Relationships Flashcards

Question

The Importance of Self-Disclosure - 3 Points

Answer 1

- Reis and Shaver - say that for a relationship to develop, there needs to be breadth and depth of disclosure, but also reciprocal disclosure - Reciprocal disclosure involves one partner disclosing something about their true self and their partner responding in a rewarding way, with understanding, empathy and their own thoughts and feelings - In a successful romantic relationship, there will be a balance of self-disclosure between partners, which increases intimacy

Answer 2

- Have more control of situation - Identity management - creating the desired impression - Potential for reciprocity - Enhance or maintain relationship - Catharsis - getting it off our chest - Clarification and talking things out

Answer 3

- Potential loss of influence or power - Potential of being rejected - Potential of creating a negative impression of the self - Revealing the wrong thing that could decrease relationship satisfaction - Embarrassment - Upsetting someone

Answer 4

- Sprecher and Hendrick - Strong correlation between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure, from both the self and their partner, for heterosexual couples - Sprecher et al - relationships were closer and more satisfying when disclosure is reciprocal - Gives credibility to the idea that closer and more satisfying relationships will be marked by self-disclosure - However, research in this area is only correlational, so a cause and effect relationship cannot be established - Self disclosure may not cause satisfaction, satisfaction may cause self-disclosure - Or, self-disclosure and satisfaction may both be independent, and there could be a third factor that cause both and makes them appear linked

Answer 5

- Laurence et al - participants wrote daily diary entries, and found self-disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner was linked with higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples - Reverse also true - there was less self-disclosure for less intimate couples - Gives credibility to the idea that closer, more satisfying relationships will be marked by self-disclosure - However, the diary entries could be affected by biases, such as social desirability bias - The studies would lack internal validity, so SPT may not be credible

Answer 6

- Breadth and depth of self-disclosure may not lead to more satisfying relationships in all cultures and type of disclosure could be very important - Tang et al - men and women in the USA make significantly more sexual self-disclosures than men and women in China, where there was no significant difference in satisfaction levels - Theory that self-disclosures cause satisfaction may be cultural bound to Western countries or specific to certain types of disclosure

Answer 7

Disclosures about feelings towards specific sexual practices

Answer 8

- SPT suggests intimacy increases as disclosures get broader and deeper - It also suggests that relationship breakdown leads to depenetration - Other theories suggest relationship breakdown involves signeted disclosure - negotiation and discussion involving deep and intimate disclosures to try and save a relationship - The role of self-disclosure in relationship breakdown is inconsistent across theories, which reduces the reliability of social penetrate theory

Answer 9

- Romantic partners can learn to use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully to increase intimacy, which is especially helpful to relationships built on small talk - Hass and Stratford - 57% of gay men and women said deep and honest disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationship - Research into self-disclosure has practical value, and can be used to enhance people's real life relationships

Answer 10

Specifically relates to how appealing we find a person's face, which is generally agreed upon within and between cultures

Answer 11

'Baby-face' features, such as big eyes, delicate chin, and small nose

Answer 12

The tendency to believe everything about someone is positive because they have one positive characteristic, and they attribute that positivity to other unrelated characteristics

Answer 13

When we think everything about someone is positive because they are physically attractive

Answer 14

- Self-disclosure - Physical attractiveness - Filter theory

Answer 15

- Shackleford and Larsen - symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive as they are an honest signal of genetic fitness - Neotenous features could trigger a protective/caring instinct which is valuable for females wanting to reproduce - McNulty et al - physical attraction is not only important for attraction and relationship formation, but continues to be an important feature of relationships several years after marriage

Answer 16

- The Physical Attractiveness Stereotype can be summed up with the phrase 'what is beautiful is good' - Dion et al - found physically attractive people were consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people - We believe attractive people have these positive qualities, which makes them even more attractive, so we behave positively towards them - a self fulfilling prophecy

Answer 17

- Despite finding physical attractiveness desirable and agreeing on what is physically attractive, we cannot all form relationships with the most attractive people - Walster et al - proposed the matching hypothesis, which says we choose a romantic partner with a similar attractiveness level to us - This relies on us making a realistic judgement of our own 'value' to a potential partner - The same can be said for our personality and intelligence - Romantic partner choice is a compromise, as we desire the most physically attractive partner, but balance this against the risk of rejection from someone 'out of our league' - We start at the 'top of our league' and then work our way down if rejected - For example, if we're a '6', we might go for a '7', but not a '9' - if a '7' rejects us, we might settle for another '6'

