Relationships

Sexual Selection AO1

• Sexual Selection is where individuals with certain traits are more successful than others at mating and reproducing.

‎

• Sexual selection occurs because certain traits increase reproductive success (e.g. strength & aggression), giving those individuals an evolutionary advantage.

• Individuals with these advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on these genes.

‎

The relationship between sexual selection & human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy.

Anisogamy = The difference between male and female gametes.

• Females have limited supply of eggs & invest more energy in its production compared to males.

This leads to 2 types of sexual selection:

• Intra-sexual Selection = Members of one sex compete with each other for access to the other sex.

  • Quantity over quality strategy

  • The preferred strategy for males

  • Example in male reproductive behaviour is Courtship Rituals - e.g. showing off strength & fitness

• Inter-sexual Selection = One sex chooses from available mates based on their desired traits.

  • Quality over quantity strategy

  • The preferred strategy for females

  • Example in female reproductive behaviour is Sexy Sons Hypothesis - Choose attractive males because their sons will inherit those traits & therefore also be successful at reproducing → more likely genes get passed on

Evaluations of Sexual Selection

Research support for anisogamy
E: Buss (1989) found that females preferred resource-related characteristics (e.g. financial prospects, ambition, tall, strong). Males preferred characteristics such as youth, good waist to hip ratio, symmetry, chastity
E: This shows consistent differences in partner preferences between sexes, supporting the prediction that human reproductive behaviour is driven by anisogamy.
L: Increases validity 

‎

Oversimplified
E: Presumes heterosexuality and that all relationships are sexual. So cannot explain partner preference in homosexual relationships, nor those who do not have or want children
E: This suggests that not everyone are driven by the desire to reproduce, so there is not always a link between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.
L: Therefore, oversimplified.

‎

Research support for inter & intra-sexual selection
E: Clark & Hatfield (1989) found that females are less likely to engage in sexual activities than males, with 0% of females accepting the offer to sleep with a male stranger compared to 75% of males accepting the offer to sleep with a female stranger.
E: This supports the idea that females prefer a quality over quantity strategy (intersexual selection), while males adopt a quantity over quality strategy (intrasexual selection).
L: Therefore, increases validity of the distinction between sexes using intersexual selection vs intrasexual.

‎

Ignores social infuences
E: Partner preferences are influenced by the changing norms within society, such as greater role of women in the workplace meaning they do not need financial resources from men.
E: This suggests that intersexual selection fails to move with social changes, so it is outdated. It shows that mate selection is not purely driven by evolutionary factors.
L: Therefore, limited explanation

‎

Research support
E: Singh (1993) identified waist-to-hip ratios as a universally major determinant of attractiveness. Concluded that optimum WHR is 0.7, which is associated with fertility.
E: This supports idea that certain traits that increase reproductive success are more desirable for partner preference.
L: Therefore, valid

Factors affecting Attraction

• Self-Disclosure

• Physical Attractiveness

• Filter Theory

Self-Disclosure =

Revealing personal information about oneself to another person.

Self-Disclosure AO1

Self-Disclosure = Revealing personal information about oneself to another person.

‎

• As self-disclosure increases in depth & breadth, attractiveness increases.

• However, for a relationship to develop, there must be reciprocal self-disclosure - both parties have to increasingly reveal more personal information as relationship progresses

‎

Information can be:

• Low-risk = Superficial

  • e.g. work, age

• High-risk = More intimate, deeper

  • e.g. aspirations, fears, wishes, attitudes

‎

• Low-risk information is revealed early on in the relationship.

• As the relationship develops, self-disclosure develops and we reveal more high-risk information.

‎

Acceptability of self-disclosure depends on:

• Stage of relationship - Disclosing too much info too early in relationship can be off-putting to partner

• Appropriateness of the content - Intimacy of content should depend on stage of relationship.

Why may self-disclosure not always increase satisfaction?

• Stage of relationship - Disclosing too much info too early in relationship can be off-putting to partner

• Appropriateness of the content - Intimacy of content should depend on stage of relationship.

