Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
What is Darwin’s theory of sexual selection?
A
Humans attracted to people that aid successful reproduction
Evolution favours development of attractive features
These features make it more likely someone will attract a mate -> reproduce -> pass on genes
2
Q
What is the definition of anisogamy?
A
The differences between male and female gametes
3
Q
How are sperm cells and egg cells different? (anisogamy)
A
Small vs Large
Mobile vs Static
Created constantly vs produced in intervals for limited fertile years
Little energy vs significant energy investment
4
Q
What is the consequence of anisogamy?
A
No shortage in fertile males but fertile females are rarer
Means making a wrong partner choice more serious for females due to greater investment -> choosy
5
Q
What does anisogamy give rise to?
A
2 types of sexual selection…
Inter-sexual (females)
Intra-sexual (males)
6
Q
Why is inter-sexual selection the preferred strategy for females?
A
Quality > quantity as ova rarer than sperm
Thus, consequences of female making wrong choice more serious, so makes sense to be more selective
Optimum to select genetically fit partner to provide resources
Female preference determines features passed on to offspring
7
Q
What is the ‘Sexy sons’ hypothesis (Fisher)?
A
When females mate with male with certain trait, sons inherit this ‘sexy’ trait
Sons more likely to be selected, preference for ‘sexy’ trait is maintained + exaggerated (runaway process)
8
Q
Why is intra-sexual selection the preferred strategy for males? What does this entail?
A
Quantity > quality) as low investment cost
Competition between males to be selected as a mate: winner reproduces and passes on characteristics
9
Q
What does intra-sexual selection give rise to?
A
Male-female dimorphism… males and females end up looking very different
10
Q
Give examples of male-female dimorphism
A
Physical size b/w males matters -> larger males more likely to reproduce successfully, but not evolutionary advantage for females (not as big)
Youthfulness + waist/hip ratio preferred for female -> more likely to be selected
11
Q
Who did research into waist-hip ratio?
A
Singh
- Males find any hip and waist size attractive, as long as ratio is 1:0.7
- Wide hips signal fertility BUT slimmer waste shows not already pregnant
- Prevents cuckoldry
12
Q
What are the behavioural consequences of intra-sexual selection for males?
A
Deceitfulness, aggression (mate-retention strategies) -> selection of aggressiveness
13
Q
What are 2 strengths of the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Research support for inter-sexual selection (female choosiness)
- Clark + Hatfield
- sent male/female students to approach other students (of opposite sex)
- told them they found attractive and asked, ‘would you go to bed with me tonight?’
- no females agreed but 75% of males did immediately
Supports view that females are choosier when selecting sexual partner across cultures
Research support for predicting intra-sexual selection
- Buss
- survey > 10,000 adults, 33 countries
- questions about attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference (but self-report)
- females valued resource related characteristics (eg: ambition)
- males valued attractiveness & youth (as have good reproductive capacity)
Reflects consistent sex differences in partner preference, supports prediction from sexual selection theory, cross cultural so evolutionary valid
14
Q
What are 2 weaknesses of the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
A
Sexual selection theory too simplistic that one strategy is adaptive for all males and other is adaptive for all females
- strategies differ according to length of relationship
- sexual strategies theory argues that males & females adopt similar mating strategy (choosy) when seeking LT relationships
This is a more complex + nuanced view of how evolutionary pressures influence partner preference, considers context of reproductive behaviour
Cannot explain partner preferences of gay/lesbian
- homosexual partners not assessing genetic fitness (though they may assess other qualities relevant to caring for offspring)
- because they can’t reproduce together
Evolutionary theory limited in explaining partner preferences amongst homosexuals
BUT
- Lawson et al looked at personal ads and found the preferences of homo/heterosexual men or women same as theory
15
Q
What are the 3 factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships?
A
Self-disclosure
Physical attractiveness
Filter theory
16
Q
What is self-disclosure?
A
Revealing personal information about yourself
Reveal more as relationship develops, can strengthen romantic bond
17
Q
Who developed the social penetration theory?
A
Altman + Taylor
18
Q
What is the social penetration theory?
