Relationships 🤔 Flashcards
Paper 3
1
Q
what are the three main factors of attraction?
A
- physical attraction (MH)
- self disclosure
- filter theory
2
Q
how is physical attraction importance assessed?
A
- using the matching hypothesis
3
Q
who made the matching hypothesis?
A
- Murstein (1972)
4
Q
what did Murstein initially argue?
A
- we may desire the most physical attractive partner in theory, but we may know we are unlikely to get or keep them
5
Q
what does the MH propose?
A
- we look for someone of a similar level of attractiveness as ourselves
6
Q
why is compromise necessary when looking for physically attractive partners (MH)?
A
- due to fear of rejection
- need to achieve balance between partners
7
Q
what did Brown argue in reference to the MH?
A
- MH phenomenon results from a learned sense of what’s ‘fitting’ rather than fear
- we learn to adjust our expectations of rewards in line with what we believe we have on offer
8
Q
what was Walster et al’s (1966) study called, exploring the MH?
A
- computer dance study
9
Q
what did Walster et al’s computer dance study involve?
A
- 376 female students and 376 male students volunteered to participate in a computer dance
- when they signed up, 4 independent judges assessed each persons physical attractiveness
- participants were led to believe that a questionnaire (previously filled out) would be used in the computer pairing, but it was random instead
- dance was held 2 days later, before which they were given their dates names
10
Q
what were the findings of Walster et al’ computer dance study?
A
- during the dance, they were asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates
- more physically attractive students were liked more by their partners than the less attractive ones
- 6 months later, they asked the students whether they had dated their partner since, found that the more similar in attractiveness partners were more likely to have dated
11
Q
how can Walster et al’s computer dance study be used to evaluate the MH?
A
- ironically, failed to confirm the MH
- may be because measurement of attractiveness was unreliable (raters only had a few seconds to judge attractiveness)
- follow up questions (6 months later) did support the MH
12
Q
how did Walster and Walster’s study support the MH?
A
- did a repeat of the original computer dance but this time students had met beforehand
- meant they had more time to think about the qualities they were looking for in a partner
- students expressed most liking for those who were on the same level of physical attractiveness as themselves
13
Q
what is complex matching?
A
- extension of the MH
- suggests couples can achieve a match in ways other than physical attraction
- the tendency to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities (ie. status, personality, kindness, etc)
14
Q
what is self-disclosure?
A
- voluntary sharing/ revealing of personal information bout the self to another person
15
Q
what are the two main types of self-disclosure?
A
- superficial (breadth, low risk)
- intimate (depth, high risk)
16
Q
what is self-disclosure important?
A
- greater disclosure means greater feelings of intimacy and increased likelihood of relationship stability
17
Q
what did Sprecher suggest about self-disclosure?
A
- the amount of overall disclosure in a relationship was predictive of whether the couple stayed together for 4+ years
18
Q
what are the norms of self-disclosure?
A
- only engage in a moderately personal level of self-disclosure in the early stages of a relationship
- Derlega and Grzelak
- Miller and Collins
19
Q
what did Derlega and Grzelak suggest about self-disclosure?
A
- there should be neither too much personal information that that discloser appears to be indiscriminate for disclosing it to a relative stranger nor too little so the listener feel they are unable to know them better
20
Q
what did Miller and Collins suggest about self-disclosure?
A
- found research support for its importance
- those who disclose more are liked better and the relationship is stronger if the recipient believed the disclosure was shared only to them
21
Q
what is some evaluation for self-disclosure that compares face-to-face to online?
A
- Khop et al fund more disclosure face to face, due to the lack of intimacy of the internet in context for personal self disclosure
- discloser appreciates non-verbal cues which are absent online
- individuals don’t seize opportunity to reveal personal information online as much as expected
- however, anonymity online allows for people to disclose more occasionally
22
Q
what is some evaluation regarding the role of gender and culture for self-disclosure?
A
- varies on topics that are considered appropriate to have conversations about (culture bias and awareness)
- Western cultures often disclose more than places like China and Japan (Chen, 1995)
- cultural norms shape how comfortable men/ women are in disclosing
- Nakanishi found Japanese women prefer lower levels of self disclosure and personal conversations than Japanese men (opposite to patterns typically found in the West)
23
Q
who studied reciprocal self-disclosure and liking?