Evaluations of Self-Disclosure

Research support
E: Sprecher et al. (2013) found a strong positive correlation between measures of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners. 
E: This supports idea that self-disclosure increases attraction in relationships.
L: Increases validity 
‎

COUNTER: Correlation not causation
E: Much of research into relationships is correlational.
E: This suggests that self-disclosure may not be a causal factor in increasing attraction, but is just a feature of healthy, satisfied relationships. 
L: Casts doubt over validity.
‎‎

Cultural differences
E: Tang et al. (2013) found that men & women in the US disclose significantly more than in China. However, levels of satisfaction were no different.
E: This suggests that self-disclosure is more applicable to individualistic cultures rather than collectivist. It is not universally true that increasing self-disclosure leads to more satisfaction.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, cannot be generalised, less useful

‎‎‎

Real life application
E: Research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships and increase satisfaction. For example, developments in relationship counselling to encourage self-disclosure.
E: This suggests that it can help foster healthier relationships.
L: Therefore, useful
‎
Cultural differences in self-disclosure
E: Yum & Hara (2005) found American pps reported that greater self-disclosure led to more trust. However, Korean pps reported greater self-disclosure led to less trust.
E: This suggests that self-disclosure has different effects on intimacy across different cultures. 
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, cannot be generalised, less useful.

‎
Gender differences in self-disclosure
E: McKenna et al. (2002) found women tended to rate their online relationships as more intimate and valued self-disclosure more than men.
E: This suggests that different genders value self-disclosure differently, so has different effects on intimacy. 
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, so less useful.

Physical Attractiveness AO1

• Good-looking people are deemed to be more attractive

• People with symmetrical faces are more attractive as it indicates good genetic fitness

‎

Babyface Hypothesis:

• People are drawn to features of babies (large eyes, soft skin) because they trigger an instinct of protectiveness & care

‎

The Halo Effect:

• Good-looking people are thought to be more kind, intelligent, sociable and successful.

‎

Matching Hypothesis:

• Walster (1966)

• People choose romantic partners of perceived similar physical attractiveness to themselves.

• People focus attention on potential partners of perceived similar level of attractiveness - effectively narrowing down the range to the attainable

• Individuals choosing partners have a realistic balance between desire for the ideal most attractive partner and awareness of their own level of attractiveness to avoid rejection.

Matching Hypothesis AO1

• Walster (1966)

• People choose romantic partners of perceived similar physical attractiveness to themselves.

• People focus attention on potential partners of perceived similar level of attractiveness - effectively narrowing down the range to the attainable

• Individuals choosing partners have a realistic balance between desire for the ideal most attractive partner and awareness of their own level of attractiveness to avoid rejection.

Evaluations of Physical Attractiveness

Research support for halo effect
E: Palmer & Peterson (2012) found physically attractive people were more rated as politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
E: This supports idea good-looking people are looked at more positively.
L: Increases validity 

‎

Individual differences
E: Touhey (1979) measured sexist attitudes of men & women using the MACHO scale - found that low scorers were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging potential partners.
E: This suggests not all people place importance on physical attractiveness when looking for potential partners.
L: Reduces external validity, lacks generalisability, less useful.

‎
Sex differences
E: Meltzer (2014) found that objective ratings of wives’ attractiveness were positively correlated to husbands’ satisfaction. In contrast, objective ratings of husband’s attractiveness were not correlated with with wives’ satisfaction.

E: This suggests that physical attractiveness may be more important for men compared to women.

L: Therefore, more complex, lacks generalisability

‎

Cultural consistency
E: Cunningham (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and asian males.
E: This suggests that physical attractiveness is a consistent feature across many cultures.
L: Therefore, increases external validity

‎
Research support for matching hypothesis
E: Feingold (1988) did a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in rating of attractiveness between romantic partners.
E: This supports the idea that people are in relationships with those of similar attractiveness to themselves.
L: Therefore, increases validity

‎

COUNTER: Contradictory research for matching hypothesis
E: Taylor (2011) studied actual date choices on an online dating site - found that online daters sought dates with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
E: This suggests that people do not always go for people of similar attractiveness as themselves, but go for people who are most desirable.
L: Therefore, undermines validity of matching hypothesis.

‎

Other factors of similarity may be important too
E: Matching hypothesis only looks at matching physical attractiveness. However, it may be that people also look for similarity in other factors, like personality or background.
E: This suggests that attractiveness may not solely be determined by physical characteristics but other factors too.
L: Therefore, incomplete explanation.

Evaluations of Matching Hypothesis

Research support for matching hypothesis
E: Feingold (1988) did a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in rating of attractiveness between romantic partners.
E: This supports the idea that people are in relationships with those of similar attractiveness to themselves.
L: Therefore, increases validity

‎

COUNTER: Contradictory research for matching hypothesis
E: Taylor (2011) studied actual date choices on an online dating site - found that online daters sought dates with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
E: This suggests that people do not always go for people of similar attractiveness as themselves, but go for people who are most desirable.
L: Therefore, undermines validity of matching hypothesis.

