Relationships, PSYCHOLOGY, aqa alevel

self-disclosure

gradually revealing personal information about ourselves to others and reciprocal exchange of information between romantic partners

ALTMAN AND TAYLOR (1973)

found disclosing information in the early stages of relationship was inappropriate and did not enhance attraction. The disclosing person was less likable.

KLEINKE (1979)

individuals who were selective with self-disclosure were seen as more attractive and recipients felt chosen

one limitation of self-disclosure is

Tang et al 2013, researcher found that men and women in USA, individualistic culture, disclose more sexual thoughts than men and women in China, collectivist culture. This suggests culture bias. +modern study

one strength of self-disclosure is

Hass and Stafford 98, found that 57% of gay men and women identified honest self-disclosure as the main way of maintaining and deepening the relationship. Therefore, this suggests that if less skilled in self-disclosure partners would learn how to disclose, this would have several benefits to their relationship. Thus, self-disclosure has a real life application. + diverse sample

sexual selection

it's a theory explaining how evolution is driven by mate competition and development of characteristics that ensure reproductive behaviour

member of one sex chooses member of another, which means

that there are certain characteristics that are appealing to the other sex

intra-sexual selection (mate competition)

this occurs when members of one sex compete for access to another sex, usually males, as they are larger

inter-sexual selection

this is the idea that one sex is choosy. Both sexes have to develop the characteristics attractive to the other sex. This suggests that the preferences of one sex are the area to compete for other

partner preferences, males

males prefer females that show signs of fertility as wide hips, large breasts, narrow waists, small nose, full lips, big eyes

partner preferences, females

females prefer males that show ambition, good financial prosperity, that are tall, strong, have shiny hair and clear skin, intelligent and kind

anisogamy, males

having 110 million of sperm per ejaculation, stay fertile thoughout their life, they can fertilise lots of females at a low cost to their reproductive potential, therefore they seek short-term relationships with lots of casual sex

anisogamy, females

females have only about 25 years of fertility, their cost is substantial as they carry a baby for 9 months, therefore they seek long term relationships with sex later on in the relationship

natural selection in terms of human reproductive behaviour, favours males

by maximising the number of pregnancies, by polygamy, intra-sexual selection, having as much sex as possible and choice of youthful, fertile mates

natural selection in terms of human reproductive behaviour, favours females

by maximising the number of pregnancies by monogamy, inter-sexual selection, choosing males that show strength, good financial prospects etc.

one strength of evolutionary theory is

Davies (1990) found that men were offering resources and seeking youthfulness and women were offering youthfulness and seeking resources in personalised ads

one limitation of evolutionary theory is

ignores alternate explanations. one example is the culture's norms as eg in Western cultures, men having casual sex is seen as masculine and girls stand by the opinion that 'nice girls' don't have casual sex, which would explain human reproductive behaviour.

filter theory's definition

is the theory by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) stating that relationship have to pass through 3 filters in order to be formed with each filter narrowing down the number or possible partners

filter one of filter theory

social filter that is based on demographic and social factors; people socialise with people from around them, such as colleagues from school or work; field of availables - ones we can form a relationship with

filter two of filter theory

individual filter based on the similarity of attitudes and values; individuals that are different are filtered out; field of desirables - ones we want to be with

filter three of filter theory

dyadic filter based on complimentary needs; if needs are met, relationship is maintained, if needs are not met, relationship falls apart

one strength of filter theory is

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) gave out the questionnaires to pairs under and over 18 months long. Ones under said attitudes were more important, ones over said that complimentary of emotional needs is most important + as link the fact it was done in 60s

one limitation of filter theory is

research by Festinger (1950), who observed the students on MIT that lived in halls. They became most friendly with people nearest them - limited generalisability + as a link, support for field of availables

physical attractiveness

a factor affecting romantic relationships, usually used to refer to how attractive we find person's face

CUNNINGHAM

men and women find physical attractiveness to be differently important, males place more importance on physical attractiveness, women on masculine traits

halo effect in terms of physical attractiveness

Dion et al found that we find more attractive people more sociable, outgoing, successful and happier. These traits make us believe they are more attractive

matching hypothesis

the tendency to develop relationships with people who are on the same level of attractiveness as we are, Walster 1966

one strength of matching hypothesis is

Taylor 2011, study had 120 men and women they labelled at initiators and they measured who they contacted and who responded to them. Findings support people on similar level of attractiveness responded and challenge as they contacted whoever

one limitation of matching hypothesis is

Walster 66, computer Dance, randomly allocated students were asked to complete a questionnaire on how much they liked the pair they matched with. Findings show students did not take into account their own attractiveness, they were satisfied with more attractive partners +age bias, only students from one school as well

parasocial relationships

one-sided relationship between an individual and a celebrity, where celebrity does not know about the relationship

factors affecting parasocial relationship

age - 11 to 17 most likely because they look for someone to look up to; gender - men go for sport stars, women for TV celebrities; education - less educated more likely to form psr

first level of psr, McCutcheon 2002

entertainment, social level - celebrity as an entertainment and fuel for social interactions

