1
Q
What is Sexual selection?
A
This is an evolutionary explanation of partner preference proposed by Charles Darwin which suggests that individuals/organisms that have certain attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are more likely to find a mate and pass on those advantageous attributes onto their offsprings with those advantageous attributes becoming more common in the population.
2
Q
What is Anisogamy?
A
This refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
3
Q
Features of the male gametes- Sperm.
A
They are extremely small and highly mobile. They are also created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age and do not require a great expenditure of energy to produce
4
Q
Features of female gametes-ova,
A
They are relatively large and static. They are produced for a limited number of years and require a high expenditure of energy to produce.
5
Q
What is a consequence of anisogamy for mate selection?
A
A consequence of anisogamy for mate selection is that there is no shortage of fertile males but a fertile female is seen as a “rare resource”
6
Q
Why is anisogamy important tho?
A
It is important in partner preference because it gives rise to two mating strategies: Inter-sexual selection and Intra-sexual selection.
7
Q
What is Inter-sexual selection?
A
Inter-sexual selection is the mating strategy between the sexes when choosing a mate, but is it mostly done by females
8
Q
Why are the consequences of choosing a wrong partner more serious for females than males?
A
Robert Trivers (1972) emphasises that females make a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after pregnancy so the consequences of choosing a wrong partner is way more serious for the female than the male.
9
Q
What is the female’s optimum mating strategy?
A
The female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources which leaves the male competing for the opportunity to mate with the fertile female.
10
Q
What is the sexy sons hypothesis?
A
This is a process whereby a female mates with a male who has desirable characteristics and this “sexy” trait is inherited by her son and this increases the likelihood that successive generations of females with mate with her offspring.
11
Q
What is Intra-sexual selection?
A
This is the mating strategy within the sexes, but it is preferably done by Males
12
Q
What’s involved in intra-sexual selection?
A
It involves males competing with other males for access to a fertile female, with the winner of this competition reproducing and passing on the characteristics that contributed to his victory onto his offspring.
13
Q
What is the male’s optimum mating strategy?
A
This is to mate with as many fertile females as possible because of the minimal energy required to produce enough sperm to fertilise as many women as possible
14
Q
What kind of female preference might fertile males have and why?
A
Fertile males may have a distinct preference for youth and a sensitivity towards indicators of youth. Examples of these indicators of youth include an “hourglass body shape” which is characterised by a thinner waist and a larger hip.
15
Q
Strength of the evolutionary explanation- *Inter-sexual selection”
A
A major strength of the sexual selection explanation is the empirical evidence supporting the different mating strategies predicted by anisogamy (the difference between male and female gametes). In a classic study by Buss (1989), which surveyed over 10,000 adults across 33 cultures, he found that women consistently valued good financial prospects, ambition and industriousness while men valued physical attractiveness and youth.
This supports the evolutionary theory of inter-sexual selection because eggs are “expensive” and limited, females are biologically incentivized to be “choosy” and select partners with resources to ensure offspring survival. Conversely, the male preference for youth supports the idea that they are evolved to seek out high reproductive value, strengthening the scientific credibility of the evolutionary model.
However, this research can be criticized for having low temporal validity. In modern society, where women have greater access to their own financial resources, the preference for a “provider” has significantly diminished.
16
Q
Another strength for Inter-sexual selection
A
There is strong experimental evidence supporting the idea that females have evolved to be the “choosier” sex to ensure genetic quality.
Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted a study on a university campus where attractive confederates approached students and asked: “Would you go to bed with me tonight?” They found that 0% of women agreed, whereas 75% of men did.
This dramatic difference in behavior supports the theory of differential parental investment. It suggests that men evolved a “quantity over quality” strategy to increase their reproductive success, while women evolved a “quality over quantity” strategy to avoid the high “cost” of a suboptimal pregnancy. This provides predictive validity for the evolutionary explanation of partner preference.
