Relationships COPY

Question 1

What is sexual selection?

How is it different to natural selection?

Answer 1

• Evolution driven by competition for mates development of characteristics that ensure reproductive success.
• natural selection explains characteristics that offer a survival advantage, sexual selection explains characteristics that offer a reproductive advantage.

Question 2

Define intersexual selection

Answer 2

• Preference of one sex for member of opposite sex with certain qualities.
• Women=quality over quantity, optimum strategy to select a genetically fit partner able and willing to provide resources.
• Selection based on indicators-reveal traits we may want to pass on to offspring (good genes) as well as likelihood the mate will survive to provide for the offspring (good parents).

Question 3

Define intrasexual selection

Answer 3

• Competition between (intra) males, to be able to mate with a female.
• Winner of the competition reproduces.
• Meaning he gets to pass on to his offspring the characteristics that contributed to his victory.
• Given rise to dimorphism in humans – the obvious differences between males and females.

Question 4

Outline the short term mating strategies

Answer 4

• male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible-quantity over quality.
• Due to minimal energy required to produce enough sperm & relative lack of post-coital responsibility
• Buss and Schmitt= men have a marked decrease in attraction to a partner following copulation (an evolved adaptation to ensure they don’t spend to long with one person).
• Female’s optimum reproductive strategy is to select one high quality mate to ensure she does not waste reproductive energy on low quality offspring.
• Because even if a female sleeps with 20 males in a short period she would still only produce a single child.

Question 5

Outline the long term mating strategies and how they are different to short term

Answer 5

-Being choosy is good, as the genetic quality of the mate you choose will directly influence 50% of your offspring’s genes.
Low quality, unattractive mates will produce low quality unattractive offspring – if your offspring cannot mate, then your genes will not continue on down the generations.

Question 6

Outline Buss’ study into long term partner preferences

Answer 6

Procedure:

• Studied over 10,000 people from 37 different cultures.
• Pps asked to rate each of the 18 characteristics (attractiveness, finances etc) on how important they are in picking a mate
• Four point scale from irrelevant to indispensable was used.

Results:
Found key differences between the genders cross culturally…
-Resources: Women were more bothered about resources-wanted men with good financial prospects, and qualities like ambition and industriousness.
-Attractiveness: men placed more importance on this-provides them with information on women’s health and fertility.
-Youth – Men universally wanted mates who were younger-indicated fertility.
-Intelligence – both genders values this-indicated parenting skill.

Question 7

Evaluate the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

Answer 7

+Support for gender differences in short term mating= Clarke and Hatfield (1989) used attractive males and female who approached strangers on a university campus with various requests including going back to their room for sex.
No females and 75% of male agreed. This has been replicated in other studies.
-link= (males therefore have a preference for casual sex).

+Support from Lonely Hearts Research= Wayneforth and Dunbar studied lonely hearts advertisements in American newspapers.
-These were opportunities to describe the qualities you desired in a potential partner, whilst cataloguing what you had to offer.
-Found that women, more than men, tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (flirty, sexy, curvy, exciting).
Men on the other hand, offered resources more than women did (successful, fit, mature, ambitious) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness.

-Support from waist-hip ratio research= males will show a preference for the female body shape that signals fertility. What matters in male preference is not the female body size as such, but the ratio of waist to hip sizes.
-Singh (1993, 2002) found= must be 0.7.
Combination of wider hips and narrower waist attractive=‘honest signal’ (hard to fake) that woman is fertile but not currently pregnant.

Weakness- Is culture more important than evolution?

• Some argue women been denied economic and political power in many cultures-might account for reliance on men for resources.
• Kasser and Sharma (1999-women valued resources more in cultures where their statues and educational opportunities more limited.

Weakness= theory is outdated, ignores role of contraception= original Clarke and Hatfield study was done in 1989, it’s quite possible that nowadays women would be more likely to accept an invitation for casual sex due to the wider use of contraceptives.
It is now possible for a female to engage in casual sex without the risk of conception.

-Weakness- Methodological criticisms with Buss’ study- Low ecological validity= often focuses on preferences rather than real life choices.

Question 8

Define anisogamy

Answer 8

-The difference in male and female sex cells
-Men have sperm cells, which are able to reproduce quickly with little energy expenditure and once they start being produced they do not usually stop until the man dies.
Female gametes (eggs or ova) are, in contrast, much less plentiful; they are released in a limited time frame (between puberty and menopause) and require much more energy to produce. This difference (anisogamy) means that men and women use different strategies when choosing their partners.

Question 9

• Outline self disclosure

- Research

Answer 9

• When a person reveals intimate or personal information about themselves to another person
• Jourard- self disclosure=important process in developing romantic relationships-greater disclosure=greater feelings of intimacy
• Most are careful what they disclose, at least at first, most prefer those who disclose more intimate details than those who don’t.
• Collins & Miller- people reveal more to those they like, tend to like those they have revealed the information to.

Question 10

Outline the key study into self-disclosure

Answer 10

-Spretcher et al (2013)=
Interested in whether reciprocal self-disclosure was more influential in determining attraction than one-sided self-disclosure & listening.

