Relationships AO3

What is a strength of evolutionary predictions of mate preferences?

• supporting ev Buss et al - in 37 cultures, men preferred physically attractive women younger than them, whereas women showed pref for men with resources

• Suggest men look for fertility in women and women look for resources/protection

• Valu of ev q as pps reported their pref for a mate rather than actual characteristics of their partner so fails to reflect compromises ppl make when selecting partner IRL

• Further research Buss - in 29 cultures men choose younger women, and if divorce and remarry, marry women who are much younger than them

• Suggest Youth is evolved pref as shows fertility

• Useful explanation as ev support evolutionary idea

Strength of evolutionary explanations in preferences for mates

• supporting Clark + Hatfield - when approached by stranger of opposite sex and asked if they wanted to have sex, 75% men agreed. No women agreed

• Suggest male sexual pref based on quantity not quality

• But explanation exaggerates sex diff in pref and motivation for ST mating cuz male desire for causal sex wouldn’t have evolved if females weren’t willing to engage too

• Greiling and Buss - short term mating maybe adaptive for females EEA as used as means to exit poor quality relationship or incr poss of producing more genetically diverse offspring

• Good explanation but limited in explanaining short term mating

limit of evolutionary explanation of preferences in mates

• reductionist - cause of mate selection down to level of genetic adaptation

• Problem - fails to explain indv diff in characteristics modern humans are attracted to eg some women pref men with masculine facial features but some women like feminine facial features

• Further research sugg female mate pref linked to their menstrual cycle - Pentok Vauk found women like more masculine face during most fertile stage of mencycle and more fem at other times

• Can be argued these diff have evolutionary basis as masc facial feature indicate strong immune system which is favourable to pass on

• Suggest women wants male with good quality genes to produce good quality offspring

Limit of matching hypothesis

• opposing Taylor - decision made by online daters, were based on attractiveness of Potential Partner rather than similarities of their own and PP PA

• Suggest ppl dont take into acc their own physical attractiveness in initial stages, but instead attracted to ppl who potentially more desirable than them

• May only be relevant to online dating where somebody can post photo that makes them look most attractive

• However also found - indv who targeted PP who had similar PA to them more likely to get response to their messages. Suggests ppl try to make realistic choice when choosing PP

• Thus physical attractiveness major factor in attraction

Another limit of matching hypothesis?

• gender bias - assume men and women equally concerned about selecting partner with similar PA to them, even tho research shown diff exist

• Takeuchi - women place less value on PA of PP than men, indicates matching hyp has beta bias as ignores gender diff in value of PA as factor

• Suggest men more easily compensate for lack of PA by displaying other traits that women find desirable eg kindness

• Supports idea not only does man need to be physicall able but needs to be kind ans share resources

• Thus PA not major factor

Strength of self disclosure

• support ev Sprecher and Hendrick - Hetero men and women who engaged in SD and believed their partner did too were more satisfied and committed to relationship

• Sugg SD positive impact on relationshiP

• +research SD can influecne maintenance of relationships as regular communication helps partners increase intimacy and strengthen bond

• EG Hass and Stafford 57% gay men and women said open honest SD main way to maintain and deepen relationship

• Suggest breakups caused by reduction in SD but Duck argue couples discuss state of their ship in attempt to save or return to previous level

• Thus self disclosure valuable explanation

Limit of self disclosure

• Culturally biased - assumed increasing depth of SD leads to more satisfying and intimate relationships regardless of culture

• Problem research show cultural diff exist in extent of SD in relationship as cultural norm influence topics are appropriate talk about and how comfortable men and women are in SD

• Eg Tang et al Men and women in US share sig more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in china

• Levels of sexual self disclosure in both countries linked to relationship satisfaction

• Not universal explanation so lack value

Limit of filter theory

• lack temporal validity - recent rise of online dating eg Tinder has reduced importance of social demographic variables eg proximity, class as factors influencing relationship formation

• Problem - feild of availables not limited to ppl indv work with/school/uni

• Question validity of theory as exp for relationship f in todays society

• H research indicates realistic feild of PP is narrow as homogeniser still key factor of attraction and relationship f

• Because homogamy makes relationship easier, more practical, reduces conflict

• Lacks value due to modern developments on online dating

Another limit of filter theory?

• culturally biased - based on f of relationships in Western culture, where ppl have lot of freedom and choice when choosing partner

• So form relationships which are satisfying

• Problem research suggest less emphasis on need for relationships to be satisfying for individual in non western cultures so limits extent theory generalised to relationships in other cultures

• Acc to Goodwin RF in non western based on social status and family ties rather level than of satisfaction gained

• Cuz some cultures arranged marriage mean ppl cant make decision based on needs

• Thus not universal explanation of RF

Strength of SET?