‎

Other factors of similarity may be important too
E: Matching hypothesis only looks at matching physical attractiveness. However, it may be that people also look for similarity in other factors, like personality or background.
E: This suggests that attractiveness may not solely be determined by physical characteristics but other factors too.
L: Therefore, incomplete explanation.

Who proposed Filter Theory?

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)

The 3 Filters of Filter Theory

• Social Demography

• Similarity in Attitudes

• Complementarity

Filter Theory AO1

• Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) proposed this theory.

• People apply filters to narrow down the field of availables to a field of desirables.

• We tend to be more attracted to those who pass through the series of filters:

‎

Social Demography - Attracted to those we come into contact with in everyday life

• Geographical location

• Level of education 

• Social class

• Ethnic group

• Religion

  • More important in early stages of relationship.

    ‎

Similarity in Attitudes - Attracted to those with shared beliefs and values

• More important in early stages of relationship

‎

Complementarity - Attracted to those who complement our emotional needs.

• Two partners have traits that the other lacks - ability to meet each other’s needs.

• More important later on in relationships.

  
  

Evaluations of Filter Theory

Research support
E: Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) gave students in relationships questionnaires and found that couples who had been together for less than 18 months, closeness was associated with similarity of attitudes. For those in longer relationships, closeness was associated with complementarity.
E: This supports idea that similarity of attitudes is most important in early stages of relationships, and complementarity gets more important later on. 
L: Increases validity 
‎‎

COUNTER: Failure to replicate
E: Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings of Kerckhoff and Davis. He put this down to social changes over time (e.g. inter-racial relationships, homosexuality).
E: This suggests that filter theory may be outdated as the original study did not account for types of different types of relationships that we have now in modern society.
L: Therefore, decreases validity
‎
Lacks temporal validity (social demography)
E: Rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables. Meeting partners is now easier so decreases the usual demographic limits.
E: This suggests that the social demography filter may not be applicable today.
L: Therefore, decreasing usefulness

‎

Cultural differences
E: Filter theory was based on western/individualistic culture, where we can interact with lots of people as we live in an urban setting. However, rural communities may have less opportunities to meet people so the field of availables is much more restricted.
E: This suggests that filter theory may not apply to rural communities in the same way as it does in western cultures.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, less generalisable,.‎
‎
Complementarity may not be central to all relationships
E: Markey and Markey (2013) found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied. These couples had a mean relationship length of 4.5 years.
E: This contradicts filter theory’s assumption that for long-term satisfaction, partners need to be complementary, such as one partner being dominant and the other being
submissive. 
L: Therefore, reduces validity

Theories of MAINTENANCE of Romantic Relationships

• Social Exchange Theory

• Equity Theory

• Rusbult’s Investment Model

Theories of FORMATION of Romantic Relationships

• *Social Exchange Theory

• (equity theory)

• (rusbult’s investment model)

Social Exchange Theory AO1

Economic Model

Operates on Minimax Principle = People in relationships aim to minimise their costs and maximise their rewards/profits 

• Relationships are maintained if both parties receive rewards and gain profit.

• A relationship ends if the outcome is not profitable

• Assumes that exchanges are monitored - keeping track of rewards and reciprocating rewards for rewards

‎

Comparison Level:

• Comparison Level = Threshold amount of profit you believe you deserve to get.

• Comparison levels are used by each partner to measure profit. If a partner exceeds the CL, the relationships is pursued

• CL is influenced by previous relationships, self-esteem, social norms.

‎

• Comparison Level for Alternatives = Compares profit of current relationship to other alternative relationships.

• If potential rewards from an alternative relationship is greater, existing one may be terminated to pursue alternative.

4 Stages of Relationship Formation - Social Exchange Theory

1. Sampling - potential rewards & costs are assessed in a number of relationships.

2. Bargaining - the couple sets out what they each expect, agrees on the costs and rewards, and begins negotiations

3. Commitment - relationship is established & becomes more stable; costs & rewards are smoothed out, rewards increase & costs reduce

4. Institutionalisation - norms & expectations of the relationship and costs/rewards are firmly established.

Evaluations of Social Exchange Theory

‎‎Can explain individual differences in attraction
E: SET understands that people perceive costs and rewards differently (they are subjective). This can explain why individuals are attracted to different people.
E: This suggests that SET can be applied to different people.
L: Therefore, more useful.