A
Gradual process of revealing inner self to other: displays trust
Reciprocal exchange of information between partners
As more is disclosed, partners ‘penetrate’ deeper into each other’s lives
Eventually relationship reaches certain level where self-disclosure welcome
19
Q
What is depenetration?
A
Dissatisfied partners self-disclose less to disengage from relationship
20
Q
What are the 2 elements of self-disclosure?
A
Breadth and depth
21
Q
Talk about self-disclosure at the start of a relationship
A
Reveal a lot (breadth)
But just superficial layer, range of topics limited (little depth)
22
Q
Talk about self-disclosure as a relationship develops
A
Becomes deeper to reveal true self, removal of layers
23
Q
What is a key principle to develop in both breadth and depth of self-disclosure?
A
Reciprocity
24
Q
What did Reis and Shaver say about how reciprocity works in a relationship?
A
When self-disclosing, you want your partner to respond with understanding and empathy + share their own thoughts and feelings
Leads to a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in successful romantic relationship -> increases intimacy + deepens the relationship
25
What are 2 strengths of self-disclosure as a factor explaining attraction?
Research for self-disclosure for social penetration theory
- Sprecher + Hendrick heterosexual couples
- strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction + commitment and reciprocal self-disclosure
Increases validity of theory that reciprocated disclosure affects attraction positively
RW application to improve communication in relationships
- self-disclosure used deliberately to increase intimacy + strengthen bond
- less skilled partners can learn to use self-disclosure to bring several benefits to their relationships to ↑ satisfaction and commitment
- Haas + Stafford: 57% homosexual men and women claimed open + honest self-disclosure main way maintained + deepened relationships
Valuable in helping people with relationship difficulties
26
What are 2 weaknesses of self-disclosure as a factor explaining attraction?
But research is correlational
- assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction (causal) but a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw
- alternatively, more satisfied partners self-disclose more
- maybe self-disclosure/satisfaction independent, both caused by third variable, eg: time the partners spend together
Not a causal relationship, reduces validity
Cultural difference that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures leads to a more satisfaction/intimacy
- Tang et al reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure
- men + women in US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts/feelings than in China (collectivist)
- yet, in China, levels of satisfaction high.
Limited explanation of relationships, not generalisable, low population validity
27
What is the definition of physical attractiveness?
How appealing we find a face
28
Who did research into the importance of symmetrical faces in affecting physical attraction?
Shackelford + Larson
More attractive from an evolutionary perspective as an honest indication of genetic fitness (hard to fake)
Deviation due to difficulties from development eg: malnutrition, marker of poor health
29
How do neotenous faces affect physical attraction?
Baby-face features eg: large eyes, small nose trigger protective + caring instinct
30
Who explained how the halo effect affects physical attraction?
Dion et al
Physically attractive people consistently rated as kind + strong + sociable + successful, more than unattractive
The belief that good-looking people have these characteristics makes them seem more attractive -> others behave more positively towards them: self-fulfilling prophecy
31
Who coined the matching hypothesis? What is it?
Walster and Walster
We look for partners similar to us in terms of physical attractiveness instead of the most appealing people- a compromise to reduce risk of rejection
32
What was research exploring the matching hypothesis?
Walster et al explored the theory but hypothesis not supported
- uni students took part in a ‘computer dance’ they were randomly matched up with partners
- overall, people preferred partners rated as attractive, regardless of their own levels of attractiveness
BUT
Replication by Berscheid et al where participants could select their partner
Here, participants chose partners who did match them in physical attractiveness
33
What are 2 strengths of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Research that physical attractiveness results in halo effect
- Palmer + Peterson found physically attractive people rated more politically knowledgeable/competent than unattractive people
- such a powerful effect it persisted even when participants knew the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
Has implications for the political process as suggests dangers for democracy if politicians judged by physical attractiveness for voters
Research for evolutionary explanation
- Cunningham et al found women with features (large eyes, small nose) and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by White + Hispanic + Asian men
- what is considered physically attractive is cross-cultural
- symmetry as a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures
Importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at evolutionary level
34
What are 2 weaknesses of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Matching hypothesis not supported by real world research into dating
- Taylor et al studied activity logs of a popular online dating site
- measured the actual date choices, not merely preferences (in line with hypothesis)
- online daters sought meetings with potential partners more physically attractive than them
Undermines validity of matching hypothesis as contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness
Individual differences, some don’t place high value on attractiveness when selecting a partner
- people with non-sexist attitudes were uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners
- other factors more important
Physical attractiveness limited in partner preferences, moderated by individual differences/other factors
35
How did Kerckhoff and Davis' research into the filter theory?
