Relationships- AQA Psychology A Level

Evolutionary explanations- what is meant by the evolutionary approach

• explains human behavior in terms of adaptiveness and reproductive success

• argues that if behavioral features have been genetically inherited by one generation from another, then it must have specific value for the human species

sexual selection

• explains differences in partner preferences between males and females , one expl. comes from concept of anisogamy- differences between male and female sex cells in achieving reproductive success

Anisogamy

• males can never be sure if they are the father, as a result male strategy involves impregnating as many women as possible to pass on their genes succesfully

• women use a lot of energy in producing an egg and being pregnant, meaning she needs a partner who will be committed in the long run and provide resources for her and the child to increase chances of survival

Study- Buss (1989)

• demonstrated difference in mating strategies

• surveyed over 10000 adults in 33 countries

• found that females place more importance in resource-related characteristics like ambition and intelligence

• males preferred younger mates and prefer ability to reproduce like attractiveness and modesty

Buss (1995)- Sexual Jealousy

• males have more jealousy of sexual infidelity to prevent cuckhouldry

• females are more jealous of emotional infidelity as may result in withdrawal of resources, putting child at risk

anisogamy can explain the 2 types of sexual selection=

• Inter-sexual

• Intra-sexual

Inter-sexual selection

• idea that females place more investment of time, energy and resources into raising a child so need to be careful when choosing a partner

• quality over quantity

Clark and Hatfield (1989)

• asked male + female student volunteers to approach opposite sex students on uni campus asking them same 3 questions: will you go on a date with me/ come back to my apartment/ go to bed with me tonight?

• 50% of both sexes agreed to date

• 69% males 6% females go back to apartment

• 75% males 0 females go to bed with them

Intra-sexual selection

• evolutionary developed features that allow males to compete with other males for females

• quantity over quality mating strategy

physical dimorphism

• explained by intra-sexual selection

• males must compete with each other for females so sexual selection favors aggressive and physically strong males

• but females don’t need to compete so aggression + strength give them no evolutionary advantage

Singh (1993)

• studied preferred hip to waist ratio

• studied the ratio of winners of miss america for a decade

• found that men find any sizes attractive as long as ratio is 0.7

• men unconsciously interpret this as a sign of fertility whilst not pregnant

evolutionary explanations evaluation

- ignores cultural and social changes experienced in the last 100 years in terms of womens equality + independence

• Sharma found in an analysis of 37 cultures that females mostly value mates with resources in societies where women’s access to education and work was limited

- methodological weaknesses in the research- most used undergrad women, expected high income so preference for resourceful men may be more due to similar interests rather than an innate mechanism

• furthermore, research lacks validity as studies measure expressed partner preferences rather than real life ones

- mate choice may be more complicated than suggested by eval expl., research suggests that females preferences change throughout the menstrual cycle, preferred more masculine when fertile but prefer slightly feminised features for long term mate- masculine = healthier immune system, good to pass to offspring but feminine = parental cooperation and kindness

ATTRACTION - self disclosure

• term coined by Jourard, based on idea that relationship formation is built on trust with another person, by gradually revealing personal information (thoughts feelings experiences), allowing them to reveal their true selves leading to greater intimacy and more satisfaction

social penetration theory

• self disclosure is it’s central concept

• proposed by Altman and Taylor

• claims that by gradually revealing emotions + experiences to a partner, followed by listening to reciprocal self disclosures, they gain a greater understanding of each other + develop deeper trust in their relationship

• self disclosure has two dimentions- breath and depth, SPT uses an onion metaphor to describe these, at first people share lots of aspect of themselves but some things are off limits, which are eventually disclosed as they build trust

• Reis and Shaver say that aswell as an increase in breath and depth, there is also an increase in reciprocity in order for the relationship to develop further

self-disclosure research

• Sprecher et al.

• aim- to investigate the role of reciprocal self disclosure in relationships

• 156 US uni students were paired into female-female or male-female dyads. pairs were asked to skype

• condition 1= asked to self-disclose reciprocally asking each other questions

• condition2= non-reciprocal self disclosure, one shared while the other listened and they swapped roles after

• condition 1 reported greater liking, closeness and similarity aswell as enjoyment compared with condition 2

self-disclosure evaluations

+ research support for self-disclosure as factor affecting attraction, Hass and Stafford conducted a study with gay men+women discovering how they sustained+developed relationships, 57% considered open+honest self-disclosure as most important strategy to maintain close rel.