• ev Simpson et al - pps in relationship gave lower rating of PA to member of opposite sex than single pps. Suggest ppl only look for alternatives when unhappy

• Value of ev Q - artificial nature of task diff mean diff to generalise that IRL they would react in same way if exposed to alternative

• +Argyle argues ppl only start considering alternative when they’re dissatisfied with their current relationship

• Opposes assumption of SET that ppl always comparing their current relationship to other alt

• Thus application to real relationships limited

Further strength of SET?

• practical application - idea relationship satisfaction determined by perception rewards outweight costs used in relationship counselling to help couples with problem

• Gottman and Levenson - successful marriages had 5:1 ratio of positive to negative exchanges compared to unsuccessful with 1:1 or less

• Suggest Positives have to outweigh negatives for relationship to succeed

• Therapies like integrated behavioral couples therapy aim increase proportion of positive exchanges between partner and brea negative patterns of behaviour that make unhappy and dissatisfied with relationship

• Thus valuable

Limitation of SET?

• limited explanation of relationship

• Over emphasis on costs and benefits. Ignores other factors that play role in rel sat eg mental health, stress at work

• Problem theory doesn’t take into acc ind own beliefs may make them more tolerant of low benefits in RS. They may recognise that cost outweigh ben but put up with it

• + highlights diff in defining what counts as ben or cost within RS as what indv feels in ben may change as RS progresses

• Thus it can be argued that SET cannot explain relationship satisfaction without also considering individual differences in relation to standards and beliefs.

Limit of equity theory

• gender biased - assumes men and women place same value on their RS being equitable and so ignores diff that exist in way men and women perceive inequity

• Problem argyle found - over benefitted women felt more dissatisfied than over benefitted men. +underbenefitted men felt more resentment than women

• Suggest men and women percieve equity diff

• However could be argued gender diff in perception can be attributed to diff in gender socialisation as girls may learn from observing their parents RS that its women duty to ensure needs of partner are met

• Thus lack value cant be applied to both genders

Limit of equity theory

• Culturally biased - assumes equity essential to maintence of RS in all cultures so ignores diff in importance of ppl in diff cultures may place on value of equity

• Problem research shown in collectivist cultures may be family or religious pressures to maintain inequitable RS

• Due to social stigma of seperation and divorce in these culture

• +Aumer Ryan - Hawaiian pps most satisfied when perceived relationship to be equitable whereas Jamaican pps most satisfied when they were overbenefitting. Thus equity diff in diff culture

• Cant be generalised to all cultures

Strength of equity theory

• supp ev Utne et al - in survey of 118 recently married couples, the more equitable the partners found the RS the more satisfied they were. In compassion to those who saw themselves as being under or over benefitted

• However Berg and McQuin - equity didn’t increase over time as would be predicted by theory. When relationships ended, no diff in equity compared to relationships that lasted

• Other variables seem more imp sugg equity doesn’t affect maintencen of RS

• Further research

Strength of investment model

• practical app - helps to explain why individual may stay in abusive relationship despite fact they get very little satisfaction RS due to high costs as a result of the violence

• However acc to model features of relationship like lack of quality of alternatives or high investment explain why ppl stay in abusive RS as these features make leaving too costly

• Eg Rusbult and Martz studied women living in battered women’s home and found women most likely to return to abusive partner were those who reported high levels of investment and fewest alternatives

• Sugg more investment women puts into RS the less likely they are to leave abusive partner

• Valuable

Limit of investment model?

• criticised for oversimplifying investment - acc to Goodfriend and Agnew there’s more to investment than simply the resources you have put into RS

• as in early stages of romantic RS v few investment have been made

• Problem acc to Rusbult model ppl would have little commitment to RS even tho research shown in early stages of RS both partners usually v committed to ensuring RS develops

• To overcome this problem Goodfriend and Agnew revised Rusbult original model so that investment included investment partners make in their future plans

• Thus not valuable as doesn’t take into acc RS where theres not a lot of investment yet

Further strength of investment theory?