Compared attitudes of couples in ST relationship (< 18 months) and LT relationships
36
What does the filter theory suggest?
In terms of partner choice, we have a ‘field of availables’
3 factors act as filters at various stages of relationship to narrow down choices to ‘field of desirables ’
37
What are the 3 filters in the filter theory?
Social demography
Similarity in attitudes
Complementarity
38
What is the social demography filter?
Variables which influence chance of meeting in first place eg: age, social class, proximity (+ accessibility), ethnicity
Doesn’t require much effort to meet these people
Range of people we encounter restricted by social circumstances
39
What the result of the social demography filter?
Homogamy: more likely to choose a partner with someone socially/culturally similar
40
What is the similarity in attitudes filter?
Need for partners in earlier stages of relationship to agree over basic attitudes + values -> increases stability of relationship by increasing deeper communication
41
What does the law of attraction suggest?
Similarity results in attraction
42
What is complementarity?
Similarity less important as relationship develops, replaced by need to balance traits with opposite of your own- ‘opposites attract’ -> provides mutual satisfaction and feeling they form a ‘whole’ together
43
What is a strength of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Research support from Kerckhoff and Davis’ original study
- longitudinal study, both partners in couples completed questionnaires to assess: 1. similarity of attitude’s/values and 2. complementarity of needs
- relationship ‘closeness’ measured by another questionnaire 7 months later
- closeness predicted by similarity of values for ST couples
- closeness predicted by complementarity of needs for LT couples
Show diff “levels” of filter theory become ↑ important as relationship progresses
44
What are 3 weaknesses of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Studies fail to replicate findings
- Levinger
- no correlation between length of relationship and similarity of attitudes & values / complementarity of needs
- original study assumed that partners who had been together longer were more committed + deeper into r/ship
- theory based on assumptions
Theory undermined as lacks validity
Actual similarity matters less in a relationship than perceived similarity
- Montoya et al meta-analysis
- actual similarity affected attraction only in very ST, lab-based interactions
- in real-world relationships, perceived similarity stronger predictor of attraction
- due to partners perceiving greater similarity as become more attracted
Perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause- this not predicted by filter theory
Role of filters has changed over time
- social demography filter claims that demographic factors (including location) reduce field of availables to fewer people similar to us (homogamy)
- online dating apps have increased the field of availables: location no longer limits partner choice (maybe physical attraction now more important)
- also, social change -> new relationships between different ethnicities
Theory hasn’t adapted to account for social change, lacks temporal validity
45
What are the 3 theories of romantic relationships?
Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbult's investment model
46
Who founded the social exchange theory?
Thibaut and Kelley
47
What is the formula for the social exchange theory?
The rewards of relationship – costs of relationship = outcome (profit/loss)
48
How does social exchange theory explain romantic relationships?
Romantic partners act out of self-interest
Behaviour mirrors the economic assumptions of exchange: people try to minimise losses, maximise gains (minimax principle)
49
How is the satisfaction of a relationship judged according to social exchange theory?
Profit yielded
50
In social exchange theory, why are rewards/costs subjective?
Varies between people
Varies overtime
Thus, very wide range of possible profitability outcomes
51
What are 2 examples of rewards in the social exchange theory?
Companionship
Sex
52
What are 3 examples of costs in the social exchange theory?
Time
Stress
Energy
53
What is opportunity cost? (SET)
Investment of time and energy in current relationship means using resources that cannot be invested elsewhere
54
What are the 2 ways to measure profit in a romantic relationship according to social exchange theory?
Comparison level
Comparison level for alternatives
55
What is comparison level in social exchange theory?
Standard against which all relationships are judged, from personal/others’ experience: changes overtime
Influenced by social norms what is a reasonable level of reward
High CL level means relationship worth pursuing
56
In social exchange theory, what does comparison level depend on?