Answer 18

Our own attractiveness has a role in our choice of romantic partner

Answer 19

- Palmer and Peterson - physically attractive people rates as more politically knowledgable and competent than unattractive people - Even true when they knew these people had no particular expertise - Implications for political process/democracy if politicians are seen as suitable due to appearance - Increases credibility of the idea that we perceive people as positive due to good looks - Supports the importance of physical attractiveness in formation of romantic relationships

Answer 20

- Walster at al - conducted 'the computer dance' study, were male and female participants were invited to a dance, and rated by observers at the start and completed questionnaires about themselves - Told questionnaire data would decide a partner for them, but actually random - Findings were inconsistent with the matching hypothesis, as the most liked partners were ones that were physically attractive, rather than ones who 'matched' one another - Taylor et al - studied activity logs of online dating sites, measuring date choices rather than preferences - Daters sought meetings with partners more physically attractive than them, rather than someone who was ‘in their league’ - Fails to support central prediction that we account for our own attractiveness when selecting a partner - May still suggest physical attractiveness is an important factor affecting attraction, but not in the way predicted by the matching hypothesis

Answer 21

- Walster et al’s original study failed, but attractiveness measurements were unreliable, as raters only had a few seconds to judge participants’ attractiveness - Bersched et al - replicate the study but allowed participants to select their partner from a range of people varying in attractiveness levels - Tended to select those who roughly matched them - Feingold - meta-analysis of 17 studies, which showed a significant correlation in rating of attractiveness between romantic partners - Strong methodology as studies looked at actual partners rather than dating choices - Gives credibility to the idea that we account for own attractiveness when selection a partner - Supports importance of physical attractiveness in formation of romantic relationships

Answer 22

- Touhey - males and females asked how much they would like an individual based on a photo and some biological information - Also completed a MACHO scale, which measures sexist attitudes and behaviours - Those who scored highest on MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness when judging likeability, than those with low scores - The importance of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and may not be a universally important factor affecting attraction

Answer 23

- Cunningham et al - females with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were rated attractive by White, Hispanic, and Asian males - Suggests there are consistent ideas on what is physically attractive - Wheeler and Kim - Korean and American students judged attractive people as more trustworthy, concerned for others, mature, and friendly - Physical Attractiveness Stereotype is strong in both collectivist and individualist cultures - Fixed ideas of physical attractiveness are consistent with evolutionary theory, such as facial symmetry as an 'honest signal' of genetic fitness - Physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction appears to be universally important

Answer 24

Explanation of relationship formation stating a series of factors progressively limit the range of available romantic partners to a smaller pool of possibilities

Answer 25

- Kerchoff and Davis - compared attitudes/personalities of student couples in relationship shorter than 18 months and couples in relationships longer than 18 months - Devised filter theory from this to explain how romantic relationships form - Says we have a field of availables (everyone we could realistically form a relationship with), but they're not all desirable to us - Field of availables is narrowed down trough 3 levels of a filter to a field of desirables - Each level of filter has differing levels of important at each stage of a relationship

Answer 26

- Social demography - Similarity of attitudes - Complementarity

Answer 27

- Social demographic factors affect the chances of potential partners meeting one another in the first place - Examples include geographical location, proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group and religion - We are much more likely to meet people physically close to use who share demographic characteristics with us - Most meaningful/memorable interactions happen with people nearby - Proximity allows for accessibility, and doesn't require much effort to people who live in the same area, go to the same school/university etc - Wide range of potential partners, but realistic field is much narrower as our choices are constrained by social circumstances - Anyone too different will be discounted as a potential partner - Outcome of this is homogamy, where we are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is culturally/socially similar to us, and tend to find these shared similarities attractive - Important at the beginning of a relationship

Answer 28

- Partners often share important beliefs/values - Similarity of attitudes is important for relationship formation, but only for couples who'd been together less than 18 months - In early stages, partners need to agree over basic values to encourage communication and self-disclosure - Bryne - the 'law of attraction, where similarities causes attraction

