Relationships Flashcards
(120 cards)
1
Q
evolutionary explanation
Sexual selection?
our preferences are evolved adaptations
A
- evolutionary explanation of partner preference
- attributes / behaviour that increase reproductive success are passed on + become more frequent over generations of offspring
- describes how evolution has shaped us to provide a mating advantage through intrasexual / intersexual selection
2
Q
Anisogamy?
A
- refers to difference between male + female sex cells
- male gametes: small + mobile + many produced over longer time
- female gametes: large + static + limited fertililty as only limited time of production
- = no shortage of fertile males but fertile females are ‘rarer resources’
- gives rise to 2 types of sexual selection
3
Q
2 types of sexual selection:
1.Inter- sexual selection
A
- when males compete for the attention of a female
- females chooses from available potential mates (males) according to attractiveness
- the female plays an active role, chosing her mate
- according to attractivness + biology
4
Q
inter-sexual selection + human reperoductive behaviour
Robert trivers
- choosiness
A
- both sexes are choosy as they both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard partners
- but the consequences of making a wrong partner choice are more serious for female = pays for her to be especially selective
- therefore female’s optimum mating stratergy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide resources
5
Q
inter-sexual selection + human reperoductive behaviour
Ronald Fisher
- Runaway process: sexy son hypothesis
A
- genes present in today’s generation are those that enhanced reproductive success
- women will mate with men they find “sexy”
- = their son will then inherit this “sexy” trait = higher reproductive success for later generation
6
Q
Evidence for inter-sexual selection
A
- Buss + Schmitt
- asked men+women how many partners they would ideally want over next 2 years + over lifetime
over next 2 years (average) :
- men = would like 8 partners
- women = 1 partner
over lifetime (avergae) :
- men = 18
- women = 4-5
- Clark + Hatfield’s
- sent males+female students out + made them ask others “I have been noticing you around campus, i find you attractive would you go to bed with me tonight?”
- 0 females agreed
- 75% males agreed
7
Q
2 types of sexual selection:
- Intra-sexual selection
A
- when males compete (often aggressively) + the winner is rewarded with the female
- the female is passive in this process
= she doesn’t choose her own mate
= leads to dimorphism
8
Q
intra-sexual selection + human reperoductive behaviour
Dimorphism
A
- sexual dimorphism = difference in form between sexes = males + females look different
- in physical competetion between males for mates = size matters = larger males have advantage + more likely to mate
- dimorphism suggests that males are competing for the attention of females + females do the choosing
9
Q
intra-sexual selection + human reperoductive behaviour
Aggressive behaviour
A
- males may benefit from behaving aggressively in order to acquire fertile females + protect them competing males
- = selection of aggressivness in males
10
Q
intra-sexual selection + human reperoductive behaviour
preference for youth + fertility
A
- In females, youthfulness is selected because males have preference to mate with younger more fertile women
- eg females with large waist-to-hip ratio
11
Q
Supporting evidence
A
Cunningham
- found that men are attracted to features associated with young children
- large eyes
- small noses + chins
12
Q
evaluation for
Evolutionary explanations for Relationships AO3
A
- Supporting evidences
- Ignore social + cultural influences
- Evolutionary reductionism
- Emphasise the differences in what males and females look for in a potential partner
13
Q
1.
Supporting evidences
A
- supporting evidence for intra-sexual selection’s theory that states that males compete for fertile female + have preference for youth + fertility
- Cunningham found that men are attracted to features associated with young children (eg large eyes + small noses + chins)
- Validates intra-sexual selection as shows that in females, youthfulness is selected because males have preference to mate with younger more fertile women
- making the evolutionary explanation for relationships more credible + furthers our understanding into what affects mating preferences in relationships
14
Q
2.
Ignore social + cultural influences
- outdated
A
- Evolutionary explanations ignore social + cultural influences.
- For the past 100 years, Western societies have experienced significant changes in terms of gender
equality + women’s independence - These changes mean that women in modern Western societies may no longer be looking for a man to provide them with resources + other qualities in a mate become more important
- This makes evolutionary explanations limited, as they only explain human mates’ choice in terms of evolutionary adaptiveness, ignoring other important factors, such as culture + social norms.
15
Q
3.
Evolutionary reductionism
A
- Evolutionary explanations of relationships suffer from
evolutionary reductionism, as they argue that strategies for choosing a mate are the result of genetic inheritance + a striving for reproductive success. - However, this is not always as straightforward in real life, where individual differences in partner’s choice play a huge part
- For eg evolutionary explanations fail to account for
homosexual relationships where choice of partner clearly does not result in reproductive success + so doesn’t have an evolutionary advantage
16
Q
4.