second level of psr, McCutcheon 2002

intense personal - one becomes a fan engaging themselves with the celebrity

third level of psr, McCutcheon 2002

borderline pathological - overidentifying with the celebrity leading to extreme behaviour and delusions

absorption, McCutcheon 2002

occurs when one identifies and preoccupies themselves with a celebrity as a sense of fulfillment

addiction, McCutcheon 2002

occurs when one displays unhealthy commitment to the celebrity that causes delusions and extreme behaviour

type b attachment in relation to psr

doesn't need the psr, as they form a loving relationship in real life

type c attachment in relation to psr

most likely to form psr as they require strong emotional bond and fear rejection, yet in psr there is no rejection

type a attachment in relation to psr

least likely as they do not engage in behaviours designed to create intimacy and have difficulties trusting others

one strength of psr is

Schmidd and Klimmt 2011, Harry Potter in individualistic and collectivist cultures displayed similar patterns of psr, so universal + modern, as 2011

one weakness of psr

methodological issues, self reported data as questionnaires, social desirability bias, therefore no true reflection of psr in real life and not useful in explaining psrs

social exchange theory (set)

a theory stating that relationship is a series of exchanges

Thibaut and Kelley (1959), 4 phase model

1. Sampling, potential costs and rewards, 2. Bargaining, giving and receiving in order to see if it is worthwhile, 3. Commitment, mutual and predictable exchanges, 4. Institutionalisation, norms in exchanges, patterns in rewards and costs established

comparison level

people's expectations about the level of rewards and costs they are likely to receive in a particular relationship judged by general expectations and experiences from other relationships

comparison level for alternatives

the cost-benefit ratio that people believe they deserve or could gain in another relationship

one weakness of SET is

Sedikides (2005) states that we are capable of being unselfish and doing things for others without expecting anything in return e.g. relationships with family, which therefore suggests it is unlikely that romantic partners engage in a relationship solely for the cost

one strength of SET is

Rusbalt and Martz (1995) interviewed women from refuge that returned to a violent partner. When asked why they returned, they stated that they invested a lot in the relationship and they did not have any other alternatives. This gives support to the comparison level for alternatives, as it shows that women did not have a better alternative than the current relationship

equity theory

equity means fairness. This theory explains that relationship has to be equal of costs and rewards for both partners, if inequity occurs, the partners are dissatisfied

Hatfield and Rapson (2011)

they argue that if we see inequity, we want to bring equity back by either actually confronting the partner about it or convincing themselves that things are fair as they are

one strength of equity theory is

UTNE et al 84, surveyed heterosexual couples married more than 2 years, measured equity with two self-report scales. Findings have shown that equitable couples were more satisfied than the over or under benefitted

one limitation of equity theory is

Ryan et al 2007, found that couples in collectivist cultures were more satisfied if they over benefited their partner, whereas partners in individualistic cultures preferred to be equitable

three reasons for relationship's breakdown

failure guaranteed from the start of the relationship; two well-meaning people grow apart; infidelity or a dramatic event

stage one of Duck's Model of breakdown

1. Intrapsychic, at least one partner is dissatisfied, but keeps the reflections to themselves, no confrontation

stage two of Duck's Model of breakdown

2. Dyadic, confrontation, expression of dissatisfaction and reevaluation of potential costs, might avoid break up by e.g. Marital therapy

stage three of Duck's Model of breakdown

3. Social phase, public expression of couple's feelings, couple cannot deny problems, so reconciliation is harder

stage four of Duck's Model of breakdown

4. Grave-dressing Phase, cleaning one's past, so 'saving face' in order to be attractive for another partner

La Gaipa 82

people, who leave relationship have to have their 'social credit' intact for future use, in order to be able to form future relationships

one weakness of Duck's model of breakdown is

cultural bias, based on experiences of relationships in Western cultures. Relationships in individualistic cultures are voluntary and frequently come to an end. In collectivist cultures, relationships are more likely to be involving a wider family or obligatory, so with little involvement of the partners. Therefore it might not be comparable across cultures. This then decreases validity and usefulness because of limited application

one strength of Duck's model of breakdown is

helps to identify and reverse the stages of breakdown. Duck recommended people in intrapsychic stage to focus their reflections on positive aspects of their partner. Therefore, model is useful as it recognises different repair strategies for particular points in breakdown. Such insights could be used in Counselling, so it has real life application.

Rusbult's investment model

model of romantic relationships proposing that commitment depends on satisfaction, clalt and investment

Rusbult's satisfaction

positive vs negative emotions experienced in a relationship influenced by how one fulfills their needs

Rusbult's clalt

extent to which one thinks it would be better to engage in alternative relationship

Rusbult's investment

resources put into relationship, intrinsic and extrinsic

Le and Agnew (2003)

meta analysis of 52 studies from 5 different countries over 11000 participants, found that features of Rusbult's investment model highly correlated with commitment

one strength of Rusbult's investment model is

Real world application: Rusbult and Martz from before

another strength of Rusbult's model is

Le and Agnew

abscence of gating

obstacles that disallow people form relationships ftf are absent in virtual relationships and they can overcome their barriers, such as introvertedness

computer mediated communication might

help one to form a relationship