A
- Sprecher et al (2013)
24
Q
what was Sprecher et al’s study on ‘reciprocal self-disclosure and linking’ procedure?
A
- pairs of unacquainted students were asked to participate in a self disclosure task over Skype
- there were two conditions: reciprocal condition (pair immediately took turns asing questions and disclosing) and non reciprocal condition (one person asked questions, the other answered and then rolls were switched)
25
what were the finding of Sprecher et al's study on 'reciprocal self-disclosure and linking'?
- individuals in the reciprocal condition reported more liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment of the interaction than those in the non reciprocal condition
- this difference remained after they switch roles in the non reciprocal condition
- this showed that turn taking self disclosure reciprocity is more likely to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes than is extended reciprocity
26
what are strengths of self-disclosure as a factor in attraction?
- evidence supports the role of self disclosure as an explanation (ie. correlations between levels of self disclosure and satisfaction with the relationship
- compatibility with filter theory as it enables the assessment of similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs
27
what are limitations of self-disclosure as a factor in attraction?
- contrast with importance other factors (ie. physical attractiveness, equity and social exchange)
- cultural limitations (research is often culture specific), may be less appropriate for romantic relationships in cultures where partners are not allowed free choice
28
what is the filter theory as a factor in attraction?
- relationships develop through filters (3)
-'field of availables' and 'field of desirables'
29
what is the 'field of availables' in the filter theory?
- possible people with whom we could have a relationship
30
what is the 'field of desirables' in the filter theory?
- those who we could consider potential partners
31
what are the 3 filters in the filter theory?
1- social demography
2- similarity in attitudes and values
3- complementary of needs
32
what is social demography in the filter theory?
- refers to variables like age, geographical location, ethnicity and background
- exerts its influence without us being too aware of it
33
what does similarity in attitudes and values involve in the filter theory?
- if a couple shares ideas and beliefs, communication will be easier and the relationship will progress
- Kerckhoff and Davis found this was of central importance in the early stages of a relationship and was the best predictor of relationship stability
34
what does complementarity of needs involve in the filter theory?
- once a couple is in a fairly long term relationship, emotional complementarity becomes important
- people are attracted to those whose needs are harmonious with their own rather than conflicting
35
what was the key study when looking at the filter theory by?
- Kerckhoff and Davis
36
what was Kerckhoff and Davis study's procedure?
- tested the filter theory using a longitudinal study of 94 student couples
- each couple completed several questionnaires over a 7 month period
- these assessed the degree to which they shared attitudes and values, the degree of need complementarity and how close they felt to their partner
37
what were the findings of Kerckhoff and Davis' study?
- divided into long term (dated more than 18 months) and short term couples (dated less than 18 months)
- short term couples, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of how close they felt to their partner
- long term couples, psychological compatibility and the ability to meet each others needs was predictive of how close they felt to their partner
- supported claims of how close they felt to their partner
38
how did Kerckhoff and Davis' study provide support for the filter theory?
- long versus short term couple division shows support
- supports degree of the filters importance and order of filters
39
what limitations did Kerckhoff and Davis' study have when researching the filter theory?
- lacks temporal validity (1962)
- only students (lack of population validity and generalisation)
- self report data (lacks validity as may not be entirely accurate or honest)
- failure to replicate (Levinger et al)
40
what was Levinger et al's study (filter theory)?
- studied 330 couples using procedures similar to Kerckhoff and Davis' study
- found no evidence that either similarity of attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influenced progress towards permanence in relationships
- found no relationship between length of couples relationships and influence of different variables
- failed to replicate findings of K and D's study
41
how can the rise of online dating be used to evaluate the filter theory?
- reduced importance of some social demographic variables
- easier to meet potential partners
- suggests filter theory is out of date
- lacks temporal validity
- questions the relevance of some of the factors in modern day
42
what do the theories of romantic relationships suggest?
- why couples decide to maintain or end a relationship
43
what are the three economic theories of romantic relationships?
- social exchange theory
- equity theory
- Rusbult's investment model
44
what do economic theories of romantic relationships assume?
- individuals continually assess their relationships in terms of costs and benefits
45
who proposed the social exchange theory?
- Thibault and Kelley (1959)
46
what does the social exchange theory suggest overall?
- likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in
- and how the relationship measures up against what they expect and what they might achieve in a different relationship
47
what does the social exchange theory assume?
