Relationships

AQA - A Level Psychology - Relationships

Evolutionary Explanations: Key Concepts

Anisogamy

Intrasexual selection

Dimorphism

Intersexual selection

Evolutionary Explanations: Evaluation

+ Support for intrasexual selection - Buss
+ Representative of actual marriage - Buss

+ Support for Intersexual selection - Clark & Hatfield
H Simplistic as strategies differ according to relationship length (Buss & Schmitt)

I/D: Biological Reductionism - ignores other factors of mate choice

Intrasexual Selection Research - Attractive Characteristics

Buss (1989)

10000 from 37 widely diverse cultures

Women desired men with financial ambition
Men more concerned with physical attractiveness and youth

Both rated intelligence, kindness and dependability as desirable

Intrasexual Selection Research - Mate Choice

Buss (1989)

Actual marriages in 29 cultures

Confirmed men marry younger and remarrying tends toward increasingly younger women

Intersexual Selection Research - Questions

Clark & Hatfield (1989)

Attractive males and females approached strangers

“Date?” - 50% males and females

“Back to my place?” - 69% males and 6% females

“Intercourse?” - 75% males and 0% females

Factors Affecting Attraction: Key Concepts

Self Disclosure

Physical Attractiveness
Halo Effect
“What is beautiful is good” - Dion (1972)
Matching Hypothesis

Filter Theory

Self Disclosure: Key Concepts

Deliberately, significant, not normally known

Cliches, Facts, Opinions, Personal Feeling, Peak (gut level)

Social Penetration Theory

Trust and Intimacy

Breadth and Depth

Reciprocity and Balance

Self Disclosure Influence Research

Collins and Miller (1994)

Suggested 3 ways of influence

Those who engage in intimate disclosure are generally liked more than those who don’t

People disclose more to those they like in the first place

Act of self disclosure makes us like who we’re speaking to

Self Disclosure: Evaluation

+ Effects of Reciprocity Support - Sprecher et al
H Correlational - causal effect could be opposite or 3rd variable (time)

+ Real world application to increase intimacy and maintain relationships - Hass & Stafford

I/D: Cultural differences - type varies according to culture (Nu Tang et al)

Effect of Reciprocity Research

Sprecher et al (2013)

Pairs of unacqauinted individuals did structured disclosure activity in 2 interactions

‘Took turns asking and answering’ vs ‘disclosed or listened in first then swapped in 2nd’

Ppts with reciprocity reported greater liking and perceived similarity than other group after 1st interaction

Differences remained after 2nd interaction (extended reciprocity)

Self Disclosure Maintaining Relationships Research

Hass & Stafford (1998)

57% gay men and women said open and honest self disclosure was how the maintained and deepened committed relationships

Self Disclosure Cultural Differences Research

Nu Tang et al (2013)

In USA, more sexual thoughts disclosed than China

Levels of satisfaction are the same

Physical Attractiveness as a Factor: Key Concepts

Matching Hypothesis
Similar attractiveness
Compromise
Avoids rejection

Computer Dance Research

Computer Dance Study

Walster (1966)

752 ppts rated on physical attractiveness

Filled in fake questionnaire to ‘match similarity’ but actually randomly paired

Higher ratings had harsher judgements and lower satisfaction

Physical attractiveness most important factor in enjoment

Computer Dance Study Follow Up

Berscheid et al (1971)

Allowed people to meet beforehand to give chance to interact and think about ideal qualitites

Greater ecological validity

Similar level expressed most liking for each other

Physical Attractiveness: Evaluation

+ Support physical attractiveness and halo effect - Palmer & Peterson
Implications for political process

- Individual Differences - Towhey

I/D: Nomothetic and applied across cultures - Cunningham and Wheeler & Kim

Physical Attractiveness and Halo Effect Research

Palmer & Peterson (2012)

Physically attractive people rated more politically knowledgable and competent

Persisted even when ppts knew they had no expertise

Physical Attractiveness Individual Differences Research

Towhey (1979)

Males and femlaes given photos and bio and asked to judge how much they would like

Completed questionaire (MACHO scale) to measure sexist attitudes

Ppts who scored highly significantly more influenced by attractiveness

Physical Attractiveness Cultural Similarity Research

Cunningham (1995)

Female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were found highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males

Wheeler & Kim (1997)

Korean and American students judged physically atrractive people to be more trustworthy, kind and friendly
Stereotypes seem equally strong in collectivist and individualist

Filter Theory: Key Concepts

Field of availables and desirables

Levels of Filter:
Social Demography
Similarity in Attitudes
Complementarity of needs

