Relationships

Sexual selection, Darwin

1. Sexual selection- evolutionary explanation of partner preference,

-Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed onto the next generation and become exaggerated over generations

-they outcompete competition and fine tuned for survival

2. Human reproductive behaviour- relates to the opportunity to reproduce and increase survival of our genes

Eg. Male courtship rituals, male guarding, sneak copulation, female sexy sons

Anisogamy

The difference between male and female gametes

-sperm= small and mobile, created continuously and don't need a large amount of energy to produce

-eggs= large and static, produced at intervals for a limited time during fertile years and require a large amount of energy to produce

Inter-sexual selection

-male choice with quality over quantity

-1 sex is very choosy in selecting sexual partners based on preferences

-this preference determines the area in which the other sex must compete

-development of these traits enable animals to attract members of the opposite sex

Intra-sexual selection

-mate competition

-quantity over quality

-1 sex competes with member of the same sex for access to females

-winner gets to pass on their characteristics that contribute to his winning to offspring

-dimorphism= obvious differences between male and female eg larger

Pros?

1.research support for mate preference regarding anisogamy

-Buss (1989) carried out a survey on 10000 ppl in 33 countries and asked questions related to age and attributes they deem important in partner preference

—women preference ambition and financial prospects

—men prefer looks and chastity

-reflect sexual differences in mate strategies regarding anisogamy and predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection and are highly applicable due to sample so reflect fundamental preference not just cultural

2.research support for inter-sexual selection

-Clark and Hatfield (1989) has psychology students approach others on campus and say they found the student attractive and asked "would you go to bed with me"

-75% of men and 0% of women said yes

-reflects female quality over quantity and how fhdy must be more selective as the features of mate will be present in offspring

3.partner predictions can be tested empirically

-predict that males will show preference to the body shape that signals fertility

-Singh (2002) studied waste to hip ratio and found that the body shape isn't what's important more the ratio of sizes, generally males find attractive as long as the ratio is 0.7

-combination acts as an honest signal= woman is fertile but not pregnant

Con?

3.ignorant of the fact that partner preference is shaped by changing social norms of sexual behaviour

-women's role in the workplace means they're no longer dependant on men to provide for them

-Bereczei (1998) argued this has alerted women's preference to no longer be resource oriented

-Chang (2011) studies changes in preference over the last 25 years in china including decreasing importance in virginity

-mate preference is a combination of evolutionary and cultural influence which the theory's fails to account for

Factor effecting attraction- self disclosure

Social penetration theory

Altman and Taylor (1973) studied how relationships develop

Gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone and a reciprocal exchange of information between partners

As more information is disclosed, they penetrate deeper into each other and gain more understanding

As breadth and depth increases, they become more committed to each other

Reis and Shaver (1988)- to develop in breadth and depth, need a reciprocal element to disclosure and hope partner responds to have a balance of self disclosure

Pros of self disclosure:

1.many of the predictions of self disclosure have been supported by research

-Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual relationships and found a positive between levels of satisfaction and self disclosure, both in a couple doing it leads to happier relationship

-Further, Laurenceau (2005) found self disclosure and belief of it in partner were linked to higher level of intimacy in long term marriages

-increases confidence in validity of the theory

2. High number of practical applications of self disclosure research for improving communication

-Hass and Stafford (1998) found 57% of gay people said self disclosure was the main way to maintain relationship and commitment

-if closed off couples learnt to use then they could have a much more satisfactory relationship

Cons of self disclosure:

3.assumption that increasing depth and breadth of self disclosure is more satisfying relationships isn't true for all cultures

-Tang (2013) reviewed research and found that individualist US had an increased level of self disclosure compared to China

-concluded that despite different levels of self disclosure, satisfaction levels stayed the same for relationships

-therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships based on findings of western cultures

4.social penetration theory claims that romantic relationships become more intimate as self disclosure deepens

-however, theories of breakdown suggest that they self disclose more frequently when a relationship breaks down

-in Ducks phase model of relationship breakdown, a dyadic phase where couples express thoughts and feelings about other they had previously withheld

-discussions that lead to deep self-disclosures of intimate thoughts and feelings may not always be enough to relationship and may even contribute to its breakdown

Factor effecting attraction- physical attraction

-facial symmetry, Shackelford and Larsen (1997):

ppl with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive due to being a sign of genetic fitness and not something that can be faked

-neotenous features:

attracted to these features giving baby faces eg large eyes and small nose

they trigger a caring instinct

-the halo effect:

may have preconceived ideas about the personality of attractive features and is commonly positive = stereotypes

-Dion et al (1972) what's beautiful is good and found attractive people consistency rated as kind, strong and successful

-believe people have these traits making them more attractive so we behave positively= a self fulfilling prophesy

-the matching hypothesis, Walster (1966):

-assessment of our own attractiveness plays a role in the romantic choice of partner, suggests that we chose a partner with similar attractiveness for a realistic judgment of our own value

-includes a compromise of who we think matches us rather than who we want to go for