Emphasise the differences in what males and females look for in a potential partner
A
- Furthermore, evolutionary explanations of mate preference also emphasise the differences in what males + females look for in a potential partner
- This exaggeration of the differences between the genders is known as an alpha bias + the differences between males + females may be overstated
- It is plausible to argue that males + females actually look for similar characteristics, such as loyalty + kindness, and such characteristics are not reported in the research,
which tends to look for clear differences.
17
Q
Facttors affecting attraction
self-disclosure
A
- Revealing personal information about yourself
- Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops
- These sef-disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts + feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately
18
Q
Social penteration theory of how a relationship develops
A
- self disclosure is a major concept within Altman + Taylor’s social penteration theory
- Revealing your inner-self to someone else
- Reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners
- Builds trust
- Penetrate more deeply into each others lives
19
Q
Breadth + debth of self disclosure
A
- According to Altman + Taylor, self disclosure has 2 elements: breadth + debth
- As both of these increase, romantic partners become more committed to eachother
- When we first meet someone, the info we reveal is more ‘superficial’ and ‘low-risk’ as afraid to reveal too much info straight away and threatening the relationship
- As relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper
20
Q
Recpricoty of self-disclosure
A
- For a relationship to develop + increase in breadth + debth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
- Once disclosing info about true self to partner, partner will hopefully respond in a way thats rewarding, with empathy / own intimate thoughts + feelings
- So there is a balance of self disclosure between both partners in successful romantic relationship = increase feelings on intimacy + deepen relationship
21
Q
evaluation for
self-disclosure + social penteration theory AO3
A
- supporting evidence
- Methadological issues w SE
- Reductionism
- culture bias - ethnocentric
Real-life application - self-disclosure - main way gay men + women maintained + deepened their committed relationships
22
Q
1.
Supporting evidence
A
- Altman + Taylor’s social penetration theory has supporting evidence from Sprecher + Hendrick
- They found a positive correlation between self disclosure, satisfaction + high levels of intimacy
- This increases our confidence in the validity of the
theory that self disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships.
23
Q
2.
Methadological issues with SE
A
- However there are methodological issues with the SE for the social penetration theory as most of the research is only correlational.
- Whilst we can assume that self disclosure creates more
satisfaction we can not conclusively claim that as causation has not been established = we do not know if self disclosure increases satisfaction or if satisfaction increases self disclosure - Cause + effect can not be established
- Therefore its necessary to consider that other factors
could explain satisfaction in relationships for eg similarities in values and/ or monetary gifts
24
Q
3.
Reductionism
A
- The social penetration theory reduces relationship satisfaction to a single factor = claiming that self-disclosure is most important in relationship formation
- The social penetration theory ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction, such as physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes + complementarity
- However this does not mean they are any less important = limits the theory = less valid + credible
- Suggests further research should investigate couples individual experiences using a more holistic approach which will ultimately further our understanding into how romantic relationships are formed
25
# 4.
culture bias - ethnocentric
- The social penetration theory ignores cultural
variation in the formation of romantic relationships
+ is therefore ethnocentric + culturally bias
- Most of the supporting research are conducted on western cultures + focus on western ideals of relationship
formation
- Tang et al found that despite higher intimate self disclosure in the USA (disclose more sexual thoughts + feelings) compared to romantic partners in China, level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures
- This limits the theory, making it culturaly bound, meaning it can not be used to explain all relationships globaly + cannot be fully generalised to other cultures as self disclosure isn't too important for all
- implication on advise given during counselling sessions - counsellors have to consider the role culture as self- disclosure is not a requirement for successful relationships in all cultures
26
# factors affecting attraction
**physical attraction**
1. Halo effect
2. Matching hypothesis
27
# Factors affecting attraction
physical attraction
1. **Halo effect**
- physical attractivness important in forming romantic relationships
- **Halo effect** - how physical attractivness tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgment of their attributes + personality
- we have procenceived ideas about the personality traits attractive ppl have
- physically attractive ppl are seen as more kind / strong / sociable / successful compared to unattractive ppl
- belief that good looking ppl have good characteristics which makes them evenmore 'attractive' = we behave positvely to them = self-fulfilling prophecy
28
Evaluation of
Physical attractivness - Halo Effect
AO3
1. supporting evidence
2. individual differences
29
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- SE for halo effect from Palmer + Peterson
- They found that Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable + competent than unattractive people
- Other studies also found that Physically attractive people
were judged to be more intelligent, healthier, sociable compared to unattractive people
- These findings validate the halo effect and add credibility to the theory as it shoes that physical attractivness is a majot factor influencing people's prespective of eachother, and therefore formation of relationships