Answer 29

- Involves romantic partners meeting one another's needs and balancing each other out - Two partners complement one another when they have traits the other lacks - Kerchoff and Davis - found complementarity was important for long term couples in the later stages of the relationship - Important because it appears as though a couple form a whole, which adds depth to the relationship

Answer 30

- Kerchoff and Davis - longitudinal study, where both partners in couple completed questionnaires assessing similarity in values/attitudes and complementarity of needs - Closeness of relationship was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later - Closeness associated with similarity of values, but only for those together less than 18 months - For long term couples, closeness was better predicted by complementarity of needs - Key factor in theory is that relationships change over time, which is in line with most people's experiences of romantic relationships - Research support increases credibility of filter theory - Filter theory seems to make sense, according to most people's experience gives theory face validity

Answer 31

- Levinger - many studies have failed to replicate findings that originally informed filter theory - Attributes to social change over time and difficulties in defining relationship depth by its length - Assumes long term couples are more committed, and have deeper relationships - Reduced reliability of research supporting filter theory, reducing the credibility of the theory

Answer 32

- Filter theory assumes initial attraction is due to demographic and attitudinal similarity - Anderson et al - emotional convergence effect found in longitudinal research, where cohabiting partners became more similar in emotional responses over time - Davis and Rusbult - attitude alignment effect found in longer term relationships - Suggests similarity is an effect of initial attraction, rather than the cause - Conflicting research reduces the credibility of filter theory

Answer 33

- Formation of romantic relationships in modern day is very different to the past, especially due to dating apps - Apps have reduced importance of many social demographic variables - Possible physical attractiveness has become a more important factor affecting attraction - Filter theory may lack temporal validity, suggesting it becomes less accurate over time with social change

Answer 34

- May not be central to all long-term relationships - Markey and Markey - assessed lesbian couples of equal dominance, and found couples who had been romantically involved for an average of 4.5 years were the most satisfied - Similarity of needs may be more important for long term attraction - Reduces credibility of filter theory, as research fails to support the central prediction

Answer 35

- Proposed by Thibault and Kelly - Economic theory - assumes people in romantic relationships seek exchanges which balances costs and rewards

Answer 36

- Minimax principle - try to minimise losses and maximise gains in our relationship - Judge relationship satisfaction based on how profitable it is - Profit = rewards - costs - Rewards and costs are subjective - Value of costs and rewards can change over the course of the relationship - Rewards are beneficial things - Relationships aren't always positive - Blau - describes relationships as 'expensive' as there are costs involved too, such as time, stress, energy, and compromise - Relationships also involve opportunity cost - investment of time/energy in current relationship means using resources you cannot invest elsewhere

Answer 37

- Amount of reward we believe we deserve - Affected by previous relationships, social norms, and the media - With more relationship experience, our CL changes as we acquire more 'data' to know where to set it - If our Cl is high and satisfied in a relationship, we see the relationship as worth pursuing - Linked closely to self-esteem - Someone with low self-esteem will have a low CL, so will be satisfied with gaining a small amount of profit or even a loss - Someone with high self-esteem will believe they are 'worth' a lot more

Answer 38

- Comparison level - Comparison level for alternatives

Answer 39

- Involves asking ourselves whether we think we could get greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship, or from being single - Most relationships in Western culture are monogamous, so we ask ourselves if we could find someone better - We will only stay in current relationship as long as we believe it's more profitable than alternatives - Duck - the CLalt we have depends on the state of our current relationship - If costs of our current relationship outweigh rewards, alternatives become more attractive - If we're satisfied in our relationship, we may not even notice available alternatives

Answer 40

- 4 stages, with social exchanges differing between them - Stages - sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation

Answer 41

Explore costs/rewards of social exchange by experimenting within them in our own relationships, or by observing others

Answer 42

Beginning to the relationship - partners start exchanging costs/rewards and negotiating what is profitable

Answer 43

Over time, sources of cost/reward become more predictable, which stabilises relationships as rewards increase and costs lessen

Answer 44

Partners settled down, and costs/rewards are firmly established

Answer 45

- Kurdeck - gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples completed questionnaires measuring commitment and SET variables - Partners most committed perceived the most rewards/fewest costs, and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive - Variables also predicted commitment separately, which indicates strength in the theory - Increases credibility of all elements of SET

