have been carried on female undergraduate students who expect to achieve high education status and so have expectations of high income levels. They may therefore be seeking men with similar interests, eduction and prospects to ther own rather than a general preference for high status men.
- Socially sensitive to minority groups: Same-sex relationships and infertile individuals. The theory has heterosexual bias as it doesn’t account for homosexual relationships where partner choice is not related to reproductive success.
- Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) researched ‘lonely hearts’ columns in American newspapers, and discovered thatwomen tended to describe themselves in terms of physical attractiveness and youth(‘exciting, flirty, curvy’). Men, on the other hand, advertised their resources and intelligence more than women did.
- Evolutionary theories are reductionist as they ignore other factors that might influence partner preferences such as changes in social norms. E.g. the development of contraceptives has lead to greater sexual freedom & a reduced risk of pregnancy. Because of this anisogamy does have as much impact on partner selection stratergies.
- Alpha bias: May over-exagerate the difference between males and females when it comes to what characteristics they desire in partners. Women are now more in the workplace and so are less financially dependent on men, thus may not look for resources.
Physical attractiveness: The ‘matching hypothesis’
Claims that when people look for a partner for a romantic relationship, they tend to look for someone whose social desirability approximately equals their own.
By opting for partners of similar social desirability, individuals can maximise there chances of a successful outcome and avoid risk of rejection.
Key Study: Walster et al (1966)
Procedure: Walster et al (1966)randomly paired 752 1st year Minnesota students into “blind-date” couples for a university dance. Each of the 752 students in Walster’s study completed questionnaires measuring their various qualities e.g. social skills, intelligence and so on. Their physical attractiveness was assessed on entry to the dance. The prediction of the researchers was that participants would like their randomly allocated partners more if they were well matched according to their questionnaires.
Results/conclusions: The matching hypothesis was not supported. The only factor that the participants were interested in was physical attractiveness and they found that people generally preferred partners who were physically attractive regardless of their own level of attractiveness, meaning they did not necessarily choose partners with a similar level of attractiveness as themselves.
Evaluation ofWalster et al (1966)
Strengths:
Easy to replicate.
Standardised study.
Limitations:
Temporal validity – in the 1960s, stereotypical gender roles were very different. Women would have been less likely to ask men out.
It had low ecological validity, however, as it did not accurately represent dating.
Participants had already been on a date, so did not need to fear rejection.
Murstein (1972) – Matching Hypothesis
A: Murstein (1972)investigated whether or not married couples choose a partner with a similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
P: Naïve participants were asked to rate individual photographs of married couples for attractiveness.
F: A positive correlation of attractiveness ratings was discovered between the photographs of the married men and women. This provides evidence to support the matching hypothesis theory - that people choose a partner with a similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
Evaluation ofMurstein (1972)
Strengths
Easy to replicate.
Ethical.
Limitations
Validity of ratings.
Attractiveness is subjectvive
Did not look at homosexual couples or cultural variations.
Complex Matching
Sprecher and Hatfield suggest that we may compensate a lack of attractiveness with other desirable characteristcis such as humour, kindness, money, charm. This more advanced matching system would explain why some partnerships are not equal in attractiveness.
The Halo Effect
Dionet al (1972) found that more physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful. He concluded that the belief that good-looking people are more likely to have these characteristics makes them appear to be even more attractive and causes people to behave positively. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Palmer and Peterson’s (2012)research supports the theory of a halo effect: They found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these people had no particular expertise. These findings are significant because politicians might be judged to be more suitable for their role if they are seen as more attractive.
Evaluation of Halo Effect:
- Face validity: People have found that the halo effect applies in many other areas of everyday life. This confirms that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships - romantic or otherwise.
- But individual differences also play a role in the importance of physical attractiveness because some people don’t find it to be particularly important.
Physical attractiveness: waist-to-hip ratios
Singh and Young (1995)investigated the influence of body fat, waist-to-hip ratio as well as breast size on female attractiveness to male college students. Participants were shown images of women varying on these dimensions and were asked to rate them in terms of age, attractiveness, health, and desirability for short and long-term relationships.
Slender bodies and low waist-to-hip ratio were associated with a higher rating of attractiveness, health, and desirability for relationships. Singh and Luis (1995) replicated this experiment with Indonesian and Afro-American participants, with similar results.