Despite this, critics argue that this study may measure social desirability bias rather than true evolutionary preference. Women may have said “no” due to the social stigma attached to casual sex (a cultural factor) rather than a biological drive. Ultimately, while the study supports evolutionary patterns, it may underestimate the role of social and cultural influences in female decision-making.
17
Q
What are the three factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships?
A
- Self-disclosure
- Physical attractiveness
- Filter Theory
18
Q
What is self disclosure?
A
This is the process whereby one reveals personal information about themselves to their romantic partner. It ranges from superficial information (eg, hobbies, favourite music) to deeply personal information (eg, trauma, past fears and hopes)
19
Q
What is Social Penetration Theory?
A
This is a theory proposed by Altman and Taylor (1973) which suggests that relationships develop intimacy through a gradual systematic process of self-disclosure, moving from superficial information to more intimate, core, and personal topics.
20
Q
What are the two elements of self disclosure?
A
- Breadth
- Depth
21
Q
What’s referred to as the “breadth” of information shared?
A
Breadth refers to the number of topics that can be discussed
22
Q
What’s referred to as the “depth” of information shared?
A
Depth refers to how personal the topic being shared is.
23
Q
What is “Onion” Metaphor used to explain self-disclosure?
A
Altman and Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory explains relationship development using the onion model. The model suggests that personality is made up of layers, like an onion, with outer layers containing superficial information such as hobbies and interests, and inner layers containing deeper, more personal information, including beliefs, emotions, and core values. As a relationship develops, partners gradually peel away these layers through increased depth and breadth of self-disclosure, leading to greater intimacy and attraction.
24
Q
Reciprocity as a key concept in self-disclosure.
A
Reciprocity is a mutual, two-way exchange of self-disclosure, where partners share information at similar levels of intimacy with both partners responding in an appropriate way that is full of understanding and empathy.
25
Evaluation of Self-Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction: Strengths.
A major strength of self-disclosure is the significant empirical evidence supporting a positive correlation between the depth of disclosure and the level of attraction.
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual couples and found high correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure (both in themselves and their partners).
This supports the Social Penetration Theory, suggesting that as partners "peel back the layers" of each other’s personalities through disclosure, the relationship moves from superficial to intimate. The fact that this finding is consistent across multiple studies increases the scientific credibility and predictive validity of self-disclosure as a key factor in relationship maintenance.
However, much of this research is correlational, meaning we cannot definitively state that self-disclosure causes attraction. It could be that couples who are already deeply attracted to each other feel more comfortable disclosing personal information or perhaps, there is a third factor eg if we share interests with people this may lead to increased disclosure and attraction. This suggests that the explanation might be lacking in this aspect as a valid conclusion cannot be drawn.
26
Another strength of self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction.
The principles of self-disclosure have high utility in the real world, particularly in improving communication within struggling relationships. Hass and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of gay and lesbian people in their study said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relation. This demonstrates the practical application of the theory. By teaching partners to increase the "breadth and depth" of their communication, relationship counselors can help couples move from a state of disconnection to one of intimacy. This gives the theory significant value beyond the laboratory, as it can be used to improve psychological well-being through healthier partnerships.
Despite this, "opening up" is not always a positive force. If a relationship is already failing, increased self-disclosure—particularly of negative thoughts or past infidelities—can actually accelerate its breakdown. Ultimately, this suggests that the theory is reductionist if it assumes that more disclosure always leads to more attraction.
27
Limitations of Self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction.
A significant limitation of self-disclosure as a factor in attraction is that it may suffer from cultural bias, making it an imposed etic.
Tang et al. (2013) reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and found that men and women in the USA (an individualist culture) disclose significantly more than those in China (a collectivist culture), yet levels of relationship satisfaction were high in both.
This suggests that the importance of self-disclosure is not a "universal" human trait but is instead a product of Western cultural norms that value open emotional expression. By applying this framework to all cultures, the theory lacks cultural relativism, meaning its findings may not be generalisable to non-Western populations.
Nevertheless, even in collectivist cultures, some form of disclosure exists, even if it is less "verbal" or "explicit." However, until the theory accounts for these cultural variations in how intimacy is signaled, it remains a Eurocentric explanation of human romantic behavior.
