1
Q
what is the basis of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences theory
A
- every species has one aim which is to reproduce and pass on their genes
2
Q
explain intra sexual selection (mate competition)
A
- males compete with each other for a female (members of same sex compete)
-which ever male wins can pass on their genes, whatever trait leads to the success will also be passed on - in many species males have characteristics such as brighter colouration/exaggerated tails that serve to attract females
- suggests in many species females do the choosing
3
Q
explain inter-sexual selection
A
- one sex chooses which member of the opposite sex to mate with
- the strategies that males use to select females or females use to select males
- e.g females would look for qualities that will help raise a child like resources (money) and physical characteristics such as tall and muscular
- females are ‘choosy’ as eggs are seen as more precious, where sperm can be produced frequently and a lot
- males look for fertility, young features
4
Q
explain the ‘sexy son hypothesis’ by Donal Fisher
A
-when a female mates with a male who has a desirable trait, this ‘sexy’ trait gets inherited by her son.
- increases the likelihood that successive generations of females will mate with her offspring.
-from a male perspective, males look for youth and physical attractiveness, normally signs of good health as it’s a sign of their fertility and reproductive value
- women deserve older males with wealth and resources as rich men will be able to provide resources for offspring
5
Q
what is a weakness of inter-sexual selection
A
Gender bias in short term mating strategies
- we talk about how men have a desire for casual sex and want as many women as possible, however this trait couldn’t of evolved without willing females
- every time a man has sex with a new female partner, the female is also having sex with another new partner
- also legitimatises a gender double standard, special differences may have been exaggerated (it’s okay for men to sleep around but not for females) therefore suggests alpha bias, therefore socially sensitive research
Alternative explanation
- theory says that males prefer youth because it’s a sign of good fertility
-however, other psychologists say that perhaps the reason is actually because of social power
- younger women would be easier to control and therefore males can establish their dominance easier
6
Q
what is research support for inter-sexual selection
A
- Hatfield and Clarke sent male and female students out across a university campus, approaching other students individually
- asked ‘ I have been noticing you around campus, I find you attractive, will you have sex with me?’
- not a single female agreed to the request (0%), whereas 75% of males did
- this immediately supports the view that females are choosier than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners, and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success
2) Buss conducted a cross cultural survey over 33 countries asking about partner preferences when selecting a mate. Found that males prioritised factors that indicated reproductive capacity such as younger age, good looks while females prioritised factors like resources, money and ambition. Conducted across multiple cultures so lacks culture bias, behaviour is universal
7
Q
what are the three factors affecting attraction
A
1) self-disclosure
2) physical attractiveness
3) filter theory
8
Q
explain what self disclosure is
A
- involves revealing personal information about yourself
- romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops
- relationships will only develop if both individuals are active in disclosing information
- these relations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately, indicates trust
- someone who discloses to everyone is seen as less attractive than someone who reveals information to fewer people (attributions)
- while revealing information is generally seen as improving relationships, breaking social norms or revealing information too early (TMI) can have the opposite effect, lowering attraction
9
Q
explain the social penetration theory in self disclosure
A
- gradual process of revealing your inner self
- as they increasingly disclose more and more, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each others lives
- Altman and Taylor use the onion metaphor
- breadth and depth of interpersonal commutation increases
- breadth: types of topics discussed, certain topics may not be appropriate until certain level of trust is reached
- depth: level of information about a topic that is revealed such as info that is emotionally painful
- reciprocity: relationship will only develop if both individuals are active in disclosing info
- attributions: motivations behind self disclosure are considered, someone who discloses to anyone is less attractive than someone who discloses because they see us as special
- appropriateness: revealing info too early (TMI) could do opposite effect, lower attraction
10
Q
what are the layers of the onion for the social penetration theory (self-disclosure)
A
1) biographical data (age, gender, name)- low risk info
2) preferences (clothes, food + music)
3) goals, aspirations
4) religious convictions
5) deeply held fears + fantasies
6) concept of self (self esteem)- high risk info
11
Q
what do Reis and Shaver say about reciprocity in relationships
A
- there has to be a reciprocal element to self disclosure
-there must be a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful romantic relationship, which increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship
12
Q
A03