The preference for the small waist-to-hip ratio is thought to be evolutionarily adaptive, as it’s one of the signals of health and youthfulness.
Physical attractiveness: facial features
Cunningham et al. (1995)studied Asian, white, and Hispanic men’s attitudes towards women. They found that high cheekbones, small noses, and large eyes were consistently rated as attractive across all cultures. This suggestsa certain universality when it comes to the desired facial features.
These facial features are also associated with youthfulness. Therefore, a universal preference for these features in females could develop due to evolutionary pressures.
Physical attractiveness: Facial symmetry
Shakelford and Larson found people with more symmentrical features were rated to be more attractive, due to being seen to be more genetically fit. This is because our genes are designed to make us develop symmetrically, but disease & infenction during physical development can cause small imperfections and asymmetries.
AO3: Evaluation of physical attractiveness
- Feingold (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies, and found a strong correlation between partners’ ratings of attractiveness. This shows that people tend to choose a partner who has a similar level of physical attractiveness to themselves, just as the matching hypothesis predicts.
- in addition toWalster et al.’soriginal study that failed to support the hypothesis, other research has also failed to provide conclusive evidence for matching hypothesis. For example,Taylor et al. (2011)investigated the activity log on a dating website and found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them. These findings contradict the matching hypothesis, as according to its predictions, website users should seek more dates with a person who is similar in terms of attractiveness, because it provides them with a better chance of being accepted by a potential partner.
- the matching hypothesis mainly applies to short-term relationships. However, when choosing a partner for long-term relationships, people tend to focus more on similarity of values and needs satisfaction, rather than physical attractiveness. This questions the validity of the matching hypothesis, as it will only describe a limited number of relationships. Furthermore, the matching hypothesis ignores the fact that people may compensate for the lack of physical attractiveness with other qualities, such as intellect or sociability (complex matching). This compensation explains repeatedly occurring examples of older, less attractive men being married to attractive younger women; something that the matching hypothesis cannot account for.
- Physical attractiveness seems to be an important factor in forming relationships across cultures. For example,Cunningham et al. (1995)found that white, Asian and Hispanic males, despite being from different cultures, rated females with prominent cheekbones, small noses and large eyes as highly attractive. This universality of findings suggests that using attractiveness as a decisive factor in choosing a partner might be a genetically reproduced mechanism, aiding sexual selection. This gives support to the nature side of nature-nurture debate as it shows that human behaviour is mainly a result of biological rather than environmental influences.
-The matching hypothesis may be suffering from a beta-bias, as it assumes that men and women are very similar in their view of the importance of physical attractiveness. Research, however, suggests that this may not be the case. For example,Meltzer et al. (2014)found that men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive, while for women their partner’s attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact on relationship satisfaction. This shows that there are significant gender differences in how important appearance is for attraction. - The matching hypothesis is theory based on a nomothetic approach to studying human behaviour. It tries to generate behavioural laws applicable to all people; however, as studies above suggest, there are significant individual differences in the importance of physical attractiveness to one’s choice of a partner. Therefore, explanations based on the idiographic approach (studying individual cases in detail, without trying to generate universal rules) may be more appropriate for studying romantic relationships.
AO1:Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure
Disclosure: Voluntary disclosure of intimate/personal details about oneself to others.
Receiver’s perspective: People are more attracted to people who disclose personal details to them.
Giver’s perspective: People are more likely to disclose information to people they like and trust.
Social Penetration Theory (SPT)- Altman and Taylor (1973) claims that relationships develop through self-disclosure, which has two dimensions:breadth and depth.SPTuses an ‘onion metaphor’ to describe these dimensions: at first, people often share a lot of information about certain aspects of themselves (breadth), but consider some topics to be ‘off-limit’ (depth). As they build trust in their partner’s understanding, breadth increases and then depth also increases. In the beginning, people only disclose superficial details about themselves, and gradually move to revealing more intimate details.
Reis and Shaver (1988) - Disclosure also needs to be reciprocal to foster feelings of closeness and intimacy.
AO3: Self Disclosure
Support that self disclosure fosteres more fulfilling relationships:
- Sprecher and Hendrick found that in heterosexual relationships there was strong correlations between various measures of self-disclosure and satisfaction.
- Lauranceau et al (2005): Analysed married heterosexual couples diary entries and found that self-disclosure and the perseption of self-disclosure were associated with greater intimacy. Conversely the less intimate couples showed less evidence of self-disclosure.