Procedure=

• 156 undergraduate students were paired up. (2/3 were female-female). Each ‘dyad’ (pair) was unacquainted and began a self-disclosure task over skype.
• Reciprocal condition=
• Each member of the pair took turns disclosing information and asking questions.
• Non-reciprocal condition=
• one person asked questions and the other person disclosed.
• After this, the researchers assessed liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment of the interaction.

Results:
-Reciprocal condition=
Partners reported more liking, closeness, similarity and enjoyment.

-Non-reciprocal condition
swapped roles.
-Ratings of liking, closeness, similarity and enjoyment still higher in reciprocal group, even after non-reciprocal group swapped.
-This shows that turn taking self disclosure is more effective than extended reciprocity in disclosure.
-level of self-disclosure received=better predictor of liking and loving than self-disclosure that is given.
-amount of overall disclosure was predictive of whether the couple stayed together for longer than 4 years.

Question 11

Outline social penetration theory

Answer 11

• As each partner increasingly reveals more and more information about one another, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives
• Gaining a greater understanding of each other and a deeper connection. This is a basic feature of romantic relationships.

Question 12

Evaluate self disclosure

Answer 12

• Stength= Research support= Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples
• Found strong positive correlations between several measures of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure (giving and receiving).
• The reverse was also true – less intimate couples self-disclosed less often.

-Weakness- Self disclosure does not always lead to satisfaction= according to theories of relationship breakdown couples discuss and negotiate the state of their deteriorating relationships in an attempt to save it or return it to an earlier level of satisfaction.
These discussions will frequently involve deep self-disclosures of very intimate thoughts and feelings, and yet these might not be enough to save the relationship.

• Strength= Real life Applications= Research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. Romantic partners probably use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen the bond.
• Hass and Stafford (1998)=57% of gay men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships.
• Weakness- Cultural Differences= prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosure will lead to a more satisfying and intimate relationship is not true for all cultures.
• Wester cultures=engage in more intimate self-disclosure than non-western cultures.
• Tang et al (2013) reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure-concluded that men/women in USA disclose significantly more than men/women in China (collectivist Vs individualist cultures.)
• Weakness- Online relationships differ in self-disclosure= Relationships formed on internet=higher self-disclosure than face to face relationships.
• On the internet we feel more anonymous which gives us greater comfort to reveal more about ourselves.
• Cooper and Sportolari (1997) call this the ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon.
• When we reveal more online more quickly this is the ‘boom’, however because the trust is not there this is difficult to sustain, this is the ‘bust’.

-However- Knop et al challenged this- people disclose more face to face than online- eye contact and attentive silence of our partner - both of which are absent in online relationships.

Question 13

Outline Altman and Taylors breadth and depth

Answer 13

• As both breadth and depth increases, romantic partners become more committed to one another.
• Start of a relationship= disclose a lot of ‘low risk’ information about ourselves, but what we reveal tends to be superficial, mostly ‘on the surface’ information,
• Like the outer layers of an onion.
• ‘Low risk’ information we would reveal to anyone, friends, co-worker, even acquaintances.
• The depth of disclosure is shallow because at this stage many topics are ‘off limits’ in the early stages of a relationship.
• If we reveal too much too soon, we may get the response ‘too much information’, possibly threatening the relationship before it gets going.
• as the relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, progressively removing more and more layers to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wide range of topics, especially those concerning things that matter most to us. Eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate, ‘high risk’ information e.g. painful memories and experiences.

Question 14

Outline Reciprocity of Self Disclosure

Answer 14

Reis and Shaver (1988) make it clear that for a relationship to develop, as well as increase in breadth and depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure.

Once you have decided to disclose something that reveals your true self, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding to you. Eg. Understanding, empathy and also their own intimate thoughts and feelings.

The key here is that there must be a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful romantic relationship, which increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship.

Question 15

Outline why physical attractiveness is so important

Answer 15

• Buss’s partner preferences research in different cultures=men place a greater importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate.
• Because it acts as an indicator of health and fertility.
• However more recent research suggests that physical attractiveness may be just as important to women. However it is complicated.
• Women see physical attractiveness as more important in short term relationships, but less important in long term relationships, however men still rely on physical attractiveness for both types of relationship.

Question 16

Outline research into facial symmetry

Answer 16

• Rhodes et al (1998) suggest that facial symmetry is attractive, because it may signal mate quality.
• Tested prediction that facial symmetry is attractive by manipulating the symmetry of individual faces and observing the effect on attractiveness.
• Found that attractiveness increased when symmetry increased, and decreased when symmetry was reduced.

Question 17

Outline little et al’s research into masculine and feminine features

Answer 17

-Examined human preferences for masculinity/femininity in different types of stimuli.
-Face and body stimuli
-Images were manipulated to be more or less masculine using computer graphic techniques.
For women-found that preferences for more masculine stimuli were greater for short-term than for long-term relationships across all stimuli types.
-Further analyses revealed consistency in preferences for masculinity across stimuli types, at least for short-term judgments, whereby women with preferences for masculinity in one domain also had preferences for masculinity in the other domains.
For men- found that preferences for more feminine stimuli were greater for short-term than for long-term judgments across face and voice stimuli, whereas the reverse was true for body stimuli.

