Psychology- Relationships

Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences (AO1) - Darwin

• Natural selection affects how species change over time and become better adapted to the environment. → Naturally selected characteristics increases ability to survive and reproduce successfully.

Human reproductive behaviour definition

• Driven by the need to survive and reproduce healthy offspring

Anisogamy definition

• Difference in reproductive behaviour in male and females

• Intersexual selection

• Intrasexual selection

• Male-Female dimorphism

• Intersexual selection- Mate choices between sexes based on specific traits.

• Intrasexual selection- Mate competition within each sex

• Male-Female dimorphism- Enhances secondary sexual characteristics are selected for by both genders, making these physical characteristics more common i the population

What do males and females look for in a partner?

• Females look for qualities that help raise a child; resources/money, physical attractiveness, dominance.

• Males look for qualities of fertility; large breasts, youthful/neotenous features, wide hips.

Evolutionary explanations of partner preferences (AO3)

+ Clarke and Heartfield- male and female researches approach strangers with 3 questions; ‘Will you go out with me?’, ‘Will you come back to mine?’, ‘Will you have sex with me?’. → 50% of both genders agreed to date, 75% of males agreed to sex compared to 0% of females. Supports intersexual selection effects how→ Men want sex and women are more selective.

+ Cunningham- Men rated women with neonate features as more attractive.

- Alpha bias- sexual differences are exaggerated, so it’s socially sensitive.

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships:

• Self disclosure

• Social penetration theory

• Self disclosure- Sharing personal informations about yourself → shows trust.

• Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor) → As a relationship develops, interpersonal communications breath and depth increases, (reciprocal exchange)

• Reciprocity- both individuals are active in disclosing information.

• Attributions- motivations behind self disclosure are considered (disclosing to too many people = unattractive)

• Appropriateness- Although self disclosure improves relationships, too early on will reduce attraction

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships (AO3):

• Self disclosure

+ Sprecher and Henrick- observed couple’s self disclosure on dates and found a correlation between amount of self disclosure and quality of relationship.

- Research is correlational → no cause and effect

- Alpha bias → exaggerates gender differences (women are better communicators)

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships:

• Physical attractiveness

• Physical attractiveness is a visible indicator of genetic/physical health (e.g. facial symmetry, body shape and youthful features)

• Halo effect (Dion et al) - Assumption that physically attractive people are successful in other areas of life. → Positive attitude towards them.

• Matching hypothesis- People look for partners of similar attractiveness to avoid rejections of more attractive people.

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships (AO3):

Physical attractiveness

Halo effect:

+ Palmer and Peterson- Physically attractive people were rates more politically correct.

Matching Hypothesis:

+ Murstein- Judges matches pairs based on attractiveness and were more likelt to choose partners who had a similar level of attractiveness.

- Matching Hypothesis only gives and explanation for initial partner selection (not long term)

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships:

• Filter Theory

• Filter theory (Kirkhoff & Davies) - ‘field of desirables’ in a ‘field of availables’.

• 1st Filter: Social Demography- geographical location, social class, education level and economic status.

• 2nd Filter: Similarity in attitudes- shared core values → encourages self disclosure

• 3rd Filter: Complementarity- mutually beneficial differences (less similar)

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships (AO3):

• Filter theory

+ Kirkhoff & Davies- Longitudinal study- similarity in attitudes found more in short term relationships and complimentarity found more in long term relationships.

- Lacks temporal validity- Changing attitudes, culture, virtual relationships.

- People may initially pick incompatible partners with different attitudes → not applicable to everyone.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1):

• Social exchange theory

• Social exchange theory (Thibault & Kelley)- maximise rewards and minimise loss in a relationship.

• Rewards: Sex, happiness, finance and support

• Losses: Instability, finance

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1): Social Exchange theory

• 4 stage model of long term relationships

• 4-stage model of long-term relationships:

1. Sampling

2. Bargaining

3. Commitment

4. Institutionalisation

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1): Social Exchange theory

• Comparisons

• Comparison level- compare relationship with previous/other relationships to have an idea of what a rewarding relationship should be like.

• Comparison with alternatives- compare relationship with other potential partners.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO3):

• Social Exchange theory

+ Rusbult- longitudinal questionnaire of costs, rewards, investments and comparisons in 17 couples → cost-benefit analysis less applied at the start of the relationship, but applied more as the relationship develop.

- Vague concepts- hard to quantify and costs + rewards are defined superficially.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1):

• Equity theory

• Equity theory (Hatsfield)- development of social exchange theory economic model.

• Included equality→ balance of rewards and costs for both partners.