18 months

Filter Theory: Evaluation

+ Filter Theory Levels Research Support - Kerckhoff & Davis
H Failures to replicate, perhaps social change or assumption of commitments for 18< - George Levinger (1974)

I/D: Reductionist
Too simplistic to suggest complementarity is vital for long term success
No differentiation between actual and perceived similarity
Anderson (2003) - emotional convergence

Filter Theory Levels Research

Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

Short term relationships vs long term

Self report questionnaires looking at shared values, attitude

7 months after questioning, closeness determined by attitude similarity and complimenting needs

<18 attitude similarity most important, >18 complimenting needs most important

Social Exchange Theory: Researchers

Thibaut and Kelley (1959)

Social Exchange Theory: Key Concepts

Economic theory

Profitable

Minimax principle

Comparison Level

Comparison Level for Alternatives

Sampling, Bargaining, Commitment, Institutionalisation

Minimax principle

We aim to maximise rewards and minimise costs

Ways to Measure Profit

Comparison Level
Comparison Level for Alternatives

Comparison Level

Expectation about level of rewards we deserve in a relationship based on schema

Comparison Level for Alternatives

Expectation about the level of rewards we will receive in an alternative situation

Stages of Relationship Development

Sampling
Bargaining
Commitment
Institutionalisation

Sampling

Consider potential costs and rewards of a relationship and compare with other available ones

Bargaining

Give and receive rewards to test if a deeper relationship is worthwhile

Commitment

Relationship increases in predictability so each knows how to elicit rewards, lowering costs

Institutionalisation

Relationship norms developed and establish pattern of rewards and costs

Social Exchange Theory: Evaluation

+ Research Support - Kurdeck & Schmitt

- Direction of cause & effect

- Vague concepts

I/D Reductionist (Clark & Mills)

Social Exchange Theory: Study

Kurdeck & Schmitt

Importance of social exchange factors in relationship quality in 185 couples

Each type of couple: greater relationship satisfaction was associated with

Perception of benefits in current relationship + Seeing alternatives as less attractive

Equity Theory: Researcher

Walster (1978)

Equity Theory: Development

Extension of SET critiquing minimax principle and emphasising need for equity

Equity Theory: Key Concepts

Extension

Equity

Ratio

Perceived fairness

Under benefitting

Over benefitting

Dissatisfaction

Restoration

Equity

Fairness

Levels of profit being roughly the same

Inequity

When one person gives a great deal and gets little in return and vice versa

Under Benefitting Effects

Greatest dissatisfaction shown through anger, hostility and resentment

Over Benefitting Effects

Guilt, shame and discomfort

Effects of Inequity

The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction

Consequences of Inequity

• Relationship breakdown

• Deal with inequity

  • Restoration of actual equity

  • Restoration of perceived equity

Equity Theory: Research Support

Stafford & Canary

200+ couples completed measures of equity and relationship satisfaction

Satisfaction highest for equity > over benefitting > under benefitting

Spouses treated equitably tend to be appier and more likely to contribute to their partners equity & happiness

Equity Theory: Cultural Research

Aumer-Ryan

Cultural differences in equity and satisfaction link

Individualist (US): most happy when equitable

Collectivist (Jamaica): most happy when over benefitting

Equity Theory: Evaluation

+ Research support: Stafford & Canary

- Cultural Limitations: Aumer-Ryan and Moghaddam

I/D Nomothetic (Huseman: Benevolents vs Entitleds)

Investment Model: Researcher

Rusbult 1980

Investment Model of Relationships: Key Concepts

Economic

Satisfaction

Alternatives

Investment

Commitment

Extrinsic

Intrinsic

Maintenance

Investment Model of Relationships: Model

Satisfaction + Alternatives + Investment

Commitment Level

Stay or Leave?

Maintenance Mechanisms

Investment

Anything a person puts into a relationship that wil be lost if they leave it

Intrinsic Investment

Any resources put directly into a relationship

Extrinsic Investment

Resources that did not features before but are now closely associated with the relationship

Satisfaction vs Commitment

Commitment is more important than satsifaction
Dissatisfied people have made investments they don’t want to see go to waste and therefore work hard to repair damage

Investment Model of Relationships: Maintenance mechanisms

Accomodation
Willingness to sacrifice
Forgiveness
Ridiculing alternatives
Positive illusions

Investment Model of Relationships: Metanalysis

Le & Agnew
52 studies: 11,000 ppts from 5 countries
Satisfaction, CLAlt & Investment size predicted commitment
Higher commitment, more stable and lasting realtionship
Across all cultures and genders

Investment Model of Relationships: Intimate Partner Violence Study

Rusbult & Martz
Asked women in refuges why they stayed
Women felt greatest commitment when economic alternatives were poor and investment great
Investment was most important predictor