30
# 2.
Individual differences
- fails to consider that not all individuals seek attractive partners = physical attraction is not most important to everyone
- Towhey gave ps photos of strangers + some biographical information about them + participants were asked to rate how much they liked the people on photographs
- He found that physical attractiveness was more
important only for participants who displayed
sexist attitudes
- This suggests that, depending on the individual, physical
appearance may or may not be a significant factor in attractiveness, while the halo effect suggests it is always the main one
- Therefore this limits our understanding on the role of physical attraction in relationship formation
31
# Factors affecting attraction
physical attraction
2. **Matching hypothesis**
- Suggests we look for partners who are similiar to ourselves in terms of physical attractivness (+personality + intelligence)
32
Walster et al's computer dance'
- The computer dance experiment did not find support for the matching hypothesis
- Nearly 400 male + female students were randomly paired at a dance + later asked to rate their date
- Physical attractiveness (which was independently assessed) proved to be the most important factor in liking, rather than similarity
- It was also the best predictor of the likelihood that they would see each other again
33
Evaluation of
matchin hypothesis
AO3
1. Supporting evidence
2. Opposing evidence from online relationships
34
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- The matching hypothesis has supporting evidence which
validates its claims that individuals seek partners who match their level of attractiveness
- Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples
- He established a strong correlation between the partners’ ratings of attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis
- This evidence validates the matching hypothesis furthers our understanding into the role physical attraction plays in the formation of relationships
35
# 2.
Opposing evidence from online relationships
- The matching hypothesis is limited as it has failed to take into account the role of technology forming relationships
- Taylor et al investigated the activity log on a dating
website + found that website users were more likely to
try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who
was more physically attractive than them
- These findings contradict the matching hypothesis, as according to its predictions, users should seek more dates with a person who is similar in terms of attractiveness
- This limits our understanding of relationship formation + invalidates the matching hypothesis
- Additionally this suggests it has low temporal validity as it fails to take into consideration the role of technological
advances on the formation of relationships
= the matching hypothesis therefore outdated + cannot be generalised to today's society, as online dating has not be considered.
36
Evaluation of
**Physical attraction** (in general)
impact on forming relationships
1. Supporting evidence
2. Beta gender bias
3. Individual differences ignored
37
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- SE for halo effect from Palmer + Peterson
- They found that Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable + competent than unattractive people
- Other studies also found that Physically attractive people
were judged to be more intelligent, healthier, sociable compared to unattractive people
- These findings validate the halo effect and add credibility to the theory as it shoes that physical attractivness is a major factor influencing people’s prespective of eachother
38
# 2.
Beta gender bias
- The theory that physical attraction is most important in forming romantic relationships may have gender beta-bias as it assumes that men + women have same view of the importance of physical attractiveness, however research suggests otherwise
- Meltzer et al found that men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive, while for women their partner’s attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact on relationship satisfaction
- This shows that there are significant gender differences in how important appearance is for attraction = research into the role of physical attraction on relationships are misleading as ignores the differences between men + women + importance of how attractive their potential partner is
39
# 3.
Individual differences
- Fails to consider that not all individuals seek attractive partners = physical attraction is not most important to everyone
- Towhey gave ps photos of strangers + some biographical information about them + participants were asked to rate how much they liked the people on photographs
- He found that physical attractiveness was more
important only for participants who displayed sexist attitudes
- This suggests that, depending on the individual, physical
appearance may or may not be a significant factor in attractiveness, while the halo effect + matching hypothesis suggests it is always the main one
- Therefore this limits our understanding on the role of physical attraction in relationship formation
40
# Factros affecting attraction
**Filter theory**
- This theory suggests that people develop relationships by applying a series of filters, such as similarity of social demographic factors + attitudes + complementarity of needs to narrow down the pool of available romantic partners
- Using these filters helps individuals narrow down the pool of availability to those who they believe they have the best chance of a relationship with
41
3 Levels of filter
1. social demographic factors
2. similarity in attitudes
3. Complementarity
42
1. social demographic factors
- Most people will form a relationship with people close to them geographically, in age + social background
- geographically + age = higher chance they will meet, speak or generally become aware of one another
- Similarities in education, social class + background gives them assurance that relationships are more likely to move forward
43
2. similarity in attitudes
- People tend to view others as more attractive if they share the same core beliefs + values, such as views on importance of family
- Most people will come into contact with people from the same social / cultural background = same attitudes
- This can also be the case for internal characteristics such as attitudes, or personality traits
44
3. Complementarity
- Not all personality characteristics need to be the same, we are often attracted to people who can give us what we lack
- Similarity becomes less important as relationship develops + is replaced by need for ur partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own
- A dominating person may like a submissive person
- 1 partner may enjoy meeting new people + being socially proactive + other may enjoy being introduced to people rather than initiating social interactions themselves = complement eachother
45
Evidence:
**Winch**
**Winch** found that
- similarity of interests + attitudes + personality traits were very important for couples in the beginning of relationships
- complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships
46
Evaluation of Filter theory
AO3
1. Supporting evidence
2. outdated + lacks temporal validity
3. Ignores cultural variation in the formation of
relationships = is ethnocentric + culturally bias
4. Has face validity
47
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- FT has supporting evidence which validates its claim that individuals are attracted to + form relationships with
people who they have filtered/ narrowed down our range of potential partners using 3 main factors
- Winch found that similarity of interests, attitudes +
personality traits were very important for couples in the beginning of relationships
- complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships
- This evidence validates the filter theory, giving it greater credibilty + furthers our understanding into what variables are important when individuals are choosing potential partners to form a romantic relationship with + maintaining them in future
