Relationships

What is ansigomy

• diff between male + female gametes

What the consequences of anisomgy

• females: limited number of eggs = rare

• males: large quantities of sperm = no shortage of fertile men

this leads to diff mating strategies:

• inter sexual selection: strategies used by males to select females/males

• intra sexual selection: strategies between males to be selected

Special Selection

• Intra Sexual

• Trivers: females make a greater investment of time, commitment and resources as she carries offspring

  • females are choosier = need a genetically fit partner that can provide enough resources to raise offspring

Special Selection

• Intra Sexual

• Fisher: females mate with a male who has desirable physical characteristics = inherited by son

  • preferred strategy for males, refers to competition for female mate

AO3: Research Support

• Special Selection

Waynforth & Dunbar: content analysis

• 42% of men sought a youthful mate + advertised themselves as having more resources than women did

• Females tended to advertise themselves as physically attractive more than men

AO3: Research Support

• Special Selection

Singh: ideal waist-hip ratio is 0.7

• combination of a narrow waist and larger hips signals fertility without pregnancy

AO3: Partner pref changed due to changing norms of sexual behaviour

• Special Selection

• Bereczkei et al: states that as women have more financial independence, they no longer need a man for resources

• Mate preferences are therefore a combination of evolutionary and cultural factors

What qualifies as attraction

• Shackelford & Larson

having a symmetrical face is a sign of genetic fitness

What qualifies as attraction

• McNulty et al

intial attracitveness that bought partners together continues to be an important part of the relationship as it progresses

What qualifies as attraction

• Neontaus (baby face) theory

• big eyes, small nose triggers a protective/caring instinct

Halo Effect

we attach pos personality traits to attractive features

• Dion et al: phys attractiveness stereotype = what is beautiful is good

  • we believe good looking ppl are good so behave more positevly towards them

AO3: Research Support

• Halo Effect

• Palmer & Peterson: phys attractive ppl rated more politically knowledgable than unattractive ppl even after knowing they had no expertise

  • danger to democracy if ppl are judged as suitable for office just bc they’re phys attractive

    • this is an american study = culture bias

Matching hypothesis

• Walster et al: assessment of own attractiveness affects who we choose as a partner

  • keep options in own league to decrease chances of rejection

    • so partner choice = compromise

AO3: Research Support

• Matching hypothesis

• Feingold: meta analysis of 17 studies, pos correlation between ratings of attractiveness of romantic partners

  • proves theory with large sample w only real life couples = external validity

AO3: Contradicting Research

• Matching hypothesis

• Taylor et al: online daters want to meet partners more attractive than them & didnt consider own levels when finding a match

  • isn’t an automatic response as the theory suggests & matching may be a universal consideration when finding a partner

Filter Theory

Kerckchoff & Davis: states that a series of diff factors limits the range of available romantic partners to a smaller pool of possibilities

List the filters in the filter theory

1. social demograoghy

2. similarity in attitudes

3. complementarity

Social Demography

• Works on the principle of homogamy: we form a relationship to someone who is culturally/socially similar to us

Similarity in attitudes

• Kerckhoff & Davis: SiA is important from start of relationship - 18 months

• Bryne: law of attraction - you attract what you are

if similarity doesnt exist = relationship likely to fizzle out

Complimentary

Partners compliment each other when they have a trait the other doesnt

• Kerchoff & Davis: Complimentary more imp in LT partners than in earlier relationships

AO3: Research Support

• Filter Theory

• Winch: similarities of personality & interests were important in the intital stages and then changes over time

• Supports matching hypopthesis as married couples fouund that phys attractiveness bought them tg but complimentary made them stay tg = increase in validity

AO3: Failure to replicate findings of Kerchoff & Davis

• Filter Theory

• Levinger: attributed this to social changes over time

  • FT lacks temporal validity

AO3: Cross Cultural Differences

• Filter Theory

• diff to apply FT to homosexual relationships and other cultures

AO3: Similarity > Complimentary later on

• Filter Theory

• Anderson et al: similarity increases over time and complimentary is not a feature of LT relationships

  • questions validity of filter theory

What is self disclosure

Revealing personal info about yourself onto a new partner which helps strengthen a romantic bond

Social Penetration Theory

• Altman & Taylor: gradual process revealing your inner self to someone

  • when one partner reveals something, it’s a sign it their needs to be reciprocated

Breath and Depth of Self Disclosure

• Social Penetration Theory

As B&D of SD increase, both partners become more committed

• low risk info intially disclosed: small talk

• high risk inf: painful memories, wishes, secrets, fears

Reciprocity

• Social Penetration Theory

• Reis & Shaver: SD needs to be recipriocal, in a successful relationship there is a balance of self disclosure and an increase in intimacy

AO3: Research Support

• Social Penetration Theory

• Laurenceau et al: studied diary enteries, found that SD linked to higher levels of intimacy in LT relationships

  • The reverse was also true; lower SD = less intamacy

  • increased validity

AO3: Not Genrelisable

• Social Penetration Theory

• Tang et al: couples from indivualistic cultures disclosed more info of a sexual nature compared to collectivist China

  • SD is a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on western studies

AO3: Helps with relationship building in therapy

• Social Penetration Theory

• Hass & Stafford: SD main way to maintain and deepen commitment in a relationship

  • important to get partners to open up

What is the social exchange theory

• all behaviour is a series of social exchanges, ppl want to maximise their rewards and minimise costs

Comparison Level

• Social exchange theory

• formed from previous experience of relationships and is the standard which all relationships are judged against

  • bad relationship = low CL = satisified in poor quality relationships / visa versa