Self esteem
Low self-esteem = lower CL = satisfied with small profit
High self-esteem = higher CL = believe worth a high profit
57
What is comparison level for alternative in social exchange theory?
Leave if believe we can gain greater profit from another relationship
Will stay in relationship if more rewarding than alternatives/single
58
Underpinned by social exchanges, what are the 4 stages of relationship development?
1. Sampling: explore rewards + costs of entering relationship
2. Bargaining: testing giving/receiving rewards to understand whether deeper relationship is worth forming
3. Commitment: sampling/bargaining reduced, attraction increases if costs reduced
4. Institutionalisation: partners settled as norms of rewards/costs firmly established
59
What is a strength of social exchange theory?
Research support for aspects of theory
- Kurdek questionnaire on 185 straight/homosexual couples
- greater relationship commitment associated with CL (perceived the most rewards and fewest costs) and CLalt (viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive)
- first study to demonstrate: main SET concepts individually affect commitment
Findings match predictions from theory, confirming validity of the theory amongst different types of couples
60
What are 3 weaknesses of social exchange theory?
But Kurdek’s study… ignores one crucial factor effecting romantic partners, equity
- much research support for the role of equity in relationships
- not only balance of rewards and costs that matters, but partners’ perceptions this is fair
Neglect of ‘equity’ in theory means SET is a limited explanation
Uncertain direction of cause & effect due to false claim that dissatisfaction only arises after a r/ship stops being profitable
- SET suggests dissatisfaction occurs when costs of relationship outweighs rewards / alternatives more attractive
- don’t monitor costs and rewards / consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied as when satisfied + committed to the relationship, don’t notice potentially attractive alternatives.
Suggests considering costs or alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse, reducing causality of the explanation
SET has vague + hard to quantify concepts
- rewards and costs defined superficially in research (e.g. money) to measure
- but RW rewards and costs are subjective + harder to define
- eg: most consider loyalty rewarding, but reward (or cost) varies a lot between people
- concept of comparison levels also problematic as unclear what the value of CL / CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship
Theory difficult to test in a valid way
61
Which theory was developed in response to a criticism of social exchange theory?
Equity theory- Walster
Most need balance over profit in a relationship
62
How does Walster's equity theory explain romantic relationships?
Relationship success based on perceived fairness
Not size of reward/cost that matters- couples experience satisfaction if equal ratio of rewards : losses between both partners
63
According to equity theory, what happens if a relationship has perceived inequity?
Dissatisfaction as partners over/under benefit
64
In equity theory, what are 4 emotions felt by those who are underbenefitting?
Anger
Hostility
Resentment
Humiliation
65
In equity theory, what are 3 emotions felt by those who are overbenefitting?
Guilt
Discomfort
Shame
66
What can ensure equity in a relationship? (hint: not equality)
Negotiations
Rewards and costs distributed fairly
Eg: working late vs domestic chores
67
What are 3 ways to deal with inequity?
1. Restoration of actual equity: voluntarily setting things right or by urging their partners to do so.
2. Restoration of psychological equity: distort perception, convinces themselves relationship is fair
3. Leave relationship: physically (eg: divorce) or emotionally (eg: no longer having feelings)
68
What is a strength of equity theory?
RW research into relationships confirming equity theory more valid explanation than SET
- Utne et al survey of 118 recently married couples measuring equity
- couples who considered their relationship equitable MORE satisfied than those who saw themselves as over/under benefiting
Confirms that equity holds major importance for romantic couples as linked with satisfaction- a central prediction of equity theory
69
What are 3 weaknesses of equity theory?
