Relationship Flashcards

Question

Limitation of Self-disclosure: Cultural differences

Answer 1

Not true for all culture that increasing depth & breadth = satisfaction. -Tang et al found men and women in US (individualist) self-disclose more sexual thoughts than men and women in China (collectivist). -However, lower disclosure didn’t mean less satisfaction. -Cultural norms also shape condor ability of men & women with self-disclosure. Japanese women prefer lower disclosure, to men. & Western women tend to prefer it to men. Self-disclosure is a limited explanation and based on findings from individualist cultures, so not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.

Answer 2

-Shackelford & Larsen suggest that people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive. -This could be because it’s a signal of genetic fitness. -People also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as wide eyes, small nose, because they trigger a protective instinct.

Answer 3

-We have preconceived ideas about personality traits people must have & they’re almost universally positive. -Dion states “what is beautiful is good.” Found physically attractive people are consistently rated kind, strong, sociable & successful compared to unattractive people. -We then behave positively towards them which is an example of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Answer 4

-Suggests we look for partners who are similar to us, in terms of physical attractiveness, instead of the most appealing option. -Though both individuals would be attracted to the most socially desirable potential partners, they opt for partners of similar social desirability to themselves (‘in their league’, to maximise chance of a successful outcome.

Answer 5

-Males & females invited to a dance & rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers & completed a questionnaire about themselves. -Told the data about themselves (personality,self-esteem etc) & that info would help decide partner (randomly selected in reality). -The hypothesis’ were; -> attractuve people expect attractive partner -> couples equally matched are happier -> person rated partner for attractiveness & compared it with themselves

Answer 6

-Hypothesis not supported. The most liked partners were also the most physical attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account.

Answer 7

-Replicated study but allowed ppts to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness - people tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness. -We *do* seek & choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own. Therefore, choice of partner is a compromise - as we risk rejection by selecting the most attractive people available so we settle for those in our physical league.

Answer 8

-Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable & competent than unattractive people. -So powerful that it persisted even when ppts knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise. This has implications for the political process where there may be dangers for democracy if politicians are judged suitable for office just because they’re considered physically attractive.

Answer 9

-Cunningham et al found women who had large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose & high eye browns were rated as highly atractuve by white, Hispanic & Asian men. -Researchers said what is considered physically attractive is pretty consistent across diff societies. -Attractive features (symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness & this is perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection). Importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level.

Answer 10

-Studied activity logs of a popular online dating site. -Real-world test of matching hypothesis since it measured actual date choices rather than preferences. -Keeps original hypothesis concerning realistic rather than fantasy choices. -Found that online daters had meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. Undermined validity as it contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness.

Answer 11

-Choosing individuals for dating could be considered different to selecting a partner for a romantic relationship. -Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies & found a strong correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners. -Also, just because online daters seem more attractive potential partners doesnt mean that they get them, dating selection may just be ‘fantasy’. Support for matching hypothesis from studies of real-world established romantic partners.

Answer 12

-Most the info highlights the role of physical attractiveness in the initial formation of romantic relationships. -Also evidence that some people don’t attach importance to attractiveness. -Touhey measured sexist attitudes of men & women (using MACHO scale) & found low scores were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the like-ability of potential partners.

Answer 13

-We choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the ‘field of availables’ from which we make our choice. -But, not everyone who’s available is desirable. -They compared attitudes & personalities of student couples in both short term (less than 1-1/2 years) & long term relationships. -Found 3 main filters used to select a partner (social demography, similarity in attitudes & complementarity).

Answer 14

-What influences the chances of partners meeting. -Includes; geographical location/proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion. -Benefit of this is **accessibility.** -Our field of available narrows down due to constraints in social circumstances. -Anyone **too different** is discounted as a potential partner. -This leads to **homogamy**: more likely to form relationship with someone socially or culturally similar, as there’s more in common & similarities are attractive.

Answer 15

-Most important during first 18 months of a relationship. -Couples that have agreement over basic values have deeper connections (link to self-disclosure). -In early stages, couples need to agree on basic values. -Byrne described this as the **law of attraction**: similarity causes attraction. -If there’s no similarity, the relationship is likely to fizzle out.

Answer 16

-More important for long-term relationships. -This level of filter suggests we’re attracted to those who can give us what we lack. -Opposites attract: -> dominant vs submissive -> make you laugh -> to nurture vs be nurtured -This makes the couple feel like they form a ‘whole’ together.

