c5: relationships☑️

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

sexual selection

evolutionary preference for attributes or behaviours that increase chance of reproductive success; genes being passed on.

some physical characteristics are signs of genetic fitness

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

anisogamy

-the difference between male and female gametes. sperm are small, mobile and created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age, not needing much energy to be produced. in contrast, ova are relatively large, static and produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years, requiring a significant investment of energy.

consequence of anisogamy is theres no shortage of fertile males but fertile females are a much rarer resource

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

inter-sexual selection

strategies one sex uses to select the other. trivers (1972) women make greater investments of time, commitment and resources before, during and after offspring’s birth + stand more to lose if they pick a substandard partner (not genetically fit and cant provide)

fisher (1930) sexy son hypothesis: females mate with males with desirable physical characteristics (eg height or facial structure), to be inherited by her son, making him more desirable and likely to mate with the next generations females.

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

intra-sexual selection

strategies used between males to be the one to mate with a given female; winner passes their characteristics on to the next generation, where loser doesnt.

led to human dimorphism; males and females having significant physical differences between them (eg larger males have advantage and higher chance of mating - ‘the runaway process’, where females dont need to be large to fight for reproductive rights; led to larger men and smaller women)

behavioural consequences: intelligence, deceitfulness and aggression are desirable to outcompete rivals; favoured and passed on

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

evaluation: strengths

clark and hatfield (1989) psychology students on university campus - ‘ive noticed you around campus, i find u very attractive. will you go to bed with me tonight?’. 0% of females and 75% of males agreed immediately, supports idea that women are choosier than men from evolving different strategies to ensure reproductive success.

buss (1989) survey of >10,000 adults in 33 countries found females place greater value on resource related characteristics where males valued physical attractiveness and youth. reflects consistent sex differences in partner preference, supporting sexual selection theory.

evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

evaluation: limitations

counterpoint: argument that one strategy is adaptive for all males and another for all females is simplistic: buss and schmitt (2016) argue both genders adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long term relationships; loving, loyal, kind partners pickily

bereczeki et al (1997) women’s greater role in the workplace = theyre not as dependent on men to provide. therefore partner preferences today are likely to be combination of evolutionary and cultural influences, which the theory doesnt consider, making it a limited explanation.

can’t explain preferences of lesbian women and gay men because homosexual partners don’t assess genetic fitness.

factors affecting attraction:

self-disclosure

revealing personal information to share true nature as relationships progresses and trust develops; strengthens romantic bond

factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

social penetration theory

altman and taylor (1973) relationships develop through gradually revealing deepest thoughts and feelings. involves reciprocal exchange of information, penetrating more deeply into each others lives, and gaining a deeper understanding of each other.

factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

breadth and depth of self-disclosure

breadth: amount, depth: how beneath surface level

commitment increases with breadth and depth of self-disclosure. starts with low risk information and narrow breadth.

as relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, encompassing wider range of [important] topics, eventually revealing more intimate high risk information.

factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

reciprocity of self-disclosure

reis and shaver (1988) for relationships to develop and increase in breadth and depth, self-disclosure must be reciprocal. balance of self-disclosure increases intimacy and deepens the relationship.

factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

evaluation: strengths

sprecher and hendrick (2004) strong correlations between satisfaction and self disclosure for heterosexual relationships, leading to higher commitment levels. sprecher et al (2013) relationships are more intimate and satisfying when self-disclosure is reciprocal. supporting theory’s validity. [data is correlational not causal]

haas and stafford (1998) 57% homesexual men and women said self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened relationships. suggests if less-skilled partners learned to use self-disclosure, it could deepen satisfaction and commitment, shows this insights is valuable and practical in helping relationships.

factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure

evaluation: limitations

tang et al (2013) partners of individualist cultures self-disclosed significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than those in collectivist culture, with unaltering satisfaction levels. theory is a limited explanation of romantic relationships as its not cross-cultural that increasing self-disclosure leads to more satisfying and intimate relationships.

factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

the importance of physical attractiveness

shackleford and larson (1977) found people with symmetrical faces are seen as more attractive as its a more honest sign of genetic fitness (cant fake facial symmetry)

factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

the halo effect

we attach positive personality traits to attractive features

-physical attractiveness stereotype ‘what is beautiful is good’ (dion et al 1972)

factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

research on the matching hypothesis

walster and walster (1969) we look for partners similar to ourselves for physical attractiveness instead of choosing most appealing. study found people liked most attractive options without taking their attractiveness into account (rated by objective observers and self-questionnaires).