- all social behaviour is a series of exchanges
- individuals attempt to maximise the rewards and minimise costs to earn a 'profit' from the relationship
- stresses commitment to the relationship is dependent on the profitability of the outcome (rewards minus costs)
48
what are some examples of rewards in a relationship according to the social exchange theory?
- companionship
- being cared for
- sex
49
what are some examples of costs in a relationship according to the social exchange theory?
- effort
- financial investment
- time wasted
50
what are the two ways the social exchange theory suggest how we can measure our satisfaction with a relationship?
- comparison level (CL)
- comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)
51
what is the comparison level (CL) in the social exchange theory?
- how satisfied individuals are with their current relationship when they compare it to previous relationships profitability
- standard against all our relationships are judged
52
how do we assess the comparison level (CL) in the social exchange theory?
- if previously someone had unpleasant/ unsatisfying relationships, they may have low CL and may be happy in a poor relationship
- if previously someone had very rewarding relationships (high CL) they may have high expectations for future relationships
53
what is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt) in the social exchange theory?
- how satisfied individuals are with their relationship compared to the alternatives
54
how do we assess the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt) in the social exchange theory?
- if current relationship is more profitable than possible alternatives (or if there are no alternatives available) then the individual is likely to be satisfied and maintain their current relationship
- if the possible profit level is much higher in an alternative, then they could end their current one and form a relationship with someone else
55
if the CLalt is high elsewhere, what will happen to the individuals in the relationship?
- the person's dependence on their current relationship will decrease
- the relationship will become less stable
- they will lack commitment
56
what are strengths of the social exchange theory?
can account for the maintenance of abusive relationships
- accounts for maintenance of satisfactory relationships but also unsatisfactory relationships
- if previous relationships were unsatisfactory (CL) and they have poor alternatives (CLalt) even an abusive relationship may be considered profitable and the individual may be motivated to stay in that relationship
- real life application
- emphasises subjective personalisation of profit
57
what does the social exchange theory fail to acknowledge (limitation)?
- views individuals as self centered and likely to end a relationship if costs outweigh rewards
- it is evident many people stay in a relationship if costs outweigh rewards due to the investment theory
- investment is what you put into a relationship and stand to lose if you leave (ie. access to your children)
58
what is a limitation of the social exchange theory?
culture bias
- Moghaddam suggests it can only be applied to individualistic Western cultures, as it assumes the individual ha choice and that relationships are temporary in nature
- lacks cultural validity as can't be applied to collectivist cultures where there is less of a focus on personal gain
not applicable to all couples
- Mills and Clark found some couples evaluate their relationship in terms of costs, rewards and profit and are identified as being high in 'exchange orientation'
- not all couples do, with some being primarily concerned with their partners needs ('communal couples')
- contradicts assumption that we continually evaluate relationships in terms of rewards and costs
59
what is the investment model of relationships?
- states individuals level of commitment in a relationship is determined by three factors
60
who created the investment model of relationships?
- Rusbult and Van Lange
61
what are the three factors determining commitment in Rusbult's investment theory of relationships?
- satisfaction with the relationship
- quality of alternatives
- level of investment
62
how is satisfaction determined within a relationship (investment model)?
- feeling that it is rewarding
- dependent upon outcomes of the relationship (ie. rewards minus costs)
- outcomes are compared to personal standard of acceptable outcomes (comparison level)
- if outcomes are favourable to comparison level, individual will be satisfied
63
how does quality of alternatives determine commitment within a relationship (investment model)?
- belief that it offers better rewards compared to alternatives on offer (CLalt)
- attractive alternatives may not be necessarily other individuals, as some may see 'no relationship' as a better alternative to an unsatisfactory relationship
64
what is level of investment (investment theory)?
- anything an individual puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it
-act as barriers to leaving
65
what are examples of investments in a relationship?
- time, emotional energy, network of mutual friends, shared properties, etc
66
what support is there for investment model of relationships?
Impett et al
- found that in a sample of 3627 married couples, their satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives predicted commitment to marital relationship
- also, level of commitment assessed at initial testing stage predicted the likelihood of marital breakdown or stability 18 months later
67
what limitations are there for investment model of relationships?
- may reflect a Western cultural bias, as there may be cross cultural variation in the extent to which satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment are factors that influence commitment to a relationship
- assumes choice and temporary nature of relationships
- may be cultural and religious pressures to maintain a relationship
68
what research limits the influence of the investment model?
