Relationships Flashcards
(10 cards)
evolutionary explanations for partner preference (A03)
+ive Supported by lonely hearts ads: Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) found 42% of Males sought a more youthful mate (c.f. 25% females) 44% males sought physically attractive partner (c.f22% women) Men advertised economic status womenadvertised attractiveness.
+ive Support from “yes” to sex study: Support for gender differences in innate mating strategies comes from Hatfield’s infamous (1989) study in which an attractive confederate approached males and females on campus and asked them out for coffee or ‘back to my apartment for sex.’ 75% of men said yes and ‘0%’ of women…
+ive Support from cross cultural research: Buss (1989) fund in a survey of over 10000 people from 37 cultures and found support for many of the above features. Women desired resources; Men placed more store on attractiveness; Men preferred youth. Both sexes wanted intelligence (good parenting) and kindness. (PEALH) However, the self report used in these studies may mean Ps present an impression of themselves in that is socially desirable or culturally acceptable leading to poorer validity. Although in a real world study he later found that using secondary data, men chose younger partners, particularly in divorce. This again appears to support some of the evolutionary features of partner preference.
-ive Gender bias: One issue with this line of theory is that it has implications for women in terms of gender bias. In that it potentially reinforces stereotypes about men being innately promiscuous and women demanding resources in return. Women clearly have a greater role in the workplace now and the theory seems to undermine that and their right to sexual independence. This is important because researcher must be aware of the wider consequences of their research particularly where there are socially sensitive consequences like these.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships (A03)
+ive Supported by computer dance study: Walster (1966) randomly allocated students to a partner using a computer telling them they were being matched. Those who were more closely matched on independently rated attractiveness were more likely to date afterwards in a follow up study. Therefore supporting the idea of matching in a cleverly designed field study of sorts.
+ive Halo effect support: essay grades: Landy and Sigall found that students’ grades were better when an attractive passport photo was added to their American university application in comparison to the same essay with a less attractive one. Clearly showing an effect of the attractiveness where is has not merit in a clever design.
-ive Determinist: One of the issues with symmetry research is that it’s highly deterministic. It suggests that who we find attractive may actually be a function of a biological predisposition for symmetry rather than because of our own free will. This removes some of the notion of choice in forming relationships and could potentially lead to self fulfilling prophecies if people label themselves as ‘ugly’ or ‘asymmetrical’ using the many apps available on the web today. The research is therefore to some extent socially sensitive as it has implications for people who don’t possess biologically adaptive features.
+ive Cultural similarities: Research showed that female features: large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. This therefore supports the universal nature of attractiveness and its potential evolutionary basis. PEALH? The halo effect though was found to be different for collectivist countries: more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly.
Rusbult’s investment model (A03)
+ive Supporting Meta analysis : Le and Agnew (2003). Reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1999 totalling 11,000 participants from five countries. Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest. These results were true across gender, culture and sexuality suggesting support across diverse relationship types clearly supporting the theory.
-ive Oversimplifies investment: Some researcher have suggested that the balance of resources in a relationship is too simple to account for investment. They argued that their future plans ( e.g retiring to a Spanish mountain village) are an essential part of commitments that investment capture, therefore suggesting that the model is incomplete.
+ive Can explain IPV: The investment model is clearly the best explanation for intimate partner violence (IPV) or ‘abusive relationships’. If satisfaction (based on CL and CL alt in SET) is the key determinant of a relationship then people in relationships with IPV should most likely leave. Investment can explain this though and Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that ‘battered women’ in sheltered accommodation were more likely to return when they were most committed (greatest investment + fewest attractive alternatives). This is important because it has huge real world application in helping (usually) women leave their abusers and start new lives rather than staying for the apparent investments which outweigh the huge costs.
-ive Cause and effect: Whilst the evidence for strong relationships between all of the factors in the model are significant, it still doesn’t demonstrate causation.
It is possible that more commitment could lead to greater investment: “We’ve accomplished so much together, let’s have another child.” This is potentially a massive weakness of the theory if can’t predict the relationship direction.