• supp ev Le and Agnew - meta analysis of 11,000 pps from 5 countries, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment size highly correlated with RS commitment

• Also found RS with highest levels of commitment were most stable, longer lasting

• However as studies correlational unable to infer cause and effect. not clear whether factors in model cause commitment or that the more committed you are to partner, the more investment you put in

• More research needed to identify whether investment causes commitment or just a factor

Strength of breakdown

• practical app - paying attention to way each partner talks about their RS and problem they experiencing, offers RS counsellors useful insight into stage of dissolution process they’re in

• Imp identifying stage means therapist can suggest intervention to help repair RS

• Eg Larsson found perceived inequity affects level of intimacy women show towards husbands so affects their perception of how compatible they are

• So restoring equity should help ensure RS doesn’t progress to dyadic phase

• Thus valuable as gives us better understanding of ways to reduce RS breakdown

Limit of breakdown

• criticised for being heterosexually biased - based on dissolution process for het couples so doesn’t represent phases of dissolution experience by same sex couples

• Becker found same sex couple received less help from family members when their RS ran into difficulties than het couples

• Sugg social phase not applicable to homo couples as they are more stigmatised

• +Fitzgerald - lesbians more likely to stay friends after sexual aspect of RS ended sugg grave dressing phase lacks validitiy as doesn’t apply to homo RS

• Lacks value cant be generalised

Further strength of breakdown ?

• supp ev Tashiro - students who’d recently split up from RS reported exp emotional distress and personal growth as result of breakup

• Sugg breakdown of RS not always bad

• Value of ev q sample limited to students who more likely to be in ST uncommitted RS. Problem can’t generalise findings to couple breaking up from LT RS

• Cuz LT RS more likely to have greater investment in their RS eg children so may find harder to move on

• More research needed to better understand how breakdown is affected by duration

Limit of self disclosure for VR

• idea of verbal cues missing opposed Walther and Tidwell - use of emojis are effective subsistutes for tone of voice and facial expressions

• Helps to convey how sender is feelings enabling two ppl to develop a more intimate relationship

• Also argued style and timing of messages act as non verbal cues as they help communicate how a person is feeling

• +walther argues reduced cues theory fails to acknowledge most relationships are multimodal, even tho it may be formed online, its generally maintained both online and offline.

• Sugg Increased SD when they meet online and this increases when they meet IRL

• Thus limited validity as doesn’t take all factors into acc

Strength of self disclosure VR

• idea of SD supp ev Whitty and Joinson - questions asked in online discussions are direct, probing and intimate

• FtF conversations based around small talk with responses being direct and to the point

• Supp hyperpersonal model as show VR SD happens more quickly than FtF as anonymiter allows use to disclose more

• However could be argued model fails to explain how VR maintained as at some stage the ppl have to meet so reality of RS may change

• Thus limited as doesn’t explain maintaince of LT RS

Strength of absence of gating

• social media helps shy ppl to develop friendships Supp Baker and Oswald - surveyed 207 male and female students found students scoring high for shyness, greater use of FB associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality

• Whereas no assoc was found between FB usage and perception of friendship quality for those who scored low for shyness

• Ev sugg absecene of gating in VR beneficial helping shy ppl develop online friendships

• +McKenna and Bargh - 70% RS formed online by ppl who classified themselves as lonely survived for more than 2 yr

• Which is higher than 5% of RS that survive for this length of time that are formed offline

• Thus abscence of gating beneficial as contributes to longer lasting RS for socially anxious ppl

Strength of absorption addiction model

• supp ev Maltby et al - indiv who reached entertainment social level of celeb worship had some degree of social dysfunction eg loneliness

• whereas those who reached intense personal level scored highly on anxiety+deppression

• Suggest level of celeb worship related to poor psychological health, supporting view dev of parasocial relationship has pathological basis.

• Problem suggest anyone with depp or anx will develop PSR

• However direction of causation correlational nature Maltbys ev means impossible to establish cause and effect

• More research needed to see if PSR is cause or consequence of celeb worship

Limit of AAM

• criticise for ignoring role of nature - model sugg likelihood indv will go beyond viewing their FC as source of entertainment and become absorbed in their life is shaped by experiences which affect their self identity, esteem and mental health

• Prob sugg anyone with poor mental health is vulnerable to develop extreme PSR but research shows rarely the case

• Psychologists argue indv diff in extremity of celeb worship displayed by ppl with poor MH can be explained by presence of genetically determined personality traits such as neuroticism and psychoticism

• Maltby et al entertainment social level assoc with extrovert traits, intense personal with neurotic traits and borderline pathological with psychotic traits

• Thus limited

Limit of attachment theory

• Opposed evidence McCutcheon - no RS between attach style and attachment to celebs in sample of 299 students but found insecurely attached adults more likely to condone stalking behaviour towards celebs

• Ev contradicts idea insecure attach in early childhood related to strength of celeb attachment as no link found b insecure attach and intense levels of PSR

• +Cole and Leets - ppl with avoidant attach prefer avoid pain and rejection that accompanies RS so less likely to seek real life or PSR

• Thus explanation limited