Sprecher
- argues investment does not directly predict commitment
- satisfaction and alternatives were the more important factors in determining commitment
- social exchange theory is more relevant
69
what was the key study investigating investment model of relationships?
Le and Agnew
- meta analysis of 52 studies conducted between 1970s and 1990s
- satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment size were highly correlated with relationship commitment
- these 3 variables together accounted for nearly 66% of variance in commitment
- correlation was stronger between satisfaction level and commitment that other two variables and commitment
- level of commitment was also found to often accurately predict likelihood of relationship break up
70
what is the equity theory of relationships?
- individuals assess relationships in terms of costs, investments (inputs) and rewards
- have the expectation relationships should be fair!
- emphasis is on fairness and balance
71
what happens if a relationship lacks fairness (equity model of relationships)?
- results in dissatisfaction
- once dissatisfied the individual is motivated to re-establish equity
- often change PERCEPTION instead of actual view of equity
72
what support is there for the equity model of relationships?
Stafford and Canary
- asked 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction
- found satisfaction was highest for those who perceived their relationship to be equitable, followed by over benefitted partners and lowest for under benefitted partners
73
what limitations are there for equity model of relationships?
culture bias
- Moghaddam et al argued emphasis on exchange and equity is a reflection of individualistic, capitalistic Western cultures
- assumes choice and temporary nature of relationships
can't establish cause and effect
- does equity cause satisfaction or does satisfaction cause you to view your relationship as equitable?
- nature of causal relationship is unclear
74
what evidence is there for gender differences in importance attached to equity?
Hatfield et al
- lowest satisfaction levels with marriage if they are under benefitted, and tended to experience more anger
- for over benefitted partners, men were almost as satisfied as men in equitable relationships, but women were much less satisfied as they felt more guilt
75
what model demonstrated relationship breakdown?
- Duck's phase model
76
what does Duck's phase model suggest about relationship breakdown?
- breakdown occurs as a process rather than just a one-off event
- each phase is marked by one partner or both reaching a threshold
77
what are the four stages of Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown?
- intrapsychic phase
- dyadic phase
- social phase
- grave dressing phase
78
what is the intrapsychic phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
- one person is privately dissatisfied with the relationship
- individual privately focuses on partners behaviour
- assess negative aspects of the partner (incl. costs of withdrawal) and positive aspects of possible alternatives
- grievances are not yet shared with the partner
79
what is the threshold reached for the intrapsychic phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
'I can't stand this anymore'
80
what is the dyadic phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
- confronts partner and discusses feelings, discontentment and relationships future
- grievances are aired and disputed
- may attempt to repair and reconciliation
- assess joint costs of withdrawal
81
what is the threshold reached in the dyadic phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
'I would be justified in leaving'
82
what is the social phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
- seek support from 3rd parties (friends and family)
- look for receptive and sympathetic audience
- intention to break up is made public with social network
- each partner justifies the break up (possibly blaming the other)
- negotiations about practicalities (ie. division of assets, childcare responsibilities, etc)
83
what is the threshold reached for the social phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
'I mean it'
84
what is the grave dressing phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
- 'the aftermath'
- recognise the relationship is over
- engage in retrospection
- create narrative of relationship (ie. how it started, how it went, why it broke up, role of individual and partner in the break up)
- attempt to represent self as a good prospect for future relationships
85
what is the threshold reached in grave dressing phase (Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown)?
'it is now inevitable'
86
how can Duck's model of relationship breakdown be supported?
- suggests breakdown is not inevitable
- states relationship can be saved at various points (dyadic phase)
- realistic process
- positive model
87
what real world application does Duck's model of relationship breakdown have?
- implications for intervention
- by paying attention to topics that people discuss and how they talk about their relationship, maybe possible to identify the stage in the breakdown process and offer appropriate interventions
- ie. individual in intrapsychic phase may be asked to think about the strengths of their partner and reflect upon their own contribution to the problem
- used in relationship counselling (couples therapy)
88
how can Duck's original phase model of relationship breakdown be criticised?