28
What is Physical attractiveness?
This refers to how appealing we find a person's facial features.
29
Why might physical attractiveness be important to many people from an evolutionary perspective?
From an evolutionary perspective, physical attractiveness like facial symmetry, certain body shapes (eg waist to hip ratio in women), and clear skin are good indicators of good genes, health and fertility.
30
What is the Halo effect?
The halo effect refers to a cognitive bias where physically attractive individuals are automatically assumed to have positive personality traits, such as intelligence, kindness, confidence, and sociability.
31
What is the Matching Hypothesis?
The matching hypothesis proposed by Walster (1966) suggests that people tend to form relationships with others who are similar in physical attractiveness.
32
Evaluation for Physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction.
A major strength of physical attractiveness is the cognitive bias known as the "Halo Effect," where we associate physical beauty with positive personality traits.
Dion et al. (1972) found that individuals rated as "physically attractive" were also consistently rated as more kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to those rated as unattractive.
This suggests that physical attractiveness is not just about aesthetics; it acts as a mental shortcut that leads us to believe "what is beautiful is good." Consequently, this bias influences our attraction levels because we are biologically and cognitively predisposed to seek out partners who we perceive to have superior internal qualities based on their external appearance.
However, research by Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that the Halo Effect was so strong that attractive people were even rated as more "politically competent." This has dangerous implications on the political process, suggesting that attraction is not always based on a rational assessment of a partner's character but on an irrational cognitive bias.
33
Limitations of Physical Attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction.
A significant limitation is that the importance of physical attractiveness is not universal and varies based on individual personality traits.
Towhey (1979) gave participants photos and biographical information and asked them to rate how much they liked the person. Participants who scored highly on a "MACHO scale" (measuring sexist attitudes) were significantly more influenced by physical attractiveness than those with low scores.
This suggests that the "biological drive" for beauty is moderated by social and psychological variables. If attraction was purely evolutionary, we would expect a more consistent reaction across all participants. By ignoring these individual differences, a purely physical explanation becomes reductionist.
34
What is Filter Theory?
This is a theory proposed by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) which explains how romantic relationships develop through a series of different factors which progressively limits the range of potential available partners (field of availables) to a much smaller pool of possibilities (field of desirables).
35
Who are "fields of availables"?
This is the entire set of potential romantic partners that we could realistically form a relationship with.
36
What is the first level of filter that the "field of availables" go through?
Social Demography
37
What is social demography?
This refers to a wide range of factors all of which influence the chance of potential partners meeting each other in the first place.
38
Examples of social demographics
Social demographics include geographical location (proximity), social class, ethnic group, religious beliefs, level of education and so on.
39
How does social demography act as a filter?
It acts as a filter as we're much more likely to form a relationship with people that are closer and share similar social demographic characteristics because they are "accessible" and we find these shared characteristics attractive.
40
What is homogamy?
This is the outcome of filtering based on social demography and it refers to the formation of a relationship between people who are culturally or socially similar.
41
What is the 2nd level of filter?
Similarity of Attitudes.
42
What's involved in this 2nd filter level (similarity of attitudes)?
This is when we find partners who share the same beliefs and values attractive. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found that similarities of attitudes were important to the development of romantic relationships but only for the couples who had been together less than 18 months because it encourages greater and deeper communication and promotes self-disclosure.
43
What is the final filter level?
Complementarity.
44
What is complementarity?
This is the ability of romantic partners to meet each other's needs. Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks.
45
What did Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) find out about complementarity?
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found out that the need for complementarity was more important for long term couples.
46
Evaluations of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships: Strengths.
A strength of Filter Theory is that it has research support, particularly for the importance of the second filter, similarity of attitudes. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) conducted a longitudinal study over a 7 month period of student couples and found that for "short-term" couples (under 18 months), similarity in attitudes was the most significant factor for the success of short-term relationships and for "long-term" couples (more than 18 months) complementarity was an important factor in long-term relationships.