what are the strengths of self disclosure (research support + real life application)
A
1) research support- Hendrick and Sprecher studied heterosexual relationships and found strong correlations between self disclosure and measures of satisfaction (happiness in relationship)
- in a later study, Sprecher et al (2013) showed that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self disclose (reciprocated), increasing validity of their that reciprocated disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
-correlations don’t show cause and effect, rather than self disclosure causing attraction, we may self disclose more to ppl we are attracted to or have greater satisfaction with, or if interests are shared it may lead to increased disclosure and increased attraction
2) - can help ppl who want to improve communication in their relationships
real life applications- Hass and Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships
- if less skilled partners (limit communication to small talk’ learn to use disclosure this could bring several benefits to their relationships deepening satisfaction and commitment
- this finding demonstrates the value of psychological insight (understand how important self-disclosure is)
13
Q
A03
what are the weaknesses of self-disclosure
A
1) cultural differences- importance of self-disclosure is not true for all cultures
-Tang et al 2003 reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure
-concluded that men/women in the USA disclose significantly more than men/women (collectivist v individualistic)
- in individualistic cultures, where ppl place greater importance on themselves and being recognised as individuals and importance of their own experiences, may not apply to collectivist as they care more about everyone
- in china, higher levels of satisfaction but lower levels of disclosure
2) thought that women are better communicators, more willing to share intimate information. This could be an example of alpha bias, exaggerating the differences between men and women
14
Q
Physical attractiveness (matching hypothesis)
(Walster et al 1966)
A
- when seeking romantic partner we want their social desirability’s to match our own. we must first assess our own ‘market value’ and then select best available candidates
- by opting for those who are similar to you, it maximises the chances of success
- we make realistic choices based on what we want and what we think we can get based on our own market value
- we avoid the pain of rejection by not chasing partners we see as too attractive
15
Q
Physical attractiveness (halo effect)
A
- an explanation for the importance of attractiveness
- idea that people are judged to be attractive are typically perceived in a positive light for other traits
- e.g Dion (1972) found that attractive ppl consistently rated as successful, kind and social when compared to unattractive ppl
-meaning that we not only believe that good looking ppl are more physically attractive, we expect them to have other desirable characteristics, e.g intelligent, hardworking, sociable - cognitive bias
16
Q
A03
What are the weaknesses of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
A
1) complex matching: research fails to find consistent link between physical attractiveness and partner preference
- Sprecher and Hatfield explain this by arguing that physical attractiveness is just not the sole factor that determines a relationship and that a person may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other traits e.g money, status or perdsonality
- this is called complex matching and can explain why people are able to attract partners for physically attractive than themselves by affecting compensatory assests
2) implications of sex differences: Meltzer found that there was a strong connection between marital satisfaction and physical attractiveness for men but not for women. This has implications for women as they are more likely to experience low self-esteem due to the constant pressure to look good in order to keep their partner happy, also suggests beta bias, differences between ways in which men and women view physical attractiveness is generalised
- low self-esteem has been linked to the onset of mental disorders such as depression and therefore me mental health professionals should use this research to inform their treatment
17
Q
A03
What is a weakness of the matching hypothesis
A
- contradictory evidence: Taylor studied the activity logs of a dating site, measured actual date choices not preferences. Online daters sought meetings with partners who were more physically attractive than them
- this undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis, contradicting the central prediction about matching attractiveness
HOWEVER
- choosing inviduals for dating could be different from selecting a partner for a romantic relationship. Alan Feingold carried out a meta analysis of 17 srtydies and found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners. Also just because online daters seek more attractive partners doesn’t mean that they get them. So dating selection may just be a fantasy
18
Q
A03
What is a strength of the halo effect theory
A
- Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people
- the halo effect was so powerful that kit persisted even when participants a knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had not particular expertise
- Landy and Aronson found that defendants in court who are attractive are likely to receive lower sentences than less attractive defendants by juries, indicating attractiveness implies innocence
19
Q
A01
Explain the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction (Kerckhoff and Davies)
A
- people filter possible mates from a range of eligible candidates