Answer 17

-Observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments for married students. -Students lived across 17 buildings. -Students were 10X as likely to form a friendship with people who lived in their own building. -Most popular people lived nearest to the staircases and post-boxes because they were most likely to be 'bumped' into. Supports social demography and how proximity plays a vital & impactful role in formation of relationships.

Answer 18

Complementary may not be central to all long-term relationships. -Found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied. -Their samples were together for more than 4 1/2 years. -Dijkstra & Barelds studies 760 singles on dating site & found that initially partners wanted a complementary partner, but there was strong correlations between their own personality & their partner’s ideal personality. Suggests similarity of needs rather than complementarity is associated with long-term satisfaction.

Answer 19

Actual similarity matters less than whether partners perceive themselves as similar. -Supported by Montoya’s meta-analysis of 313 studies that found actual similarity affected attraction only in short-term lab studies. -In real-world, perceived similarly was a stronger prediction of attraction. -Tidwell tested this in a speed dating event where he measured actual & perceived similarity with a questionnaire & found perceived predicted romantic liking better. -Partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other. So, perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause.

Answer 20

-Very difficult to replicate the original findings of Kerckoff & Davis. -This is due to social changes over time (ie. dating patterns-online dating/interracial relationships) & also problems in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of length. -Kerckhoff & Davis chose an 18-month cut off point to distinguish short & long term relationships. -Assumed partners who’d been together longer than this were more committed & had a deeper relationship. Means filter theory is undermined by the lack of validity on its evidence base.

Answer 21

-Claimed behaviour in relationships reflects economic assumptions of exchange. -We try to minimise losses & maximise gains (the minimax principle). -Judge satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields, defined as the rewards minus the costs.

Answer 22

-Rewards & costs are subjective, what one person considers a significant reward, another may consider less valuable. -Value of costs and rewards might change over the course of a relationships (ie. something rewarding or costly in early stages might become less as time goes on). -People exchange resources with the hope that they’ll earn a profit (that rewards will exceed costs).

Answer 23

Costs: -effort -time -emotional investment -stress -compromise -opportunity cost (cannot invest your resources elsewhere). Rewards: -emotional support -companionship -physical intimacy -attention -security -status

Answer 24

-Refers to the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get. Develops out of previous relationships experiences which feed into expectations of current one. -Influenced by **social norms** that determine what’s considered ,within a culture, a reasonable level of reward. -CL changes as we acquire more ‘data’ (shows,books) to set it by. -A relationship is considered worth pursuing with a high CL. -Someone with a low self-esteem will have a low CL and be satirised with gaining just a small profit from a relationship, but a high self-esteem will believe they’re worth a lot more.

Answer 25

-Provides wider context for our current relationship where you question if we gain greater rewards from current relationship or an alternative or on own. -ie. “Could I do better?” -SET predicts we’ll stay in our current relationship as long as we believe it’s more rewarding than the alternatives. -Duck says there’s usually ‘plenty more fish in the sea’ so if costs outweigh benefits, alternatives become attractive.

Answer 26

-**Sampling**: We consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time. -**Bargaining**: We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile. -**Commitment:** The relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs. -**Institutionalisation:** The relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.

Answer 27

-Asked gay, lesbian & heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship committment & SET variables. -Found most committed partners perceived the most rewards & fewest costs & alternatives as unattractive. -Demonstrated how main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other. Findings confirm validity & match SET predictions in homosexual couples as well as heterosexual.

Answer 28

-Much research support for role of equity in relationships. -What matters isn’t just the balance of costs & rewards, but the partners perceptions that this is fair. -Neglect of equity means SET is a limited explanation that cannot account for a lot of research findings on relationships.

Answer 29

-Problematic claim that dissatisfaction only arises after a relationship stops being profitable. -Argyle argues we don’t monitor costs & rewards, or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied. -When we’re satisfied & committed to a relationship, we don’t even notice potentially attractive alternatives. Suggests considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse.

Answer 30

-Rewards & costs are defined superficially (ie. money) in order to measure them. -Real-world psychological rewards & costs are subjective & harder to define. -ie. Most people would consider loyalty rewarding but rewards/costs differ for everyone so even loyalty isn’t a reward for some. -Concept of comparison levels is problematic & it’s unclear what the values of CL & CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship. Theory is hard to quantify & test in a valid way.

