psych - relationships

what is sexual selection

concept of successful reproduction - manifested in physical characteristics and behaviours

→ genetic ‘fitness’ and resultant characteristics considered to be adaptive

what is anisogamy

an explanation of sexual reproduction that involves the union or fusion of two gametes that differ in size and/or form (typically the smaller sperm and larger egg)

→ male gametes are smaller and many, requiring little energy to produce

→ female gametes are larger and fewer, requiring more energy to produce

→ leading to diff mating strategies

what is inter-sexual selection

refers to the strategies used by males to select females or vice versa

what is the strategy of inter-sexual selection that females tend to make

• selecting quality over quantity (egg availability is lower than sperm availability)

• suggested to be because the female investment of time/resources in the development of the foetus is much greater than that of the male

• traits favoured by the female (e.g. strength, height) are therefore selected by the female and reproduced

what is intra-sexual selection

refers to the competition between males to ‘distribute’ their sperm

→ ‘winning’ this competition leads to the male’s characteristics passing on to the next generation

what is dimorphism

the differences in physical characteristics between males and females of the same species

→ often related to mating strategies and selection

the sexy sons hypothesis

Fisher explains partner preferences in terms of the traits that a woman wants to see in her own offspring

→ sons who possess this desirable (adaptive) trait are then more likely to reproduce in the future

strengths of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

• research for female choosiness

Clark & Hatfield sent male and female students across a uni campus, who approaches others with the question "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

→ no female students agreed, but 75% of males did

• research support for intra-sexual selection

Buss’ survey in 33 countries of over 10 000 adults, with questions about a variety of attributes important to evolutionary theory

→ females placed greater value on resources and males values physical attractiveness/youth

limitations of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

• simplistic argument (Buss &Schmitt)

strategies differ depending on looking for long- or short- term relationships

→ lovingness, loyalty, kindness is looked for by both sexes for long-term relationships

• not applicable to the entire population

cannot explain the partner preferences of homosexual people

what is self disclosure

 the information that we share about ourselves with others that we meet

social penetration theory

Altman & Taylor

the gradual and reciprocal exchange of information, through self-disclosure, which allows individuals to share increasingly personal and intimate knowledge about themselves

→ as disclosure increases, becoming more personal, partners gradually 'penetrate' more deeply into each others' lives

→ both breadth and depth increase over time

what is depenetration

Describes how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less and disengage from the relationship

reciprocity of self-disclosure

Reis & Shaver

• for a relationship to develop disclosure needs to be reciprocal

• once you have disclosed something that reveals your 'true self', hopefully your partner responds in a rewarding way

→ with empathy, also sharing their own intimate thoughts and feelings

• there is a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful relationship

-> increases intimacy and deepens the relationship

strengths of self-disclosure

• research support (Sprecher & Hendrick)

strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for heterosexual relationships

→ self-disclosers more satisfied with/committed to their relationship, especially when it’s reciprocal

→ increased validity

• real-world application

research can help those who want to improve communication in relationships

→ if partners learn to self-disclose, it could benefit their relationships and therefore valuable as can help people with relationship problems

limitations of self-disclosure

• cultural differences

Tang et al. reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure showed that people in the US (individualist) disclose more than in China (collectivist)

→ but, levels of satisfaction were the same

→ limits the explanation as it is less generalisable to other cultures

• correlational support

most research for this is correlational, so the conclusions could be the other way round (more satisfaction means more self-disclosure)(or even both are independent and affected by a third variable)

→ social penetration theory is less valid

what is the halo effect

a mental mechanism that draws people to generalise that 'attractive' people also possess other positive characteristics which are assumed to be as desirable as the attractive features

what is the matching hypothesis and who is it by

Walster&Walster

suggests that we look for partners that we perceive to be similar to ourselves in physical attractiveness (and also personality, intelligence, etc), rather than the most appealing people

research into the matching hypothesis (the computer dance - Walster&Walster)

• matching hypothesis was not supported by the study!

men and women rated for objective attractiveness and paired by a computer

• However, was supported by Berscheid

Pps were allowed to choose partners from varying degrees of attractiveness, and tended to pick those similar

• So, we tend to choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own

• Choice of partner is a compromise

Risk rejection in selecting the most attractive, so those in our league are chosen

evolutionary importance of physical attractiveness

people with symmetrical faces → more attractive as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness

baby-face features are also attractive → widely separated or large eyes, delicate chin, small nose → trigger a protective/caring instinct

strength of physical attractiveness

• research support for the halo effect

Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people

→ implications for the political process, suggesting dangers for democracy if politicians are judged suitable for office because they are attractive enough