- the theory suggests that people use different methods at different levels of the process
- we start with social variables such as race or class
- we then move to more individual and internal values such as people’s personality
- for social variables we are likely to seek similarity whereas for internal values it may be more important to seek complementary characteristics
- field of available and field of desirables
20
Q
A01
What are the 3 filters as part of the filter theory
A
1) social demography
2) similarities in attitudes
3) complementary of needs
21
Q
A01
Explain what is meant by the filter social demography
A
- factors influencing the chances of potential partners meeting each other in the first place
- these factors include:
-geographical location
-social class
-level of education
-ethnic group
-religion - more likely to come in contact with due to how we spend our time
22
Q
A01
Explain what is meant by the filter similarity in attitudes as part of the filter theory
A
- partners will often share important beliefs and values, partly because of the field of potential partners has already been narrowed down by the first filter to those who have significant social and cultural characteristics in common
- partners who are very different in attitudes and values are not considered for long term relationships and are filtered out
- those who have similar core values are seen as more attractive/compatible
- important for long term relationships
23
Q
A01
Explain the filter complementarity of needs from the filter theory
A
- concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each others needs, two partners compliment each other when they have the traits that the other lacks
- e.g young women with no resources may look for older men with wealth
- one partner may like to nurture and the other may like to be nurtured, complimenting each other
- at the end of the filtering process we are left with a small field of desirables
- attracted to those who provide for our emotional needs
24
Q
A03
What research shows that complementary of needs is the most important for long term relationships (strength for filter theory)
A
- Kerchkoff and Davies conducted a study using students in a relationship for 18 months (short term) with those in a relationship for over 18 months (long term)
- using self report questionnaires, the study found that attitude similarity was the most important factor up to 18 months, however in the long term couples, complimenting each others needs became the most important factor
- HOWEVER, may not be generalisable to populations outside young, educated Americans, may have culture bias
2) Tylor’s found that Americans who married in 1998, 85% married from within their own ethnic groups. A finding from the real world supporting that social demographics strongly influence the selection of partners
25
A03
What are the weaknesses of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
1) lack of temporal evidence: online dating apps such as Tinder may have changed the necessity for certain social demographic variables such as proximity, social class and religion
- these apps give individuals a wide range of options and it’s likely that you will ‘match’ with people of a different culture, ethnicity etc
- therefore filter theory lacks temporal validity because the way in which romantic relationships start is vastly different to 70 years ago, now greater focus on physical attraction
- also relationship formations across ethnicities and cultures is more acceptable now due to increased globalisation and migration
2) complimentary of needs may not be important
- Dijkstea and Barelds studied 760 college students on an online dating website
- they were asked to rate personality characteristics they seek in their partner
- they found strong correlations between individuals own personality and their ideal partner’s personality
- this lent support to the similarity filter but not the complimentary of needs filter
3) similarity is an effect not a cause
- research uses correlation when looking at similarity between partners, can’t establish cause and effect
- evidence suggesting that people aren’t initially attracted to each other because they are similar
- Anderson found in a longitudinal study that partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, called emotional convergence
- further research discovered an alignment effect on long term relationships
-romantic partners overtime bring their attitudes into line with each others, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction not the cause
26
A01
What are the three economic theories for relationships
1) social exchange theory
2) equity theory
3) investment model
27
A01
Explain what the social exchange theory of relationships suggests
- Thibault and Kelly (1959)
- romantic partners will want to maximise rewards and minimise costs known as the min-max principle
- rewards can include entertainment, financial security, intimacy or sex, we are more attracted to these ppl
- costs can include emotional instability, giving up time, we are less attracted to this ppl
- individuals also use a comparison level, comparing our relationships with previous relationships/other ppls relationships to get an idea on how rewarding the relationship should be
- comparison of alternatives- looking at other potential partners and considering if profit would be higher, if so then original relationship is ended
28
A01
What is meant by the perceived ratio of inputs and outputs
- inequity doesn’t necessarily mean inequality
- two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity
- this is bc a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner
- if we fear inequality in our relationship we may try and change our input and outputs to restore equity
- it is not the size or amount of the rewards or costs that matter
29
A01
What are the key feelings and individual would feel if they give more than they are receiving
- anger
- hostility
- resentment
- humiliation
30
A01
What are the key feelings an individual would feel in they are receiving more than they are giving
- guilt
- discomfort
- shame
31
A03
What is a weakness of the equity theory of relationships
1) gender differences: men and women are not equally affected by inequity, women tend to perceive themselves as more under benefitted and less over benefitted
- De Maris argues that this is because females have the greater relationship to focus and are more sensitive to injustices
- the consequence of this is that it’s therefore women who are more likely to initiate a breakup
32
A01
Explain Rusbult’s investment model as a theory of relationships
- some ppl still stay in relationships even if costs outweigh rewards
- commitment relies on satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size
- suggests that maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment
- commitment can be strengthened by satisfaction and investment and weakened by alternatives to relationship
- satisfaction refers to the positive emotions and benefits of being in the relationship, influenced by extent to which person fulfils their needs, if positives outweigh negatives then they are likely to be satisfied
- comparison of alternatives: needs might be better met outside of the current relationship, if person perceives more attractive alternatives they may be motivated to end current relationship
33
A01
How is commitment of a relationship measured
- if satisfaction level is high
- comparison with alternatives is low
- investment are increasing
- commitment motivates individuals to remain in romantic relationships
- explains why dissatisfied partners may stay in relationship
- satisfaction and comparison with alternatives is not enough to explain commitment because if they were, more rs would end when costs outweigh rewards or alts become more attractive
- so investment is important
34
A01
What is meant by the term investment
- resources that are connected to the relationship, including anything that would be lost if the relationship ended
35
A01
What is meant by the term intrinsic investments
- resources put directly into relationship
- tangibles like emotional work, time spent and self disclosure
36
A01
What is meant by the term extrinsic investments
- resources that used to be outside of a relationship but become strongly connected to the relationship e.g shared friendships, memories, offspring
37
A01
What is meant by the term quality of alternatives
- an attractive alternative means they may leave the relationship
- if no attractive alternative exists they may maintain the relationship (increases satisfaction)
38
A03
What are strengths of the investment model as a theory of relationships
1) Research support: Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period. They kept notes about how satisfactory their relationship was compared with others and how much they had invested in it
- research showed as relationships developed, increased investment size resulted in greater commitment and a reduction in the perception of the quality of alternatives
- suggests commitment is linked to amount of investment put in
To follow up: a meta analysis was conducted by Le and Agnew about the importance of commitment as an indicator of relationship stability
- found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment
- relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted the longest, whereas a lack of commitment was a particularly strong predictor of whether relationships would break up
- these findings were true for both women and men, across all cultures in the analysis and for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples
2) real world app in explaining why ppl stay in abusive r/s
Rusbult and Martz applied the investment model to abusive relationships
- found women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the r/s and they didn’t have any appealing alternatives
- as predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their comparison of alternatives were poor and their investment was great
- - highlights the idea that partners will stay in rs because of investment, regardless if costs outweigh rewards
39
A03
What is a weakness of the investment model as a theory of relationships
1) Oversimplifies investment Rusbult only talks about current investments
- Goodfriend and Agnew argue that the investment model should include not only things that have already been invested in the relationship but also any plans that partners have regarding the relationship
- when partners break up they might not only lose investments made but also the possibility of achieving any future plans they had made with that partner
- for example, partners may stay in a relationship because of the current balance of investments but because of the motivation to see their future plans achieved
- motivated to commit to each other because they want to see the cherished plans for the future work out
- incomplete explanation, fails to acknowledge true complexity of investment and why individuals with little investment continue to stay in rs
2) correlational method is used, may be that high investment is a result of high commitment, not the other way around
40
A01
What does Duck suggest about the breakdown of relationships
- he argues that the ending of a relationships is not a one off event but a process that takes time