Duck’s phase model of breakdown (A03)
+ive RWA: The models main strength is that it offers strategies to improve it that can be used in relationship counselling. E.g) In the Intra-psychic: partners should focus on the positive aspects of their partner and dyadic phase: improving wider social skills. This is clearly a strength because it can benefit couples with issues and repair relationships for the benefit of the family as a whole.
+ive Resurrection added: Rollie and Duck (2006) added the resurrection phase which Resurrection is where ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained from their recently-ended one. It prepares them for the next one and might mean change look, job, house. This is important because it suggests that the original model is flawed and may help explain behaviour after breakdown that it couldn’t.
-ive Describes doesn’t explain: It could be argued that Duck’s model doesn’t explain why breakdown occurs (it just describes) where as the ‘Fatal attraction hypothesis’: that things that brought the couple together may become toxic later on in the relationship e.g ‘she’s so spontaneous’ becomes ‘ she’s reckless’ in a serious relationship. This clearly allows for predictions about elements of partners behaviour that might be signs of later breakup where as Duck’s model can only describe what each stage will look like.
-ive Cultural differences: A big issues with the theory is that it is beta biased because it ignores obvious differences in the way in which relationships breakdown in other cultures. Moghaddam et al (1993) suggests relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and often end in divorce or separation, but that collectivist cultures are more likely to be involuntary, less likely to end in divorce and involve the wider family. This is clearly and oversimplification of the diversity of relationships but means that the theory doesn’t have universality.
virtual relationships including self disclosure and absence of gating (A03)
+ive Supported from studies: Whitty and Joinson (2009) found that questions asked in online discussions tend to be direct, probing and intimate. Responses were also direct and to the point. This therefore supports a central point of the model.
+ive Reciprocity support from Skype lab study: Sprecher (2013) found that students randomly allocated to a partner in a lab skype chat simulation liked and felt closer to those in the condition in which information was reciprocally shared between them. This clearly shows in a carefully controlled environment that reciprocity improved the relationship whilst online.
-ive Self disclosure depends on the app: The level of S.D though depends on the software being used. Social networking sites mean that generally have relationships in the offline world. In online dating self-disclosure is reduced because both people anticipate future meetings FtF in the offline World. Theories should therefore be able to account for these differences if they are to be considered completely valid.
+ive Longevity in study support: McKenna and Bargh (2000) researched online activity by socially anxious people and found that 70% survived more than two years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed offline therefore supporting absence of gating as an important factor in relationship maintenance and formation for some.
parasocial relationships & absorption addiction model (A03)
+ive Supported Maltby’s research: found that females (aged 14-16) were more likely to report an intense-personal relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired if they had a poor body image. This appears to support the deficiency element of the A.A model.
-ive Describes rather than explains: One issue with the A.A. model is that it describes PSRs rather than explaining how they progress. The model is capable of describing people who are most absorbed by and addicted to celebrity but, unlike attachment theory, it does not explain how such characteristics develop. Theories should be complete in trying to describe why behaviour occurs so that they can be applied in the real world i.e) interventions can be made to support people at risk.
-ive Lack of support study: McCutcheon et al. (2006) investigated attachment types and celebrity related attitudes in 299 participants. They found that the participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than participants with secure attachments. This suggests that at best the link between attachment and PSRs is weak or hidden in this in depth research.
-ive Self report issues: The main body of evidence on PSRs comes from self-report methods : questionnaires or interviews. It is possible that participants give socially desirable answers that enhance their status. However this doesn’t seem to fit with the borderline pathological answers that make people appear delusional. This may be explained by their need to be the ‘best’ type of fan for their desired celebrity, in which case very strong beliefs become impressive to others with a similar fan obsession. Clearly there are issues though even with attachment questionnaires about how Ps want to present themselves which might undermine validity in this area.
self disclosure: social penetration theory (A03)
+ive Supported by Skype lab study: Sprecher (2013) found that student randomly allocated to a partner in a lab skype chat simulation liked and felt closer to those in the condition in which information was reciprocally shared between them. This clearly shows in a carefully controlled environment that reciprocity improved the relationship whilst online.
+ive Research support but self report?: Several studies have found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure in dating couples but using self report prone to bias. But Laurenceau et al. (2005) found that self-disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples using a diary writing analysis. This is important because the diary entries tend to reflect on their lives rather than the research questionnaires which improves their validity.