Real life application of social penetration theory:
- Hass and Stafford found that 57% of homosexual men and women belived that open self disclosure was key to nurturing and strenghtening their relationships. Based on this partners can consciously used self-diclosure as a way to deepen relationships, and research can help those seeking to improve communications (i.e. couples therapy).
Weaknesdses of the self-discosure theory:
- May not apply to all cultures: In a literature review, Tang et al (2013) found that people in the USA, an individualist culture, disclose significantly more thoughts and feelings of a sexual nature than people in china, a collectivist culture. Despite these differences both cultures had high levels of relationship satisfaction. This sugggests that self disclosure may not be essential for a fulfilling relationship.
- Heterosexual bias: Much of the research into self disclosure has been carried out on heterosexual couples and therefore caution must be taken when applying these findings to homosexual couples.
- Correlation between self disclosure and relationship satisfaction doesn’t mean there is a caustation.
AO1: Filter Theory
The filter theory suggests that we choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the ‘field of availables’ from which we might eventually make our choice.
Stage 1: Courtship
We filter on social demography, which refers to variables such as age, social background and location, which determine the likelihood if individuals meeting in the first place. Narrows down field of who is available.
Stage 2: Early relationship
We filter on similarity in attitudes - If people share similar attitudes, values and beliefs, communication is easier and so a relationship is more likely to progress. Narrows down field of desirables.
Stage 3: Secure relationship
We filter on complementarity of needs, which refers to how well two people fit together as a couple and meet each other’s needs. Narrows down on compatibility.
Key Study: Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
Procedure:
- Longitudinal study of 94 dating couples at Duke Uni in the US.
- Each completed 2 questionnaires assessing the degree to which they shared attitudes and values, and the degree of need complementarity.
- 7 months later = a follow up questionnaire
Findings:
- initial findings: Only similarity correlated with closeness.
- Further analysis: Up to 18 months, attitudes and values correlated with closeness. BUT, after 18 months, only complementarity of needs was predicitve of closeness.
AO3: Evaluation of the filter theory
- Lacks temporal validity - The rise of the Internet and dating apps have reduced the importance of some social and demographic variables, leading to greater likelihood of people pursuing a relationship outside their own social demographic. Transport is more accesible, countries are more multi-cultural and education is more widely accesible etc.
- Difficulties establishing cause or effect: Aderson et al (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotionnal responses over time, a phenomenon he named emotional convergence. Do we choose people with similar values or do we simply changed our own to match over time?
- It has face validity as it agrees with most people’s experiences of romantic relationships. In addition, it works alongside the matching hypothesis theory and self disclosure (specifically depth). While this increases the reliability of the theory by supporting its ideas, it also challenges the simplicity of the theory and suggests that their are more specific factors affecting the development of relationships, which the filter theory doesn’t account for. It also doesn’t account for relationships breaking down or changes in values/attitudes/morals over time.
- Failure to replicate: Levinger et al (1970) replicated Kerckhoff and Davis’ study on 330 ‘steadily attached’ couples. They found no evidence that either similarity of attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influence progress towards permanence in relationships. The questionnaires used in the original Kerchoff and Davis’ study may not have been appropraite given the changes in social values and courtship patternt that had occured in the intervening years between the two studies (more open relationships, less emphasis on marriage, and more premarital sexual activity), again challenges the temporal validity.
- Kerckhoff and Davis used time (18 months) as an indicator of ST/LT relationship success. This may not be an appropriate measure and may vary between couples. For example, long distance rleationships may develop over a longer period of time than is the case for couples who live together or in clsoe proximity.
AO1: Social Exchange Theory
Proposed by Thibaut & Kelly: SET suggests that social behaviour is a result of an exchange process. The result is to maximise benefits (i.e. companionship, attention and sex) and minimise costs (i.e. stress, compromise and energy). Profit = rewards - costs
Comparison Level(CL) = The amount of reward you believe you deserve. Based on past relationship experience, & social & cultural norms. CLs correlate with self esteem. People with low self-esteem are more likely to be content with minimal gains. Conversely those with high self esteem percieve their self worth as greater and expect to recieve more rewards.
Comparison Level For Alternatives (CLalt): How our current relationship compares with other potential relationships or with being single. We will remain in our current relationship if we percieve it to be more rewarding compared to the available alternatives. Duck proposed that once people are content in a relationship they may ignore potential alternatives altogether.