- this process consists of four distinct phases
- the break up begins once a partner realises that they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed about the way things are going
41
A01
What are the 4 stages that Duck proposed for the breakdown of relationships
1) Intra-psychic stage
2) Dyadic phase
3) Social phase
4) Grave-dressing stage
42
A01
Explain the intra-psychic stage (stage 1) of Duck’s phase model for the breakdown of relationships
- one of the partners becomes more dissatisfied with the relationship, however don’t tell their partners yet
- the individual feels burdened with resentment
- inequitable relationships are much more likely to create dissatisfaction than equitable ones
- there is internal conflict, consideration whether the individual may be better off out of the relationship
- in some cases some people will end the relationship without a discussion
43
A01
Explain the dyadic phase (stage 2) from Duck’s phase model of the breakdown of relationships
- individuals will confront their partner and discuss their feelings and discontentment and future of the relationship
- feelings of guilt and anger are likely to surface
- individual may discover their partner also has concerns to air
- the relationship could be saved but only if both partners are motivated to resolve their issues
- marital partners may seek couples counselling
44
A01
Explain the social phase (stage 3) from Duck’s phase model of the breakdown of relationships
- dissatisfaction now spills over to a network of friends and family
- hard to turn back from this point as it makes it harder for the partners to dent there was a problem and also harder to bring about a reconciliation
- This triggers friends of the couple to evaluate the relationship to either give reassurance/support or place blame on one of the partners, which inevitably results in the majority of the mutual friends having to take side
- however a final attempt at salvaging the relationship may be made by these friends, perhaps offering advice or helping resolve equity issues
- some friends and family may show hindsight bias (convinced they accurately predicted event e.g “i always knew u were too good for them’
45
A01
Explain the grave-dressing stage (stage 4) from Duck’s phase model of the breakdown of relationships
- relationship has ended
- partners attempt to justify their actions
- partners must present themselves as trustworthy and loyal (key attributes to a new partner)
- partners will strive to construct a representation of the failed relationship that doesn’t put themselves in an unfavourable light
- partners may also strategically reinterpret their view of the partner e.g being initially attracted to their ‘rebellious’ side but would now label that as ‘irresponsible’
- key to this stage is ‘keeping good face’ and maintaining a positive social image
- self serving attribution bias: make self seem better
46
A03
What are the weaknesses of Duck’s phase model
1) Fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth
- focuses on ‘personal distress’ and lack of acknowledgement of positives such as personal growth
- to address this issue Duck added a final stage called the ‘resurrection stage’ where individuals learn from the experiences of their previous relationships
- Tashiro and Frazer surveyed undergraduates and found that those who had recently reported a breakup, reported experienced emotional distress but also reported emotional growth and development
- evidence provides further for this key element,ent of the break-up process and the need for this to be acknowledged
2) criticism of the social phase: impact may vary by the type of relationship and age of people impacted
- for teenagers and young adults, romantic relationships may be seen as more transient and short term and even seen as the ‘testing ground’ for future longer relationships
- for older people the consequences of a breakup are more significant and costly therefore the behaviours are different
- Duck’s model gives a rather universal and generic outlook on this stage, whereas there are added complexities not being acknowledged
3) Based on retrospective data, questionnaires or interviews to ask ppts about break up some time after it happened
- recall is not always accurate or reliable, some memories may be distorted or ignored, so internal validity is decreased
- however if relationships were studied at earlier stages of breakdown, researchers involvement may make things worse and result in the end of a relationship that could’ve potentially been saved
4) cannot be applied to all cultures, based on western cultures in particular USA. Moghaddam found relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end whereas in collectivist cultures, sometimes arraigned by wider family, greater involvement making relationship difficult to end
- nature of romantic relationships differ between cultures
- model is culturally biased, decreasing external validity, doesn’t not have wider applicability
47
A01
Explain the differences self disclosure face to face and computer-mediated communications (CMC)
- when we speak to someone we don’t just communicate with our words
- non verbal paralanguage may be more important than the words themselves e.g body language, eye contact may express meaning if the verbal communication doesn’t
- on the phone there are still paralanguage signals such as pauses and tone of voice which can communicate intention
- however all non-verbal communication is lost on the internet, meaning it is dependent only upon words and nothing else
48
A01
Explain the reduced cue theory
- Sproull and Keisler suggest that CMC (computer-mediated communications) relationships are less effective than face to face ones as they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in ftf interaction