Answer 46

- Clark and Mills - rejected economic metaphor used in SET, as it does't distinguish between two types of relationships - Exchange relationships - involve social exchanges, like work colleagues - Communal relationships - involve giving and receive rewards without keeping score, such as romantic partners - SET says we constantly monitor costs and rewards, but in most cases this would cause partners to doubt the type of commitment the other wants - SET based on faulty assumptions, making theory weak and most likely limited to explaining minority of relationships only

Answer 47

- SET says dissatisfaction happens when we recognise that our costs outweigh benefits or that there are more attractive alternatives - Argule - suggests we don't constantly monitor costs/rewards or consider attractiveness of alternatives, until we are dissatisfied with the relationship - Research suggests dissatisfaction comes first - Miller - people who rated themselves as highly committed to relationship spent less time looking at pictures of attractive people - Less time looking was a good predictor that the relationship would still be active two months later - Central prediction of theory is not supported by research, leading to loss of credibility

Answer 48

- Suggests main concern in relationships for SET is comparison level, which ignores the important concept of fairness for most couples - Most research supports role of equity in relationships, suggests it is more important than the balance of costs and rewards - Makes SET a limited explanation, as it cannot account for large proportion of relationships research - Also reduces face validity, as most would reject this theory at surface level for failing to recognise equity

Answer 49

- SET concepts are hard to quantify, as psychological costs/rewards are hard to define due to subjectivity - CL and CLalt are problematic, as it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens the relationship - SET lacks clarity due to vagueness and lack of operationalisation, making the theory less scientific

Answer 50

- Fairness in the relationship - Walster - what matters most is that both partners's level of profit is roughly the same - When there is a lack of equity, one partner over-benefits and one under-benefits, which creates dissatisfaction - Satisfaction is the result of perceived fairness - Under-benefitted partners are likely to feel the most dissatisfied - may feel angry, hostile, resentment, and humiliation - Over-benefitted partners may also feel dissatisfied - may feel guilt, shame, and discomfort

Answer 51

- Size/amount of rewards/costs is not important - The important thing is the ratio of one to the other - If one partner puts in a lot, but also gets a lot out, it will seem fair - Example: one partner might be better at the physical aspects of maintaining a relationship, whilst the other is better at the emotional aspects - Satisfying relationships involve negation to ensure equity, which ensures rewards are distributed fairly between partners

Answer 52

- A partner who is the subject of inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied in the relationship, if the situation continues for long enough - The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction - Theory predicts a strong positive correlation between these variables for both the over and under-benefitted partners - Change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on is the thing that makes us the most dissatisfied - May feel normal to contribute more than you receive at the start of a relationship, but may not feel as satisfying if it continues

Answer 53

- Behavioural - Cognitive

Answer 54

- Under-benefitted partner may work hard to make the relationship more equitable if they believe it is possible - May withdraw some of what they put in, or directly address the lack of equity with partner - More unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will have to work to restore the equity

Answer 55

- Under-benefitted partner may revise perceptions of costs/rewards so relationship seems more equitable to them, even if nothing changes - What was once a cost, may now be accepted as the norm - Ranges from minor things, like untidiness, to major things like abuse

Answer 56

- Studies of real-life relationships show equity is a more valid explanation than SET - Utne et al - survey of 118 recently married couples measuring equity with 2 self-report scales - Couples ranged from 16 - 45 years old, and had all been together for at least 2 years before marriage - Couples who considered relationship to be more equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over or under-benefitting - Increases credibility of theory, and shows how it withstands more attempts at falsification than SET - Research is correlational only, so cannot prove equity causes satisfaction

Answer 57

- Assumes equity is a fundamental need in human relationships - Aumer-Ryan et al - found cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction - Couples in the USA were more satisfied when the relationship was equitable, whilst partners in Jamaica were more satisfied when over-benefitting and was true in both men and women - May be ethnocentric by judging 'normal' behaviour through the lens of Western culture, making it culturally bound

Answer 58

- Not all partners are concerned about achieving equity - Huseman et al - some people are less sensitive to the need for equity in relationships - Some people are prepared to under-benefit - call these people benevolents - Some people are prepared to over-benefit without feelings of guilt or distress - call them entitleds - Reduces credibility of equity theory by suggesting it is not a universal need in relationships