• research support for evolutionary processes

Cunningham found that women with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were rated highly attractive by white, Hispanic, and Asian men

→ conclusion that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures

→ importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level

limitations of the matching hypothesis

• not supported by real-world dating research

Taylor - on a dating website, people sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them

→ less validity of matching hypothesis

• subjectivity of physical attractiveness

what is filter theory

• the entire field of potential partners available to us is the field of availables

• potential partners will be chosen on the basis of desirability, referred to as the field of desirables

• factors affecting desirability can be narrowed down to social demography, similarity in attitudes, and complementarity

what are the stages of filter theory

1. social demography (EARLY ON) - considered on the basis of (e.g.) proximity, education, class, religion

-> proximity is influential as those close to us are more accessible

Homogamy: likely to form a relationship with someone culturally/socially similar

 

2. similarity in attitudes (LATER) - related to values and beliefs or cultural characteristics

-> similarity promotes attraction (law of attraction)

 

3. complementarity (LATEST) - important at later stages, 'opposites' attract by providing a factor the other partner lacks

-> leads to feelings of 'completeness'

strength of filter theory

• research support

Kerckhoff & Davis’ longitudinal study

questionnaires to assess similarity of attitudes and complementarity and 7 months later relationship ‘closeness’ was measured

→ closeness and similarity of values associated for couples less than 18 months old

→ for longer-term relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness

limitations of filter theory

• complementarity may not be central to all long-term relationships

Markey & Markey found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied (of couples that had on average been together for over 4 ½ years)

→ similarity of needs may be more associated with long-term satisfaction

• subjectivity of measuring depth in relationships

• social change

at the first level filter, online dating aps have increased the field of availables

what is social exchange theory (SET) and who made it

• an economic theory

• assumes that both parties in a relationship are self-interested and that this self-interest is mutually interdependent

• proposed by Thibault & Kelley

how is profit measured in SET

1. comparison level (CL)

→ compare to media or past relationships

→ low self-esteem often links with a low CL

2. comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

→ consider alternatives (happier elsewhere/alone?)

→ if costs of the current relationship outweigh the rewards, alternatives become more attractive

what are the stages of a relationship according to SET

1. sampling stage

explore costs/rewards by experimenting in relationships or observing others doing so

2. bargaining stage

the beginning of a relationship → when partners start exchanging costs/rewards, negotiating, identifying what is most profitable

3. commitment stage

the sources of costs/rewards become more predictable → the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen

4. institutionalisation stage

relationship’s norms are firmly established so partners settle down

evaluation of SET

strength:

• Kurdek’s research support

queer and straight couples completed questionnaires measuring commitment and SET variables

→ any most committed perceived most rewards/fewest costs and unattractive alternatives

limitations:

• cause-and-effect of dissatisfaction

SET claims that dissatisfaction only arises after a relationship stops being profitable, but we may not monitor costs/rewards until after we are dissatisfied

→ id we are satisfied and committed, we don’t notice potential attractive alternatives

→ considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction, not the other way round

• subjectivity

rewards/costs are defined superficially in research to measure them, but are vague and hard to quantify

→ it is difficult to test the theory in a valid way

what is equity theory

• an economic model of relationships based on fairness as opposed to equality

• emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between cost and reward

→ underbenefitting may lead to anger/hostility

→ overbenefitting may lead to guilt/shame

evaluation of equity theory

strength:

• research (Utne)

survey of recently-married couples, measuring equity with self-report scales

→ couples that considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves over- or under- benefitting

limitations:

• not generalisable cross-culture

Aumer-Ryan found that individualistic cultures (USA) found equitable relationships more satisfying

→ those from a collectivistic culture (Jamaica) were more satisfied if they were overbenefitting

what are the factors of Rusbult’s investment model

as a development of SET:

1. satisfaction

when costs/rewards are balanced and lead to profits

2. alternatives (CLalt)

comparison of the current relationship with perceived alternatives

3. investment

intrinsic (tangible e.g. money, resources or intangible e.g. emotions, energy)

extrinsic (what emerges as a result of the relationship (e.g. home, children, friends)

research into Rusbult’s investment theory

Le & Agnew

• meta-analysis (52) showed all factors predicted commitment

• when commitment is greatest, the relationship lasts longer

→ for gay and straight couples

→ but, this is correlational so it could be that the more commitment, the more investment you are willing to make