berscheid et al (1971) replicated study: p’s chose who matched their physical attractiveness

factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

evaluation: strengths

palmer and peterson (2012) physically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable, persisted when told the people had no difference in expertise. implications for politics

cunningham et al (1995) women with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows rated highly attractive by white, asian and hispanic men. shows cultural consistency, suggesting evolutionary.

feingold (1988) 17 meta-analysis found significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic pattners; supports matching hypothesis

factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness

evaluation: limitations

taylor et al (2011) real world activity logs on dating site reflected online daters sought people more physically attractive than themselves, undermining theory’s validity.

counterpoint: just because people seek more attractive partners doesn’t mean they get them

touhey (2019) some people dont attach importance to physical attractiveness

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

kerckhoff and davis (1962) explain how a series of factors progressively narrow available and desirable range of romantic partners to a small possibility pool

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

social demography (first level of filter)

(eg proximity, class, education level, race, religion etc) influence chances of meeting potential partners: most memorable interactions are with people who it doesn’t take much effort to meet.

outcome is homogamy: forming relationship with someone socially or culturally similar, discounting people who are too different from us (too far away, different class)

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

similarities in attitudes (second level of filter)

kerckhoff and davis (1962) similarity of attitudes and values is important for up to 18 months due to need to agree over basic rudimentary values

byrne (1997) - law of attraction; you attract what you are.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

complementarity (third level of filter)

ability of romantic partners to meet each others needs. complementarity is when one has traits that the other lacks (opposites attract). kerckhoff and davis (1962) more important in long term couples. partners form a whole, adding depth.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

evaluation: strengths

kerchoff and davis (1962) longitudinal study questionnaires showed closeness for <18 months was associated with similarity of values, where longer relationships required complementarity.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

evaluation: limitations

levinger (1974) many studies failed to replicate original findings so study is undermined by lack of valid supporting evidence.

montoya et al (2008) 13 meta-analysis: actual similarity less important than perceived similarity, which arises from attraction.

markey and markey (2013) lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied (4.5 years), suggesting similarity of attitudes determines long term satisfaction rather than proposed complementarity.

theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory

rewards, costs, and profits

thibault and kelley (1959): we minimise costs and maximise gains, judging satisfaction in profits (profits-costs). rewards are subjectively valued and can include: companionship, sex, emotional support etc.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

comparison level

the CL develops from past relationship experiences that contributes to expectation of future ones + influenced by social norms that determine what is rewarding (reinforecd by books, movies and social media).

a high CL = only considering relationships worth pursuing; linked inextricably to self-esteem (how much you believe you are worth and what you deserve)

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

comparison level for alternatives

CLalt: will we gain greater rewards and fewer costs in this relationship, alone or with someone else?. SET predicts we will stay in our current relationship for only as long as we believe its more rewarding than alternatives.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

stages of relationship development

thibault and kelley’s social exchange theory

• sampling stage: exploring costs and rewards through practice and observation

• bargaining stage: start of relationship; partners begin exchanging rewards and costs, identifying what is most profitable

• commitment stage: with time, source of rewards and costs become more predictable, rewards increase and costs lessen

• institutionalisation stage: norms of the relationship (for costs and rewards) are firmly established

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

evaluation: strengths

kurdek (1995) homo/heterosexual couple questionnaire results showed most committed partners perceived most rewards and fewer costs, while viewing alternatives as relatively unattractive; matching SET predictions.

factors affecting attraction: filter theory

evaluation: limitations

ignores role of equity (perceived balance of rewards and cots) making it a limited explanation that can’t account for many research findings on relationships.

argyle (1987) argued we don’t monitor rewards and costs, or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied; suggests dissatisfaction causes considering costs/alternatives not the opposite, proposed by SET.

vague, hard to quantify concepts as real world psychological rewards and costs, and comparison level, are subjective and hard to define; difficult to test in a valid way.

clark and mills (2011) argue we can’t apply constant profit monitoring to romantic relationships (keeping score would destroy trust that underlies a close romantic relationship).

theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

an evolved SET; importance of balance of profit; equal maximisation of rewards while minimising costs

theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

role of equity

walster et al (1978) equity is when both partners’ level of profit (rewards-costs) is the same. persisting inequity leads to one partner under/over-benefitting, dissatisfaction and unhappiness. underbenefitting = most dissatisfied: anger, resentment, hostility; overbenefitting partner feeling guilt, discomfort and shame.