This suggests that once the first filter of social demography is passed, the discovery of shared beliefs acts as a "validation" of one’s own worldview, which increases attraction. This provides the theory with predictive validity, as it identifies a specific mechanism (the discovery of shared values) that facilitates the transition from a casual to a committed relationship.
Link (The Counter-Weight/A* Flair): However, this research has been criticized for its lack of replicability. Subsequent studies, such as Levinger et al. (1974), failed to find the same results in different student populations. This suggests that the theory may suffer from observer bias or that the original findings were a "child of their time," potentially lacking reliability in a modern context.
47
Another strength of the filter theory.
Another strength of the filter theory is that it possesses high face validity, as it logically explains the initial stages of partner selection through social demography.
Statistics on marriage show that people are significantly more likely to form relationships with those who live in the same area, attend the same schools, or share the same ethnic or social class background.
This makes the theory highly grounded in reality, as it accounts for the "accessibility" of potential partners. By narrowing down the "field of availables" to those we actually encounter, the theory provides a realistic framework that combines sociological factors with psychological ones, rather than relying on a purely biological explanation for attraction.
Despite this, the rise of online dating and social media has significantly weakened the importance of the first filter. People can now interact with "availables" across different continents and social classes, bypassing geographical constraints. Consequently, the theory may be losing its temporal validity, as it fails to account for how technology has "thinned" the initial social demography filter.
48
Limitations of filter theory.
A major limitation of the theory is that it assumes similarity causes attraction, whereas the truth may be the opposite.
Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) found in a longitudinal study of married couples that partners actually became more similar in their attitudes and personalities over time, a process known as emotional convergence.
This suggests that the "similarity" filter might be a result of being in a relationship rather than a requirement for starting one. If partners "align" their views as they grow closer, then Kerckhoff and Davis theory suffers from a causality flaw. This undermines the internal validity of the model, as it may be measuring a byproduct of intimacy rather than its cause.
Nevertheless, the theory remains useful for highlighting that different factors take priority at different stages of a relationship, even if the "similarity" stage is more of a reciprocal process than a one-way filter.
49
What is social exchange theory?
This is an economic theory of relationships which suggests that romantic relationships are formed and maintained based on a cost–benefit analysis. According to the theory, individuals seek to maximise rewards and minimise costs, and they will remain in a relationship as long as they believe the rewards outweigh the costs which is known as the minimax principle.
50
What are rewards and some examples?
Rewards are the positive and beneficial aspects of a relationship. They include companionship, affection and intimacy, financial security or even increased social status.
51
What are costs and some examples?
Cost refers to the negative aspect of a relationship. They include time, stress, emotional pain and financial burden.
52
When does satisfaction in a relationship occur?
According to SET, satisfaction in a relationship occurs when the rewards exceed the costs and potential alternatives are seen as less attractive than the current relationship.
53
What are the two ways we measure the profits of a relationshsip?
1. Comparison level (CL)
2. Comparison level for alternatives. (CLalt)
54
What is comparison level?
This refers to an individual's expectations of how rewarding a relationship should be. It is influenced by: Past relationships, observations of others relationships, cultural norms and media portrayals of relationships
55
What is the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)?
The Comparison Level for Alternatives considers whether there are better options available that provide a greater reward and fewer costs than the current relationship. Alternatives may include another romantic partner or being single.
56
Steve Duck (1994)
According to Steve Duck (1994), the CLalt that we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship. This means if one's current relationship costs outweigh the rewards, then the relationship will end and the alternatives would become more attractive.
57
Evaluations of SET as a theory of romantic relationships- strengths
A strength of the Social Exchange Theory is the empirical evidence supporting the role of the Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) in relationship stability. Sprecher (2001) conducted a study of 101 dating couples and found that when the CLalt was high (i.e., there were many attractive "alternatives" available), commitment and satisfaction in the current relationship tended to decrease.