Question 18

Outline the halo effect

Answer 18

• Describes how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness, in this case) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s attributes, for example, their personality.
• Knowing someone is physically attractiveness means we may also assume/stereotype that they are good, kind, honest etc.
• We have preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people must have-almost universally positive- Dion= physically attractive people are consistently rated as strong, sociable & successful compared to unattractive people.
• Belief that good looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them – a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Question 19

Outline the matching hypothesis

Answer 19

-States that people choose romantic partners who have a similar level of social desirability to themselves. The matching hypothesis includes two hypothesis:
The more socially desirable a person is (physical attractiveness, social standing, intelligence) the more desirable they expect their dating partner to be.
Couples who are matched (both partners are equally desirable) are more likely to have happy, enduring relationships than those who are mismatched.
-When choosing a partner we must first identify our own level of attractiveness, our own value.
We then rate potential partners for attractiveness (work out what we desire)
We compare this with their own level of attractiveness (our own value)
And consider the likelihood of being rejected
And the possible alternatives for both parties

-This comparison determines whether they will pursue the person as a potential mate. Walster et al refer to this notion as realistic choices as each individual is influenced by the chance of having their affection reciprocated.

Question 20

Outline Walster et al research into the matching hypothesis

Answer 20

Procedure=
-347 Undergraduates from University of Minnesota attended a ‘get acquainted’ dance
-Randomly selected to take part.
When they came to pick up their ticket they were covertly rated on attractiveness.
-Asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire on personality, intelligence etc and told this data would be used to allocate them an ‘ideal partner’ for the date.
-Randomly matched with a date.
-During the intermission of the dance asked to complete a questionnaire about their date-also completed a questionnaire 6 months later.

Results=
-Findings did not support the matching hypothesis. Once paired, regardless of their own attractiveness they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were more likely to try to arrange follow up dates with them. Other factors like personality and intelligence did not affect their liking of the dates.
Even when researchers manipulated the physical attractiveness of the date and presented false information about how likely the date would be to enter into a relationship with the participant, the physical attractiveness effect (ie liking someone more the more attractive they are) predominated over a matching effect or any concern about rejection.

Question 21

Evaluate physical attractiveness

Answer 21

Strength- Research Support for the Halo Effect= Palmer and Peterson (2012)-physically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
The Halo Effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
-If politicians are judged to be suitable for office, just because they are attractive by voters then this has serious implications. If defendants wear suits they will be seen as more innocent etc.
-The existence of the Halo Effect has found to apply in many other areas of life including in court rooms, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.

Stength= Research Supporting the Matching Hypothesis= Feingold (1988) referred to physical attractiveness

• Meta-analysis of 17 studies
• Found a correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.
• link= This is especially supportive of the matching hypothesis because the studies looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic approach.

-Strength- Support from cross cultural research= Research shows that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures.
Cunningham (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males.

• Weakness- Research Contradicting the Matching Hypothesis= Walster’s dance study criticises the matching hypothesis as it found we want the best person we can get, not someone on our level.
• Taylor (2011) studied activity logs of a popular online dating site.
• Real life test of the matching hypothesis=measured actual date choices rather than preferences-keeping in line with original hypothesis-concerned realistic as opposed to fantasy choices.
• Online daters sought meetings with more attractive partners than them-seems they didn’t consider own level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date.

-Complex matching is more important= Matching hypothesis ignores people that come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics-might compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness (personality, status, money etc)- complex matching (Hatfield and Sprecher).
-Takeuchi (2006)- a gender difference exist in complex matching.
-Women-physical attractiveness=less important in men and so it has less of an impact on perception of men’s social desirability.
This gender difference implies that men can compensate for any deficit in physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities like status, money, power, kindness or generosity etc., whereas women cannot.

Question 22

Outline the key study into filter theory

Answer 22

• Kerchkoff and Davies (1962)
• Longitudinal study of 94 dating couples at Duke University in the US.
• Each partner completed two questionnaires assessing degree to which they shared values, attitudes with their partner and also to assess the degree of complementarity.
• 7 months later the couples completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to at the start of the study. (This should assess their progress towards permanence).

Findings=
-When divided into those that had dated for more than 18 months and those who had dated for less than 18 months then differences emerged in which factors led them to feel closer to their partners.
-For couples who had been together less than 18 months similarity of attitudes was the most significant predictor in how close they felt to their partner.
For those dating more than 18 months only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close they felt to their partner.
-Suggests attitude similarity=most important factor up to 18 months. However in the long term couples complimenting each other’s needs became the most important factor.

Question 23

Outline filter theory and the three levels of the filter

Answer 23

-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.