Answer 59

- Clark and Mills - equity varies in importance deepening on the type of relationship - Equity seems to play a central role in causal friendships, relationships with colleagues, and between acquaintances - Evidence for role of equity in romantic relationships is much more mixed - Many studies have questioned the link between equity and satisfaction - Theory may be oversimplified - may require more complexity in categorising types of relationship and assessing the role of equity in each

Answer 60

- Theory claims that satisfying relationships will become even more equitable over time - Berg and McQuinn - found equity did not increase, in a longitudinal study of dating couples - Also does not distinguish between relationships that ended compared to relationships that continued - Other variables were more important, such as self-disclosure - Reduces credibility of theory and suggests its role in relationship satisfaction is minimal at best, compared to other relationship features

Answer 61

- Economic theory which says there is more to relationships than just the balance of costs and rewards, and maybe even more than equity - Suggests most important thing in relationships is commitment level - Influenced by: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, and investment size

Answer 62

- A satisfying relationship is judged by weighing up costs and rewards - Relationship is seen as profitable if they have many rewards and few costs - Each partner is generally satisfied if they feel they are getting what they think they deserve, based on past relationships and social norms

Answer 63

- Romantic partners consider whether a different relationship could meet their needs better, and whether they would be more rewarding and less costly - Alternatives include relationships with other people or being single

Answer 64

- Rusbult - there must be more to commitment than CL and CLalt, otherwise many relationships would end sooner - Investment - the extent and importance of resources associated with the relationship - Intrinsic investments - resources we directly put into the relationship - Extrinsic investments - things that are brought into people's lives through the relationship - Tangible - physical possessions - Intangible - non-physical possessions

Answer 65

- Main factor affecting whether people stay in a relationship is commitment, not satisfaction - Can help explain why people who are dissatisfied stay in relationships - May have made an investment they do not want to lose, so they work hard to maintain or repair the damaged relationships, rather than leave it

Answer 66

- Commitment is shown in everyday maintenance behaviours (behavioural) - accommodation, willingness to sacrifice, and forgiveness - Also shown in way that partner's think about one another and potential alternatives (cognitive) - positive illusions, and ridiculing alternatives - Accommodation - partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation, rather act in a way that promotes the relationship - Willingness to sacrifice - putting partner's interests first - Forgiveness - we forgive partners for their mistakes - Positive illusions - usually unrealistically positive about their relationship - Ridiculing alternatives - negative about tempting alternatives and other people's relationships

Answer 67

- Le and Agnew - conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies and 11,000 participants from 5 countries - Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size all predicted commitment - Relationships where commitment was greatest, were the most stable and lasted the longest - True for men and women, across all cultures, and for heterosexual and same-sex relationships - Very powerful combination of data with large sample increases credibility and increases confidence in ability to generalise it widely - Research is correlational only - Strong correlations exits between CL, CLalt, investment, and satisfaction, but cannot prove that these cause commitment - Direction of causality could be wrong

Answer 68

- Goodfriend and Agnew - more to investment than just resources already put into the relationship - In the early stages of the relationship, partners have probably made a few actual investments and may not even live together, but are still committed to the relationship - Extended the model by including investments that romantic partners make in future plans - committed to one another as they want to see if their cherished plans for the future work out - Limited model as it doesn't acknowledge the true complexity of investment and how planning for the future affects commitment

Answer 69

- Clear that people do not stay in abusive relationships due to CL and CLalt, as they are not getting what they deserve and likely have other relationships which would be more profitable - Rusbult and Martz - studied women in shelters who had been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) - Found those most likely to return to abusive partner had reported making greater investments and having few attractive alternatives - Has explanatory power that other economic theories of romantic relationships do not, as it can explain real life phenomena

Answer 70

- Lots of research supporting the model relies on self-repot measures - Despite biases, the methods are appropriate, as the objective reality of things like 'investment size' doesn't matter, but individual's perception of these factors - Most important thing influencing commitment is whether people feel they have made a big investment or whether they believe they abbe attractive alternatives or not, rather than what the researcher thinks - Methodologically-appropriate studies used to support the model, making the theory more valid and reflective of subjective experiences of real-life relationships

Answer 71

- Duck proposed a phase model of relationship breakdown - break-ups are not a one-off event but a process that goes through 4 distinct phases - Each phase involves one or more partners reaching a 'threshold' where the perception of the relationship changes, usually for the worse - Journey to break up starts when a partner sees that they are dissatisfied with the relationship