Answer 31

-SET assumes that relationships are economic in nature (ie. exchange of rewards & costs, profit & loss, constant monitoring to test levels of satisfaction. -SET claims these concepts apply to all relationships. -However, Clark & Mills argue that we cannot apply this to romantic relationships. -Romantic relationships are communal based & they do not ‘keep-score’ because that ruins the trust that underlies a close, emotional relationship.

Answer 32

-SET says behaviour is a series of exchanges - benefits and costs. -Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships. -Happens where both partners’ level of profit is roughly the same. -Any kind of inequity can make people feel distressed (hostility,anger,resentment). -True for both the giver & the receiver. -The overbenefitter may feel guilt, discomfort & shame.

Answer 33

-Equity theory says it’s not the size or amount of rewards or costs rhat matters, but rather the ratio. -If they benefit the same, there’s more satisfaction. -Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly between partners. -Involves making trade offs.

Answer 34

Theory suggests there’s a strong positive correlation between perceived inequity & dissatisfaction. -If equity in relationshio reduces over time, this causes the most dissatisfaction. -At the start, it’s normal to put in a lot of effort & not receive as much. -Over time, if you put in a lot of effort & receive less, you begin to lose interest.

Answer 35

-Surveyed married couples of all ages & who felt their marriages were inequitable because of an unfair division of domestic responsibilities. -Wives reported feeling under-benefitted & husbands over-benefitted during child rearing years. -Dipped marital satisfaction. -However, during honeymoon & after children left home, both husband & wives perceived equity & satisfaction.

Answer 36

-The underbenefitted partner is usually motivated to make sure the relationship is equitable as long as it’s possible to salvage it. -The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they work to restore equity. -They may revise their perceptions of rewards & costs so the relationship feels more equitable to them even if nothing changes. -What was once seen as a cost (thoughtlessness/abuse) is now accepted as the norm.

Answer 37

Not everyone is sensitive to inequity in the same way & some perceive inequity even in equitable relationships while some don’t perceive inequity at all. -Huseman identified 3 categories: benevolents, equity sensitives & entitleds. -Benevolents are ‘givers’ & tend to be more tolerant of under-rewarded inequity. -Equity sensitives behave in accordance with equity theory, experiencing tension when faced with inequity. -Entitleds prefer to over-benefit & think they’re owed benefits and are unsatisfied when under-benefitting or even equitable. -

Answer 38

-Carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples measuring equity with 2 self-report scales. -Ppts aged between 16–45 & were together 2 years before marrying. -Researchers found those who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than over/under-benefitters. Study confirms validity of theory that equity is linked with satisfaction.

Answer 39

-Men and women aren’t really affected by inequity in relationships. -Women tend to perceive themselves as more under-benefitted compared to men & are more disturbed by being under-benefitted than men. -Suggested the reason for this is that women’s greater relationship focus may make them more sensitive to injustices & inequality.

Answer 40

-The theory states equity increases over time & relationship that end, end due to difference in equity. -Other factors are more important (ie. self-disclosure). Undermines validity because equity doesn’t play the role in a relationship (dis)atisfaction that is predicted.

Answer 41

Concept of equity is not as important in non-Western cultures. -Aumer-Ryan et al found there’s cultural links in equity & satisfaction. -Couples from individualist cultures (US) considered relationships most satisfying when equitable. -Partners in collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting (true of men & women). Suggests the theory is inapplicable to all cultures, so not generalisable.

Answer 42

-Development of SET, developed to address gaps in SET. -Model of committment, the model suggests that individuals aren’t actually that focussed on cost vs rewards, instead commitment is lost important.

Answer 43

-Based on the comparison level. -A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards & costs, & is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards (ie. support, sex, companionship) & few costs (ie. conflicts, anxiety). -Each partner generally satisfied they’re getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience & social norms.

Answer 44

-Results in romantic partners asking themselves ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?” -Alternatives include other relationships, but also none at all.

Answer 45

-CL & CLalt isn’t enough because f it was, more relationships would end as soon either the costs outweighed rewards or more attractive alternatives present selves. -Therefore, *investment*influences commitment. -**Intrinsic investments** are any resources we put directly into the relationship. Can be tangible (money/possessions) or hard to quantify and intangible (energy/emotion). -**Extrinsic investments** are resources that previously didn’t feature in the relationshio but now closely associated with it (car/children/friends). Memories (intangible). -Sizes of investment increasing, no alternatives, more rewards = committed to relationship.