Uncertain on direction of cause and effect for inequity & dissatisfaction
- if partners monitor equity, relationship isn’t healthy, it is deteriorating, initially due to some cause other than inequity
- once one partner becomes dissatisfied, begin to perceive inequity
- may look for confirmation they are underbenefitting, making them even more dissatisfied (cycle of misery)
Inequity is both a cause and an effect of dissatisfaction- theory only a partial explanation of dissatisfaction
Theory may not apply to all cultures
- Aumer-Ryan et al found cultural differences in correlation between equity and satisfaction
- individualist culture (US) considered relationships most satisfying when equitable, whereas partners in a collectivist culture (Jamaica) most satisfied when overbenefiting
- true for men + women
Theory limited as only applies to some cultures
Individual differences, not all partners concerned about achieving equity
- some partners are ‘benevolents’: prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get (underbenefit)
- others are ‘entitleds’: believe deserving to overbenefit, accepts without feeling distress/ guilt
- both cases, individuals have less concern about equity than theory predicts
Desire for equity varies between individuals, not a universal feature of romantic relationships
70
Which theory is a development of social exchange theory?
Rusbult's investment model
71
According to Rusbult's investment model, commitment level depends on which 3 factors?
Satisfaction (CL)
Comparison with alternatives
Investment
72
What is satisfaction in Rusbult's investment model?
Rewards vs costs, seeks profitability
Degree to which needs met based on previous experience
73
What is comparison with alternatives in Rusbult's investment model?
Perceived desirability of the alternative to better meet needs
Other relationships or no relationship
74
What is investment in Rusbult's investment model?
Amount and importance of resources associated with the relationship (what would be lost if ended)
75
What are the 2 types of investment in Rusbult's investment model?
Intrinsic: resources put directly into relationship (tangible or intangible)
Extrinsic: resources that didn’t previously feature in relationship, but now closely associated eg: children
76
In Rusbult's investment model, what is the main psychological factor causing people to stay in romantic relationship?
Commitment
Satisfaction is a contributory factor
77
How does Rusbult's investment model explain why dissatisfied partners stay in a relationship?
Due to commitment- too much investment: will work harder to maintain a relationship…
78
What are the 5 relationship maintenance mechanisms in Rusbult's investment model?
Accommodation
Willingness to sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive illusions
Ridiculing alternatives
79
What are 2 strengths of Rusbult's investment model?
Meta-analysis research support
- Le + Agnew: 11,000 from 5 countries
- satisfaction + CLalt + investment size all predicted relationship commitment
- where commitment was greatest: relationship most stable & longest
- true across gender + culture + sexuality
Validity to Rusbult’s claim the factors are universally important in r/ship
Explains intimate partner violence (abuse)
- Rusbult + Martz found those most likely to return to abusive partner had greatest investment and fewest attractive alternatives
- women dissatisfied but committed
Shows satisfaction alone cannot explain why people stay in relationships: commitment important
80
What are 2 weaknesses of Rusbult's investment model?
Correlational, not causality
- strong correlation doesn’t conclude 3 factors cause commitment in a relationship
- may be that more commitment leads to more investment
- direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model.
Model hasn’t identified causes of commitment, just factors associated with it
Views investment in simplistic + one-dimensional way
- more to investment than just resources, in early stages, few actual investments
- Goodfriend + Agnew extended original model by including the investment partners make in ‘future plans’
- results in motivation for commitment to see cherished plans work out
Original model limited as fails to recognise true complexity of investment, eg: how planning for the future influences commitment
81
What is the model showing relationship breakdown?
Duck's phase model
The ending of a relationship isn’t a one-off event: goes through 4 distinct stages
82
What are the 4 phases in Duck's model in order?
Intra-psychic phase
Dyadic phase
Social phase
Grave dressing phase
83
In Duck's phase mode, what is each phase marked by?
One/both partners reaching a threshold: point at which their perception of the relationship changes for the worse
84
What is the threshold of the intra-psychic phase?
'I can't stand this anymore'
85
What is the threshold of the dyadic phase?
'I would be justified in withdrawing'
86
What is the threshold of the social phase?
'I mean it'
87
What is the threshold of the grave dressing phase?
'It is now inevitable'
88
What is the final threshold after all 4 phases in Duck's model?
'Time to get a new life'
89
What occurs in the intra-psychic phase?
Internal cognitive process, thinking about dissatisfaction and pros/cons/alternative
May express in other ways eg: social withdrawal
89
What occurs in the dyadic phase?
Self-disclose deeper as confronts partner + discusses feelings of dissatisfaction: anxiety, anger, guilt, resentment: rethink commitment
Either determined to repair/end
Become aware of forces that bind them (eg: investments) and costs if relationship terminated
90
What occurs in the social phase?