- incomplete as it failed to consider possibility of personal growth that can follow relationship breakdown
- revised 6 phase model which has a final resurrection phase
- support for resurrection process comes from Tashiro and Frazier who surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with their partner and found they typically reported experiencing not only emotional distress but also personal growth
- supports existence of positive outcomes arising from relationship break up
89
how does Duck's model of relationship breakdown lack cultural validity?
- social expectations within a culture may affect process of relationship break up
- ie. if divorce is frowned upon, the social phase is likely to be conducted differently in comparison to those cultures where divorce is accepted
- cultural bias
- western individualistic viewpoint
90
what is the definition for virtual relationships through social media?
- interpersonal relationships conducted through social networking sites on the internet rather than face to face
- ie. facebook, instagram, X
91
what are the different forms of virtual relationships?
- relationships start online via dating sites and develop to face to face
- relationships that simultaneously operate as online via social networking sites and face to face
- relationships that are purely online (ie. online gamers) where the individuals never meet face to face
92
what are the two factors that assess how virtual relationships differ from face to face?
- self disclosure
- absence of gating
93
what are the two models covering self disclosure in virtual relationships?
- reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler)
- hyperpersonal model (Walther)
94
what does the reduced cues theory suggest about self disclosure in virtual relationships (VR)?
- VR's are less effective than face to face relationships as they lack many cues we are normally dependent on (ie. non verbal cues such as physical appearance)
- VR particularly lack cues to emotional state (ie. tone of voice)
- leads to de-individuation as it reduces the sense of individual identity, encouraging disinhibition in relation to others
- VR are likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication
- so there is a lack of self disclosure as you're unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is so impoersonal
95
what does the hyperpersonal model suggest about self disclosure in virtual relationships (VR)?
- VR can be more personal/ involve greater self disclosure as VR develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier and once established can be more intense and intimate
- also end more quickly as high excitement level of interaction isn't matched by level of trust between the partners
- known as Bust and Boom phenomenon
- also ANONYMITY and SELECTIVE SELF PRESENTATION
96
what does the hyperpersonal model suggest about selective self presentation and self disclosure (virtual relationships)?
- the sender of the message has time to manipulate their online message than in a face to face situation (selective self presentation)
- can manipulate self disclosure to promote intimacy by presenting themselves in a positive and idealised way
97
what does the hyperpersonal model suggest about anonymity and self disclosure (virtual relationships)?
- Bargh et al point out that the outcome of this is rather like the 'strangers on a train effect' in face to face relationships
- when you're aware that others do not know your identity you feel less accountable for your behaviour, so you disclose more
98
how can the reduced cues theory be criticised when explaining self disclosure in virtual relationships?
- lack of support
- non verbal cues are just different not absent
- online communication has evolved to compensate ie. style and timing of their message, use of acrostics (like LOL), emoticons and emojis as substitutes for tone of voice and facial expressions
- also communication may be less anonymous (ie. use of photo images, etc) therefore theory may lack validity
99
how can the hyperpersonal model be criticised when evaluating self disclosure in virtual relationships?
- contrasts with reduced cues theory
- consider problems with drawing conclusions from research investigating virtual relationships
- number of variables that influence self-disclosure online (ie. age, gender, degree of anonymity, nature of communication)
- this makes it difficult to make generalisations from research into virtual relationships
100
how can the hyperpersonal model be supported in terms of self disclosure in virtual relationships?
- Whitty and Joinson
- wealth of evidence to suggest that questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing and intimate compared to face conversations
- facilitating deeper self disclosure
101
what are gates?
- barriers or obstacles that get in the way of two people getting to know each other face to face
102
what are examples of gates in relationships?
- physical distance
- physical appearance
- communication difficulties
- personality characteristics
103
what is the positive impact of the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
- positive impact on interpersonal attraction
- online relationships can be more empowering and increase confidence
104
who is the absence of gating particularly beneficial for in virtual relationships?
- shy people
- overcome barriers they usually encounter
- Baker and Oswald
105
who investigated the effect of absence of gating in virtual relationships on interpersonal attraction?
- McKenna et al
106
what was the procedure of McKenna et al's study into the effects of absence of gating on virtual relationships?
- 31 male and 31 female university students were paired randomly and asked to get to know each other in two 20 minute interactions
- 2 conditions
- asked how much the students liked each other using a 14 point scale ranging from +7 to -7
107
what was the two manipulated conditions of McKenna et al's study into the effects of abscence of gating on virtual relationships?