Answer 46

-Commitment is main psychological factor causing people to stay in relationships. -Satisfaction is a contributory factor. -The distinction helps explain why someone will stay in an unsatisfactory relationship. -Commitment (as a result of investment) maintains a relationships because they do not want it to go to waste so they’ll work hard to repair relationship. -

Answer 47

When someone feels committed, they carry out maintenance mechanisms to maintain relationship, seen in everyday behaviours. -Aim to promote the realtionship - **accomodation**. -Put partners interests first - **willingness to sacrifice.** -Forgive for offences - **forgiveness.**

Answer 48

Committed partners think about other & potential alternatives in a speciifc & predictable way: -Unrealistically positive about their partner to their face & to others - positive illusions. -Negative about tempting positives & other peoples relationships - **ridiculing alternatives.**

Answer 49

-Meta-analysis of 52 studies which included 11,000 ppts from 5 countries. -Found that satisfaction, CLalt & investment size all predicted relationship commitment. -Relationshios where commitment was greeters were the most stable & lasted longest. -Outcomes true for heterosexual & homosexuals. Suggests there’s validity to claim that these factors are universally important features of a relationship.

Answer 50

-Strong correlation do not allow conclusion that the factors identified by the model *cause* commitment. -It could be that the more committed tou feel, the lore investment you’re willing to make. -Direction of causality could be reversed. Unclear if the model has identified causes of commitment rather than factors associated with it.

Answer 51

Explains intimate partner violence (IPV). -Rusbult & Martz studied domestically abused women & found those most likely to return to an abusive partner, reported having made the greatest investment & fewest attractive alternatives. -These women were dissatisfied with their relationships but still committed to them. Therefore, the model shows how satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships, but commitment & investment are factors too.

Answer 52

Views investment in a simplistic, one-dimensional way. -Goodfriend & Agnew point out there’s more to investment than resources invested. -In early stages, partners will have made few investments. -They extended the model or include investment made through **future plans**. -Means there’s motivation to commit for plans for the future. Means original model is limited and ignores complexities of investment.

Answer 53

-Model supported by self-report methods which can be influenced by biases and subjective beliefs of respondents. -However they may be appropriate measures as what determines commitment, isn’t objective. -Perceptions and beliefs may matter more.

Answer 54

-Suggests the ending of a relationship isn’t a one off event & happens over phases where partners reach thresholds & each threshold changes the perception of the relationship. -Reasons for relationship breakdown: -> **Pre-existing doom** - incompatible from the start. -> **Mechanical failure** - people who are compatible but no longer function together. -> **Sudden death** - a traumatic event (cheating/big argument)

Answer 55

“I can’t stand this anymore” -Private cognitive process where a partner considers own feelings z -They consider shortcomings & problems. -Evaluate alternatives & pros and cons to see if relationship is saveable. -No discussion with partner yet.

Answer 56

“I would be justified in leaving” -Interperosnal processes involving partner - confrontations & conversations. -Complaints are characterised by anger/hostility. -Increased SD, expressing feelings. -If dissatisfaction isn’t resolved, the breaking point is passed & moves onto next stage.

Answer 57

“I really mean it” -Break-up is aired and made public. -Friends & families may choose sides & gossip & social implications (ie. children/assets/house) negotiated. -Chance of relationship survival through intervention. -Point of no return.

Answer 58

“It’s now inevitable” -Ex-partners begin organisation of their post-relationship lives. -May spin favourable stories to keep a rep and *gossip* is prevalent to retain social cred. -Employ self-serving attributional bias and personal story tou can live with. -Traits you liked about partner now interpreted negatively. Then may reach “time to get a new life.”

Answer 59

-Added a fifth phase called the **resurrection phase.** -Ex-partners apply to new relationships what they learnt from previous & ‘glow up’/redefine themselves. -Also argue progression from one phase to the next isn’t inevitable as it’s possible to return to an earlier point in process in any phase. -Processes that occur in relationship breakdown are more important than its linear movement. Therefore, OG model doesn’t account for complexity of its breakdown & its dynamic nature.

Answer 60

Model doesn’t explain how realtionship gets to the point of breakdown. -**Femlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis** argues the cause of breakdown can be account in attractive qualities that brought them together in the first place. -Relationship is threatened by partners getting too much of what they were looking for. -ie. Good sense of humour becomes “he can’t take anything seriously.” Therefore, it has limited explanatory power & oversimplifies depth of breakdown process & no cause.