• Over-benefits → feel they are getting more profit (shame, guilt and pity)

• Under-benefits → feel they get less profit (resentful, angry)

• > Walster et al.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO3):

• Equity theory

+ Utne- self-report survey on married couple measuring equity and contentment → equal relationship = happier than over/under-benefitted partners.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1):

• Investment theory

• Investment theory (Rusbult)- Maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitments/investments.

• Commitment strengthened by satisfaction and investments.

• Commitments weakened by alternatives in a relationship.

Theories of romantic relationships (AO1): Investment theory

• Intrinsic investments

• Extrinsic investments

• Intrinsic investments- resources placed directly into the relationship (e.g. time, self disclosures)

• Extrinsic investments- resources originally outside of the relationship that is not connected to the relationship (e.g. shared frieds, material possessions)

Theories of romantic relationships (AO3):

Investment theory

+ Rusbult- longitudinal study questionnaire (17 couples) → investment size increases as the relationship develops.

+ Explains why women stay in abusive relationships.

- Correlational → no cause and effect.

Ducks Phase Model of relationship breakdown (AO1)

• 3 reasons for breakdown: 1. Not compatible from the start, 2. No longer compatible, 3. Traumatic event

1. Intra-psychic phase- personal brooding

2. Dyadic phase- discuss with partner

3. Social phase- issues made public

4. Grave dressing phase- saving face

5. additional ‘Resurrection stage’- each partner focuses on improving themselves

Ducks Phase Model of relationship breakdown (AO3)

+ Real-world application- suggests ways relationship breakdowns can be reversed → face validity

+ Tashiro & Frazer → survey on 96 graduates on breakups and results supported phases model → lacks population validity

- Beta bias- model may differ between men and women

- Nomothetic, no everyone undergoes all stages

Virtual relationships (AO1)

• More self disclosures in virtual relationships than irl relationships.

• Absence of gating mechanisms → communicating online removes filters to interacting face-to-face (e.g. attractiveness, age, social/ethnic backgrounds) → anonymity

• However, people may be less trusting due to screenshots, blackmail, catfishing or trolling.

• Anonymity leads to de-individuation and reduced feelings of responsibility

Virtual relationships (A01)

• Reduced cues theory

• Hyper-personal model

• Reduced cues theories → Nonverbal communication (e.g. body language) is missing, so there is a loss in identity due to CMC (computer mediated communication). Blunt communication and reluctance in self-disclosures.

• Hyper-personal model (Walther) → People manipulate their online identity, appearing hyper honest/dishonest. CMC relationships are more personal and develop faster, and end faster (lack of trust).

Virtual relationships (AO3)

+ Mckenna & Bargh- People feel more able to express themselves online → 70% online relationships lasted compared to 50% irl ones.

- Lacks temporal validity- theories were constructed when online interactions were mostly text-based.

Parasocial Relationships (AO1)

• One-sided relationships where one member is heavily invested and the other has limited/no awareness of their existence (celebrities + fans)

• Levels of parasocial relationships → Celebrity Attitudes Scale (CAS) - McCutchen:

1. Entertainment Social- Fan will only follow the celebrity and aspects of their life closely so they have informations to talk about with others.

2. Intense Personal- fan feels strong sense of personal connection with celebrity and talks about them obsessively.

3. Borderline Pathological- Fan over-identifies feeling the celebrities success/failures as their own.

Parasocial relationships (AO1)

• Absorption-Addiction Model

• Absorption-Addiction Model (McCutcheon):

• A fan’s parasocial relationship nis an attempt to escape the reality of their lives and make up for deficits in their lives → provides a sense of identity.

• Absorption- Intense involvement in finding information about their personal life to feel closer to them.

• Addictions- Behaviours escalate and make results in attempts to contact/stalk them.

Parasocial Relationships (A03)

• Absorption-Addiction Model

+ Maltby et al- adolescent girls have an intense relationship with female celebrities → contributes to eating disorders and body dysmorphia (comparison).

+ Practical Application- Relationship councillors are better at advising clients to prioritise real life relationships.

- Research into parasocial relationships uses self-reporting → social desirability bias.

Parasocial Relationships (AO1)

• Attachment theory explanation

• Based on Bowlby’s theory of attachments.

• Attachment problems in childhood results in relationship issues in adulthood → due to defective internal working model.

• Parasocial relationships are linked to insecure-resistant relationships with mothers(inconsistent affection and rejections).

• Results in need to to avoid rejection later in life.

• Parasocial relationships provide need for attachment without possibility of rejection.

Parasocial Relationships (AO3)

• Attachment theory explanation

+ Face validity

+ Practical Application- Relationship councillors are better at advising clients to prioritise real life relationships.

- McCutcheon- measured childhood attachments with celebrity worship in 299 college students, and found no correlation with insecure attachment types and celebrity stalking.

- Research into parasocial relationships uses self-reporting → social desirability bias.