Sages of relationship development:
1. Sampling Stage: We investigate the rewards and costs of social exchange by testing them out in our relationships, or by observing others doing so.
2. Bargaining Stage: The initiation of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards & costs, negociating and identifying what is most profitable.
3. Commitment Stage: The sources of rewards and costs become increasingly predictable resulting in a more stable relationship. This is characterised by more rewards and fewer costs.
4. Institutionalisation Stage: The couple reaches a state of stability. The norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established.
The Honeymoon Stage:
During the early weeks or months of a relationship, people are more likely to ignore the social exhange balance. Things that would normally be viewed as high costs are dismissed, ignored, or minimised while the potential benefits are often exagerated.
AO3: Social Exhange Theory
- Gottman & Levenson (1992) measured perceptions of benefits & costs and found that in successful marraiges the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was around 5:1 compared to 1:1 in unsuccessful marriages.
- Practical Applications: IBCT (Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy) is a recognised method of relationship counselling that aims to increase the proportion of positive exchanges & decreases the proportion of negative exhanges in a relationship. It was devised by Christensen et al (2004) and was used to treat 60 couples in his study. Of these couples 2/3 experienced improved relationships 2 years on.
- Problems with cause-and-effect: SET argues that dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect that the costs outweigh rewards or that alternatives are more attractive. However, Argyle (1987)claims that we don’t measure costs and rewards in a relationship, nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives until we are already dissatisfied with the relationship.
- Miller (1997)found that people who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people and were found to ignore even the most attractive alternatives. Less time spent looking was also a good predictor of a relationship continuing two months later. SET cannot account for the direction of causation in this outcome as it suggests that dissatisfaction comes first.
- Problems measuring SET: SET concepts are difficult to quantify. Researchers have defined rewards and costs superficially (such as money) to measure them. Psychological rewards and costs are difficult to define, especially when they vary so much from one person to another.
- Research lacks ecological validity: The majority of studies supporting SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions. One common procedure involves two strangers working together on a game-playing scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed. More realistic studies using participants in real relationships have been less supportive of SET.
- Neglect of equity
AO1: Social Equity Theory
Equity: Balance in the exchange of rewards and costs is percieved as fair but not necessarily equal.
Perceived equity can change overtime
Inequity - can lead to feelings of stress and dissatisfaction. Level of inequity is proportional to the level of dissatisfaction for both overbenefiting and underbenefiting partners.
Over benefiting can lead to shame and guilt, while underbenefiting can lead to resentment and sadness.
Restoring Equity Hatfield and Rapson:
- Restoring actual equity: The overbenefiting partner puts in more effort
- Restoring cognitive equity: An individual may change the way they perceive rewards and costs to create a subjective sense of equity.
- Physical or emotional end of relationship (if equity can’t be restored)
AO3: Social Equity Theory
- Utne et al (1984) had 118 recently married couples (aged 16-45, and had been together for at least 2yrs before getting married) fill in self-report scales to assess equity. Couples who perceived their relationship as equitable reported higher satisfaction levels, compared to those who perceived themselves as either over-benefiting or under-benefiting. The use of self-report measure may make the study prone to social desirability bias, threatening validity.
- Cultural influences: The theory assumes that there is a universal need for equity. However, Aumer-Ryan et al found that couples from an individualist culture considered their relationship to be most satisfying when it was equitable, whereas partners in a collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were over benefiting. Equity theory may not be applicable to relationships developing in collectivist cultures.
- Doesn’t account for individual differneces: Huseman et al argued that individuals have different levels of equity sensitivity: Benevolents are givers who are tolerent to under-rewards, Equity sensitive individuals require a balance and entitleds always feel they are owed and need over-reward to feel happy.
- Clarke and Mills (2011) found that while equity is important in friendships, aquaintanships and work relationships, the evidence regarding the importance of equity in romantic relationships is more varied.
- Brosnan and de Waal (2003),in their study of capuchin monkeys, found that they if monkeys were denied their reward (a bunch of grapes) for playing a game, they became very angry. This suggests that the importance of equity in relationships has ancient origins. Issues of extrapolation.
KeyStudy: Stafford and Canary (2006)
P: Studied over 200 married couples completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction. In addition, participants were asked questions about the ways they maintained their relationships, such as by dividing chores, communicating positively and showing affection for one another.
