Relationships Flashcards
(98 cards)
What are the 3 levels of parasocial relationship identified by McCutcheon et al (2002)
Entertainment social - celebrities= source of entertainment and fuel for social interaction Giles(2002) PR = fruitful source of gossip in offices.
Intense-personal - greater personal involvement such as obsessive thoughts and intense feelings
Borderline pathological - uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours
Describe McCutcheon’s (2002) absorption-addiction model
Explains tendency to form PR in terms of deficiencies in own lives or poorly adjusted psychologically
Absorption - individual focuses attention on celebrity, become pre-occupied in their existence and identify with them
Addiction - needs to sustain commitment to relationship by feeling stronger and closer involvement with celebrity. May lead to extreme behaviour and delusional thinking
Outline the attachment theory explanation
Bowlbys attachment theory suggested early difficulties may lead to emotional troubkes in later life. Ainsworth (1979) identified 2 attachment types: insecure- resistant & insecure-avoidant
Insecure-resistant = most likely to form PR to have unfulfilled needs met without rejection or disappointment
Insecure-avoidant = avoid relationships altogether
What support is there for the absorption-addiction model?
Maltby et al(2005) investigated link between celeb worship & body image in males & females 14-16. Females reported intense-personal PR with female celeb whose body shape they admired. These females had poor body image, link may cause anorexia
Maltby et al (2003) links entertainment-social with extraverted personality traits, intense-personal = neurotic & borderline pathological = psychotic
Both studies support correlation between level of celeb worship and psychological functioning
What are the problems with attachment theory?
McCutcheon et al (2006) measured attachment types and celeb related attitudes in 299 participants & found participants with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships than participants with secure attachments
Theory lacks validity
What are the 2 major methodological issues in PR studies?
1) most use self-report methods which are prone to likes of social desirability bias
2) most are correlational so can’t establish cause and effect. Lack of longitudinal research which could solve.
Absorption-addiction uses so lacks validity
What are the problems with the absorption-addiction model?
A better description for PR than explanation. Describes characteristics of of people who are absorbed and addicted to celeb but doesn’t explain how such characteristics develop
What cultural influences are there on PR?
Schmid &Klimmt (2011) tendency to form PR with Harry Potter is not culturally specific. Using online questionnaire found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in individualistic country (Germany) and collectivist (Mexico)
Outline the reduced cues theory
Sproull & Kiesler (1986) - CMC relationships = less effective than FtF ones because they lack cues such as tone of voice & facial expressions which leads to de-individualisation which encourages disinhibition in relating to others. Therefore often involve blunt and aggressive communication causing reluctance to self-disclose
Outline the hyperpersonal model
Walther (1996/2011) - online relationships = more personal and greater self-disclosure than FtF because CMC relationships can develop quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier. Cooper & Sportolari (1997) -can also end more quickly due to high excitement level not matching level of trust between relationship = boom bust phenomenon
Key feature of self disclosure in VR = sender of message has more time to manipulate online image - selective self-presentation (Walther)
Bargh et al (2002) - strangers in a train effect - when people don’t know your identity you feel less accountable for your behaviour so may disclose more
What are gates?
An obstacle to the formation of a relationship eg. Physical unattractiveness or social anxiety
Why is absence of gating in CMC an advantage according to McKenna and Bargh (1999)?
Allows relationship to start in a way they would not in FtF ones you refocusing the attention on self-disclosure and away from distracting features. People can create own online identities
What research support is there for the hyperpersonal model?
Whitty & Joinson (2009) found questions asked online tend to be direct, probing and intimate, very different to FtF conversations which is often small talk. This supports that they way we self-disclose in CMC is designed to present ourselves in an positive light.
What support is there for absence of gating?
McKenna & Bargh (2000) looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people and found that they were able to express their true selves more than in FtF situations. Of romantic relationships formed online 70% lasted more than 2 years - higher than offline world.
Why can’t online self-disclosure be generalised to everyone?
Because there are different types of CMC - Paine et al (2006) - people on social networking sites generally have relationships in the offline world, people self-disclose more in a status than in an online e-commerce webform. Online dating often reduces self-disclosure as they anticipate meeting in the offline world in the future which rarely exists in chat rooms and gaming sites.
What does Walther (2011) argue about relationships being multimodal?
Argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC and self-disclosure, need to accommodate fact that our relationships are conducted online and offline through many different media in most modern relationships. What we choose to disclose online will be influenced by offline interactions and vide versa.
Why is reduced cues theory not completely accepted?
Lack of research support - Walther & Tidwell (1995) use different cues online such as style and timing of messages. Acrostics, emoticons and emojis are substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice. Shows CMC can be just as personal as FtF
What is the phase model of relationship breakdown proposed by Duck (2007)?
When one partner realises they are dissatisfied with the relationship and the ending of a relationship goes through 4 phases, each phases is marked by one or both partner/s reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes
What are the four phases of Duck’s Phase Model?
Intra-psychic
Dyadic phase
Social Phase
Grave-dressing phase
Describe the intra-psychic phase
Focus on cognitive processing occurring within the individual. Dissatisfied partner thinks privately or talks to trusted friend. Weigh up pros and cons and evaluate against alternatives (including being alone). Begin plans for future
Describe the Dyadic phase
Focus on interpersonal processes between both partners. A series of confrontations of a period of time where relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions aired. 2 possible outcomes = determination to continue breaking up the relationship or renewed desire to repair it. If rescuer fails, another threshold reached.
Describe the social phase.
Focus on wider processes involving couple’s social networks. Break-up is made public and partners will seek support and try forge pacts. Mutual friends feel they have to choose sides. Factions are formed and gossip is traded. Friends have impact eg. Some supportive, some judgemental against other partner etc. Break up driven by social forces.
Describe the Grave-dressing phase
Focus is on aftermath. Favourable story about breakup for public. Allows partners to maintain positive reputation and often shows other partner in bad light. Gossip plays important role and partner tries to retain ‘social credit’ (La Gaipa 1982) by blaming anyone but themselves. Involves creating personal story for partner to live with by tidying memories.
What methological issues are there in Ducks Phase Model?
Most research = retrospective. Participants give experiences of breakdown process some time after relationship has ended so recall may not be accurate or reliable.
Early relationship failure is hard to study as getting involved may make things worse.
Ignoring beginning of relationship failure makes description incomplete.