Answer 61

Suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed. -Recognised different repair strategies that are more effective at some points in the breakdown than others. -Duck recommends that peopoe in the intra-psychic phase coukd be encouraged to focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner. -A feature of the dyadic phase is good communication. These insights can help resolve issues before they elaborate in relationship counselling.

Answer 62

-Mainly based on Western cultures experiences - USA. -Moghaddam states that relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary & frequently come to an end (ie. divorce). -However, collectivist cultures, Relationships tend to be obligatory, less easy to end, involve more family & sometimes even arranged by family. -Therefore, whole concept of romantic relationships differ between cultures & it’s unlikely the breakdown process is identical across cultures. Lacks external validity since it’s not a universal, representative explanation and imposes western norms onto all cultures.

Answer 63

-Most research is retrospective & participants give experiences after relationship has ended. -Means their recall may not always be accurate or reliable, and early stages of breakdown may be distorted or ignored. -Impossible to test phases in the process, where the problems first appear. -Researchers don’t intervene early as their involvement could make things worse & hasten a relationship ending. Therefore, early phases are theorised and hypothesised and are subject to distorted bias & perceptions, faulty memory and a subjective recount.

Answer 64

More SD: -anonymity -escapism -more breadth than depth) -more availability -less intimidating -introverts may feel more confident Less SD: -lack of social cues -lack of physical comfort -hard to assess gebuinity -hard to trust -fear of blackmail -misconstrued info (tone/expressions)

Answer 65

-When we speak face-to-face, we also communicate with non verbal paralanguage, like body language, eye gaze etc. -On the phone, there’s still paralanguage signals (ie. pauses & tone of voice) which can communicate intention. -However, all non-verbal communication is lost on the internet; meaning is dependent only on words & nothing else.

Answer 66

-Computer-mediated communication lacks important non-verbal cues present in face-to-face (FtF) interactions (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice, physical appearance). -The absence of these cues can cause **deindividuation** -a reduction in individual identity. -Deindividuation may lead to disinhibited behaviour, including blunt or aggressive communication. -This impersonal style of communication leads to reluctance in self-disclosing or forming intimate relationships. As a result, CMC relationships are considered less effective and intimate than FtF ones.

Answer 67

-Online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure. -Because CMC relationships develop quicker as disclosure happens earlier and once established, they’re more intense & intimate. -But, this means they can also end quicker because of the high excitement level of interactions isn’t matched by level of trust. -Cooper and Sportolari call this ‘boom & bust’.

Answer 68

-**Selective self-presentation:** the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than in FTF. Means self-disclosures can either be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest. -Receiver has a positive impression of the sender and may give feedback that reinforces the senders selective self-presentation (“you sound like a happy person”). -**Anonymity** (Bargh et al): says the outcome of this is like the strangers in a train accountable for your behaviour, so you may as well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than your most intimate partner.

Answer 69

**Gate:** features that interfere with the early development of a relationship (ie. physical unattractiveness/stutter/shyness etc). -FtF interaction is gated since it involves features interfering with esrly development. -CMC means an absence of gating, so relationships can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes frequent & deeper. -Absence of gating works by focussing attention on self-disclosure not superficial things & being more interested in what someone tells you than what they look like. -Intimacy develops & then the gate may be revealed but won’t matter as much now. A limitation of this is that anyone can create an ‘avatar’ to represent themselves in a virtual reality that isn’t a reflection of them (ie. introvert becomes extravert).

Answer 70

-People in online interactions use other cues (ie. style/timing). -VRs can be just as nuanced as face-to-face (FtF) ones, with acronyms (e.g., LOL), and emojis used as substitutes for non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice). This suggests that virtual relationships can be just as personal as FtF relationships, challenging reduced cues theory which argues that virtual relationships are less effective.

Answer 71

Conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies comparing self-disclosures in FtF and virtual interactions. -Self-report studies: Showed greater self-disclosure in FtF relationships (more frequency, breadth, and depth). -Experimental studies: Showed no significant differences between FtF and virtual relationships in terms of self-disclosure. Challenges the hyperpersonal model, which claims that virtual relationships should foster greater intimacy and deeper self-disclosures than FtF.

Answer 72

Whitty & Joinson found differences in self-presentation between FtF and virtual relationships: -Online discussions tend to involve direct, probing, and intimate questions (hyperhonest). -FtF conversations often involve more small talk. -Online profiles can also be hyperdishonest (e.g., people exaggerating their qualities in dating profiles). Supports the model’s idea of hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures, showing that FtF and virtual relationships differ in self-presentation.