- these include non verbal cues such as physical appearance/body language
- CMC particularly lacks cues to our emotional state, such as our facial expressions and tone of voice
- leads to de-individuation as it reduces peoples sense of identity
- encourages disinhibition in relating to others
- therefore involving blunt and even aggressive communication
- as a result people are less likely to self-disclose and reveal information
49
A01
Explain the hyper-personal model
- suggests that online relationships develop and end at a much higher rate than face to face relationships through the idea of ‘boom and bust phenomenon’
- high excitement level of the interaction isn’t matched by the level of trust between relationship partners
- in virtual relationships, the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in a face to face situation
- selective self presentation: people online have more control over what to disclose and they cues they send
- therefore it is much easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy by presenting yourself in a positive way
- anonymity: when you’re unaware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your actions and behaviour, so are more likely to self disclose
50
A01
What is meant by the absence of gating
- a gate refers to any obstacle to the formation of a relationship
- face to face interaction is gated as it involves features that can interfere with development of a relationship e.g physical unattractiveness, a stammer and social anxiety
- therefore a huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating (McKenna and Bargh)
- therefore relationship can develop quicker and self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper
- absence of gating allows online relationships to progress quicker
- people can create online identities that they could never manage face to face
51
A03
What are the weaknesses for the reduced cue theory
1) lack of research support
- reduced key theory suggests that through CMC there is an absence of non verbal cues, reducing success of relationship
- Walther and Tidwell suggests the cues are there, however they are just different e.g time taken to reply, emoticons and acrostics express expressions and non verbal cues, act as substitute for facial expressions and ftf interactions
- therefore it’s still possible to convey emotional state through CMC and the theory can’t explain the success of online communication
52
A03
What is a strength for the motivation to self-disclose
1) biological evidence to suggest there is a biological basis for self-disclosure
- increase MRI activity in parts of the brain linked to reward pathways, these areas are strongly activated when people are talking about themselves and less activated when talking about someone else
- significant as self disclosure may have evolved due to the rewards nature as it can improve chances of reproduction
53
A03
What is a strength of the hyper-personal model
1) research support
- Whitty and Joinson found that online discussions were more direct, probing and intimate, however ftf conversations are often hedged around with ‘small talk’
- supports what the theory predicts as it suggests CMC relationships can be more personal and intense and are much more likely to self disclose
54
A01
What is meant by a parasocial relationship
- one sided connections between a person and a media figure, such as a celebrity, influencer, or fictional character, where the media figure is unaware of the other person’s existence
55
A01
What are the three levels of celebrity attitude scale proposed by Maltby and explain them (levels of para-social relationships
1) Entertainment-social: least intense loveable of celeb worship. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction e.g friends may enjoy discussing stories about them
2) Intense-personal: intermediate level, reflecting a greater involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity e.g fan of Kim k may have frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings, like thinking they are soul mates
3) Boderline-pathological: strongest level, uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours e.g spending large sum of money on celeb related object, willing to perform illegal acts, mostly neurotic and psychotic individuals
56
A01
What are the two theories for parasocial relationships
1) Absorption- addiction model
2) Attachment theory
57
A01
Explain the absorption- addiction model as a theory of parasocial relationships
- McCutcheon explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships to compensate for deficiencies in their own lives
E.g may have a weak sense of self identity and also lack fulfilment in their everyday relationships
- parasocial relationships allows them an ‘escape from reality’ or a way of finding fulfilment that they can’t achieve in their actual relationships
- absorption: pre-occupied with celebs existence and identifying with them due to deficiencies
- addiction: needs to sustain their commitment to relationship, by feeling a stronger and closer involvement
- leading to more extreme behaviours such as stalking
58
A03
What is a strength of the absorption-addiction model
1) research support: Maltby investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image of the females that had reported an ‘intense personal parasocial relationship’ with a ‘celebrity’ they admitted
- the females tended to have a poor body image and were at high risk for developing a eating disorder
- confirms a central prediction of the model, those individuals that have deficiencies in their lives and specifically poor self image and esteem are more likely to develop a parasocial relationship