-1st- Social Demography= refers to variables such as age, social background and location, which determine the likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place.
2nd- Similarity in attitudes=
-If people share similar attitudes, values and beliefs, communication is easier and so a relationship is likely to progress-Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships and this was the best predictor of a relationship becoming stable.
3rd- Complementarity of needs= refers to how well two people fit together as a couple and meet each other’s needs- Complementarity is attractive because it gives two romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish.
-Winch (1958)=social needs should be complimentary rather than similar in long term relationships. If one partner is low in one attribute, the other should be high. This is not saying opposites attract.

Question 24

Evaluate filter theory

Answer 24

-Strength - Support for the first filter= Festinger et al (1950) observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments for married students. Students lived across 17 buildings.
Students were 10 x’s as likely to form a friendship with people who lived in their own building.
Interestingly the most popular people lived nearest to the staircases and post-boxes because they were most likely to be ‘bumped’ into.
This is called functional distance.

-Strength - Support for filter two=Byrne et al (1970) found that individuals are more attracted to a person with whom they share many common attitudes and values to someone with whom they share only a few.

However – perceived similarity might be more important than actual similarity.
Tidwell et al (2013) tested this with speed dating, decisions about attractiveness must be made in a short period of time. After measuring actually and perceived similarity with a questionnaire the researchers found that perceived similarity predicted romantic liking much more than actual similarity.

-Weakness - Lack of temporal validity for first filter= rise of online dating has changed the process of starting relationships. It reduces the importance of social demographic variables.
Internet websites and tinder have made meeting partners easier to the extent that we might date someone outside our usual demographic limits (different culture/class)

-Weakness - Failure to replicate research= Levinger (1974) failed to replicate to original findings that formed the basis of the original filter theory. They studied 330 couples who were ‘going steady’ and replicated K+D’s procedure. They found no evidence of ‘similarity of attitudes and values’ or of ‘complementarity of needs’ influencing ‘progression towards permanence’.
He put this down to the questionnaires no longer being relevant due to social changes over time since the first study and also the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of its length.
Kerckhoff and Davis chose an 18 month cut off point to distinguish between a short term and long term relationship.
They assumed that partners who been longer together than this were more committed and had a deeper relationship.

-Weakness - Direction of Cause and Effect= Filter theory suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar. However, there is evidence that suggests that this direction of causality is wrong.
Anderson (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabitating partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon they called emotional convergence.
Further to this, Davis and Rusbult (2001) discovered and attitude alignment effect on long term relationships. Romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction and not the cause.

Question 25

Outline social exchange theory

Answer 25

Thibaut and Kellly, 1959

• An ‘economic theory’ takes the view that social relationships are run in similar way to a business- people haggling, negotiating to get best deal.
• Try to minimise losses and maximise gains (minimax principle).
• Judge relationship satisfaction in terms of profit (rewards minus costs).
• SET based on principles of operant conditioning- suggests we form and maintain relationships because they’re rewarding.
• Rewards include- companionship, sex, emotional support.
• An expense/cost could be time, stress, energy, compromise etc. investing energy in current relationship=energy you cannot spend elsewhere.
• Rewards minus costs=the outcome (i.e. an overall profit or loss for the relationship).
• If relationship stops being profitable because the costs outweigh the rewards the relationship will end.

Question 26

Outline what is meant by the comparison level as part of social exchange theory

Answer 26

• The comparison level is the amount of reward you believe you deserve. We develop a standard which we compare all our relationships against.
• Formed based on all of our experiences plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange.
• also based on social norms that determine what is widely considered within a culture to be a reasonable level of reward. This is often from the media, books and films, over time we experience e relationships and watch movies and determine what we think we should get.
• Therefore someone who has had poor quality relationships in the past will have a low CL and will be more likely to report satisfaction in another low quality relationship.

Question 27

Outline comparison level for alternatives as part of social exchange theory

Answer 27

-Weigh up a potential increase in rewards from another partner, (minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship).
We ask ourselves “could I do better?” SET predicts we will stay in our current relationship only if we believe it is more profitable than alternatives.
-Duck (1994) the comparison level we adopt will depend on our current relationship. If the costs are high in the current relationship then alternatives become more attractive- satisfied in our current relationship we may not even notice alternatives.
-The more rewarding the alternatives (another partner, friends, career, no relationship) the less likely they are to stay in their current relationship.

Question 28

Outline Thibaut and Kelley’s four stage model as part of social exchange theory

Answer 28

• Sampling – we explore rewards and costs by experimenting with different relationships and observing other people.
• Bargaining, this is the beginning of a relationship when romantic partners exchange rewards and costs and negotiate and identify if it might be profitable.
• Commitment as time goes on the courses of costs and rewards are more predictable and the relationship is more stable as rewards increase.
• Institutionalisation the partners are now settles and norms of rewards and costs are firmly established.