‎

Based on faulty assumptions
E: The theory may fail to distinguish between exchange relationships (e.g. work colleagues) and communal relationships (e.g. romantic partners). The concepts of social exchange and exchange monitoring is more applicable to exchange relationships, but in communal relationships, people wouldn’t keep track of rewards & costs.
E: This suggests that SET may be more appropriate to apply to exchange relationships rather than to romantic ones/
L: Therefore, may not tell us anything meaningful about romantic relationships.

‎
Difficult to measure SET concepts
E: Rewards and costs are defined superficially and are subjective. Comparison levels are also difficult to measure objectively.
E: This suggests that it is impossible to falsify the theory so we cannot test whether it actually has value in real world relationships.
L: Therefore, lacks validity

‎

Rusbult’s model better
E: Rusbult extended the Social Exchange Theory to his Investment model. Proposed that commitment is key, and various factors of satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives serve to affect commitment.
E: This suggests that SET may be oversimplified only considering costs and rewards
‎

Does not account for equity
E: Hatfield (1979) states that people are not looking for a relationship in which they can over-benefit, but one in which the rewards for both parties are fair.
E: This suggests that SET may be wrong that people look for relationships that maximises their personal benefit/profit, but instead people look for fairness in relationships.
L: Therefore, questions validity of minimax principle.

‎

Aids understanding of relationship breakdown
E: Comparison level for alternatives can explain why people end a relationship they were satisfied with - an alternative partner can offer even more profits.
E: This suggests that SET is able explain different circumstances of relationship termination.
L: Therefore, wider application.
‎

Real life application
E: Led to Integrative Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) where partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease negative ones. This therapy has been found to significantly improve relationship satisfaction.
E: This suggests that SET has helped develop ways of making relationships healthier.
L: Therefore, useful

Poor research support - artificial
E: One common procedure involves 2 strangers working together in a game playing scenario in which rewards & costs are distributed. 
E: This suggests that research uses artificial tasks so oversimplifies the complexity of human romantic relationships. Arbitrary tasks cannot be applied to everyday life.
L: Research has low ecological validity, so decreases validity of SET

Equity Theory AO1

• Economic Model

• Based on idea of fairness for each partner.

• Each partner needs to experience a balance between their costs and benefits.

‎

• Costs/rewards are subjective, so it is perception that is important.

• The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction.

‎

Overbenefitting partner - Feels guilt, shame, embarassment, unease

Underbenefitting partner - Feels undervalued, anger, resentment, dissatisfied

‎

• In order for a relationship to be maintained, partners need to be motivated to restore equity.

• Relationships are maintained when there is perceived equity.

Evaluations of Equity Theory

Research Support
E: Utne (1984) found that those who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting.
E: This supports idea that dissatisfaction occurs when there is perceived unfairness.
L: Increases validity

‎
Contradictory research / direction of cause and effect
E: Argyle (1977) found that most people in close relationships do not think in terms of costs & rewards unless they feel dissatisfied.
E: This suggests that determining inequity from calculating costs and rewards may not cause dissatisfaction, but it may be the opposite. Only when feeling dissatisfied do partners think about unfairness. 
L: Therefore, casts doubt over validity, reduces explanatory power

‎
Cultural differences
E: Aumer-Ryan (2007) found that couples in individualistic cultures were more satisfied with equity. However, couples in collectivist cultures were more satisfied when they were overbenefitting.
E: This suggests that equity theory is not applicable to all cultures.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, lacks generalisability, less useful.

‎‎

Can explain individual differences in attraction
E: Equity theory understands that people perceive costs and rewards differently (they are subjective). This can explain why individuals are attracted to different people.
E: This suggests that equity theory can be applied to different people.
L: Therefore, more useful.

‎

COUNTER: Individual differences
E: Huseman et al. (1987) suggests that some people are ‘benevolents’ (prepared to contribute more), and some are ‘entitleds’ (believe they deserve to overbenefit).
E: This suggests that equity theory cannot explain all relationships as people have different motivations. More complex than initially thought.
L: Therefore, lacks generalisability.