Answer 72

- Intra-psychic phase - Dyadic phase - Social phase - Grave-dressing phase

Answer 73

- Threshold - " I can't stand this anymore", partner recognises something needs to change - Focus - cognitive processes in dissatisfied partner - Partner dwells on reasons for dissatisfaction - Partner thinks privately or may share with a trusted friend - Weigh up pros and cons of relationships and start to evaluate these against prospect of being in a different relationship or being alone

Answer 74

- Threshold - "I would be justified in withdrawing from this relationship" - Focus - interpersonal processes between 2 partners - Partners cannot avoid talking about problems - series of confrontations over time, where relationship discussed and dissatisfaction aired - Confrontations marked by hostility, anxiety, complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles, and re-thinking commitment that kept them together - 2 possible outcomes - continued breaking up of relationship or renewed desire to repair it - If rescue attempts fail, the next 'threshold' is reached - Self-disclosure is seen to become deeper here as partners express thoughts/feelings they had been withholding in the intra-psychic phase

Answer 75

- Threshold - "I mean it" - Focus - wider processes involving couple's social network - Break-up now public - couples seek support and create pacts - Mutual friends must 'pick a side' and divisions are formed - Gossip traded and encouraged - Some friends reinforce/reassure - "you were too good for him anyway" - Other friends judge and blame one of the partners - Some speed up end of relationship by revealing information that was a secret - Others may try to repair relationship, acting as a 'go-between' - Usually point of no return - break-up gains momentum due to social forces

Answer 76

- Threshold - "It's now inevitable" - Focus - aftermath of the relationship - Relationship is over and each partner must construct their version of why the relationship broke down - usually involves minimising their faults and maximising partners faults to save face and retain positive reputations - La Gaipa - it is crucial each partner tries to retain some social credit by blaming circumstances, others, or their ex-partner - Involves creating a personal story you can live with, which might be different from the public one - tidying up memories and re-writing history - Traits once seen as endearing are now interpreted much less favourably - Dissatisfied partner finally concludes "it's time to get a new life"

Answer 77

- Rollie and Duck - say process of breakdown does not just stop after grave-dressing phase, and there is a further step known as the resurrection phase - Resurrection phase involves learning from previous relationship and trying not to do the same thing in next relationship - Original model doesn't acknowledge dynamic nature of break-ups - Update model further emphasises the importance of processes in relationship breakdown, such as the role of gossip in the social phase, rather than just simple movement between phases - Makes it clear that progression from one stage to the next is not inevitable or always linear - Credibility of Duck's original phase model reduced, as it is missing key elements and is over simplistic

Answer 78

- Participants generally give experiences of breakdown quite some time after relationship has ended - retrospective reporting - Data they give may not be accurate or reliable - facts may be distorted, changed, or forgotten altogether - Duck says this is an important part of the grave-dressing phase - Internal validity of research supporting Duck's model is low, which begs the question of whether the model is credible - However, early relationship breakdown is hard to study, especially ethically - Psychologists' involvement can make things worse, and would not be protecting their participants from harm

Answer 79

- Model helps us understand stages of breakdown, but also how to reverse it - Sees different repair strategies as more effective at particular points - Example: partners in intra-pyshic phase could be encouraged to focus on positive aspects of their partner - Insights are useful in areas like relationship counselling - Model has practical value, as it can be used to increase the sustainability of relationships, by suggesting repair strategies and when they'd be useful

Answer 80

- Model and most research it's based on was developed through experiences of Western relationships - Moghaddam et al - point out relationships in individualist cultures strongly differ from relationships in collectivist cultures - Individualist cultures are usually marked by voluntary relationships that frequently come to an end, whilst collectivist cultures are more likely to involve obligatory relationships that are less easy to end, and involve wide family networks - Highly unlikely that the process of relationship breakdown is identical across cultures due to relationship experiences contrasting so strongly - Makes Duck's model ethnocentric and reduces the validity of claims that it's a universal explanation for relationship breakdown