- control (2x 20 minute meetings took place face to face
- experimental (students met online first and secondly face to face)
108
what were the findings of McKenna's study into the effects of absence of gating on virtual relationships?
- liking was strongest in experimental condition
- where couples met online first
109
what are some limitations of the research into virtual relationships?
- temporal validity as the virtual world changes and evolves very rapidly (out of date research?)
- heterogeneous nature (difficult to make comparisons between studies and make judgements)
110
what support (other than McKenna) is there for the positive impact of absence of gating on development of virtual relationships?
- Zhao et al
- found online social networks (ie. Facebook) can empower gated people to present identities they are unable to present face to face
- enhancing overall self image
- in turn increases chances to connect with others offline
111
how are virtual relationships similar to that of face to face relationships (used as evaluation)?
- Rosenfield and Thomas
- found no difference in overall quality of online and offline relationships
- some research suggests online relationships are more fragile as they claim they are of lower quality and more temporary, R&T found no evidence of this
112
how can research into virtual relationships be criticised in terms of treating it as a single concept?
- different forms of online communication
- ie. chat room content of disclosure differs from that of computer dating sites
- some types there is little chance of leading to face to face interactions, some there is more chance
113
what are parasocial relationships?
- one sided, unreciprocated relationships where an individual is attracted to a media figure (unaware)
- ie. with a celebrity
114
why do we form parasocial relationships?
- persuasiveness of mass media gives viewers the illusion of having face to face relationships with celebrities
- association can be so strong they become a meaningful figure in the person's life
115
why might parasocial relationships be particularly appealing to some individuals?
- as the relationships make few demands
- do not run the risk of criticism or rejection
116
what are the three levels of parasocial relationships according to Giles and Maltby (2006)?
- level 1 = entertainment or social level
- level 2 = intense personal level
- level 3 = borderline pathological level
117
what is the entertainment social level of Giles and Maltby's levels of parasocial relationships about?
- less intense level of celebrity worship
- celebrities viewed as sources of entertainment
118
what is the intense personal level of Giles and Maltby's levels of parasocial relationships about?
- intermediate level
- reflects greater level of personal involvement
- intensely engaged with chosen celebrity
- ie. consider them to be their soulmate
119
what is the borderline pathological level of Giles and Maltby's levels of parasocial relationships about?
- strongest level involving uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours
- ie. make repeat attempts to contact them and find where they live, consider spending a large amount of money on a celebrity related object
120
how do you measure parasocial relationships?
- celebrity attitude scale
121
what is a strength of measuring parasocial relationships using the celebrity attitude scale?
- can be quantified
- easier to analyse
122
what is a limitation of measuring parasocial relationships using the celebrity attitude scale?
- self report method
- social desirability bias
- subjective measure
123
what are the three ways in which parasocial relationships can be explained?
- provide a source of entertainment (superficial)
- absorption addiction model (extreme)
- attachment theory (extreme)
124
what is the attachment theory of parasocial relationships?
- linked to attachment problems in childhood
- meet their need for attachment/ affection
- ie. proximity seeking (following on social media) or separation protest (grief at loss of celebrity)
- don't involve same fear of rejection as real life relationships
125
what did Kienlen suggest about the attachment theory of parasocial relationships?
- those with insecure attachment type were more likely to form parasocial relationships than those with secure attachment types
- due to little chance of criticism, disappointment and rejection
126
how can the attachment theory of parasocial relationships be supported through research?
- Cole and Leets gave partial support as they found insecure resistant individuals are most likely to enter parasocial relationships
- Cohen found a link between security of attachment and negative responses to loss of a parasocial relationship
127
how can the attachment theory of parasocial relationships be criticised by research?
- Cole and Leets found not all types of insecure attachment linked to parasocial relationships as insecure avoidant individuals are least likely to enter parasocial relationships (avoid ALL intimate relationships)
- McCutcheon et al found no relationship between attachment style and parasocial relationships to celebrities
- findings are therefore inconsistent
128
what further criticism is there for the attachment theory explaining parasocial relationships?
- attachment type measure is most likely to be retrospective
- relies on memories of childhood relationships
- may lack accuracy which may impact validity
- also self report methods
129
how does the absorption addiction model explain parasocial relationships?