48
# 2.
outdated + lacks temporal validity
- FT could be criticised for being outdated + lacking temporal validity
- Dating websites + apps have greatly affects modern relationships
- Compared with 20-30 years ago, people nowadays are
more open minded + likely to develop relationships with someone who is not in their geographical proximity or from the same culture
- This makes the Filter theory less valid + limits our
understanding of how romantic relationships form in modern society
49
# 3.
Ignores cultural variation in the formation of
relationships = is ethnocentric + culturally bias
- The FT ignores cultural variation in the formation of relationships = it is ethnocentric + culturally bias
- Most research supporting the Filter Theory uses ps from
individualist, Western cultures.
- Individualist cultures value free choice in relationships + describe the choice of partners in terms of individual
preferences
- In these cultures, people may apply the criteria described by the Filter Theory freely + usually without much influence from other ppl
- However, this is not the case in collectivist cultures, where it is common for romantic relationships to be arranged, so partners are not free to apply individual filters to select their future partner
- This limits our understanding of relationship formation
in other cultures + therefore limits the FT as it cannot be universally generalised.
50
# 4.
Has face validity
- The filter theory has face validity + makes sense = people can relate to it
- Most people’s experience of romantic relationships include choosing potential partners + developing an
attraction to people who have a similar sociodemographic background + attitude to themselves and/ or which compliments theirs
- This is a strength of the theory as it furthers our understanding into the formation of romantic relationships
51
# Theories of romantic relationships
**Social exchange theory**
(Thibault + Kelley)
- A theory of how relationships form + develop
- claiming that behaviour in relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange
- It assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards + costs
- A satisfying + committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs + potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
- Rewards include companionship / emotional support / se
52
2 Levels
Level 1: comparison level
Level 2: Comparison level for alternatives
53
# CL
Level 1:
Comparison level
- A judgment of how much profit an individual is receiving (benefits minus costs)
Factors affecting CL:
- Experience of previous relationships feed into our expectations of the current one
- influenced by social norms that determine what we consider as reasonable level of reward (books/films)
- CL linked with self-esteem
- Somoeone with low self-esteem will have a low CL = will be satisfied with gaining just a small profit from a relationship
- someone with high self-esteem will think they're worth more
54
# CLAT
Level 2:
Comparison level for alternatives
- A person’s judgment of whether they could be getting fewer costs + greater rewards from another alternative relationship with another partner
- we will stay in our current relationships if we believe its more rewarding + profitable than the alternatives
- Steve Duck: CLAT we adopt depends on current stage of relationship
55
Stages of relationship development
- SET states that there's 4 stages in which relationships (and the social exchanges which underpin them) develop:
1. Sampling stage
2. Bargaining stage
3. Commitment stage
4. Institutionalisation stage
56
# 1.
Sampling stage
**Sampling stage**
- we explore the rewards + costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships (not just romantic ones), or by observing others doing so
57
# 2.
Bargaining stage
**Bargaining stage**
- this marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards + costs, negotiating + identifying what is most profitable
58
# 3.
Commitment stage
**Commitment stage**
- as time goes on, the sources of costs + rewards become more predictable + the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase + costs lessen