Answer 73

-McKenna & Bargh found that shy, lonely, and socially anxious people benefit from VRs because they can express their "true selves" more freely than in FtF situations. -71% of romantic relationships formed by shy people online lasted at least two years, compared to 49% in offline relationships (Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994). This suggests that the absence of gating factors (social barriers) in virtual relationships benefits these individuals.

Answer 74

-Walther (2011) argues that theories like the hyperpersonal model and absence of gating fail to consider that relationships are multimodal, meaning they occur both online and offline. -What individuals disclose in virtual relationships is influenced by their offline interactions, and vice versa.

Answer 75

-Parasocial relationships with celebrities are missing the reciprocity that’s involved in a relationships. -The target individuals are unaware of the existence of the person who created the relationship. -These may be appealing to a fan since; no rejection, don’t need to disclose info, romanticised view of celeb, few demands & risk. -A parasocial relationship is more likely if; person is attractive, viewer is female, low self-esteemed, shy and lonely with a lack of social skills.

Answer 76

-**McCutcheon developed the Celebrity attitude scale (CAS) & Matlby et al identified levels. -Entertainment social is the least intense level, where celebs are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction. -ie. Friends may take interest in soap operas and discuss them. -Giles found that parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices.

Answer 77

-Intermediate level reflecting a greater personal involvement. -Intense feelings and thoughts about the celeb. -ie. A Kim K fan may have a frequent obsession & believe they’re her soulmate.

Answer 78

-Strongest level of celeb worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies & extreme behaviours. -Might include spending a large sum of money on a celeb-related object, or being willing to perform some illegal act on the celeb say-so’s.

Answer 79

-Linked levels approach to deficiencies in people’s lives. -ie. Someone may have a low self-esteem & lack fulfilment. Or someone may be triggered by a life crisis and the parasocial relationship allows them to ‘escape from reality’. -**Absorption:** seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, to become preoccupied with the celebrity and to identify with them. -**Addiction:** like a physiological addiction to a drug, the individual needs to increase their 'dose' in order to gain satisfaction. This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.

Answer 80

-Bowlby’s attachment theory suggests that early attachment issues can lead to emotional difficulties later in life (in this case, parasocial relationships). -Ainsworth (1979) identified 2 attachment types linked to unhealthy emotional development: -**Insecure-resistant** types are most likely to form parasocial relationships, as they seek unfulfilled needs in relationships without the risks of rejection, break-up, or disappointment. -**Insecure-avoidant** types prefer to avoid relationships altogether, including parasocial ones, to prevent the pain and rejection associated with real-life relationships. -**Secure** tend to have satisfactory real-life relationships & don’t seek parasocial ones.

Answer 81

-McCutcheon et al. (2016) used the CAS to measure parasocial relationships and assessed participants’ issues in intimate relationships. -Ppts with borderline-pathological or intense-personal parasocial relationships showed high anxiety in intimate relationships, while those at the entertainment-social level did not (though some relationship issues were still present). This supports the idea that the levels model can predict actual behaviour.

Answer 82

-The absorption-addiction model suggests that deficiencies (e.g., poor body image) predispose individuals to parasocial relationships. -Malty et al found that girls aged 14-16 who had intense-personal parasocial relationships with a celebrity they admired for body shape often had poor body image, which could contribute to eating disorders. Supports prediction that parasocial relationships are linked to poor psychological functioning and the intensity of the relationship.

Answer 83

-Attachment theory can explain why people worldwide form parasocial relationships. -Dinkha et al compared collectivist (Kuwait) and individualist (US) cultures and found that insecure attachment types were more likely to form intense parasocial relationships in both cultures. -Schmid & Klimmt report using online questionnaires, similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter in an individualist culture (Germany) & collectivist (Mexico). Attachment type is a universal explanation for the desire to form parasocial relationships.

Answer 84

-In a study of 299 American participants, attachment security did not affect the likelihood of forming parasocial relationships with celebrities. This suggests that parasocial relationships are not necessarily a way of compensating for attachment issues.

Answer 85

-Correlational studies do not show causal relationships. -ie. Cannot be concluded that anxiety in relationships causes parasocial involvement; the direction of causality could be the opposite, or a third factor could influence both variables. -Despite this, correlations suggest links between variables, and such methods may be the only option for studying everyday behaviour.

Relationship Flashcards

(109 cards)