F: partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced, followed by spouses who over-benefitted from the relationships, experienced the most satisfaction. Those who under-benefitted showed lowest levels of satisfaction. Spouses who were treated equitably tended to be happier & so more likely to engage in behaviours that contributed to their spouses happiness.
Support for social equity theory
AO1: Rusbult’s investment model
An extension of the SET
Rusbult believes that it is committment rather than satisfaction that motivates individuals to remain in romantic relationships and that committment relies on:
- Satisfaction Level - how well current relationship fulfils needs (extent to which rewards exceed the costs).
- Comparison with alternatives - How current relationship compares with other potential relationships or staying single.
- Investment size - The significance of the resources that are connected to the relationship, including anything that would be lost if the relationship ended.
Type of investments:
- Intrinsic investments - anything put directly into the relationship: Intangibles (energy, time, emotion, self-disclosure), tangibles (money, possessions).
- Extrinsic investments - weren’t initially present in the relationship but became closely associated with it: friends, memories, offspring.
Maintenance mechanisms:
- Accommodation (of partners needs)
- Willingness to sacrifice
- Forgiveness
- Positive illusions
- Ridiculing alternatives
AO3: Rusbult’s investment model
- Le and Agnew (2003): Meta-analysis of 52 studies from 1970s-1999. Including over 11,000 pps from 5 countries. Found that relationship commitments correlated with satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size. Relationships with a greater level of commitment laster longer and were more stable across all cultures studied and for both men and women, and across homosexual and heterosexual relationships. However correlation does not equal causation, and greater commitment could cause higher satisfaction and more investments.
- Explanatory power: Can be used to explain why people remain in abusive relationships. Rusbult & Martz (1995) studied female victims of domestic violence. They found that women who made the greater investments and had the least appealing alternatives were most likely to go back to their abusive partner, and this may explain their greater level of commitments.
- Evidence for the model is based on self-report measures, which is an appropriate method to measure subjective concepts like satisfaction and investment, therefore the findings might give a more realistic insight into the factors that affect commitments. However, pps may not be honest due to social desirability biases.
- The model may overlook the complexity of investments. Goodfriend and Agnew suggests investments are not just about what individuals have already put into the relationship, but also the couples future goals and aspirations. Therefore the model may be reductionist as it ignores this.
AO1: Duck & Rollie’s model of relationship breakdown
Duck’s theory states that disatisfaction is a major cause of relationship breajdown and suggests three main instigating factors:
- Pre-existing doom: Incompatible relationships from the start.
- Mechanical Failure: The most common cause; two compatible people grow apart over time due to differences.
- Sudden Death: A traumatic event that causes an immediate end to the relationship.
Proposed that relationship breakdowns follow a four stage process:
1. Intrapsychic phase: The internal cognitive processes that a person experiences. The person admits to themselves that they are not happy in their relationship and considers the reasons for their disatisfaction. Threshold = thinking ‘I can’t stand this anymore.’
2. The Dyadic phase: The interaction between the two partners. The individual confronts their partner, expressing their disatisfaction. These interaction often involve anxiety, hostility and resentment. Afterwards the couple either experience a desire to end the relationship or a desire to fix it. Threshold = ‘I would be justified in withdrawing.’
3. The social phase: The couples difficulties are made public and friends and family become involved and offer advice. Threshold = ‘I mean it.’
4. The ‘Grave-dressing’ phase: Signals the end of the relationship. The couples shift their attention to their post relationship life, and both party’s construct their own narrative about the breakup - this typically involves painting themselves in a positive light at the expense of their ex-partner, to protect their dignity and make themselves seem appealing to new potential partners. Threshold = ‘It’s time to start a new life.’
- The resurrection stage (added in 2006) - when people move beyond the pain and distress associated with ending a relationship and experience personal growth.
AO3: Duck and Rollie’s model of relationship breakdowns
- Hatfield (1984): found that when people felt under-benefited in a relationship, they felt angry & resentful & withdrawn from their partner. This supports the intrapsychic phase of Duck’s model.
- Tashiro and Frazier: 92 students completed a survey about their relationship breakdown. Responses showed that various personal growth factors like gaining independence and wisdom, and feeling emotionally better, helped individuals in their future relationships. This highlights the importance of the grave-dressing and resurrection phases in recovering and moving on after a relationship breakdown.