Breakup made public: dissatisfaction spills over to social networks
Harder to deny there is a problem so harder to get back together as social forces drive momentum of breakup
Others may… take sides/offer advice and support/mend disputes
91
What happens in the grave dressing phase?
Each person justifies actions + constructs representation of relationship to show them in a positive light/retain social credit
Each partner presents themselves to others as trustworthy + loyal -> key attributes to attract a new partner
92
What is a strength of Duck's phase model?
Real world application: couple counselling
- advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they’re in
- eg: intra-psychic -> shift attention to positive aspects of partner's personality
- eg: dyadic phase -> communication about dissatisfaction/ways to balance relationships
Useful to successfully help couples contemplating break-up to improve relationships and stay together
93
What are 3 weaknesses of Duck's phase model?
But: RW application may be culturally biased
- model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures (relationships are mostly voluntary and commonly end)
- in collectivist cultures are often ‘obligatory’ relationship -> harder to end
- whole concept of romantic relationship differs between cultures
Application to reverse breakdown only applied in some cultures
Original model incomplete
- Duck + Rollie added 5th resurrection phase -> ex- partners apply experience from past relationship to future relationships
- argue progression through phases isn’t inevitable, possible to return to earlier phase
- acknowledged that processes (eg: role of gossip) more important than linear movement through phases
Original model doesn’t account for complexity and dynamic nature of breakdown
Describes process of relationship breakdown, not explanation of factors that caused breakdown
- ‘fatal attraction hypothesis’ explains why -> qualities initially attractive eventually produce dissatisfaction
- eg: ‘great sense of humour’ later becomes ‘can’t take anything seriously’
Duck’s model might be improved by adding some of this hypothesis to better explain relationship breakdown
94
What are the 2 opposing theories regarding self-disclosure in virtual relationships?
Reduced cues theory: Sproull + Kiesler
The hyperpersonal model: Walther
95
What does the Reduced cues theory say about self-disclosure in virtual relationships
Normal FtF interactions depend on cues to understand the true meaning of what the person is saying (eg: facials, tone of voice)
Virtual relationships lack cues, reduced individual identity -> disinhibition
People may be blunt/aggressive/reluctant to self-disclose to someone so deindividuated and impersonal
96
What does the Hyperpersonal model say about self-disclosure in virtual relationships
Virtual relationships can involve more self-disclosure than FtF as develop quicker with self-disclosure happening earlier
Can also end quicker as the high excitement isn’t matched by trust: ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon
97
Describe selective self-presentation within the hyperpersonal model?
Have greater control over what to disclose + cues sent than in FtF -> sender manipulates self-image to present themselves in idealised way (hyperhonest / hyperdishonest)
Receiver gains a positive impression of the sender, may offer feedback (eg: responding to social media) reinforces sender’s selective self-presentation
98
How does anonymity play a role in the hyperpersonal model?
Promotes online self-disclosure via 'stranger on a train' phenomenon
-> disclose more as feel less accountable for behaviour
99
What is a 'gate' in regards to relationships?
Barrier/obstacle to formation of a relationship
100
Why are face-to-face relationships gated?
Barriers that could limit the opportunity for a relationship
Eg; physical unattractiveness, stammer, social anxiety
101
Do online relationships have an absence of gates?
Yes- absence of ‘gates’ that normally limit opportunities for less attractive/less socially skilled/shy to form relationships
102
What are 2 positive and 1 negative 'effects' on the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
✓ Liking purely based on self-disclosure, not superficial attributes
✓ Individual more able to be themselves
X Opportunity to create false identity and deceive others eg: gender, age
103
What are 2 strengths of virtual relationships in social media?