Answer 81

- Model explains what happens when relationships break down, rather than why it happens - Flemlee - Fatal Attraction Hypothesis gives the explanation that Duck fails to offer - Says attractive qualities that initially bring partners together end up causing the relationship to fail - Relationships threatened by getting too much of what they were looking for - e.g. a good sense of humour may become an instability to take anything seriously - Makes Duck's theory a partial explanation of relationship breakdown, due to over-simplicity - However, these theories may not be mutually exclusive - Could be combined to explain why relationships breakdown and how

Answer 82

- Relationships researchers have known for a long time that self-disclosure is important for face to face (FtF) relationships - Now considering its role in virtual relationships - Reasons for less disclosure in virtual relationships - things can be edited, on record, and fear of blackmailing/trolling/catfishing - Reasons for more disclosure in virtual relationships - anonymity, don't know your friends and families, more time to think about what you say, less embarrassing

Answer 83

- Sproull and Kiesler - say virtual relationships are less effective than FtF relationships due to the lack of cues - Cues can be non-verbal or emotional - Leads to de-individuation, which encourages disinhibition in relating others - Therefore, virtual relationships often involve blunt, even aggressive, communication - Cause people to feel reluctant to self-disclose as they fear becoming a victim of verbal violence or they don't want a relationship with someone so impersonal

Answer 84

Reduced sense of individual identity

Answer 85

- Proposed by Walther - Says online relationships are often more personal and involve greater disclosure than FtF relationships - Self-disclosure tends to happen very early in virtual relationships, so they often develop quickly and become intense/intimate rapidly - Also end quickly as level of excitement not matched by level of trust between partners - called the 'boom and bust' phenomena by Cooper and Sportolari - Self disclosure can be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest - 2 key aspects of promoting self disclosure in virtual relationships - selective-self presentation and anonymity

Answer 86

- Have time to manipulate image/message - People have more control over what they disclose and cues they send online - Easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy and present themselves in a positive way - Often reinforced by the recipient of the message

Answer 87

- Bargh - says this is comparable to the 'strangers on a train' effect in FtF relationships - When we know people who do not know our identity we feel less accountable for our behaviour so may well disclose more

Answer 88

- FtF interactions are gated, as there are lots of features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship - McKenna and Bargh - big advantage of virtual relationships is the absence of gating - Absence of gating allows relationship to develop to point of frequent/deep disclosures by refocusing attention onto the self-disclosure rather than superficial distracting features which play a role in FtF interactions - We care more about what a person is saying rather than how they look or how they say it - Allows us to create online identities we can never manage in FtF relationships - can be a risk or a benefit

Answer 89

An obstacle to the formation of a romantic relationship, such as physical unattractiveness, a stammer, or social anxiety

Answer 90

- Reduced cues theory wrong to say nonverbal cues are missing from virtual interactions - they aren't active, just different - Walther and Tidwell - say people rely on other cues, such as style and timing of message, as taking the right amount of time to reply to promote intimacy and not snub the partner - Just as nuanced as FtF interactions - Text talk and emojis are seen as adequate substitutions for tone of voice and facial expressions - Reduced cues theory limited and overly simplistic, as virtual interactions can be just as emotional and intimate as FtF interactions

Answer 91

- Meta-analytic research has challenged the model - Ruppel et al analysed 25 studies comparing self-disclosure in FtF and virtual interactions - Found frequency, breadth, and depth of disclosure all greater in FtF interactions in self-report studies - No significant differences between FtF and virtual interactions in experimental research - Contradicts view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships creates more, deeper self-disclosures than FtF relationships - Challenges credibility of hyperpersonal model

Answer 92

- Self-disclosure online depends heavily on the platform being used to communicate - On social networking sites, people usually have offline relationships with contacts - Paine - found people will disclose more in a Facebook status update than they would in an e-commerce webform - In online dating, partners generally anticipate FtF interaction at some point, so self-disclosure is generally reduced, compared to chatrooms or gaming sites - Any theory that approaches virtual interactions as one concept without splitting them down into different types is over-simplistic - Doesn't acknowledge the richness or variety of virtual interactions

Answer 93

- Walther - says any theory attempting to explain virtual interactions must acknowledge the fact that most relationships in the modern day have online and offline elements - What we disclose online affects our offline interactions, and vice versa - It is rarely a straightforward matter of either.or, in terms of online or in person, but many theories in this area attempt to simplify virtual relationships in this way - Most theories are too simplistic - Field of research may also lack temporal validity, as most relationships have become multimodal