This suggests that we are constantly performing a cost-benefit analysis, comparing our current "profit" against the potential profit of being with someone else or being single. This gives the theory high predictive validity, as it explains why some people stay in relationships (high profit/low alternatives) while others leave (low profit/high alternatives).
However, a limitation of this research is that it is correlational. It is difficult to determine whether seeing alternatives causes dissatisfaction, or if being dissatisfied in a relationship causes one to start looking for alternatives. Consequently, SET may suffer from a causality flaw lowering its validity.
58
Evaluations of SET- Weaknesses.
A major limitation of SET is that its core concepts, such as "costs" and "rewards," are highly subjective and difficult to measure scientifically. What one person considers a "reward" (e.g., constant attention), another might consider a "cost" (e.g., being smothered).
This makes the theory difficult to test with empirical rigor. Because there is no objective scale to measure "profit," the theory is often criticized for being unfalsifiable.
Furthermore, the theory fails to account for Equity. Research by Walster et al. suggests that people aren't just looking for "maximum profit" (as SET suggests), but for fairness. Nevertheless, while SET might be an incomplete model on its own, it laid the groundwork for the more sophisticated Equity Theory, which addresses these issues of balance and perceived fairness.
59
What is the equity theory?
This is an economic theory of relationship which acknowledges the impacts of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction but it also suggests that equity plays a central role in relationship satisfaction.
60
What is equity?
It means fairness. In romantic relationships, it is the perception that partners have that the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship is fair.
61
What happens when there is a lack of equity?
When there's inequity, one partner over-benefits and the other partner under-benefits which leads to dissatisfaction and unhappiness.
62
How do the feelings differ between the under-benefitted partner and the over-benefitted partner?
The under-benefitted partner (who has a high input, but low output) would feel the greatest dissatisfaction in the form of anger, hostility, and resentment.
The over-benefitted partner (who has low input but high output) will feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
63
Evaluations of equity theory: Strengths
A major strength of Equity Theory is the empirical evidence confirming that perceived fairness is a better predictor of relationship satisfaction than simple profit.
Utne et al. (1984) conducted a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. They found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were significantly more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over-benefitting or under-benefitting.
This suggests that human romantic behavior is not purely "economic" as Social Exchange Theory implies. Instead, we have a psychological need for distributive justice. The fact that even "over-benefitted" partners feel guilty and less satisfied proves that equity is a distinct and powerful factor in relationship maintenance, increasing the validity of the theory.
However, this research relies heavily on self-report measures, which are susceptible to social desirability bias. Partners may report higher levels of equity to appear "fair" to the researcher. Consequently, while the correlation is strong, the internal validity of the findings may be compromised by the subjective way equity is measured.
64
A limitation of Equity theory.
A significant limitation of Equity Theory is that it may suffer from cultural bias, as the desire for equity appears to be a predominantly Western construct.
Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) compared couples in individualist cultures and collectivist cultures. They found that while couples from the individualistic cultures preferred equity, partners from the collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefitting.
This implies that the theory is an imposed etic, incorrectly assuming that a Western "fairness" model is a universal human trait so the theory fails to explain relationship satisfaction. This reduces the generalisability of the model to non-Western populations.
65
Another limitation of equity theory.
Another limitation is that the theory fails to account for individual differences in how people perceive and react to inequity. Huseman et al. (1987) identified some types of individuals: Benevolents (who are happy to under-benefit), and Entitleds (who believe they deserve to over-benefit without feeling distressed or guilty).
This suggests that "equity" is not a universal goal for everyone. By ignoring personality traits, the theory becomes reductionist as it tries to apply a "one-size-fits-all" rule to a diverse range of humans. This means the theory lacks predictive validity for a significant portion of the population.
66
What is Rusbult's investment model?
Rusbult’s Investment Model is a theory of romantic relationships that explains why people stay in relationships, even when they are unhappy. The model suggests that commitment, rather than satisfaction alone, is the key factor in relationship maintenance. Commitment is determined by three components: satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
67
How is a satisfying relationship judged?
A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards and fewer costs.
So higher satisfaction in a relationship leads to a greater commitment.