- Research is retrospective as relationship breakdowns are typically reported a while after the event. Therefore, PPs may not be able to reliably recall events, particular from earlier phases. This may limit the validity of the researcg supporting the model.
- Explains how, but not why, relationship breakdowns happen. This limits it’s practical use, because if we understand the cause of relationship breakdowns, we can effectively address and prevent them in the future.
- Cultural Bias: The model and it’s research is based on relationships in Western, individualist cultures. Moghaddam et al (1993) argue that relationships in these cultures tend to be voluntary and often breakdown. However, in collectivist cultures, relationships are often arranged and involve the extended family, so are more difficult to end. So it is likely that relationship breakdown processes may be very different between these cultures and thus Duck’s model may not apply to all cultures.
- Reali life applications: The model details ways that relationship breakdowns can be reversed, and recognises the different stratergies that should be used in each phase. For example, Duck argued that during the intrapsychic phase, people can channel their unhappiness into focusing on the positive parts of their significant other.
AO1: Outline parasocial relationships
Definition: One-sided relationships in which a person develops a strong sense of connection, intimacy, or familiarity wiht someone they don’t know, most often celebrities. These relationships only exist in the mind of the individual, who experiences a bond despite the lack of reciprocity.
Maltby et al (2006) used the celebrity attitude to scale to establish three different levels of parasocial relationships based on their intensity:
1. Entertainment Social: Least intense level. Celebrities are a source of ammusment and provide content for social interaction.
2. Intense-personal: Intermediate level. Increased engagment and intensity, including intense thoughts, feelings and emotions about the celebrity.
3. Borderline Pathological: Strongest level resulting in uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours (i.e. intense financial investments or breaking the law).
Two explanations for PRS’s:
- Absorption-addiciton model
- Attachment model
AO1: Absorption-Addiction model explanation for parasocial relationships
McCutcheon (2002)
Proposes that people who are disatisfied with their own lives due to deficiencies, such as: weak sekf-identity, lack of fulfilment, or poor psychological adjustment, become absorbed with a celebrity in order to gain fulfilment. Overtime the PSR may become addicitve and obsessive leading to extreme behaviours.
Absorption: Seeking fulfilemt in celeb worhsip to escape reality, becoming pre-occupied in their existence and may identify with them.
Addiciton: The individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celeb. May lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking
AO3: Absorption-Addiction model for parasocial relationships
- Maltby et al (2005): Measured the relation between celebrity worship and body image in teenagers. They found that teenage girls who were at the intense-personal level of celebrity worship tended to have a poor body image, especially if they particularly admired a celebrity’s physical appearance.
- Maltby et al (2003): Linked personality types to levels of PSR’s: Extraverts = entertainment social level, neurotics = intense-personal level, psychotics = boderline-pathological level. Supports the idea that there is a correlation between level of parasocial relationships and psychological functioning and thus it can be used to improve professionals understanding of psychological disorderss & how to help people struggling with psychological disorders. However, as it is correlation there is no clear direcrion of causality.
- The Absorption-Addiction Model is better suited to describing levels of celebrity worship that explain how people develop these attitudes. This model attempts to establish universal principles of behaviour (nomothetic approach) and as such misses out on deep insight into the reasons for behaviour. An idiographic approach, looking into particular instances of parasocial relationships, may be better suited to the reasons for why people develop them.
- Universality: Schmid and Klimmt (2011) studied levels of PSR’s with characters from Harry Potter books in different cultures, and found similar levels of worship in Germany (individualist culture) and Mexico (collectivist culture). This suggests that the absorption-addiction model is universally applicable, increasing validity.
AO1: Attachment model explanation for parasocial relationships
Bowlby suggests that disrupted attachments cna lead to long-term emotional issues and individuals will look for subsitiute attachment replacements.
The theory agues that a persons attachment style determines the likelihood of them forming a parasocial relationship.
Insecure-resistant = most likely to form PSR’s becasue they desire close, emotional relationships, with little risk of rejection.
Secure = Unlikely to from PSR’s because they already have loving relationships.
Insecure-avoidant = least likely to form PSR’s as they tend to avoid intimate relationships with others
Weiss (1991) identified 3 fundamental properties of adult attachment that may function similarly in PSR’s:
- Proxomity seeking: People like to stay informed about their favourite celebs and may even attempt to contact or meet them.