- more intense parasocial relationships are linked to deficits in real life
- ie. lack of fulfilment, weaker sense of personal identity and poorer psychological functioning
- may become psychologically absorbed with a celebrity to escape reality
- motivation forces driving this absorption take on an addictive component (more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking to sustain the relationship)
130
how can the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships be supported through research?
- more intense parasocial relationships are linked to deficits in terms of poorer psychological functioning
- ie. anxiety, depression and vulnerability to addiction
131
how can the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships be criticised through limitations of the supporting evidence?
- correlational evidence so can't establish a causal relationship (did deficit cause development of a more intense parasocial relationship or did the relationship result in a deficit)
- based on self report data so need to consider social desirability bias and validity
132
what does the evolutionary explanation for partner preferences suggest about why we form romantic relationships?
- form romantic relationships as they provide a survival and reproductive advantage through our genes
- adaptive
133
what does the evolutionary explanation suggests indicates potential healthy offspring?
- youthfulness
- healthy complexion
- athletic build
134
what is anisogamy (evolutionary explanation)?
- refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
135
how do males and females differ in anisogamy (evolutionary explanation)?
- females produce few offspring so have high investment
- males have a large supply of sex cells so aim in to impregnate as many women as possible
136
what does the evolutionary explanation suggest about females preferences in romantic relationships?
- preference for long term relationships
- choosy and select for quality genes
137
what does the evolutionary explanation suggest about male preferences in romantic relationships?
- preference for short term relationships
- quantity over quality
- do exercise some selectivity
138
what are the common traits the evolutionary explanation of romantic relationships suggest males look for?
- fertile (shown in youthfulness and good health)
- faithfulness (avoid cuckoldry)
139
what is human reproductive behaviour (evolutionary explanation)?
- any behaviour which relates to opportunities to reproduce
- increases survival chances for our genes
140
what are the two aspects of human reproductive behaviour (evolutionary explanation)?
- natural selection
- sexual selection
141
what is natural selection (evolutionary explanation)?
- variation within a species that leads to some individuals being better equipped to survive and bread than others
142
what is sexual selection (evolutionary explanation)?
- process by which characteristics that lead to reproductive success are passed on to offspring through genes
- two types
143
what does sexual selection involve (evolutionary explanation)?
- selecting the right mate
- outcompeting rivals
- engaging the right behaviours for successful conception
- engaging in the right behaviours for successful child rearing
144
what are the types of sexual selection (evolutionary explanation)?
- intersexual selection
- intrasexual selection
145
what is intersexual selection (evolutionary explanation)?
- members of one sex (usually females) evolve preferences for qualities in prospective mates (usually males)
- determine which areas which the other sex competes
146
what is intrasexual selection (evolutionary explanation)?
- members one sex (usually males) compete for access to the other sex (usually females)
- leads to male-female dimorphism
147
what does dimorphism mean (evolutionary explanation)?
- represents two distinct forms
- results in development of key characteristics that ensure reproductive success
148
what are the two main researchers investigating evolutionary explanation for partner preferences?
- Singh
- Buss
149
what did Singh find out about evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
- found across cultures there is a preference for female waist-hip ratio of 0.7
- preference for hour glass shape
- powerful sign of fertility
150
what did Buss find out about evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
- explored whatmales and females look for in a long term partner across 37 cultures
- preferences include: men valued younger women and women valued resources
151
what does Buss' research suggest about the evolutionary theory?
- relevant for human species as a whole (consistent) which is strong support
152
how can Buss' research be criticised (evolutionary explanation)?
- only looks at preferences not actual behaviour
- however, repeated with actual marriages and still showed same findings
153
what research support is there for the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences?
- Cunningham's research indicates a male preference for visual indicators of fertility ie. youthfulness
- Singh found strong support for this as it has cross cultural validity so preferences like an hour glass figure are universal
154
what research criticism is there for the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences?
- Berstein found this explanation ignores the role of culture in female preferences for males with resources, this may be explained by a lack of access to economic and political power for females in some cultures
- Buller found female preference for high status males may be the result of sample bias (ie. relying on female undergraduate students)
155
how can the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences be criticised as overly deterministic and reductionist?
- sees attraction and sexual behaviours as driven by our need/ desire to reproduce, fails to consider the role of free will (ie. use of contraception, choosing never to have children, etc)
- reduces relationships and sexual behaviour down to purely evolutionary forces of reproduction