68
What are investments?
These refer to the extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship which partners would lose if the relationship were to end.
69
Categories of investments.
Intrinsic investments and Extrinsic investments
70
What are intrinsic investments?
These are any resources we directly put into the relationship. They can be tangible things such as money or possessions or they can be resources that are less easy to quantify (intangible resources) , eg energy, emotions and self-disclosure.
71
What are extrinsic investments?
These are resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it. Examples of tangible extrinsic investment include possessions that were bought together or close friends acquired.
An example of an intangible extrinsic resource is shared memories.
72
What is commitment?
This is defined as a romantic partner's intention to continue the relationship.
According to Rusbult's investment model, partners who are highly satisfied in their relationships with less attractive alternatives and high investment size are more likely to be committed to their relationship.
73
Evaluation of Rusbult's investment model- Strengths.
A major strength of Rusbult’s model is the high level of empirical support for its three predictors of commitment: satisfaction, alternatives, and investment.
Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies involving over 11,000 participants from five different countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size all highly correlated with relationship commitment.
This suggests that the model is robust and possesses high validity, as the findings were consistent across both heterosexual and homosexual couples, as well as different cultures.
However, much of this evidence relies on correlational research. While the factors correlate with commitment, we cannot scientifically prove a causal relationship. It may be that as a person becomes more committed, the more investments they are willing to invest in that relationship.Consequently, the model may suffer from bidirectional causality, weakening its internal validity.
74
Another strength of the investment model.
Unlike other economic theories, Rusbult’s model has the utility to explain the "irrational" behavior of individuals staying in abusive relationships.
Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied "battered" women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported the greatest investment and the fewest attractive alternatives.
This provides the theory with high explanatory power as it demonstrates that commitment is a more important factor than satisfaction; a victim may be deeply unhappy (low satisfaction) but remain committed because they have put too much into the relationship (e.g., children, house, time) to leave. This gives the model significant practical application in clinical psychology and domestic abuse advocacy.
75
Limitations of Rusbult's Investment Model.
A significant limitation of the model is its narrow definition of investment, which may be too focused on the past.
Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argued that the model should be extended to include "planned investments"—the future plans a couple has made together (e.g., future travel, having children, or retirement goals).
By focusing only on what has already been put into the relationship (extrinsic and intrinsic investments), the original model is reductionist. It fails to recognize that many people stay committed because they are motivated to see their future visions work out. Including "future investments" would increase the construct validity of the model by providing a more complete picture of why humans persist in long-term bonds.
76
What is Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown?
Duck proposed a phase model of relationship breakdown which is a theory that explains why and how relationships break down over time. Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through a series of phases.
77
What are the four phases of relationship breakdown?
1. Intrapsychic phase
2. Dyadic phase
3. Social phase and
4. Grave-dressing phase.
78
What is the Intrapsychic phase?
This is the internal phase where dissatisfaction begins. The dissatisfied partner broods about their dissatisfaction which is centred around their partner's shortcomings.
The dissatisfied partner also weighs up the pros and cons of their relationship and starts to evaluate these against alternatives
79
What is the Dyadic phase?
This is the phase where dissatisfactions are brought out into the open as a result of the partners confronting each other.
Attempts may be made to repair the relationships but if these attempts fail, the relationship cannot be saved.
80
What is the Social Phase?
This is when the breakup becomes public as each individual family and friends are informed. Each individual then seeks social support and validation from their social network.
81
What is the Grave-dressing phase?
This phase focuses on how individuals create a narrative of the breakdown of their relationship for public consumption. This allows the partners to protect their self esteem by blaming their partner or circumstances outside their control.
82
Evaluations of Duck's phase model - Strengths.
A major strength of Duck’s model is its utility in providing insights that can be used to repair relationships during different stages of breakdown.
The model suggests that different repair strategies are effective at different phases; for example, in the intrapsychic phase, a person might benefit from focusing on the partner's positive aspects, whereas in the dyadic phase, communication and social support are key.