59
# 4.
Institutionalisation stage
**Institutionalisation stage**
- the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards + costs, are firmly established
60
Evaluation of
social Exchange theory
AO3
1. Supporting evidence
2. Practical application
3. Issues with cause + effect
4. Vague + subjective concepts (unscientific)
61
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- supporting evidence for the SET
- Sprecher found that comparison levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship + that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women
- *Floyd et al found that commitment develops when couples are satisfied with + feel rewarded in, a relationship + when they perceive that equally attractive or more attractive alternative relationships are unavailable to them*
- This adds credibility, validates + increases our confidence in the SET of romantic relationships
- This also furthers our understanding into how romantic relationships are maintained + what factors are a good indicator for commitment, which can be used as advice
to couples during relationship counselling
62
# 2.
Practical application
- The SET has real life application + has been used to develop IBCT
- In (IBCT) Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy, partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions + decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns
- = increases reward + profit for each couple
- Christensen et al found about 2/3 of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved + they were feeling much happier as a result of it
- This validate, adds credibility to + increases our confidence in the SET as a good theory for the maintenance of romantic relationships as it has been used effectively to improve relationships/ marriages
63
# 3.
Issues with cause + effect
- There are issues with the cause + effect, whether dissatisfaction lead to assessing relationships or whether people assess their relationships to measure satisfaction
- This is supported by Argyle who argued that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them
- For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a
person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships + the potential alternatives, but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered.
- This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit + loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained,
even happy ones
64
# 4.
Vague + subjective concepts
(unscientific)
- The concept of rewards + costs is highly subjective
- for eg 1 person may find lots of praise from a partner rewarding, but another person could find it annoying = making rewards + costs difficult to measure
- different for every person
- Therefore, it is difficult to quantify how much more attractive alternatives should become, or by how much costs should outweigh the rewards, for the person to start feeling dissatisfied with their current relationship
- SET limited + reduces its validity
65
# Rusbult
**Rusbult's**
Investment model
- Stability of a relationship overtimes is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship
- commitment varies depending on
1. Satisfaction
2. Comparison w alternatives
3. Investment
66
1. Satisfaction
| based on concept of CL in social exchange theory
- The extent to which a romantic partner feel with rewards of a relationship exceeds the costs
- How well the relationships fulfils their needs
- partner is more satisfied if they're getting more out of a relationship than they expect (based on previous experiences / social norms)
67
2. Compariosns with alternatives
To what extent the person thinks their needs could be better fulfilled in another relationship, or by not being in a relationship
68
3. Investment
- How much a person feels they've put in to the relationship (emotionally / time..)
- resources associated / put into relationship which partners would lose if their relationship was to end
(anything we'd lose if relationship ends)
69
1. Intrinsic Investment:
2. Extrinsic Investment:
1.**Intrinsic** : resources we put directly into relationship
- Tangible: money + possessions
- Intangible: Energy + emotions + self-disclosures
2.**Extrinsic** : resources which previously did not feature in relationship, but now do
- Tangible: possessions bought together (cars/house) + Children + mutual friends
- Intangible: Shared memories
70
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
Committment expresses itslef in everyday maintenance behaviour
Enduring Partners..
- Put partner's interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
- Forgive them for serious transgressions (forgivness)
- Are unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illussions)
- Are negative about alternative + others' relationships
71
Evidence:
Le + Agnew
- Le + Agnew’s meta-analysis of 52 studies
- Found support for the Investment Model across individualist + collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) + in Taiwan (collectivist culture)
- Found measure of satisfaction, quality of alternatives + investments were correlated with commitment to a romantic relationship
72
Evaluation of
Investment model
1. Real world application
2. Universal explanation
3. Methadological issues
73
# 1.
Real world application
- The investment model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships
- Rusbult + Maltz, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn't have any appealing alternatives
- These findings are predicted by the investment model which claims that, if a partner feels the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) + rewards are few
74
# 2.
Universal explanation
- The investment model offers a universal explanation of romantic relationships which can be applied to other cultures
- Le + Agnew’s meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) + in Taiwan (collectivist culture)
- This may suggest that the human need for investment + commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive + reproduce
- For example, parents who are committed to their relationship + invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children's survival