Investment Model of Relationships: Evaluations

+ Research support: Le & Agnew
H: Correlational

+ Explains abusive relationships (Rusbult & Martz)

- Oversimplifies investment (Goodfriend & Agnew)

I/D: nomothetic/idiographic

Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Researcher

Duck

Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Key Concepts

Series of phases

Thresholds

Phases

Predisposing Factors

Internal factors

Precipitating Factors

External factors

Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

Breakdown of a relationship as a series of phases
Each phase has a threshold where the partner’s perception of the relationship changes

Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Phases

Intra-psychic

Dyadic

Social

Grave-dressing

Intra-psychic phase

Cognitive process where dissatisfied partner privately worries and evaluates

Dyadic Phase

Interpersonal processes between partners where relationship is discussed
Characterised by anxiety, hostility and resentment

Either continue breaking relationship or renewed desire to repair

Social Phase

Wider processes involving couples social network
Partners seek support
Friends expected to pick side and may interfere with relationship

Break up takes on momentum driven by social forces

Grave-Dressing Phase

Aftermath

Creating favorable story for public consumption
Each partner tries to retain ‘social credit’ by blaming other factors including partner
Tidying or rewriting memories

Phase Breakdown of Relationships: Evaluation

+ Real life application - Marriage guidance

- Focuses on how rather than why (compared to Diane Felmlee’s Fatal Attraction)

- Incomplete - resurrection phase and not actually linear

I/D Culture Bias (based on individualist cultures where relationships are voluntary)

Virtual Relationships: Key Concepts

Paralanguage

Self disclosure

Reduced cues

Computer mediated communication

Hyperpersonal model

Boom & Bust phenomenon

Selective self presentation

Stranger on train

Absence of Gating

Virtual Relationships: Reduced Cues Model

Lack cues

Deindividuation

Disinhibition

Aggressive/blunt communication

Reduced Disclosure

More difficult to form relationships

Virtual Relationships: Boom & Bust Phenomenon

Cooper & Sportolari

CMC relationships develop quickly due to early disclosure

More intense and intimate once estab,wished

Can also end more quickly as high excitement levels of interaction is not matched by trust level

Virtual Relationships: Selective Self Presentation Researcher

Walther

Virtual Relationships: Strangers on Train Effect Online

Likened by Burgh (2002)

Originally from Zaik Rubin

Virtual Relationships: Absence of Gating

McKenna & Bargh

CMC Refocuses attention on self disclosure and away from ‘superficial’ features

Virtual Relationships: Evaluation

- Lack of support from reduced cues (aren’t absent, just different)

- Contradiction of Hyperpersonal model (Ruppel)

- Temporal validity - multimodal relationships

+ Support for Absence of Gating (McKenna & Bargh)

I/D: Nomothetic

Virtual Relationships: Hyperpersonal model contradiction

Ruppel

Meta analysis of 25 tudies comparing self disclosure

Self reported greater frequency, breadth and depth in FTF

Experimental had no sig. diff

Virtual Relationships: Absence of Gating Research

McKenna & Bargh

Studied online communication in shy, lonely, socially anxious people

More able to express ‘true selves’ than in FF

71% romantic relationships survived 2 years vs 49% (Kirkpatrick & Davis FTF)

Parasocial Relationships: Key Concepts

One sided sense of intimacy

Celebrity Attitude Scale

Levels of Parasocial

Absorption Addiction Model

Attachment Theory Explanation

Levels of Parasocial

Entertainment-social - 20%

Intense personal - 10%

Borderline pathological - 1%

Absorption Addiction Model

Life deficiencies and mundane lives

Becomes absorbed in celebrity’s existence

Need to increase ‘dose’ of involvement to gain satisfaction

Leads to more extreme behaviours

Attachment Theory Explanations

Insecure resistant attachment leads to increased interest in celebs

PSRs have no demands, criticisms or rejection

Similar to real life in terms of attachment behaviours

Proximity seeking, secure base, protest at disruption

Parasocial Relationships: Evaluation

+ Research Support - Attachment explanation (McCutcheon)

+ Cross-cultural support (Dinkha) (I/D)

- Methodological Issues

H Correlation does show links

Parasocial Relationships: Attachment Explanation Research

McCutcheon

Used CAS scale, stalking scale, relationship questionnaire & parental bonding scale

Found no relationship between insecure & PSR

Found insecure more likely to condone stalking and relationship between stalking & pathological attachment

Parasocial Relationships: Cross Cultural Research

Dinkha

In both Kuwait (Collectivist) and US (Individualist)

Insecure attachment most likely to form intense PSR in both cultures