• real world application to councelling

+ importance of trust supported by ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon in online relationships. cooper and sportolari found anonymity of online interactions gave sense of security so disclosed personal info earlier on, making rel. exciting and intense (boom) but since trust foundation not established, intensity of rel. impossible to sustain so break up (bust), suggesting trust must first be established with less important info

+ further research support- laurenceau et al. asked ppts. to write daily diary entry abt their relationship, found that self disclosure and perception of disclosure in partner lead to greater feelings of intimacy, reverse was true aswell, those with lack of intimacy self-disclosed less often

self-disclosure issues and debates

• nomothetic approach- social penetration theory is unable to explain all types of relationship formations due to this. ignores other factors such as cultural practices and personality

  • furthermore, by reducing rel. satisfaction to a single factor, SPT ignores other aspects of romantic attraction like physical attractiveness, suggests research could benefit from idiographic approach

• SPT was developed based on research in western individualist culture so may not apply to all cultures. culture bias. Tang et al. found men+women in USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than in china, however satisfaction lvl. was high in both cultures

ATTRACTION - physical attractiveness

• physical attractiveness plays major role in formation of relationships, many explanations for this, not just important in formation but also remains an important feature for several years including after marrige

the matching hypothesis

• a persons choice of partner is a balance between a desire to have the most attractive possible and wish to avoid being rejected, so people choose someone of similar attractiveness

• for this to happen, a realistic judgement of one’s own attractiveness must be made

• both parties will feel less fear or jealousy

physical attractiveness research- palmer + peterson halo effect

• asked ppts. to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent they’re believed to be, attractive ppl consistently rated higher in these

• additionally dion et al. found attractive ppl are rated as successful, kind and sociable, we behave more positively towards attractive people

physical attractiveness walster et al.

• aim to examine the matching hypothesis

• researcher advertised a computer dance for freshers in first week at uni of minnesota. first 376 male and 376 female volunteers were let in for $1

• 4 judges judged them on attractiveness, students filled a questionnare, told data would match them with ideal partner but actually it was random

• during intervals and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked if they found partner attractive and would go on date with them

• partners responded more positively to those rated attractive irrespective of their own attractiveness

• contrary to matching hypothesis, students expressed higher appreciation for more attractive partners

matching hypothesis evaluations

- research has failed to support the hypothesis (walster et al.) also taylor et al. investigated dating website and found users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive

- individual differences tra the importance ppl place on attractiveness in relationships. Towhey gave ppts photos of strangers and some bio info abt them; ppts asked to rate how much they liked the ppl, found that attractiveness was more important to those with sexist attitudes

- mainly applies to short term relationships. when choosing long term partner, ppl focus more on similarity of values than attractiveness; questions validity of hypothesis

• furthermore, ignores that ppl may compensate for attractiveness with other qualities like intellect or sociability, explaining older men with young women which matching hypothesis cannot explain

physical attractiveness issues and debates

• attractiviness matters across all cultures, cunningham et al. found that white asian and hispanic males rated females with prominent cheekbones and large eyes highly attractive, suggesting this may be a genetically reproduced mechanism, supporting nature side of nature nurture debate

• matching hypothesis may suffer from beta bias as it assumes that men and women are similar when it comes to importance of attractiveness but meltzer et al. found that men rate long term relationships more satusfying if partner is attractive but women didnt affect this, gender differences.

Factors Affecting: Filter Theory

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) proposed filter theory.

Using the 3 filters of social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity, we find field of desirables.

social demography: religion, sexuality, ethnicity, social class, educational attainment and proximity (which may trump the others)

similarity in attitudes: important in short-term relationships, similarities in terms of core beliefs about significant topics, such as love, sex and religion.

complementarity e.g. a sociable individual will enjoy encouraging their partner to partake in more activities, which in turn means that the partner will enjoy and benefit themselves from improved social skills.

Filter Theory Evaluations

(-) valid explanation for relationship formation, but only before the increased use of the Internet and online dating

(+) research support that filter theory is important for initial development of a relationship, as suggested by Winch (1958). He found that initial similarities in beliefs and attitudes were cited as one of the main attractive features in the partners of respondents, which is in line with the predictions made by the matching hypothesis, as well as increasing the validity of filter theory as a way of narrowing the field of availables down to a field of desirables.

(-) contradicting evidence for idea that initial similarities are important in the early stages of relationship formation. These researchers demonstrated the idea of emotional convergence (where over time, a couple’s emotional responses and attitudes will become more similar, and so can be considered as a type of adaptation in response to living together), whilst the ‘attitude alignment effect’ (where over time, a couple’s attitudes will become more similar) was demonstrated by David and Rusbult (2001). This means that there exist individual differences in the ways in which filter theory affects different individuals, and that the importance of initial similarities between romantic partners is not always concrete.

Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory

Thibault and Kelley (1959) take an ‘economical’ approach, viewing relationships as worthwhile based on their relative costs and benefits

‘minimax’ principles suggesting that we all aim to increase our rewards and decrease our benefits. We invest time, energy and money into each relationship and so we want to ‘get our worth’.

Comparison levels (CL) refer to our perception of what we are worth and so what we can get out of a relationship. This perception becomes more accurate, with experience, also influenced by social and cultural factors, such as what novels and TV programs depict as a good or bad relationship.

Our CL determines the quality of the relationship we are looking for, and hence the quality of our partner.

second method of assessing profit - comparison of alternatives. Individuals may consider ending a relationship if they can see that there are other alternatives which would give them a larger return on the investment they are making towards their current relationship.

4 stages of assessing the quality and profit of a relationship: sampling (rewards and costs are determined through trial and error)

bargaining (as a couple become more committed, compromises are made in terms of cost and rewards)

commitment (such standards of cost and rewards are known to both parties)

institutionalisation (these standards and expectations are well-established).

Social Exchange Theory Evaluations

(-) may be more useful as a retrospective explanation as to why relationships break down, rather than an explanation of their initial development.

(-) overemphasis of SET on the role of comparison levels ignores the importance of equity- even if benefits exceed costs, if this excess is not the same as partners, this inequality will cause dissatisfaction

Theories of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory

suggests that striking a balance between the ratio of cost and reward that each individual has, not always looking to maximise their gains, but simply to have a ‘fair’ relationship.

This is not the same as equality where this ratio, alongside levels of cost and reward, would be the same for both partners.

Rewards may include sex, support and encouragement, whereas costs may include infidelity and even abuse.

differences in these perceptions can lead to one person being overbenefitted, whilst the second is underbenefitted.

verbenefitted individual feels guilty and not worthy of the other, whereas the underbenefitted individual feels envious and disappointed

degree of difference between the two ratios, belonging to each individual, determines the likelihood that the relationship will be salvaged and the effort required to do so.

behavioural outcome means that one partner will increase their own cost in order to increase the reward of the other individual, in an attempt to achieve equity.

cognitive outcome is one or both individuals making their expectations or perceptions of equity more realistic, such as accepting certain ‘costs’ as standards/norms.

Equity Theory Evaluations

(-) evidence contradicting the idea that the idea of equity is universal across all relationships and crucial to upholding the quality of all relationships, influence varies depending on whether they are happy to disproportionately give to the relationship or disproportionately thrive off of the relationship In both cases, individuals do so without worry and are aware of their actions, as well as their partner’s attitudes. This means that equity is essentially a perception and is not universal across all people.

(+) evidence supporting the link between equity theory and satisfaction or commitment in a relationship- Satisfied couples (out of a sample of 118, and who’d been dating for 2 or more years before marriage) valued equity as a key component of the success of their relationship, and preferred this balance compared to one or both members being benevolents or entitleds.

Theories of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model

suggested that commitment and investment are both more important than satisfaction in likelihood of a successful relationship. The three factors which determine level of commitment are satisfaction levels, comparison with alternatives (a similar concept to SET) and investment size.

argues that satisfaction occurs when each partner sees large profits (i.e. rewards — costs)

Comparison levels play a major part in this. If one partner feels that their profits are decreasing they shall start looking for alternative relationships or even consider having no relationship at all.

However, many couples have small profits but still remain together because they have made large investments in the relationship. This refers to the loss resources after the end of a relationship. size of the investment dictates how hard each partner will work to salvage their relationship, and thus demonstrate commitment.

Rusbult’s Investment Model Evaluations

(+) high ecological validity because it can easily explain abusive relationships

(+) Although self-report measures are usually criticised this is not the case with Rusbult’s model- key elements of his model focus on an individual’s perception of their investments, resources and energy, as opposed to a quantitative value.

Theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s Phase Model

suggested process of relationship breakdown, which occurs in 4 distinct stages

intra-psychic stage, one or both partners have reached the point/threshold that they are evaluating the costs and rewards of their relationship, and reconsidering the profitability as compared to the investments. mostly private though, and are unlikely to be shared, unless potentially with a trusted friend.

dyadic phase. thoughts about the future of the relationship are now openly discussed between the partners, who may voice concerns over inequity, jealousy, increasing costs of the relationship etc. This may either provoke the partners to work to salvage the relationship, or may trigger the beginning of a public breakdown.

social phase, where the break-up has been made public. This triggers friends of the couple to evaluate the relationship to either give reassurance/support or place blame on one of the partners, which inevitably results in the majority of the mutual friends having to take sides.

grave-dressing stage, which confirms the end of the relationship and signifies both members to ‘move on’. Key to this face is ‘keeping good face’ and maintaining a positive social image.

ducks phase model evaluations

(-) may be a fifth stage as suggested by Rollie and Duck (2006), called the resurrection phase where individuals learn from the experiences of their previous relationships. However, these researchers also suggest that a relationship breakdown model should be a dynamic progression as opposed to a set sequence of stages through which all people pass through.