Answer 94

- McKenna and Bargh - found for lonely and socially anxious people, virtual interactions allowed them to express their 'true selves' more than they could in FtF situations - Of romantic relationships formed online, 70% survived longer than 2 years - higher proportion than those formed offline - Supports the idea that a major strength of virtual relationships is the absence of gating for lonely and socially anxious people, where anxiety would normally interfere with FtF interactions - Increases credibility of claim that virtual relationships are marked by an absence of gating - Allows relationships to 'get off the ground' in ways that would not be possible in offline interactions

Answer 95

- Similar to normal relationships but are one-sided and unreciprocated - Often with a celebrity - the fan spends a lot of time, energy, and commitment on them

Answer 96

- McCutcheon et al - devised the 'Celebrity Attitude Scale' to assess parasocial relationships - Maltby et al - used the scale in a large survey to identify 3 levels of parasocial relationship - Each linked to a different attitude or behaviour

Answer 97

- Entertainment-social - Intense-personal - Borderline-pathological

Answer 98

- Least intense level of celebrity worship - Celebrities seen as source of entertainment and fuel for social interaction - Giles - parasocial relationships found to be a fruitful source of office gossip

Answer 99

- Intermediate level of celebrity worship - Greater personal involvement - May include obsessive thoughts and feelings

Answer 100

- Strongest level of celebrity worship - Uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours - May spend lots of money on celebrity-related objects or committing illegal behaviour on the celebrity's request

Answer 101

- Absorption-addiction model - Attachment theory

Answer 102

- McCutcheon - people form parasocial relationships to fill deficiencies in their own lives, such as weak self-identity or lack of fulfilment in everyday relationships - Parasocial relationships allow 'escape from reality' to gain fulfilment lacking from actual relationships - Someone with an entertainment-social orientation towards a celebrity may be triggered into more intense involvement by personal crises

Answer 103

- Looking for satisfaction in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus as much of their attention as possible on the celebrity - Become more intensely attached to them and identify with them more

Answer 104

- Individuals feel the need to sustain commitment to relationship by feeling closer/stronger involvement with the celebrity - Can lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking

Answer 105

- Many have suggested the formation of parasocial relationships is the result of early attachment difficulties - Ainsworth - suggested insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments are associated with unhealthy emotional development - Other researchers have suggested different reasons for this - Insecure-resistants are more likely to form parasocial relationships as they have unfulfilled needs - Safer to have these needs met in the context of a relationship where is no threat of rejection, break-up, or disappointment - Insecure-avoidant prefer to avoid pain and rejection of relationships altogether, regardless of whether they are social or parasocial

Answer 106

- McCutcheon et al - celebrity attitude scale used to measure level of parasocial relationship and participants' problems in intimate relationships - B-P and I-P participants generally have a higher degree of anxiety in intimate relationships, than those at the E-S level - Suggests level of celebrity worship can be meaningfully categorised into 3 levels and predict adult behaviour/relationships - Predictive validity for explaining real life behaviour/relationships making the theory more credible

Answer 107

- Predicts a personal deficiency, like poor body image, will predispose someone to forming parasocial relationships - Maltby et al - assessed 14-16 year old girls and boys - Girls with I-P relationships with adult female celebrity whose body shape they admired, tended to have poor body image - Supports prediction there will be an association between poor psychological functioning and level of parasocial relationship - Increases credibility of model

Answer 108

- Dinkha et al - compared individualist culture (US) to collectivist culture (Kuwait) - People with insecure attachment type most likely to form I-P relationship in both cultures - Attachment theory may be a universal explanation for the need to form parasitical relationships - Research refuting attachment theory - McCutcheon et al - measured attachment type and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 American participants - No significant difference between those securely attached and those insecurely attached - May not be a way to compensate for attachment issues

Answer 109

- Studies into parodical relationship usually use correlational analysis - Cannot show causal relationships - McCutcheon's study cannot conclude anxiety in relationships causes B-P involvement - Possible the causality goes in the other direction, i.e. B-P relationships may cause relationship anxiety - Could be a third variable that causes both - Research only leads to tentative conclusions - Correlations/natural experiments are still valuable in cases like this, where we study people's everyday behaviour and cannot practically/ethically manipulate variables

Relationships Flashcards

(133 cards)