Rusbult & Martz

• abused women at a shelter were most likely to return to their partner had made the greatest investments and had the least attractive alternatives

Goodfriend & Agnew (contradictory)

• investment should include investment in future plans

• at the start of a relationship, few actual investments are made, but there is still investment in future plans

→ the original model is limited as it doesn’t acknowledge the complexity

limitation (+caveat)

• measured through self-report questionnaires, which are subjective

• could be appropriate it concerns our perception of investment

what are the stages of Duck’s phase model

1. intra-psychic breakdown (private thoughts consider pros and cons and alternatives)

2. dyadic phase (dissatisfaction is aired, possibly in argumentation)

3. social phase (breakdown is made public, friends either encourage or discourage)

4. grave dressing phase (create an identity that allows you to ‘save face’ - publicly you retain social cred, privately you get peace of mind)

evaluation of Duck’s phase model

strength:

• application to relationship counselling

use characteristics of each phase to reverse relationship breakdown

e.g. use the dyadic phase to improve communication

limitations:

• less generalisable (based on individualistic cultures)

relationships in individualistic cultures are voluntary and easier to end, while in collectivist cultures they are harder to end and often involve the family

• incomplete explanation (fifth phase)

the resurrection phase was added concerning the application of experiences from the ex-relationship to future relationships

• much of the earlier phases are underexplained

research is retrospective, so the earlier stages occurred longer ago for Pps and thus may not be as well explained

reduced cues theory in virtual relationships

• virtual relationships are less effective than irl ones as interactional cues that are normally present are absent

• individual identity is thus reduced and we are de-individuated and disinhibited

• we may communicate more freely in aggressive ways and the validity of what is communicated is reduced

the hyperpersonal model in virtual relationships

• virtual relationships might be more personal, with greater self-disclosure

because of anonymity and lack of accountability

• as the sender has greater control over what to disclose, they may manipulate their self-image

→ hyperhonest or hyperdishonest

effects of the absence of gating in virtual relationships

• ‘gates’ are obstacles in irl relationships that steer relationships in specific ways

e.g. social anxiety, a stammer, physical attractiveness

• in virtual relationships, these are either reduced or absent

→ self-disclosure in virtual relationships may develop faster in the absence of superficial features

→ however, fake identities are possibly and you can deceive people in a way you never could in person

evaluation of self-disclosure in virtual relationships

strengths:

• support for absence of gating (McKenna & Bargh)

shy people benefit from online dating

limitations:

• Ruppel’s contradiction to the hyperpersonal model

frequency, depth, and breadth of disclosure was greater in irl relationships

• Walther & Tidwell contradicting reduced cues theory

there is use of other cues online

→ virtual relationships can be just as personal as irl ones

what are the levels of parasocial relationships and who came up with them

Maltby used the celebrity attitudes scale (CAS) to develop

1. entertainment social (entertainment and gossip)

2. intense personal (intense feelings and obsessive thoughts)

3. borderline pathological (fantasy, potential expense, potential for significant influence)

explain the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships

• McCutcheon et al. linked it with an individual’s self-esteem

• lower levels (entertainment social) may lead to higher levels (borderline pathological) in the presence of a trigger (e.g. stress, seeking an escape from reality)

• absorption refers to an initial phase involving attention, fulfilment, and preoccupation with the celebrity

• addiction concerns the individual becoming dependent, seeking to satisfy the need to associate with the celebrity

→ could lead to stalking

what is the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships

• early attachment difficulties may lead to later-life emotional issues

• people may seek to satisfy this through parasocial relationships

→ insecure-resistant types are most likely to develop parasocial relationships, without the risk of rejection

→ insecure-avoidant types may avoid relationships altogether (social or parasocial) to avoid pain and rejection

evaluation of parasocial relationships

strength:

• research support for the CAS by McCutcheon

used CAS to measure level of parasocial relationship, and assessed Pps’ issues in intimate relationships

→ intense-personal or borderline-pathological tended to experience high anxiety in intimate relationships

→ 3 levels of celebrity worship that are predictive of actual behaviour

• research support for absorption-addiction by Maltby

girls between 14 and 16 who had an intense attachment to a female celebrity whose body shape they admired tended to have poorer body image

limitations:

• contradictory research by McCutcheon

measured attachment types and CAS, finding that attachment type had no bearing on likelihood to develop a parasocial relationship

→ parasocial relationships are not necessarily a way of compensating for attachment issues