(-) serious methodological issues associated with the research upon which Duck’s Phase Model was based upon. much of the research features self-report measures which are completed retrospectively after the end of the relationship. issues draws doubts over the validity and accuracy of Duck’s Phase Model as an explanation for relationship breakdown.

Virtual Relationships in Social Media

Differences in self-disclosure between face-to-face and computer-mediated communications (CDC) means that the rate of progression of the relationship and intimacy with also be different. e.g.Keisler and Sproull (1986), through their Reduced Cues theory, suggests that CDC relationships may have poorer levels of intimacy and delayed self-disclosure because some of the vital cues present in face-to-face relationships, such as facial expressions and voice intonation, are not present in CDC relationships, leading to the de-individuation of each partner.

Therefore, to act as a compromise for the lack of cues, one or both individuals are likely to be excessively blunt or impersonal, which also reduces the likelihood of future self-disclosure and early intimacy within the relationship.

On the other hand, the hyperpersonal model suggests that online relationships develop and end at a much higher rate than face-to-face relationships, as suggested by Cooper and Sportolari (1997) through their idea of a ‘boom and bust phenomenon’.

Initial self-disclosure is high because partners can be selective about what information they choose to display or disclose i.e. selective self penetration. However, a lack of personal cues means that trust and intimacy is not built at the same rate as self-disclosure, so these exchanges are not reciprocal.

The anonymity associated with online dating, as suggested by Bargh et al (2002), means that each individual takes less responsibility for their behaviour and so the break-up and build-up of the relationship is less personal.

Virtual Relationships in Social Media Evaluations

(+) research supporting hyperpersonal model Online communications, due to the apparent lack of nonverbal cues, often feature ‘direct’ questions, as opposed to the small-talk which features in face-to-face relationships. more likely to self-disclose in virtual relationships because we can be selective as to what information we reveal about ourselves, and so use self-disclosure to further improve the way that a potential partner views us.

(-) theories of self-disclosure and absence of gating in virtual relationships may lack ecological validity because they may not be able to explain all the course of modern-age relationships, which is often a mixture of virtual and face-to-face elements, as suggested by Walther (2011). Individuals often feel the pressure to portray themselves in the same way as they have online as in real-life, and so this interaction may offset the effects of fewer gates and self-disclosure in virtual relationships

(-) although virtual relationships are intrinsically different to face-to-face relationships, they may still share the similarity of featuring nonverbal signals- emojis

Parasocial Relationships

Maltby et al (2006) used the Celebrity Attitude Scale to establish three different stages of parasocial relationships

entertainment-social, intense personal and borderline pathological

The first stage suggests that celebrity news is used as a source of gossip (Giles, 2002) and so can strengthen real-life relationships with friends due to having more common interests

The second stage is characterised by obsessive thoughts about the celebrity and an advanced emotional connection with them

third stage is associated with more pathological behaviours such as stalking and/or resentment against anyone who may prevent the individual from carrying out these behaviours.

more likely to develop parasocial relationships if they are unfulfilled in their current relationship, have low self-esteem or have experienced traumatic events e.g. a mid-life crisis.

in line with the absorption-addiction model, where absorption indicates the individual’s initial interest and developing obsession with the celebrity, whilst the addiction model indicates the individual’s need to increase the intensity and commitment of their parasocial relationship, through increasingly pathological behaviours.

In line with Bowlby’s theories of maternal deprivation and monotropic attachment, an individual with an insecure-resistant attachment type is more likely to be involved in a parasocial relationship (due to lowering the risk of rejection and pain, alongside unfulfillment associated with real-life relationships), as well as those with an insecure-avoidant attachment type (but with an emphasis on avoiding the feelings above, rather than being exposed to them in the first instance).

Parasocial Relationships Evaluations

(-) Bowlby’s attachment theory may be a better explanation for the development of pathological traits in parasocial relationships, compared to the absorption-addiction model. Bowlby’s attachment theory can explain why some people are more likely to begin parasocial relationships than others, greater practical value

(-) However, the methodology of research studies which have formed the basis of theories of parasocial relationships may be flawed- lots of correlational research and reliance on self report measures