- however correlation not causation, unclear whether intense celeb worship causes poor body image or other way round
59
A03
What are weaknesses of the absorption-addiction model
1) incomplete as it’s too descriptive and doesn’t have a complete explanation
- model describes deficiencies but doesn’t explain how these have led to the point of a PSR (parasocial relationship)
- not a clear origin of behaviour and how they develop
- therefore model it’s too vague and undermines the theory
2) methodological issue: it is questionnaire based
- researches gather data about participants lives and levels of celebrity worship and attachment styles via self report methods
- problem because of social desirability bias, less inclined to give truthful account of ‘early attachment experiences’ as it is a socially sensitive area
- worry about being judged and perceived in a negative light
3) McCutcheon contradicts PSR, sample of 299 studies, found that there was no- association between attachment style and likelihood to form PSRs to celebs
- suggests relationship between attachment style is over-exaggerated and inaccurate
60
A01
Explain the attachment theory of parasocial relationships
- 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 adults, engaging in parasocial relationships allows them to do so
- Ainsworth suggest that individuals who formed insecure-resistant relationships with their caregiver in early childhood will be more likely to form parasocial relationships
- too afraid of the criticism and rejection that are a part of real life relationships
- they have ‘unfulfilled needs met’ due to attachment struggles
- they are able to get this fulfilment in a parasocial relationship that is not accompanied by the threat of rejection, break up and disappointment that real-life relationships can bring
61
What are strengths of the matching hypothesis as part of physical attractiveness
1) Murstein used photos of 197 couples (engaged or dating) and each pic of partner were judged individually
- 8 judges rated the individual photos according to attractiveness
- found photos of coupes were consistently given similar attractiveness rating compared to randomly matched pairs
- as predicted by the theory, individuals are likely to select partners who are judged by others to be a similar level of attractiveness as themselves
2) Feingold did a meta analysis of research on the matching hypothesis using actual couples and found that partners tended to be equally attractive, therefore increases external validity as can be seen in operation in feral life
62
What is the comparison level in the social exchange theory (economic theory in relationships)
- estimation of how rewarding a relationship should be, to decide we compare our current relationships to previous relationships or those we see in the media
- acceptable CL changes overtime and is linked to feelings of self worth
- cultural norms play a role in determining comparison level, some cultures may assume high costs are inevitable in relationships, others may believe ‘I deserve more’
- self esteem: high self esteem will demand better rewards than person with low self esteem
63
What is meant by comparison with alternatives in the social exchange theory (economic theory of relationships)
- people look at other potential partners and consider if their would be a higher profit, if higher profit can be found with an alternative the original relationship will end
64
What are the 4 stages of assessing the quality and profit of a relationship
1) sampling: potential rewards and costs are explored, not just romantic relationships, explored directly or vicariously (by observing others)
2) bargaining: compromises are made in terms of costs and rewards
3) commitment: joint work to maximise profits as a unit rather than individually, known to both parties)
4) institutionalisation: standards and expectations are well-established
65
What is a strength of the social exchange theory (economic explanation to relationships)
1) Rusbult conducted a longitudinal questionnaire with 17 male and 17 female ppts in heterosexual relationships
- questions included costs, rewards, investment and comparisons with alternatives
- findings showed that as rewards were high, satisfaction and commitment in relationships was also high, match with key assumption that ppl desire relationships that maximise rewards
66
What are weaknesses of the social exchange theory (economic theory of relationships)
1) Argyle argued that we only start to measure costs and rewards and consider alternatives after we become dissatisfied with out relationship, challenges idea that relationships start with a sampling and bargaining stage- considering costs and alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse
2) culturally biased, based on dynamics of primarily western couples. Theory for western indivualistic cultures that focus on the needs of the individuals, primary focus being on profits. However, in collectivist cultures, social exchange theory may not necessarily apply, for example in arrange marriages, focus will be on bringing together of families and communities, not the selfish desires of each individual, lacks universality and generalisation
3) concepts are difficult to quantify, e.g comparison levels and compariso of alternatives cannot be objectively measured, difficult to establish ‘thresholds’ e.g what value of discrepancy is needed to trigger breakdown of relationships
- therefore subjective theory and reflects each individual’s perception of what is ‘worthy’ in a relationship