This demonstrates that the model has a high applied value. By identifying which "phase" a couple is in, relationship therapists can tailor their interventions to the specific psychological needs of the individuals.
Despite this, the model is primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. It describes what happens during a breakup but provides very little insight into the underlying causes of the breakdown. Ultimately, while it is a useful "road map" for therapy, it remains an incomplete explanation of the complex origins of relationship failure.
83
Another strengths of Duck's phase model.
A strength of the modern version of the model is its high face validity, particularly following the addition of the "resurrection phase."
Duck and Rollie (2006) updated the original four-stage model to include a final stage where individuals move beyond the distress of the breakup and engage in personal growth, using their experiences to inform future relationships.
However, the model has been criticized for being culture-bound. Most of the research supporting these stages is based on Western, individualist cultures where relationships are often voluntary and easier to end. In collectivist cultures, where extended family is more involved, the "social phase" may happen much earlier or look entirely different. Consequently, the model may suffer from imposed etic, limiting its generalisability to non-Western societies.
84
Limitations of Duck's phase model.
A significant limitation of Duck’s model is that much of the research supporting it is retrospective, leading to potential issues with data accuracy.
Participants in studies about breakups are often asked to recall their feelings and actions from weeks or months ago, which is not always accurate or reliable.
This is a problem because human memory is not perfect and is subject to reconstructive bias, especially when emotional distress is involved. Participants may exaggerate their past unhappiness to justify the "grave-dressing" phase of their narrative. This weakens the internal validity of the evidence, as the "phases" identified by researchers may be a product of how people remember the breakup rather than how it actually unfolded.
Furthermore, the model is criticized for being too linear. It assumes that every couple passes through the stages in a specific order. In reality, some couples may "skip" the dyadic phase and go straight to the social phase, or "loop" back to the intrapsychic phase several times. Nevertheless, while the model may be too rigid, it remains the most influential framework for understanding the social-psychological process of breakups in relationships.
85
What are virtual relationships?
Virtual relationships are relationships formed and maintained online through social media, dating platforms and gaming communities, rather than primarily face-to-face interaction.
86
What is the role of self disclosure in virtual relationships?
Self-disclosure leads to rapid intimacy as individuals feel safer sharing their personal thoughts and feelings with the other person.
87
What is the theory that SUPPORTS the idea that self disclosure happens more in online relationships than in FTF ones ?
The hyperpersonal model- Walther (1996, 2001)
88
What is the hyperpersonal model?
This model argues that online relationships can become more intense and intimate than FTF ones because of anonymity and selective self-presentation.
89
What is selective self-presentation?
This is a feature of self-disclosure in online relationships in which individuals manipulate their online image and are in control of what information to disclose, leading to individuals presenting themselves in a positive and idealised way.
This makes it easy to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy in online relationships.
90
What does Anonymity in online relationships involve?
This is another aspect that promotes self-disclosure in online relationships and it involves individuals lacking accountability for their actions, as they are aware that their identity remains unknown to others. As a result, they feel safer when disclosing information to strangers online.
91
What is the theory that ARGUES that self disclosure is less effective in online relationships than FTF ones?
Reduced cue theory- Sproull and Kiesler (1986)
92
What is the reduced cue theory?
Sproull & Kiesler (1986) argued that self-disclosure is less effective in online communication because it lacks the social cues that we normally rely on in FTF communication. These social cues include body language, facial expressions and tone of voice.
According to this theory, relationships formed online are weaker and less intimate than face-to-face relationships because the absence of social cues limits emotional depth.
93
What is a "gate"?
A "gate" is any obstacle that prevents relationships from forming in FTF relationships. These include physical unattractiveness, social anxiety and speech defects.
94
How does the concept of "gating" relate to virtual relationships?
Mckenna and Bargh (1999) argued that an advantage to online relationships is the absence of gating. Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from what may be considered superficial or distracting features. As a result, online relationships may develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper promoting intimacy in the relationship.
95
Support for absence of gating.