‎

Real life application
E: Led to Integrative Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) where partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease negative ones. This therapy has been found to significantly improve relationship satisfaction.
E: This suggests that equity theory has helped develop ways of making relationships healthier.
L: Therefore, useful

Rusbult’s Investment Model AO1

• Rusbult extended the Social Exchange Theory by proposing the Investment Model

‎

• Proposed that commitment is key to the maintenance of relationships.

• Commitment = The desire to continue a relationship.

• Commitment is determined by:

  • Satisfaction

  • Quality of Alternatives

  • Investment

‎

Satisfaction = The positive vs negative effect experienced being in a relationship.

• As satisfaction increases, commitment increases

‎

Quality of Alternatives = The perceived desirability of alternative relationships.

• The better the alternatives, the less the commitment

‎

Investment = Any resources we put directly into a relationship (intrinsic) or anything we get out of being in a relationship (extrinsic).

• As investment increases, commitment increases

Examples of Intrinsic Investments

Time, money, effort, emotion

Examples of Extrinsic Investments

Children, friends, co-owned possessions (house, car)

Evaluations of Rusbult’s Investment Model

Research Support
E: Rusbult gave questionnaires to students in relationships and found that commitment was positively correlated with satisfaction level and investment size, and negatively correlated with the quality of alternatives.
E: This is predicted by the model, supporting the idea that these 3 factors serve affect commitment and hence, relationship maintenance.
L: Increases validity

‎
Methodological strengths
E: Usage of self-report data (questionnaires) is able to capture the perceptions of the participants.
E: Inv model understands that the factors of commitment are subjective, so collecting data from the direct perspective of the pps allows to get accurate measures of what they believe. A researcher may have different opinions than the person in the relationship.

‎
Can explain abusive relationships
E: Rusbult & Martz (1995) asked women why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began. They found that women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.
E: This aligns with model, supporting investment & quality of alternatives as having a role in relationship maintenance. Also suggests that it is able to explain various different types of relationships, even those in which satisfaction levels are low, like in abusive relationships.
L: Therefore, more useful. 

‎
Can explain infidelity
E: Infidelity occurs when there is low satisfaction with a current relationship and high satisfaction with an alternative relationship.
E: The model states that both of these factors serve to decrease commitment, so this model can explain behaviours that lead to an unsustained relationship.
L: Increases usefulness, practical application.

‎

Oversimplifies investment
E: Goodfriend & Agnew (2008) suggest there is more to investment than just resources already in the relationship. They suggested that investment also includes investment in future plans. People are motivated to stay to see the plans come true.
E: The suggests that investment as a factor affecting commitment may be more complex than initially thought.
L: Limited explanation

‎
Based on correlational research
E: Research supporting the model have only found strong correlations between the factors and commitment.
E: The suggests that we are unable to establish causality. Direction of cause and effect may be such that the factors could be a result of feeling a degree of commitment, rather than the factors causing commitment. 
L: Research lacks validity. So model may not actually tell us anything about relationship maintenance.

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown AO1

• Duck described how relationship breakdown occurs in a sequence of four phases.

‎

1) Intra-psychic phase

• One partner thinks about their dissatisfaction with the relationship but does not disclose it to others/keeps it to self.

‎

2) Dyadic phase

• The problem is raised openly. There is a confrontation and discussion between partners

‎

3) Social phase

• Partners disclose their problems to others - friends & family become aware of the relationship breakdown

‎

4) Grave Dressing phase

• Each partner comes to terms with the breakdown and rationalises it by constructing a narrative of events

• Tell others your own version of the breakup

Evaluations of Duck’s Phase Model

Research Support
E: Hatfield et al. (1984) reported that when an individual experiences initial dissatisfaction with a relationship, it leads to social withdrawal so that the individual can consider their position.
E: This supports idea of the intra-psychic phase being the first stage where people dwell over dissatisfaction by themselves before discussing it with others.
L: Increases validity
‎
Real life application
E: Model can suggest ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed. It recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at different stages. For example, Duck recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase should focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner.
E: This suggests that the model has helped develop relationship counselling to sustain healthier relationships.
L: Therefore, useful

‎
Cultural bias
E: The model is based on research of relationships in individualistic cultures, like the US. Experiences of romantic relationships differ between individualistic & collectivist cultures. For example, collectivist more family is typically involved.
E: This suggests that it is unlikely that the process of relationship breakdown is the same across different cultures.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, lacks generalisability, reducing usefulness.
‎
Incomplete model
E: Duck & Rollie (2006) later added a fifth phase - Resurrection phase. They also recognised that stages do not always occur in the same order - it is possible to return to an earlier phase.
E: This suggests that the process of relationship breakdown may be more complex than initially thought.
L: Therefore, oversimplified.
‎

Descriptive rather than explanatory
E: The model does not account for why the initial dissatisfaction occurred. So it describes the process of breakdown rather than explaining why it occurs.
E: This suggests that the model may not actually tell us anything meaningful about why relationships breakdown.
L: Therefore, reduces value, low explanatory power.