- Secure base: with PSR’s there is little or no chance of rejection from the attachment figure so the indivudal is able to create a safe base from which they can explore other relationships in a safe way.
- Protest at disruption (i.e. parasocial bereavement)
Cole and Leeds (1999) explain that anxious-ambivalent/insecure-resistant attachment styles are most likely to result in PSRs because they have needs that were nor met in childhoos and are desperate for them in adult relationships - but cannot face the rejection or breakdown that may happen in real life.
AO3: Attachment Theory for Parasocial relationships
- McCutcheon et al collected data from 229 PPs on attitudes to celebs and attachment types. Found no link between insecure-resistant attachments and more intense level of PSR’s. This contradicts the claims made by attachment theory explanations and suggests that there is no link between attachment type and PSR’s.
- Research in this area relies of self-report and is therefore prone to bias. Data is largely correlational so cause and effect cannot be established.
- Inconclusive Research: Greenwood and Long (2009) found some evidence that people may develop celebrity worship as a way of dealing with recent loss or loneliness. However, other research (e.g. Chory-Assad and Yanen, 2005) failed to find any significant correlation between intensity of loneliness and intensity of PSR’s, so evidence is not conclusive.
- Kienlen et al. (1997) supported the idea that disturbed attachment in childhood may lead to the development of borderline-pathological level of parasocial relationships. They investigated the experiences of stalkers and found that 63% of their participants experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood while 50% experienced emotional and physical abuse.
- Cole and Leets (1999)investigated parasocial relationships that adolescents developed with TV personalities, and found that teenagers with insecure-resistant attachment types were more likely to develop
AO1: Virtual relationships in social media
Virtual Relationships (VR’s): Relationships conducted through the internet rather than face-to-face.
Self-disclosure: May occur earlier in VRs, enabling relationships to form faster & become more intimate.
The Hyperpersonal model - Walther
Argues that in VR’s, partners tend to engage in hyperhonest & hyperdishonest self-disclosure due to:
- Selective-self-presentation: Individual’s can control their online persona making it easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy.
- Anonymity: People’s sense of acountability for their behaviour decreased, so they may disclose more about themselves.
As a result levels of excitment and level of trust at the beginning of a VR may not be equal and the relationship make end faster than face-to-face relationships.
Absence of Gating in VR’s - McKenna and Bargh (1999):
Gating refers to any barriers to relationships forming (i.e. shyness or physical unattractiveness).
Due to the relative anonymity online, these bariers are not initially in evidence to prevent a relationship from forming. Focus is on what is being said rather than appearance or sound, meaning that a person’s true self is more likely to be active in internet relationships than it is in face-to-face interactions.
Reduced cues Theory - Sproul * Kiesler (1986)
Suggests that CMC is not as effective as face-to-face communication because it doesn’t rely on social cues such as, facial experessions or tone of voice. The absence of these cues can lead to de-individuation (weakning of self-identity), promoting engagement in behaviours that one would not normally exhibit (i.e. antisocial & aggressive online behaviours). This behaviour is undesirable and therefore reducdes the likelhood of forming a VR.
AO3: Virtual relationships in social media
- Support for hyperpersonal model: Whitty and Joinson observed that, in contrast to face-to-face small talk, questions asked online are often very direct and intimate, provoking direct responses. Provides evidence for hyperhonesty & hyperdishonesty in VR’s.
- The hyperpersonal model fails to acknowledge different types of CMC & therefore may not explain self-disclosure in all VR’s. I.e. people may share more personal info on social netwroking sites than they would on professional networking sites, and thus self-disclosure may vary depending on the type of CMC.
- Support for absence of gating: McKenna & Bargh examined the use of CMC in lonely people and those with social anxiety. These individuals were better able to share their true selves online compared to face-to-face, and of these relationships formed online, 70% lasted over 2yrs.
- Ignores the interaction between VR’s and face-to-face relationships. Face-to-face relationships may be facilitated by online communication, and a VR may suffer if their is a lack of face-to-face communication.
- Walther & Tidwell, 1995, argue that non-verbal cues aren’t completely absent in VR’s, but just differ from face-to-face cues. I.e. replying slowly may indicate a lack of interest, while fast replies may signal enthusiasm. Emoji’s and acronyms are used to indicate tone & facial expressions.