Question 29

Outline Kurdek and Schmitt’s study into social exchange theory

Answer 29

-Investigated the importance of the SET factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples. (44 heterosexual married, 35 heterosexual cohabiting, 50 same sex male couples, 56 same sex female couples).
Each couple did not have children, each individual completed a questionnaire without discussing the answers.
Results:
They found that for each of the four types of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with:
Perception of many benefits from their current relationship (higher than CL)
Seeing alternatives as less attractive (weak CLAlt)
This shows that the CL and CLAlt are key factors in both heterosexual and same sex relationships.

Question 30

Evaluate social exchange theory

Answer 30

-Strength - Supporting research: Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) – (Key study) showing CL and CLAlt in both same sex and heterosexual relationships.
-Further support from Sprecher (2001)-conducted a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university. Finding that the exchange variable most highly associated with commitment was the comparison level for alternatives.
The presence of an alternative was consistently negative correlated with both commitment and satisfaction for both males and females.
In relationships where the comparison level for alternatives was high the relationship was viewed more negatively and the partner was more likely to leave.

-Strength- Real world Application= Knowledge of the way rewards and costs work in relationships has fed into relationship therapy.

Individuals in unsuccessful marriages report a lack of positive behaviour by the partner.

Christainsen et al (2004) showed how Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (aiming to increase positive exchanges and decrease negative exchanges in relationships) led to significant improvements in relationship quality of 60 distressed couples.

-Weakness- SET ignore equity, therefore equity theory is better= central concern of SET is the comparison level; and the cost benefit analysis – about making a profit.
-Assumes people are inherently selfish in relationships by trying to maximise their rewards while minimising the costs
This ignores one crucial factor – that people want fairness or equity.
Equity states that people are not looking for a relationship in which they can over-benefit, but one in which the rewards for both parties are equal.

-Weakness- Dissatisfaction comes first= Argyle (1987) points out that we don’t measure rewards and costs nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives. Not until we are dissatisfied.

Question 31

Outline equity theory

Answer 31

(Hatfield, 1970s)
-Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity.
Rewards are distributed fairly but not equally.
Walster states that what matters most with equity is that both partners level of ‘profit’ (rewards minus costs) are roughly the same. This is not the same as equality where the level of profit should be the same
-not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matter – it’s the ratio of the two to each other.

Question 32

Outline inequity and dissatisfaction

Answer 32

-Inequality happens when one person gives a great deal and gets little in return and also when someone receives a great deal and gives little in return.
Over benefitting and under benefitting are both examples of inequity although it’s the under benefitting partner who is going to feel the greatest dissatisfaction.
Under benefiting = anger, hostility and resentment.
Over benefitting = guilt, shame and discomfort.
What makes us most dissatisfied is the change in the level of equity as time goes by. For example, to start with we might be happy putting in more than we get, but if this continues we may not still see it as happy.

Question 33

Outline Schafer and Keith’s study into equity theory

Answer 33

-Hundreds of married couples of all ages were surveyed to analyse whether the relationships were equitable and how satisfied they felt.
Results:
-They found that during the child rearing years, wives often reported feeling under benefited and husbands felt over benefited. As a result, marital satisfaction dipped at this point.
-During the honeymoon period and empty nest stage both husbands and wives felt more equity and therefore more satisfaction.
-This shows how equity can change over the course of the relationship/ life stages.

Question 34

How do Hatfield and Rapson suggest we can deal with inequity?

Answer 34

• Restore equality- we may try to change our input and outputs to restore equity
• Restore psychological equality- May change judgment of rewards and costs so it feels fairer-Revising their perceptions doesn’t actually make the relationship fairer-what was seen as a cost (untidiness) now seems normal.
• If they cannot restore equality either way the may leave- physically via divorce etc or emotionally by no longer loving their partner.

Question 35

Evaluate equity theory

Answer 35

Strength- Research support-
-Stafford and Canary (2006) asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of relationship satisfaction.
-Also asked questions about their use of relationship maintenance strategies such as:
-Assurances (emphasising affection and commitment)
-Sharing tasks (sharing chores)
-Positivity (communicating in an upbeat manner)
Findings=
-Satisfaction was highest for couples who perceived their relationship to be equitable. This was followed by over benefitted and the under benefited partners.
-They also found that under benefited husbands reported significantly lower levels of maintenance behaviours than equitable or over benefited husbands.

• Supporting research from primates=
• Brosnan and De Wall (2003) studied capuchin monkeys and found that females became very angry if they were denied a highly prized reward in return for playing a game.
• If another monkey who was not playing the game received the reward instead the capuchins grew so angry they hurled food at the experimenter.
• In a later study (2005) it was found that chimpanzees were more upset by injustice in casual relationships than in close intimate ones.
• Weakness- Cultural differences=
• Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction.
• Individualist cultures considered relationships to be more satisfying when they were equitable but collectivist cultures were more satisfied when they were over benefiting.

-Weakness- Contradictory research=
-Some research fails to support equity theory. The theory suggests that satisfying relationships should become more equitable.
-However, Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase over time. Level of equity also did not distinguish between which relationships were successful and which ended.
Self-disclosure seemed to be more important.

Question 36

Outline the investment model of relationships

Answer 36

Rusbult (1980)

• Developed to address limitations of SET and equity theory
• Relationships do not just persist because positive qualities attract us to someone, but also because of investments that bind and tie people together.