‎
Methodological issues
E: The model is built on research that uses retrospective, self-report data. Participants give their experiences of breakdown after the relationship has already ended. 
E: This suggests that the recall may not be accurate or reliable. 
L: Therefore, reduces validity of research, so we are less confident on the theory.

Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships AO1

Reduced Cues Theory:

• VR has a lack of non-verbal cues, such as paralanguage, body language, facial expressions.

• Leads to deindividuation (reduction in personal identity)

• Leads to disinhibition (lack of restraint), leading to socially inappropriate behaviour like aggressive communication.

• Leads to a reduction in self-disclosure as people do not want to reveal information to someone so impersonal.

‎

Hyperpersonal Model:

• VR maintains anonymity, so less fear of social embarrassment

• Leads to increased self-disclosure.

• VR becomes intimate more quickly, so VR develops quicker.

‎

• Allows Selective Self-Presentation - online persona can be manipulated.

• Can lead to hyper-honest or hyper-dishonest self-presentation

• Leads to increased self-disclosure 

Absence of Gating in Virtual Relationships AO1

• Refers to how VR have less factors that normally act as a barrier to the formation of a relationship in real-life. (i.e. less barriers)

• Examples of Barriers:

  • Level of physical attractiveness

  • Social awkwardness

  • Distance/location

  • Social background

• Therefore, people are more willing to self-disclose, so intimacy occurs sooner so allows virtual relationships to develop quicker.

Evaluations of Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships

Lack of support for RCT - cues are different not absent
E: Walther & Tidwell (1995) suggest that online interactions use other cues, such as timing of messages. Also, acronyms (LOL) & emojis can be used as substitutes for facial expressions.
E: This suggests that nonverbal cues are different rather than absent from VR. It is possible for VR to be just as personal as FtF. Self-disclosure may not decrease in VR
L: Therefore, decreases validity of reduced cues.
‎
Research support for HPM
E: Whitty & Joinson (2009) researched online discussions. Found that questions tended to be very direct and intimate, and people had no issue answering these. This contrasts face-to-face conversations, which often feature ‘small talk’. 
E: This supports idea of hyperhonest self-presentation and that self-disclosure does increase online.
L: Increases validity of hyperpersonal model.
‎
Contradictory research for HPM
E: Ruppel (2017) meta-analysis found that self-report studies showed the frequency, breadth & depth of self-disclosures were all greater in FtF. Experimental studies showed no differences in self-disclosure between FtF & VR.
E: This contradicts the model’s claim that VR has deeper self-disclosures.
L: Therefore, casts doubt over validity.

‎
Cultural differences in self-disclosure
E: Yum & Hara (2005) found American pps reported that greater self-disclosure led to more trust. However, Korean pps reported greater self-disclosure led to less trust.
E: This suggests that self-disclosure has different effects on intimacy across different cultures. If SD is different in diff cultures, RCT & HPM unlikely to be able to be applied in same way universally.
L: Therefore, reduced cues theory & hyperpersonal model may be culturally bound. Less useful.
‎‎

Gender differences in self-disclosure
E: McKenna et al. (2002) found women tended to rate their online relationships as more intimate and valued self-disclosure more than men.
E: This suggests that different genders value self-disclosure differently, so has different effects on intimacy. If self-disclosure is different between genders, RCT & HPM is unlikely to be able to be applied to both genders in the same way.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, so less useful.
‎
Fails to account for multimodel relationships
E: In real life, relationships are conducted both online and offline. Online disclosures will be influenced by offline interactions, and vice versa.
E: This suggests that the effect on self-disclosure in VR is more complex.
L: Therefore, limited explanation.