75
# 3.
Methadological issues
- There are methodological issues with the supporting evidence for the investment model
- Most of the research evidence is correlational + uses self report techniques to investigate the role of investments in committed romantic relationships
- The use of correlational evidence limits the predictive validity of the model, as cause + effect can not be established
- Psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships or investments occurs because they are commitment
- Additionally, although using self-report techniques is an appropriate way to test the Investment Model, as the key concepts in the model are subjective, there are issues with the validity of the answers provided by Ps ( could be socially desirable answers)
- This potentially limits the validity of the model
76
**Equity theory**
- Suggests people expect relationships to be fair
- They want to receive rewards from relationships that are in balance with the rewards they provide for other partners
- It's about the balance between rewards + costs = if a person puts a lot into a relationship + receives a lot = it will feel fair to them
77
Consequence of an inequitable relationship:
**Under-benefited partner feels:**
- Dissatisfaction
- Unhappiness
- Resentment
- Anger
- Short term relationship- break up
- Long term relationship- restore equity
**Over-benefited partner feels:**
- Guilt
- Shame
- Discomfort
78
Supporting evidence
**Utne et al**
**Utne et al**
- used self-report scales to measure equity + satisfaction in recently married couples
Findings:
- Partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them
79
Evaluation of
Equity theory
AO3
1 Supporting evidence
2 Ignores cultural variation - culturally biased
3 Limitation of nomethetic approach
80
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- Strength is there's evidence from from studies of real -world relationships showing importance of equity theory in developing + maintaining relationships
- Utne et al used self-report scales to measure equity + satisfaction in recently married couples
- found that Partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them
- Validated equity theory as it shows that equity is significant in the maintenance of relationships as it makes partners more satisfied
- This adds credibilty to the theory, furthering our understanding on factors contributing to relationships
81
# 2.
Ignores cultural variation - culturally biased
- The equity theory assumes the need for equity in relationships is universal across all cultures = It ignores cultural variation + is therefore culturally biased
- The supporting evidence + assumptions made are based on western/ individualistic ideas
- Research has shown that the concept of equity is more
important in Western cultures than non-Western cultures
- They found that both men + women from non-Western (collectivist) cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationships when they were over-benefitting from it, not when the relationships were fair
- This makes the equity theory limited because it cannot account for culturally differences + the perception of equity + relationship satisfaction
82
# 3.
Limitation of nomethetic approach
- Another limitation is that the equity theory is nomothetic, it offers a universal explanation for the maintenance of romantic relationships
- Due to individual differences, each relationship is different for every couple
- Not all partners are concerned about achieving
equity, other factors may be more sigificant for them (physical attractivness / similarity in attidues) = therefore we cannot make genral laws + apply it to all
- Therefore an idiographic approach may be more
appropriate to investigate romantic relationships as
they would focus on the experiences of individuals,
which differ between couples
83
**Duck's phase model**
| of relationship breakdown
- The ending of a relationship takes time + goes through 4 distinct phases
- once each partner is dissatisfied, there are 4 phases in the process, each with different focus
- each phase is marked with by one partner (or both) reaching a 'threshold', a point at which their preception of the relationship changes
- each phase leads to the next as the threshold point is reached
84
3 reasons of breakdown
- pre existing doom
- mechanical failure
- sudden death (cheating)
85
The 4 phases of relationship breakdown?
1. Intra-psychic phase
2. Dyadic phase
3. social phase
4. Grave-dressing phase
86
1. Intra-psychic phase
- Cognitive process inside head of individual
- partner becomes dissatisfied w relationship
- consider problem internally + weigh up pros + cons
- may discuss with trusted friend + consider ways to save relationship
| Threshold: 'I can't stand this anymore'
87
2. Dyadic phase
- interpersonal process between 2 partners
- partners confront eachother about dissatisfaction + discuss relationship issues
2 outcomes:
- relationship saved = through discussion of what to change + how to renew relationship
- fail to save it = next threshold reached
| threshold: 'I would be justified in leaving'
88
3. Social phase
- Breakup is made public to friends + family
- They pick sides, external inputs added + provide support (opinions of friends + family eg 'i always said you were too good for him')
- others may try help repair their relationship
- Implications of breakup discusses (care of children eg)
| threshold: 'I mean it'
89
4. Grave-dressing phase
- Finishing relationship completely
- Focus is on the aftermath
- organise their new lives post-relationship
- Partners create their own versions / narratives of the breakup + communicate this to make themselves look good + maintain positive reputation at the expense of ex partner
| threshold: 'It's now inevitable'
90
Evaluation of
Duck's phase model
AO3
1. Practical application for couple's counselling
2. Not applicable to all relationships (age)
3. Culturally bias + ignores culture differences
91
# 1.
Practical application for couple's counselling
- strength of model is that it not only helps us to identify + understand the stages of relationships breakdown but also suggests various ways of reversing it
- The model is used in couples’ counselling = couples can be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they are currently in
- EG for a couple in the dyadic phase, communication about dissatisfaction + ways to balance relationships is crucial
- validates the model giving it credibility as it can be used to help repair relationships by suggesting ways of reversing the stages of relationship breakdown