Commitment to a relationship depends on three different factors:
-Satisfaction level= the positive versus negative emotions experienced within a relationship and is influenced by the extent to which the other person fulfils the individuals most important needs.

• Comparison for alternatives= an individuals assessment of whether their needs might be better fulfilled by somebody other than their current partner
• Investment size= A measure of all the resources attached to the relationship (e.g. financial, shared children), which would be lost if the relationship were to end. Rusbult argues there are two major types of investment: Intrinsic- any resources directly put in (money, possessions or harder to quantify like energy, emotion and self-disclosure). Extrinsic- resources that previously didn’t exist in the relationship, but are now associated with it (things bought together like a car or mutual friends).
• As the investment model is a development of the Social Exchange Theory (SET), two of these factors (satisfaction and comparison for alternatives) are very similar to the elements of that earlier theory.

Question 37

Outline the relationship maintenance mechanisms as part of the investment model

Answer 37

• Accommodation - Enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation but instead act in a way to promote the relationship.
• Willingness to Sacrifice - They will put their partners interests first.
• Forgiveness - Forgive them for any serious offences
• Positive Illusions - The cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair. Committed partners think about other and potential alternatives in a specific and predictable way. They are unrealistically positive about their partner to their face and to others.
• Ridiculing Alternatives - They are also negative about tempting positives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives), much more so than less committed partners.

Question 38

Outline Le and Agnew’s study into the investment model

Answer 38

• Meta analysis-52 studies-1970-2000
• Each study explored different components of investment model-relationship between them
• Produced total sample of over 11,000 pps (54% male & 46% female)
• From 5 countries (USA, UK, Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan).

Results:

• Satisfaction level, quality of alternatives & investment- all highly correlated with commitment.
• Correlation between satisfaction and commitment (.68)- significantly stronger than quality of alternatives (-.48)/investment (.46).
• Correlation between commitment and maintain relationship also significant.

Question 39

Evaluate the investment model of relationships

Answer 39

• Strength: Research support: Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over 7 month period- kept notes about relationship satisfaction, how it compared with others, how much they’d invested- Also noted how committed they felt to relationship, whether it had ended.
• Follow up studies equally important- found these outcomes were true of both men & women, across all cultures in analysis, and for homosexual’s as well as heterosexual’s.

-Methodological strengths:
Reliance on self report methods are appropriate because it is not the objective reality of factors that matter- but the individual partner’s perception of these factors- your belief that you’ve made a big investment or your belief that you have no attractive alternatives, that will influence your commitment.

-Strength - Investment Model can explain Abusive Relationships: The victims of violent partners are often the most committed as previous experiences were investments which would be worthless if the relationship dissolved.

Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the investment model to abusive relationships. They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began. As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.

-Weakness- Based on correlational research:
Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model. However, even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation.
Most studies don’t actually allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship.
It could be the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the model.

-Weakness- oversimplifies investment: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) suggest there is more to investment that just resources put in. In the early stages of a relationship you will have made less investments so why do these relationships maintain too?
They extend the model by including investment in future plans. People in early relationships are committed because they want to see their plans work out.

Question 40

Why is Duck’s model a phase model of relationship breakdown?

Answer 40

Why is it a phase model?

• The ending of a relationship is not a one off event, but a process that takes time and goes through stages.
• Duck’s model is a phase model, showing how the dissolution of a relationship is a process, rather than a onetime event.
• At each phase there is a threshold (a point where their perception changes), that once breached, moves the process to the next phase.

Question 41

Outline the phases of Ducks phase model of relationship breakdown

Answer 41

-Phase 1: Breakdown Phase:
One partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied and distressed with the relationship. This could be because of inequity.
If this dissatisfaction gets too much or doesn’t improve, they progress to the intrapsychic stage (I cant stand it anymore).

-Phase 2-Intra-Psychic phase):
-focuses on the cognitive processes going on within the individual.
-They resent the partner, brooding on their faults.
-Feel under benefitted and begin to re-evaluate the relationship and consider possible alternatives.
-Don’t express their dissatisfaction to their partner at this stage, but may express it in other ways, such as in a diary or by withdrawing socially
-Weigh up pros and cons & evaluate the relationship against alternatives and against being alone.
Some relationships are ended here without any explanation to the partner.

Phase 3- Dyadic Phase:
-Focus on interpersonal processes between the partners.
-Cannot avoid talking about
relationship- confrontations over time and the partner begins to talk to the other about problems or perceived inequities. These confrontations are characterised by anxiety, hostility- may result in reconciliation and saving the relationship if the other partner sees their views as valid.
-Talking about issues constructively and problem solving rather than destructively by scapegoating is crucial, some partners seek therapy to help with this process.
Partners make promises and agreements to make things work. Reasons to stay (children) and reasons to go (belief things wont change) are discussed.