the satisfaction is about perceived fairness (importance of the profit ratio). equity theory predicts greater percieved inequity = greater dissatsifaction

theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

consequences of inequity

-may feel natural to contribute more than you receive at the start of a relationship but if this continues over time with non-correlative rewards, dissatisfaction occurs

-dealing with inequality: the underbeneftting partner is usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable if salvageable. could result in a cognitive change where one partner revises their perception of rewards and costs so costs (abuse, thoughtlessness, untidiness) are now considered the norm.

theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

evaluation: strengths

evidence that equity theory is a more valid explanation of romantic relationships than SET. utne et al (1984) survey found most satisfied couples found their relationships more equitable, vice versa. confirming importance of equity and supporting theory.

counterpoint: berg and mcquinn (1986) found equity didn’t increase over time like predicted by the theory, and that relationships that ended and those that continued didn’t differ in equity, other variables were significantly more important: undermining theory’s validity.

theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

evaluation: limitations

aumer-ryan et al (2007) individualist culture couples were more satisfied with equity but collectivist culture couples more satisfied with overbenefiting showing limited nature and application of theory.

huseman et al (1987) suggest some people are benevolent (prepared to contribute more than they get out) and some entitleds (believe they deserve to overbenefit and accept without distress or guilt). shows desire for equity has individual variability so not a universal feature of relationships.

grote and clark (2001) as soon as partners start monitoring contributions, they are dissatisfied; not other way like utne proposed.

theories of romantic relationships: rusbult’s investment model

factors

development of the SET

1. satisfaction (from SET: from high rewards, low costs, and getting more from the relationship than they expect compared to previous experience and social norms)

2. comparison with alternatives (from SET: ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship or in no relationships?’)

3. investment

investment

rusbult et al CL and CLalt werent enough to explain commitment as more relationships would end when costs outweighed rewards, proposed a 3rd influential factor: investment- anything we would lose if the relationship was to end

• intrinsic investment: resources put into the relationship; tangible (money, posessions, time etc.) or intangible (energy, emotion, self-disclosure etc.)

• extrinsic: exist because of the relationship; tangible (house, mutual friends, children) or intangible (e.g. shared memories)

theories of romantic relationships: rusbult’s investment model

satisfaction vs commitment

rusbult et al (2011) argued commotment is the main factor that causes people to stay in a romantic relationships, with satisfaction as a contributory factor. explains why dissatisfied people remain in relationships; due to their commitment to an investment they dont want to see go to waste; will work to maintain the damaged relationship.

theories of romantic relationships: rusbult’s investment model

relationship maintenance mechanisms

-willingness to sacrifice, no engagement in tit-for-tat retaliation and instead promoting the relationship, forgiveness

partners are usually unrealistically positive about their partner and negative about tempting alternatives much more so than less committed partners.

theories of romantic relationships: rusbult’s investment model

evaluation: strengths

-52 study meta-analysis (11,000p’s, 5 countries) le and agnew (2003) all 3 factors predicted commitment. relationships with most commitment were most stable and lasting. cross reliability across genders, cultures, sexualities suggesting these factors are universal. model is correlational to commitment not causal

-explanation for abusive relationships: rusbult and martz (1995) IPV victims at shelter most likely to return reported making greatest investment with fewest attractive alternatives, although low satisfaction. supports that SET cant be a full explanation as commitment and investement are relevant.

theories of romantic relationships: rusbult’s investment model

evaluation: limitations

goodfriend and agnew (2008) extended original model to include the investment in future plans; motivated to commit to eachother to see their future plans manifest. shows the original model is limited as it fails to recognise the complexity of investment and how future plans influence commitment.

key point: perception of investment can be more important than the investment itself.

theories of romantic relationships: duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

duck (2007) 4 distinct stages of relationship breakdown:

• intra-psychic phase

• dyadic phase

• social phase

• grave dressing phase

intra-psychic phase

-’i cant do this anymore’: cognitive realisation that something must change, comparing relationship to alternative or being single.

-cant avoid talking about relationship dissatisfaction any longer. outcomes: breakup or salvage.