92
# 2.
Not applicable to all relationships
- individual differences of age
- may not be applicable to all types of romantic relationships, as the social phase is greatly affected by individual differences, esp age
- Dickson found that while friends + relatives tend to see teenagers' break-ups as less serious + wouldn't put much effort into reconciling partners
- but the ending of relationships by older couples is seen as more distressing + theyput more effort into bringing the couple back together
- This shows that Duck's model won't necessarily apply to all couples = therefore suggests that the model is unable to accurately predict breakdown in relationships of all couples, as their age can impact the stages
93
# 3.
Culturally bias + ignores culture differences
- Duck’s model is culturally biased as it ignores cultural variation in relationship breakdown
- Most of the research into the model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice + separation + divorce are easily obtainable + do not carry stigma
- However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members + characterised by greater family involvement
- This makes the relationship difficult to end = break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck
- = Duck's model is culturally biased as it assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case
94
**Virtual relationships in social media**
CMC = computer mediated communication
gate = obstacle
| F2F = face to face
- self-disclosure happens much quicker online (the hyperpersonal model)
- There's absence of gating in virtual relationships (obstacles to forming relationships such as social anxiety, speech impediments - stuttering)
- Reduced cues online
95
1. Reduced cues theory
- virtual relationships are less effective than F2F, as CMC lacks cues we normally depend on in F2F
- EG physical appearance, facial expression, tone of voice
- online relationships might be less open + honest than F2F ones, because in real life we rely on a lot of subtle cues
- reduction in communication cues leads to
de-individuation + disinhibition because it reduces ppl's feelings of individual identity + brings behaviours that people usually restrain themselves from displaying, such as aggression
96
Walther + Tidwel
- cues not absent, they're just different for CMC relationships
- Timing of response + style of message used as cues instead
- Emojis, acrostics (LMAO / LOL)
= theory limited as cues still present just in different format than F2F + fails to explain success online relationships
[Baker + Oswald - virtual relationships more useful for shy people]
97
# Walther's
2. The hyperpersonal model
Walther:
- Online relationships can be more personal + involve greater self-disclosure than F2F
- CMC relationships can develop very quickly = self disclosure happens earlier + more intense
- Sender has more time to manipulate their image + 'edit' their responses to present themselves in more positive way
- Projecting positive image = make online partner want to disclose more personal information = increasing the intensity of the relationshi
- selective self-presentation - sender manipulates self image to present themselves in idealised way
- Self-disclosure (SD) can be hyperdishonest / hyperhonest
98
Whitty and Joinson
- research clearly demonstrates the effect of virtual environment of self-disclosure
- The discovered that in online discussion forums both questions + answers tend to be more direct, probing + intimate than in everyday face-to-face interactions
99
3. Absence of gating in virtual relationships
- Gates prevent ppl from sharing info (SD) = can't develop intimacy + build relationship
- Relationships failing F2F due to obstacles (gates) such as facial expressions/appearance/social skills/shyness which some ppl may find off-putting
- Absence of 'gates' in CMC allows relationships to begin, when they might not have in F2F
- creates more opportunities for shy + less attractive people to develop romantic relationships
- when factors discovered later (after CMC = F2F) they rarely decrease an already-developed attraction, as a result of the feeling of intimacy brought by more open self-disclosure
100
McKenna + Bargh
- looked at CMC use by socially awkward anxious ppl
- they were able to express their true selves more than in F2F
- 70% of online realtionships survived more than 2 years
- this is higher than F2F relationships
101
Evaluation of
Virtual relationships
AO3
1. supporting evidence
2. low temporal validity
3. reduced cue theory unable to explain success of online relationships
102
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- Supporting evidence for hypersonal model which predicts that online relationships can be more personal + involve greater self-disclosure than F2F + self-disclosure can be hyperhonest + sometimes hyperdishonest
- Whitty + Joinson found that self-disclosure in CMC
can be hyperhonest / hyperdishonet and that questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing + intimate
-These findings support the prediction that self-disclosure is more intimate online + that ppl self-disclose in CMC in a way which presents them in an exaggeratedly positive light which aids relationship formation + intimacy
103
# 2.
Low temporal validity
- Limitation is that most of the research examining
virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s + early 2000s and has low temporal validity.