Another strength of the virtual relationship explanation is the concept of absent gating, which allows relationships to form based on personality rather than superficial factors. McKenna and Bargh (2000) found that "lonely" or "socially anxious" people were better able to express their "true selves" online because "gates" like physical unattractiveness, stammers, or social awkwardness were hidden.
This gives the theory high utility in explaining how CMC democratizes attraction. By removing the initial "filters" of physical appearance, individuals who struggle in traditional social settings can find meaningful connections.
Despite this, the absence of gating also facilitates deception and "catfishing." Without the cues of FtF interaction, individuals can easily create entirely false personas leading to negative social consequences.
96
What are parasocial relationships?
Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships where an individual develops emotional attachment, interest, and investment in a media figure (e.g., celebrity, influencer, TV personality), but the celebrity has limited or no awareness of their existence.
97
What are the three levels of parasocial relationships developed by McCutcheon?
1. Entertainment-Social
2. Intense-Personal and;
3. Borderline-Pathological
Each level describes the attitudes and behaviours that are linked to each level of parasocial activity.
98
What is the Entertainment-Social level?
This is the least intense level of celebrity worship. AT this level, celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and topics of discussions in social interactions.
99
What is the Intense-Personal level?
This is an intermediate level of celebrity worship and it involves feelings becoming obsessive and compulsive
100
What is the Borderline-Pathological level?
This is the strongest level of celebrity worship featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours.
101
What is the Absorption-Addiction model?
This is a model developed by McCutcheon (2002) which explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships with celebrities. The model suggests that people become involved in parasocial relationships with celebrities when their own lives lack fulfilment, so focusing on the celebrity allows them to divert their attention away from their own lives.
102
What does the Absorption component of the model involves?
It involves an intense involvement in finding information about the personal lives of the celebrity in an attempt to get closer and "identify" with them.
103
What does the Addiction component of the model involve?
This stage mirrors the psychological patterns of substance abuse; just like how a drug addict needs a "higher dose" to achieve the same high, the fan requires more intense involvement with the celebrity to maintain the same level of satisfaction.
104
Evaluation *support* for the absorption-addiction model.
A strength of the absorption-addiction model is its predictive validity in linking psychological health to the intensity of celebrity worship.
Maltby et al. (2003) found that individuals at the Intense-Personal level scored higher on measures of neuroticism, while those at the Entertainment-Social level tended to be extraverted. Furthermore, Maltby et al. (2005) found a link between the Intense-Personal level and poor body image in adolescent girls who admired celebrities with "ideal" body shapes.
This suggests that the model is correct in its assumption that parasocial relationships are often a compensatory mechanism for poor psychological adjustment.
However, a major limitation of this research is that it is strictly correlational, making it impossible to establish the direction of causality. It is unclear whether poor psychological health causes someone to become addicted to a celebrity, or if the intense obsession itself causes a person’s mental health and social life to deteriorate.
104
The attachment theory explanation for parasocial relationships.
This theory suggests that those with Insecure-Resistant attachment types are most likely to form parasocial bonds because they provide the "closeness" of a relationship without the fear of rejection or abandonment found in real-life interactions.
105
Evaluation for the Attachment theory in Parasocial relationships
A strength of the attachment theory explanation is that it provides a developmental basis for why certain individuals are more prone to forming intense parasocial bonds.
According to Cole and Leets (1999), individuals with an Insecure-Resistant attachment style were significantly more likely to form parasocial relationships compared to those with Secure or Insecure-Avoidant styles.
This suggests that parasocial relationships serve as a "safe haven" for those who crave intimacy but suffer from high levels of rejection sensitivity.
However, a major limitation of this explanation is the lack of consistent research support. McCutcheon et al. (2006) measured attachment types and celebrity worship in 299 participants and found no correlation between Insecure attachment and the tendency to form parasocial bonds. Consequently, the attachment explanation may suffer from low reliability, suggesting that while it is theoretically sound, it may not be a universal predictor of celebrity obsession in the way the Absorption-Addiction model is.
Psychology
flashcards
Decks in class (11)
# Cards