Comparison Level for Alternatives

• Social exchange theory

• comparing current relationship with other possibilities

  • CLalt < CL = not worthwile

AO3: SET based on faulty assumptions

• Social exchange theory

• Clark & Mills: princples of SET more applicable to workplace relationships

• more likely to socially exchange to maximise rewards with a colleague rather than a romantic partner

AO3: Ppl in happy & committed relationship will ignore attractive alts

• Social exchange theory

• SET assumes we are constantly comparing alts

• Argyle: we don’t measure costs and rewards until we become unhappy in a relationship

AO3: SET has limited reliability and validity

• Social exchange theory

• Concept of CL and clalt aren’t operationalised, less psychological and emotional rewards in a relationship are hard to quantify

What are the two types of investment

• Rubult’s Investment Model

1. Intrinsic: any resources put into a relationship, in/tangible

2. Extrinsic: things that didn’t exist before the relationship (car, home, mutual friends)

How to maintain a relationship

• Rubult’s Investment Model

• commitment = less likely to look for alts

• accomidating for differences

• willingness to sacrifice and forgive

AO3: Research Support

• Social exchange theory

• Impett et al: longitudinal study of 3,627 married couples

• found a significant positive correlation between satisfaction and commitment, with investment size also predicting commitment

AO3: Good Reliability

• Social exchange theory

• Research in this field, such as Impett et al used a large sample and quantitative data, = findings are robust

AO3: Difficult to separate components

• Social exchange theory

• intrinsic and extrinsic investments may overlap or be difficult to distinguish from each other

AO3: Issues & Debates

• Social exchange theory

RIM used to explain why people remain in abusive relationships (Rusbult & Martz)

• While this has real-world application, it is also socially sensitive, as it could be misused to justify or normalise staying in harmful situations, especially when commitment is based on high investment and lack of alternatives

What does equity mean

• both partners in a relationship have the same profit

• lack of equity = one partner overbenefits

Consequences of inequity

• Equity

• may feel natural at the start but will eventually lessen enjoyment with partner

• cog change may occur: may accept abuse as the norm in their relationship

AO3: Research Support

• Equity

• Utne: surveyed 118 recenetly married couples and measured how equitable each partner felt using self report

• Partners who found their relationship more equitable reported more satisfaction = increases validity

AO3: Culture bias

• Equity

• Aumer-Ryan et al: couples in a collectivist cultures were more satisified when they were overbenefitting

• Wheras, couples in an indivualist culture sought more equity

• So, the equity theory is not a universal feature like it suggests

What did Duck theorise

• break up is not a one off event and continues through diff phases

List Duck’s relationship breakdown

1. intra psychic

2. dyadic

3. social

4. grave dressing

Intra-psychic

• cog process whereby the pros and cons of the relationship are weighed

  • focus on reasons they are dissatisfied, cantering around partners shortcomings

Dyadic

• series of confrontations over time

• outcomes: determination to break up/renewed desire to rescue relationship

Social

• break up made public

• mutual friends encouraged to pick sides - friends offer reassurance

  • usually point where relationships cant be saved

Grave Dressing

• story of relationship will show partner in neg light, saving rep of another

AO3: Metholodical issues

• Duck’s model

• conducted retrospectively, what they recall may not be accurate or reliable, ignore details from earlier stages

AO3: Incomplete model

• Duck’s model

• Rollie & Duck: added fifth phase - resurrection

  • possible to return to any of the earlier stages

• model provides limited explanation of why relationships break down as it doesn’t take into account the complexity of each unique relationship

AO3: Issues & Debates

• Duck’s model

• individualistic societies will differ to collectivist cultures when it comes to relationship breakdown

Parasocial Relationship

• unreciprocated, one sided relationship usually with a celebrity/a fictional character

How to determine whether someone is in a parasocial relationship

• Macutcheon: using the celebrity attitude scale - survey = self report

What are the 3 outcomes the surveys can have

1. entertainment social

2. intense-personal

3. borderline pathological

Entertainment Social

• normal levels of interest in a celeb

Intense personal

• frequent obsessive thoughts and feelings about a celeb

• believing irrational things like being soulmates

borderline pathological

• extreme acts of behaviours and uncontrollable fantasies

• stalking/breaking in

• spending loads of money on celeb

Disadv of celeb attitude scale

• may be diff to establish a standardised diagnostic threshold: lack of established cut off

List the absorption addiction modes

• Macutcheon

1. lack of fulfilment

2. poor psychological adjustment

3. insecure-resistant people

Why is the absorption addiction model used

• people w a weak sense of self/lack of identity need to identify with someone = celebs easily accessible via media

Lack of fulfilment

• celeb worship gives them something to focus on and motivates them

poor psychological adjustment

• may be triggered by a stressful event

• time spent with celeb is like an addictive substance

Insecure resistant people

• more likely to be parasocial because they lack fear of rejection

• this is due to a lack of care, nurture and positive attention in childhood so they seek a PR with someone who cannot cause them any pain and who will not make demands of them

AO3: Contradicory Evidence

• Parasocial Relationships

Macutcheon et el

• out of 299 ppts, insecure + secure individuals were no more/less likely than the other to form parasocial relationships

  • decreases validity of attachment experiment

AO3: Research Support

Parasocial Releationships

Malthy et al:

• found correlation between extroversion + entertainment social level of parasocial relationships

• whereas, borderline pathological level correlated without a psychotic personality type

  • some personality types are healthier than other = increased validity

AO3: Social Desirability bias

• Parasocial Relationships

• majority of students look at correlations and use self reports