-Phase 4- Social Phase:
-Breakup aired publically to friends and family, making it harder to deny that there is a problem and subsequently harder to reconcile.
-Advice and support is sought and alliances created. Mutual friends are expected to pick sides.
These processes often include negative comments about the other partner (you could do better, its all their fault).
Social networks can stop the breakup if supportive, or if they reveal revelations about the other partner, they may speed up breakdown.
If not reconciled, social implications such as care of children are negotiated as break up becomes inevitable.

• Phase 5- Grave Dressing:
• The aftermath
• -When the relationship dies and partners being to create an account of how and why it ended.
• Ex-partners organise post relationship lives and publicise their own accounts. Stories of betrayal or of not being able to save the relationship often shared and different stories may be offered by each partner and depending on the audience.
• Stories are shared that paint the particular partner in a good light in order to not deter possible future partners. It is crucial that each partner tried to retain some social credit by blaming circumstances or other people.
• This also involves creating a story you can live with (which may be different to the public one) this helps tidy up memories of the relationship, and may involve rewriting history. The traits you liked originally may be reinterpreted negatively.

Question 42

Evaluate Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Answer 42

-Strength- Real life applications: not only helps us identify and understand the stages but is suggests ways of reversing breakdown.
The model is useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at different points in breakdown than others.
Duck recommends that people in the intrapsychic stages could be encouraged to focus their brooding on positive aspects
-link= could be used in relationship counselling.

-Weakness - An Incomplete Model:
Rollie and Duck (2006) states that the original model is oversimplified. They modified it to have a fifth phase after grave dressing. (Resurrection phase).
In this phase the ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships and use their experience gained from the ended one.
Rollie and Duck also make it clear that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable as suggested previously. It is possible to return to an earlier point in the process in any phase.

-Weakness - Methodological Issues:
Retrospective research-Participants generally give their experiences of the breakdown process sometime after the relationship has ended.
This means that what they can recall might not always be accurate or reliable. It’s the very early stages of breakdown that are understandably tend to be distorted or perhaps even ignored altogether- Impossible to test early stage where problems first arise-

Question 43

Outline Reduced Cues Theory in virtual relationships

Answer 43

Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggest that CMC relationships are less effective and less information is disclosed than FtF ones.
This is because they lack many of the cues non-verbal cues such as our physical appearance (and cues to our emotional state, such as our facial expressions and tone of voice) that we normally depend on in FtF interactions.

A lack of these cues can lead to deindividuation/ individualisation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which in turn then encourages disinhibition in relating to others.
Virtual relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication.

The upshot of this is a reluctance to disclose and reveal any meaning information about yourself.
You are unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, or revel your innermost feelings to them.

Question 44

Outline the hyperpersonal model of virtual relationships

Answer 44

Walther (1996, 2011) argues the opposite! That online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure that FtF ones.
This is because CMC relationships can develop quickly as disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate. They also end more quickly because of the high excitement level of interactions is not matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners.

Cooper and Sportolari (1997) called this the boom and bust phenomenon. According to the hyper personal model, a key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is that the sender off a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in an FtF situation. Walther calls this selective self-presentation.

-Anonymity on the internet means we can disclose information without needing to worry about people we know finding out.
Bargh (2002) points out that of this is rather like the strangers on the train effect (in FtF relationships).
When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your actions and behaviour. So you may well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to even your most intimate partner.

Question 45

What is meant by gating and why is there an absence of gating in a relationship sense?

Answer 45

-Any obstacle to the formation of a relationship.
-In our FtF interactions, personal factors such as appearance and mannerisms can determine who we approach and who we want relationships with.
-These factors (like attractiveness and mannerisms) are known as gates.
-We use available cues like attractiveness, age and ethnicity to categorise people before determining if we want a relationship.
These factors can stop or start a FtF interaction happening.

• McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue that the huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating.
• Online we do not have these ‘gates’ we don’t know if someone is attractive e, shy, less socially skilled etc, so they cannot form barriers to relationships.
• This absence of gating allows an online relationship to ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen in an FtF situation.
• This means that the relationship can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.
• Refocuses attention on self-disclosure-away from what might be considered superficial and distracting features. In others words, online I am more interested in what you tell me rather than what you look and sound like.

Question 46

What is bad about an absence of gating?

Answer 46

• Parallels the rationale behind the TV talent show The Voice. By performing to the judges’ backs, the focus on appearance is removed so that this gate no longer threatens the contestant’s chances of making it past the early audition.
• A concern though, is that an absence of gating also means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage FtF. A man can become a woman, an introvert can become an extrovert.
• Perhaps the ultimate expression of this ungated existence is Second Life, where anyone can create any kind of avatar to represent themselves in a virtual reality.

Question 47

Evaluate virtual relationships

Answer 47

-Strength - Research Support for the Hyper personal Model (we give out more info)= predicts that we are ‘hyperhonest’ and sometimes ‘hyperdishonest’ online.
Whitty and Joinson (2009) found when researching a number of online discussions that the questions tended to be very direct, probing and sometimes intimate. These kinds of questions would never been asked in an FtF meeting as it would be seen as ‘going too far’.FtF discussion tends to be ‘small talk’.