- As technology is changing rapidly, so is the nature of online relationships + dating websites = therefore psychological research in this area is outdated + cannot be genralised to virtual relationships in today's society
- For more externally valid findings which further our understanding, research into modern virtual relationships should be done instead
104
# 3.
reduced cue theory unable to explain success of online relationships
- The reduced cue theory is unable to explain the
success of online relationships
- theory suggests that virtual relationships less effective than F2F + difficult to form in absence of cues, yet there are many research + real life cases which show the success in online dating (which reduced cues theory not acknowledge)
- Also cues not absent, they're just different for CMC relationships = Timing of response + style of message + Emojis can be used as cues instead
- it is possible to express emotional states online
- = theory limited as cues still present just in different format than F2F + fails to explain success online relationships = reducing its validity
105
**Parasocial relationship**
- one sided relationship where one of the partners (object of other person's obsession) is unaware that relationship exists
- usually with a celebrity / someone famous
- 'fan' expends a lot of emotional energy, commitment + time
106
3 Levels of parasocial relationships
1. Entertainment social stage
2. Intense-personal stage
3. Borderline pathological stage
107
1. Entertainment social level
- least intense level of celebrity worship
- celebrity viewed as source of entertainment + fun for social groups
108
2. Intense-personal level
- more serious + focused interest
- involving frequent thoughts + daydreams about them
- obsessive thoughts begin to arise
- Interest in celebrity's personal life
- EG sees them as their soulmate
109
3. Borderline pathological level
- strongest level of celebrity worship
- Extreme behaviour (sending love letters) + obsessive thoughts (he's my bf)
- stalking may occur
110
McCutcheon's
Absorption-addiction model
- ppl engage in celebrity worship to compensate for some defeciencies in their life
- eg difficulties forming intimate relationship / lack of identity
=
* parasocial relationships make up for deficits in real life relationships
* parasocial relationships enable a sense of identity + purpose + excitement
* addictive nature means that parasocial relationships escalate through series of stages
111
Absorption
- Individual becomes absorbed in following a celebrity as a form of escapism
- Become consumed by imaginary relationship
- focus attenton on celebrity to become preoccupied + identify with them
112
Addiction
- relationship becomes addictive
- need to increase their 'dose' inorder to gain satisfaction
- through more extreme behaviour + delusional thinking
113
Evidence for Absorption-addiction model
Maltby et al
- Measured the relation between celebrity worship + body image in teenagers
- They found that teenage girls who were at the intense-personal level of celebrity worship tended to have a poor body image, especially if they particularly admired a celebrity’s physical appearance (correlation)
114
Greenwood + Long
- found evidence that people may develop celebrity worships as a way of dealing with recent loss / loneliness
115
Attachment theory explanation
**Bowlby's theory:**
- predicts that individuals who didn't form a strong bond with a primary caregiver in early childhood will try to find an attachment substitute as an adult (engaging in parasocial relationships allows them to do so)
**Ainsworth's attachment types:**
- Insecure-resistant attachment types are more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults
116
Evidence for Attachment theory explanation
- Lewis et al
- Kienlen et al
**Lewis et al**
- found that stalkers have traits typical of insecure attachment such as ambivalent attitudes to those they have relationship with + emotional instability
**Kienlen et al**
- Studied records of 25 stalkers + found disrupted childhood attachment + loss of an important relationship in the 6 months prior to stalking
- 63% experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood
- 50% experienced emotional + physical abuse
117
Evaluation of parasocial relationships
AO3
1. Supporting evidence
2. Methadological issue
3. Opposing evidence
118
# 1.
Supporting evidence
- Theres evidence that support the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships
- Kienlen et al Studied records of 25 stalkers + found most had disrupted childhood attachment. 63% experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood + 50% experienced emotional + physical abuse
- This shows how childhood experiences has a significant role on adult life, as childood trauma increases the likelyhood that they will develop parasocial relationships
- This validates the attachment theory explanation of why parasocial relationships occur + furthers our understanding of the factors which contribute to it
119
# 2.
Methadological issues
- Weakness of studies into parasocial relationships is that most
rely heavily on self-report methods, such as interviews + questionnaires
- These methods may not reflect the truth, as ps may want to answer in a way that reflects them in better light (social desirability bias) + may not respond truthfully to the questions = findings not valid
- = the reasons for developing parasocial relationships may be different from the ones found by research
- Also most research done was correlational = cause + effect cannot be established, lowering the scientific explanatory power
- = lowers the validity of these explanations (absorption-addiction model + attachment theory)
= making them less applicable to real life
120
# 3.
Opposing evidence
- There is opposing evidence for the attachment theory
explanations
- McCutcheon et al examined the correlation between attachment type + celebrity worship levels using 229 ps + found no link between insecure-resistant attachment + more intense levels of parasocial relationships
- This contradicts the claim made by attachment theory
explanations and suggests that there is no link between attachment type + parasocial relationships