- some ppl would consider partners loyalty as rewarding but is not a reward to everyone , it’s also unclear what the values of the CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship
67
What is the equity theory (economic theory of relationships)
- extension of social exchange theory, most ppl strive to achieve fairness in their relationship in terms of social exchange
- most ppl are comfortable when what they get out of a relationship is roughly equal to what they put it
- meaning both partners level of profit is roughly the same
- equity: balance in exchange of rewards and costs is fair
- different to equality: both partners receive same rewards and costs
- equity is essential for success in relationships
68
What is meant by inequity
- one partner is over benefitting and the other is under benefitting
- under benefitting is when one gives a great deal of; and gets little in return, whereas over benefitting is when one person receives a great deal and gives little in return
- both circumstances will create dissatisfaction and unhappiness
69
How can equity be restored in a relationship
1) restore actual equity
- voluntarily set things right or urge partner to do so
2) restoration of psychological inequity
- change perception of rewards + costs so that the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes
3) leave
- physically or emotionally
70
What are strengths of the equity theory
1) research support from Utne
- survey of 118 married couples who had been together 2 years before marriage
- found that those who perceived their relationship as equitable had higher levels of satisfaction, compared to those who sees themselves as overbenefitted or underbenefitted
- HOWEVER use of self report measures may make responses prone to bias, may not be an accurate reflection (threatens bias)
- also research is correlational, rather than a lack of equity resulting in dissatisfaction, may be dissatisfaction resulting in partner perceiving that their relationship is unequal
71
What are weaknesses of the equity theory for relationships
1) assumes there is a universal need for equity in romantic relationships
- Aumer- Ryan found cultural variations in equity and satisfaction
- couples from individualist cultures reported higher relationship satisfaction when perceived relationships as equitable
- however partners in collectivist culture expressed greater satisfaction when they were over benefitting
- criticised for having an imposed etic by assuming that all ppl, regardless of culture, behave the same
- limited, can’t account for cultural differences
2) oversimplification- ignores the role of ‘love’ suggests romantic relationships are maintained on the basis of a profit or loss scale, can’t explain why abusive relationships are maintained despite huge cost to sufferer, clearly more complex processes involved, not a holistic explanation, therefore reductionist explanation
72
Rusbult’s investment model (satisfaction v commitment)
- main factor causing ppl to stay in romantic relationships is commitment, not satisfaction
- Rusbult argues that this is why dissatisfied partners stay in a relationship
73
A01
What are the relationship maintenance mechanisms (investment model) ways in which commitment is shown
1) accommodation- prioritise relationship rather than tallying costs and rewards
2) willingness to sacrifice- putting their partner first
3) forgiveness- forgiving of partners mistakes
4) positive illusions- being unrealistically positive about significant other
5) ridiculing alternatives- being negative about possible alternatives and the relationships of others
74
A01
What are factors that make self disclosure online more likely
1) absence of gating: removes factors that normally act as filters or barriers stopping interactions in face to face encounters e.g physical attractiveness, speech defects, age or ethnic background
2) reduced cue theory- lack face to face communication such as non verbal communication e.g facial expressions
- may result in ppl reading too much/what they want in typed communication
3) anonymity- deindividuation results in reduction of feeling responsible, loss of inhibition, say things they never would irl
- lead to feelings of closeness and intimacy
4) hyperpersonal model- manipulation of online identity, control interactions to display super honest or dishonest version of self
75
A01
What is meant by virtual relationships
- development of relationships by communicating through social media
- seem to disclose more and develop sooner than irl
76
A03
What is a strength for the absence of gating (virtual relationships)
1) McKenna and Bargh
- examined use of CMC in lonely people and those with social anxiety
- these ppl were better able to show their true selves online compared to ftf and for those relationships formed online, 70% lasted over 2 years
77
A03
What is a limitation for the hyperpersonal model
1) fails to acknowledge different types of computer mediated communication, may not explain self disclosure in all virtual relationships e.g on social networking websites, mor likely to have personal info compared to professional website
78
A03 strengths of Duck’s phase model
1) real life application- helps us to identify and understand the stages of a relationships breakdown and suggests ways of reversing it. Recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than others. For example, Duck recommends that ppl in the intra psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their thoughts on positive aspects of their partner. Useful as it can help relationships that are breaking down, in counselling, for example, also a feature in the dyadic phase is communication, beneficial in fostering greater stability
Psychology
flashcards
Decks in class (11)
# Cards