Evaluations of Absence of Gating in Virtual Relationships

Research support for absence of gating
E: Bargh et al. (2002) found that intimacy developed more quickly with virtual than FtF relationships due to a lack of gating features. 
E: This supports idea that VR has less barriers so leads to relationships to develop quicker.
L: Therefore, increase validity
‎
Cultural differences in self-disclosure
E: Yum & Hara (2005) found American pps reported that greater self-disclosure led to more trust. However, Korean pps reported greater self-disclosure led to less trust.
E: This suggests that self-disclosure has different effects on intimacy across different cultures. If SD is different in diff cultures, absence of gating unlikely to have same effect on SD in same way universally.
L: Therefore, reduced cues theory & hyperpersonal model may be culturally bound. Less useful.
‎‎

Gender differences in self-disclosure
E: McKenna et al. (2002) found women tended to rate their online relationships as more intimate and valued self-disclosure more than men.
E: This suggests that different genders value self-disclosure differently, so has different effects on intimacy. If self-disclosure is different between genders, absence of gating unlikely to have same effect on SD in same way universally.
L: Therefore, lacks external validity, so less useful.
‎
Fails to account for multimodel relationships
E: In real life, relationships are conducted both online and offline. Online disclosures will be influenced by offline interactions, and vice versa.
E: This suggests that the effect on self-disclosure in VR is more complex.
L: Therefore, limited explanation.

Parasocial Relationships =

One-sided, unreciprocated relationships, usually with a celebrity. 

Levels of Parasocial Relationships AO1

• Developed by McCutcheon & Maltby

• Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) used to identify the levels

‎

Entertainment Social (least intense) - Discussion with friends about interesting celebrities; source of entertainment

‎

Intense-Personal - Feeling of personal connection, private obsession 

‎
Bordeline Pathological - Uncontrollable, extreme behaviours (e.g. stalking)

Absorption Addiction Model of Parasocial Relationships AO1

• PSR are formed to make up for psychological deficits/deficiencies in a person’s life (e.g. poor relationships, weak personal identity)

• PSR enable a sense of identity 

• Absorption refers to how people may become totally consumed with the life of the celebrity.

• Addiction refers to how PSR escalate through series of stages, where the person has increasing dependence on the celebrity.

Attachment Theory Explanation of Parasocial Relationships AO1

Proposes that parasocial relationships arise from attachment styles formed in childhood.

• Insecure-resistant types most likely to form PSR

• This is because they seek relationships that do not involve chance of rejection 

• They form PSR to meet their need for affection

‎

Attachment can explain Characteristics of PSR:

• Proximity-seeking behaviour = Stay informed about their celebrity

• Protest at disruption = Protest/prolonged distress upon loss of celebrity

Evaluations of Research into Parasocial Relationships

Research support for absorption addiction model
E: Maltby et al. (2003) used the Eysenck personality questionnaire to assess relationship between PSR level & personality. Entertainment-social associated with extraversion, intense-personal with neuroticism, and borderline pathological with psychoticism. 
E: This supports idea that poor psychological function is associated with more intense parasocial relationships.
L: Increases validity
‎
Methodological issues / direction of cause and effect
E: Many studies into PSR use correlational analysis so do not establish causal relationships.
E: This suggests that we are unable to determine causality. We also cannot conclude the direction of cause and effect - whether deficits like anxiety cause formation of PSR, or whether PSR cause anxiety. 
L: Therefore, limits validity of explanations of PSR
‎‎‎

Absorption addiction more descriptive than explanatory
E: The model is capable of describing the characteristics of those in different levels of PSR, but does not really explain how such characteristics develop.
E: This suggests that it may not actually provide a meaningful explanation of PSR.
L: Therefore, reduces internal validity. 
‎
Universal tendency of attachment theory
E: Research has found that in both collectivist & individualistic cultures, people with insecure-resistant attachment type were most likely to form PSR with TV celebrities & characters.
E: This suggests that attachment theory can be applied to explain PSR across multiple cultures.
L: Therefore, increases external validity, more generalisable, more useful. 

‎

COUNTER: Contradictory research for attachment theory
E: McCutcheon (2006) researched 299 American pps and found that attachment security did not affect the likelihood of forming a PSR with a celebrity. 
E: This suggests attachment types may not actually be good predictors of the formation of PSR.
L: Therefore, casts doubt over validity
‎
PSR not always negative
E: Both explanations view PSR as negative. However, a more recent view is that PSR can actually help young people with identity formation through observation & imitation of positive role models. 
E: This suggests that the explanations wrongly associate PSR as being all-bad. PSR can have some benefits.
L: Therefore, overly-pessimistic.