-breakup is made public, friends support and gossip is traded

-partners spin a favourable story about breakup for public consumption

theories of romantic relationships: duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

evaluation: strengths

suggests ways to reverse relationship breakdown: focusing their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner and communicating problems before reaching the intra-psychic phase (duck 1994)

counter: based on individualist cultures where breakups are voluntary, collectivist cultures nvolove wider families. (moghaddam et al (1993))

theories of romantic relationships: duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

evaluation: limitations

original model is an incomplete explanation of relationship breakdown. duck and rollie (2006) added a fifth phase: the resurrection phase; ex-partners apply their recently gained experience to future relationships

virtual relationships in social media

self-disclosure in virtual relationships

study of how self-disclosure differs between FtF (face-to-face) and virtual relationships

virtual relationships in social media

self-disclosure in virtual relationships

reduced cues theory

sproull and kiesler (1986) virtual relationships lack the non-verbal cues we depend on in FtF: physical apperance and cues to our emotional state (facial expressions, tone etc.)

this reduces sense of individual identity (deindividuation) + leads to disinhibition; where people feel it is acceptable to communicate bluntly or aggressively. less likely to self-disclose to impersonal people

virtual relationships in social media

self-disclosure in virtual relationships

the hyperpersonal model

walther (1996, 2011) virtual relationships self-disclosure happens earlier leading to earlier relationship development and higher intesnity.

greater control over self-presentation = hyper(dis)honesty. receiver gives positive feedback from idealised impression that reinforces the senders selective self-presentation

anonymity promotes online self-disclosure ‘strangers on a train effect’. aware that someone doesnt know your identity = more honesty (bargh et al 2002)

virtual relationships in social media

self-disclosure in virtual relationships

effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships

mckenna and bargh (1999) virtual relationships have absence of gating; features that interfere with relationship development (phsyical attractiveness, deformities, stutters, social anxiety etc)

increases frequency of self-disclosure by refocussing attention from the superficial to connection. can lead to authenticity

virtual relationships in social media

evaluation: strengths

counterpoint: whitty and joinson (2009) self-presentation is manipulated in virtual relationships; hyperdishonesty, inventing attractive personal qualities. supports models claim about hyper(dis)honest self-disclosure in virtual relationships.

mckenna and bargh (2000) shy, lonely and anxious people express their true selves more than in FtF. 71% lasted >2 years compared to 49% in FtF relationships (kirkpatrick and davis 1994). suggests people benefit from the absence of gating.

virtual relationships in social media

evaluation: limitations

nonverbal cues are different, not absent: walther and tidwell (1995) style and timing of message are cues. acronyms and emojis can be effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.

ruppel et al (2017) 25-study meta analysis compares FtF self-disclosure with virtual. the self-report studies showed frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosure were greater in FtF, where experimental studies showed no significant differences, contradicting the hyperpersonal model’s view.

parasocial relationships

levels of parasocial relationships

maltby et al (2006) used the CAS (mccutcheon et al (2002)) to identify levels of parasocial relationships

• entertainment-social: for entertainment and social interaction, like discussing celebrity events, or workplace gossip (giles 2002)

• intense-personal: greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity.

• borderline-pathological: disruptive fantasies and extreme behaviours; big investments etc.

parasocial relationships

the absorption addiction model

mccutcheon (2002) links the levels to deficiencies people have in their own lives; e.g. low self-esteem, lacking fulfillment in their everyday relationships, or craving to escape from reality due to a tiggering event.

• absorption: seeking fulfillment in celebrity worship allows individual to focus attention and become preoccupied, and identify with celebrity.

• addiction: dose must increase over time to gain satisfaction. may lead to increased extreme behaviours or delusional thinking.

parasocial relationships

attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships

tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood from attachment deficiencies in early childhood. insecure-resistant are most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults by seeking unfulfilled needs without the risk of rejection, breakup and disappointment inevitable in real life relationships.

parasocial relationships

evaluation: strengths

mccutcheon et al (2016) p’s with the two most intense parasocial relationship levels tended to experience more anxiety in their intimate relationships than entertainment-social p’s. suggests the levels are predictive of actual behaviour.

maltby et al (2005) girls with an intense-personal relationship to an adult female celebrity with admirable body shape had poor self-images + higher risk of anorexia nervosa. supports prediction of association between poor psychological functioning and parasocial relationships level.

dinkha et al (2015) people with insecure attachment in individualist and collectivist cultures most likely to form parasocial relationships with TV personalities and characters, independent of cultural influences, supporting view that attachment type may be a universal explanation for the need to form parasocial relationships.

parasocial relationships

evaluation: limitations

counterpoint to last: mccutcheon et al (2006) measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 american p’s and found attachment security didn’t affect the likelihood of forming parasocial relationships. shows parasocial relationships are not always way of compensating for attachment issues, making model incomplete