-ive Cultural differences ‘pervy Americans’ Eek: Research showed that types of disclosure are different in diverse cultures. Tang (2013) found more disclosure of sexual thoughts and feelings than those surveyed in collectivist China. This suggests that to some extent the theory is beta biased and may overlook important differences across cultures.
-ive Self disclosure leads to breakup: One contradictory model by duck of breakdown suggests that when couples become dyadic and share their dissatisfaction with each other it may trigger a reciprocal turn taking of problems that actually speed up the demise of the relationship rather than the deepening of it. This is obviously a big issues for the theory if it can’t predict where self disclosure will be beneficial or not.
filter theory (A03)
+ive Supported by authors own research: using firo B test, found couples who were happier only had higher similarity <18months. Peter Winch also found evidence for C.o.N being important after 18 months, therefore clearly supporting the theory with two pieces of research.
-ive Levinger: failed to replicate: Levinger attempted to replicate the above studies and found no difference between the time periods and difference in similarity or CoN. The 18month cut off between filter 2 and 3 may therefore be arbitrary.
-ive Cause and effect?: Anderson et al. (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time.
Other research has supported that partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s. This suggests that similarity may not be as initially important as filter theory suggests. Similarity maybe an effect of the relationships rather than the cause.
-ive Lack of temporal validity: One of the biggest issues with filter theory is that it is out of date and lacks T.V. Clearly society has dramatically changed since its creation meaning that demographic factors like race, and religion are far less important. More over proximity is redundant to some extent when relationships can form and be maintained online with more and more methods to have long distance relationships. Dating apps now allow users to set their search criteria to whole region or even countries
social exchange theory (A03)
-ive Exchange versus communal issue: Some critics (Clarke and Mills) have argued that there are two types of relationships, communal and exchange. Only in exchange relationships like friendships/work relationships, do we tend track costs (e.g lending someone a fiver and expecting it back), where as in communal we are in for the long run and would only expect things to balance out over time. This is a big issue for SET if it only applies to a tiny proportion of relationships and can’t predict behaviour elsewhere.
-ive Cause and effect: One of the biggest issues with SET is that it may not explain why people compare their current relationship with others in C.L alt. In that, If CL alt looks more profitable than our own we may become dissatisfied and leave. But dissatisfaction may lead to comparison with others meaning that partners only look to other possible alternative when they are dissatisfied rather than constantly to adjust profit. Again this means that a central component to SET is flawed undermining the validity of the theory.
+ive RWA: One strength of SET is that is has been applied to couples counselling. This is where counsellors who finds couples that seem to be focused on costs to focus elsewhere (remembering why they first fell for them) and that those costs and benefits will balance out over time and shouldn’t be counted. This is a strength as it clearly shows that it can be used to help couples improve their relationships and hopefully happiness, benefitting the family which is the whole purpose of psychology.
-ive Cause and effect pt. 2: One weakness of SET though is that other processes may be going on which predict relationship maintenance better. One of these is equity, whereby partners look for fairness rather profit,. This is important because not only does it mean that SET is flawed but it is also a less selfish concept seeing a better side to the human nature in relationships.
equity theory (A03)
+ive Supporting research: Utne et al (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with self-report scales. Husbands and wives who had been married for two years reported that equitable relationships were more satisfied than those who described themselves as overbenefitted or underbenefitted.
-ive Failure to replicate: Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples, where as equity theory predicts it should. In other research self-disclosure also appears to be a better predictor of whether a relationship continues rather than equity. This is important because it shows that the main elements of model are either invalid or better explainaed by other theories.
-ive Cross cultural differences: One Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found that couples from an individualist culture considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners in the collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were overbenefitted. Equity theory therefore may not be a universal feature.
-ive Cause and effect: Equity theory predicts that perceived inequity leads to dissatisfaction but other researchers have argued that when marriages are faltering, partners become preoccupied with the inequities of the relationship, and this can then lead to relationship dissolution. Therefore suggesting that a focus on equity may be a bad sign for relationship health rather than the central process for maintenance.