Shy + lonely + socially anxious people find virtual relationships valuable
- McKenna + Bargh found these people able to express their ‘true selves’ more than FtF situations
- 71% relationships initially formed online by shy people lasted >2y
Shy people benefit from dating online due to absence of gating
Hyperpersonal model evidence that FtF and virtual relationships differ in type of self-disclosures
- Whitty + Joinson show self-presentation manipulated in virtual
- questions in online discussions very direct, probing, intimate (hyperhonest)
- differs from FtF, which feature ‘small talk’
- self presentation online also hyperdishonest eg: inventing attractive qualities for online profiles
Supports the model’s claims about hyperhonest/ hyperdishonest self-disclosures, shows differences b/w FtF and virtual
104
What are 2 weaknesses of virtual relationships in social media?
Non-verbal cues online not absent, just different
- style, timing of messages (too quick not intimate, long response insulting)
- acronyms (LOL), emoticons, emojis substitute tone, facial expressions
- nuances in virtual relationships used similarly to in FtF relationships
Reduced cues theory doesn’t explain how virtual r/ships just as personal
But hyperpersonal model challenged by meta-analysis
- Ruppel et al 25 studies comparing FtF and virtual self-disclosures
- frequency, breadth, and depth of self-disclosures all greater in FtF relationships.
Contradicts hyperpersonal model that greater intimacy of virtual relationships leads to more + deeper self-disclosures
105
What are the 3 explanations for parasocial relationships?
Levels of parasocial relationships: Maltby et al
Absorption-addiction model: McCutcheon
Attachment theory
106
How did Maltby et al identify the 3 levels of celebrity worship?
Used Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) in a large-scale study
107
What are Maltby's 3 levels of parasocial relationships/celebrity worship?
Entertainment-social
Intense-personal
Borderline pathological
108
What is the entertainment-social level of celebrity worship?
Least intense level
Celebrities viewed as source of entertainment / fuel for social interaction
109
What is the intense-personal level of celebrity worship?
Intermediate level
Intense personal involvement in parasocial relationship, frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings, may see them as their soulmate
110
What is a strength (and counterpoint) of the levels of parasocial relationships explanation?
‘Levels’ model has high predictive validity
- McCutcheon used CAS to measure level of parasocial relationships and assessed problems in intimate relationships
- IP or BP had high anxiety in intimate relationship
- not seen for ES
Level of celebrity worship accurate predicter of behaviour (aim of psych)
Methodological issues in research
- self-report questionnaires, may not accurately reflect extent of parasocial relationships (social desirability bias)
- correlational data, cannot conclude anxiety causes borderline-pathological involvement (reverse direction / third variable- neurosis)
Limits validity, must treat research with caution
111
What is the absorption addiction model explanation?
Links levels to deficiencies people have in their own lives
eg: low self-esteem, lack of fulfilment, more intense involvement from stress
Allows escape from reality
112
What is 'absorption'?
Seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motives one to focus their attention more and to become preoccupied and identify with them
113
What is 'addiction'?
Increases ‘dose’ to gain satisfaction -> more extreme behaviours, delusional thinking eg: stalking
114
What is a strength of the absorption addiction model?
Research showing link between celebrity worship + body image
- absorption-addiction model suggests deficiencies in a person’s life predisposes formation of parasocial relationship
- Maltby et al found girls with intense-personal parasocial relationship with adult female celebrity whose body shape they admired had poor body image -> eating disorder
Supports models prediction of association between poor psychological functioning and the level of parasocial relationship.
115
How does the attachment theory explain parasocial relationships?
Bowlby’s attachment theory suggests early difficulties in forming attachment -> emotional troubles later in life
Insecure-resistant most likely to form parasocial relationships as they seek to have unfulfilled needs met without threat of rejection/disappointment IRL relationships bring
Insecure-avoidant avoid pain + rejection of relationships altogether, social and parasocial
116
What is a strength of the attachment theory to explain parasocial relationships?
Attachment theory to explain is true cross culturally
- Dinkha et al found insecure attachment most likely to form intense parasocial relationships with TV personalities/characters
- conducted in both collectivist and individualist cultures
Universal explanation for the need to form parasocial relationship, independent of cultural influences
117
What is a weakness of the attachment theory to explain parasocial relationships?
Other evidence is not supportive of explanation
- McCutcheon et al found attachment security didn’t affect likelihood of forming parasocial relationship
- insecure no more likely to form parasocial relationships than secure
Parasocial relationship not explained by attachment type, contradictory findings provide insufficient evidence for this link