-Strength - Support for the Absence of Gating= McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people. They found that such people expressed their ‘true selves’ more online than in FtF situations.
Of romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than 2 years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world.

-Weakness- Lack of Research Support for Reduced Cues Theory (we give out less info)= wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. They are different rather than absent.
Walther and Tidwell (1995) point that people in online interaction use other cues such as the style and the timing of the message. For example – taking the time to reply to an online message is interpreted as more of an intimate act rather than an immediate response. But not too long, with a short reply, otherwise that might be seen as a snub.

-Weakness - Relationships are Multimodal= Walther (2011) argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC, including the role of self-disclosure, needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted online and offline through many different types of media.
It is very rarely a straightforward matter of ‘either/or’. This is in fact probably the central characteristic of many modern relationships.
What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa.

Question 48

Outline the celebrity attitude scale as part of the absorption addiction model

Answer 48

• Entertainment social –the least intense level of worship. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interactions. For example friends with more than a passing interest in soaps might enjoy discussing storied in ok about actors from the soaps. Giles (2002) found that these relationships were a useful source of gossip in offices.
• Intense personal –a intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement with a celebrity. A fan of Kim Kardashian might had frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings about her, perhaps seeing her as a soul mate.
• Borderline pathological –the strongest level of celebrity worship. Featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. This might include spending lots of money on a celebrity related object of being willing to so an illegal act because the celebrity seems to tell them so.

Question 49

Outline the absorption- addiction model of parasocial relationships

Answer 49

-McCutcheon (2002)-people may have weak sense of self-identity-lack fulfilment in everyday relationships, they may also be poorly adjusted psychologically-Parasocial relationship allows them to ‘escape from reality’-gives them a way of finding fulfilment that they can’t achieve in their actual relationships,
They become increasingly absorbed into the lives of their ‘parasocial friends’

Someone who initially has an entertainment-social orientation to a certain celebrity may be triggered into more intense involvement by some personal crisis or stressful life event.
Their early interest may eventually become addictive, leading the person to more extreme behaviours in order to sustain satisfaction with the parasocial relationship they have developed with the celebrity.

Question 50

Outline attachment theory of parasocial relationships

Answer 50

Parasocial relationships may function similarly to real life relationships. They share the key properties of attachments, identified by Weiss (1991).

• Proximity Seeking – fans attempt to reduce the distance between themselves and the celebrity, changing their schedules to see them on tv, writing them letters and seeing them at appearances.
• Secure Base – the presence of an attachment figure provides a safe base to explore from. With a parasocial relationship, there is no risk of rejection so this acts as a base that they can use to help explore other relationships safely.
• Protest at disruption – fans often show intense distress when separated from an attachment figure. When a show is cancelled or an actor leaves, fans will express raw emotions like crying and petitioning for them to come back.

Question 51

Why did Cole and Leets find that parasocial relationship can be related to attachment style?

Answer 51

• Insecure resistant attachments leads to an increased interest in celebrities. It is thought that those who can be needy and clingy in relationships may be more likely to develop PSRs. They are most likely to form parasocial relationships because they need to have unfulfilled needs met. But in a relationship that is not accompanied by a threat of rejection, break up or disappointment.
• Insecure avoidant individuals are least likely to develop a parasocial relationship=find it difficult to develop intimate relationships-Avoid relational intimacy in real life and therefore also avoid imagined intimacy in a parasocial relationship.

Question 52

Evaluate parasocial relationships

Answer 52

-Strength - Support for the Attachment Theory= Attachment theory suggests we will show negative responses to being deprived of out parasocial relationship.
Cohen (2004) studied 381 adults who completed a questionnaire on their attachment styles and how they would react if characters they have parasocial relationships with were taken off air.
Participants expected feelings of sadness, anger and loneliness (similar to those experiences when losing a real life attachment.

-Strength - Support for the Absorption –Addiction Model= Maltby et al (2003) used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to assess the relationship between parasocial relationships and personality.
They found that the entertainment-social level was associated with extraversion, and the intense personal level was associated with neuroticism.
As neuroticism is related to anxiety and depression this explains why higher levels of parasocial relationship are linked to poorer mental health.

-Strength - Support for the Absorption –Addiction Model= Maltby also investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in 14-16 year olds. Females reported an intense parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired, tended to have poor body image. They speculated that this link maybe be a precursor to the development of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa.

Both studies support the model because they confirm the prediction of a correlation between level (type and intensity of relations) with psychological functioning

-Weakness - Problems with the Absorption –Addiction Model= model has been criticised for being a better description of parasocial relationships rather than an explanation of them.
The model is capable of describing the characteristics of people who have these relationships but unlike attachment theory it does not explain how/why these characteristics develop.

-Weakness - Problems with the Attachment Theory=
McCutcheon (2006) measured the attachment styles and celebrity related attitudes in 299 participants. The researchers found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than participants with secure attachments.
-Finding fails to support the central prediction of the attachment theory raising serious doubts about its validity.