Pros of physical attractions

1. Empirical support for the halo effect

-Palmer and Peterson (2012) found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people

-has clear implications on democracy as it can lead to politicians being chosen simply due to their physical appearance

-found in everyday life confirming that it's an important factor in formation of relationships

2.across cultures, research shows that what's considered attractive is consistent across cultures

-Cunningham (1995) found female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones and small nose were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men

-Wheeler and Kim (1997) found Korean and American students judged physically attractive students to be more trustworthy and friendly

-seems the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as individualist ones

Cons of physical attractions

3.individual differences in the importance people place on physical attractiveness

-eg Towhey (1979) asked male and female pps how much they liked an individual based on a photograph and some biographical info and they completed the MACHO scale measuring sexist attitudes

-found that low scored were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging like ability of potential partners

-shows impact of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors challenging the notion that appearance is the deciding factor when choosing a potential partner as they're impacted by others

4.Taylor (2011) contradicts the matching hypothesis

-they study the activity logs of popular dating sights such as Tinder

-this was a real life test of the matching hypothesis because it measured a rusk date choice not just preference

-online daters wanted to date potential partners who were more physically attractive than them suggesting they didn't consider own level of attractiveness when making decision

Factor effecting attraction- filter theory

-filter theory, Kerchoff and Davis (1962):

Taking a field of availables and indiction provides field of desirables

-longitudinal study, partners completed questionnaires assessing similarity in attitudes and how complimentary needs are

-7 months later, given a questionnaire assessing relationship closeness, similarity of values predicts closeness in newer couples but complementarity was a better predictor of closeness in longer relationships

Filters?

1= social demographic:

why we meet people eg geographical location, religion, class

more likely to date when these features are common= homogeny

anybody too different is discounted as a partner

2= similarity of attitudes:

see things in a common way eg religion, political beliefs, financially

key for new couples eg less than 18 months as it allows greater communication and facilitates self disclosure otherwise may fizzle out

3.complementary- traits that compliment each other, feeling of a whole between partners

Pro of filter theory

1. Winch 1951 adds validity to theory

-suggests similarities of personality and interests are very important at the start and has a beneficial impact on long term relationships

-supports 2 of the filters and development of a relationship which increases validity of theory overall

Cons of theory

2.many studies have failed to replicate original findings forming the basis of filter theory

-Kerchoff and Davis chose an 18 month cut off point to distinguish between short and long term relationships

-Levinger (1974) suggested social change and difficulties in determining in defining depth of relationship could be reason for lack of replicability from og

-leads to questioning overall applicability of the theory and suggests other factors may play a role in initiation and development

3.cause and effect aren't predicted, Davis and Rusbult (2001) who discovered an attitude alignment effect in long term couples

-suggests that overtime they bring attitudes into line with each other

-Anderson (2003) longitudinal study further supports this, as co-habitating partners are more similar in emotional responses over time leading to emotional convergence

4. Theory lacks temporal validity

-rise of online dating in recent years reduces importance of social demographic variables and now can pursue a date outside of these

-dating outside of this has changed process of beginning a relationship

-major changes in the last 30 years reduce the temporal validity

Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory

- Suggests that exchanges want to max rewards and min costs with a hope of profit

Costs = effort, financial investment, time

Rewards = cared for, companionship, love, financial stability

Comparison level

-how much reward we believe we deserve to maintain a relationship

-determined by previous relationships: previous relationships, society, media, self esteem

-for alternatives- whether we could do better or worse with greater rewards and costs, when costs outweigh the rewards look for others

if comparison level is low, current relationship is maintained

4 stages of a relationship

Sampling stage- couple explore rewards and costs in a variety of relationships

Bargaining stage- couple test out relationship by giving rewards and 'cost out' relationship

Commitment stage- rewards and costs are stabilised and couple settle

Institutionalisation- norms and expectations are established

Pros

4. Rusbultand and Martz (1995) used this to explain why women stay in abusive relationships

-suggest these relationships often have high profits eg children or financial stability meaning they have poor relationship prospects as nowhere else to live to no money

-consequently still considered a profitable situation

-real life application of theory

Cons?

1. Many researchers don't accept economic principles which underpins SET

-Clark and Miller (2011) argued it fails to distinguish between 2 types of relationship and rules that govern each

-in exchange relationships eg colleagues members benefit each other to repay obligation, in communal relationships eg romantic they have basis of concern for each others welfare

Suggesting that it may not be suitable for all types of relationship

2.limitation of SET is claim that dissatisfaction arises only when the relationship stops being profitable

-Argyle argued that we don't consider alternatives until we're dissatisfied

-Simpson (1990) agreed and found decreased rating of attractiveness of picture given to ppl in a relationship

-SET cannot account for direct causation and reduces validity

3. SET ignores equity within a relationship

-equity theory suggests rather than may profit, most romantic relationships set fairness between partners

-it's achieved when ppl feel they get what they deserve from a relationship so profits are equal

-extensive research that exists suggesting fairness is more important that personal profit so SET is a limited explanation

Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory

-was developed in response to criticisms of SET and suggests that fairness is more important than profit, it's still important but what is most key is profit to be evenly distributed between partners

Role of equity

-if one person over benefits and the other under benefits, leads to unhappiness and dissatisfaction with both (more with underbenefitting)

-inequity- giving too much not getting in return, feel humiliated

-other person giving too much, discomfort and guilt

Equity= compensates with trade offs, have roles that balance out

Equality= everyone contributes the same to the relationship eg chores in half

Consequences of inequity

-greater the perceived equity, greater the dissatisfaction

-perception of what is equitable can change over course of a relationship, what's fair at the beginning may seem unfair later

-as a result:

Behaviour strategies= underbenefitted will attempt to make relationship more equitable, more inequity = less likely

Cognitive strategies=

under will revise their perception of rewards and costs, what was costly is now the norm eg untidiness

Strength?

-supporting evidence includes real life relationship studies which confirm equity theory as a more valid theory than SET

-Utne (1984) surveyed 118 recently married couples and measured equity with 2 self report techniques

-they were married for at least 2 years to avoid honeymoon phase

-those who rated their marriage as more equitable felt more satisfied and stable

Cons?

-Gender bias, Sprecher 1992 described women as more disturbed when underprofitting or guilt when over

-Demaris 1998 suggested women are more focused on relationships so are more sensitive highlighting the need for separate studies to stop exaggerating and implying inaccurate stereotypes

-equity theory assumes the need for equity is a universal feature of relationships across all cultures

- Aumer-Ryan (2007) compared couples in collectivist cultures with individualist and found individualist cultures found relationships to be most satisfying when equitable but collectivist were happier when overbenifitting

-suggesting a limited theory as it cannot account for cultural differences

-research fails to support claims of equity theory and how satisfying relationships are more equitable over time

-Berg + McQuinn 1986 conducted a longitudinal study of couples and found equity didn't increase

-nor could it distinguish between relationships that ended or lasted as other variables play an important part eg self disclosure

-isn't fully applicable as other factors play key role in make or break

Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbults Investment Model

-commitment depends on 3 factors (based off SET)

1. Satisfaction= both good and bad emotions experienced and whether partner meets their needs

2. Comparison with alternative= if there's any alternatives that may make consider ending relationship, if not they'll remain

3. Investment size= no. of resources (tangible/intangible) they'll lose if they leave

Investment sizes.

-Extrinsic= previously didn't feature in the relationship but are now closely related eg car or shared memories

-Intrinsic= any investment put directly into the relationship eg money or self disclosure

relationship maintenance mechanisms

Accommodation- acting in a way that promotes the relationship rather than tallying costs and rewards

willingness to sacrifice- partners interests put first

forgiveness- willingness to forgive partners mistakes (major or minor)

positive illusions- being unrealistically positive about partners qualities

ridiculing alternatives- minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light

Satisfaction v commitment

Commitment > satisfaction

-individuals are highly committed and invested

-trying their hardest to maintain the relationship and discount the negatives as a bad patch

Strengths

-supporting research comes from meta analysis by Le -Agnew (2003)

- 52 studies from 1970 - 1999 and 5 countries

- greater commitment=more stable and lasting relationship in general

-high temporal and cultural validity so applicable and supportive of factors

-useful explanation to partner violence

-Rusbult and Maltz studues battered women and found more likely to stay if they felt invested and had no appealing alternatives

-when alone they may deem worse and if they have strong investments such as kids they may feel trapped

-better than SET as recognises a victim doesn't have to be satisfied to stay

Weaknesses

-Godfred and Agnew suggests model is oversimplified as there's more to an investment than just resources already put in

-may have future investments or a plan such as growing old together

-factors eg kids and finance can influence this

-may hold out for plan to become reality and change

-og model fails to recognise complexity of investment eg future

-model supported with self report eg questionnaires

-can often be influences by biased and subjective beliefs of respondents

-may struggle to measure factors eg. comparison with alternatives due to social desirability

-adds to a lack of validity

Duck's phase model

Intrapsychic Phase =individual is dissatisfied with relationship, weighs up pros cons and alternatives and whether they can solve problem

Dyadic Phase =can't avoid discussing it with each other leading to confrontation where dissatisfactions are said aloud/ arguments

either restore relationship or go to next level

Social Phase =talk to a wider level of people eg friends and family who may express hidden opinions and choose sides, gossip is spread

point of no return as now a public break up

Grave Dressing =aftermath of relationship and spinning story to retain social credit at the expense of another

also creates personal story to live with

Strengths

1.Helps us identify different stages of a relationship breakdown

-so reversal strategies can be used in order to save relationship eg not telling friends but consulting a relationship counsellor

-Duck (1994) recommends ppl focus on the positives not negatives when in the intra-psychic phase

-allows relationship to healthily breakdown or be saved rather than couple just expressing negative emotions

Weaknesses

1.Rollie and Duck (2006) deduced that model is oversimplified and reductionist

-lead them to add a fifth resurrection phase

-this includes moving beyond feelings of anger and sadness associated with the end and instead move onto personal growth and acceptance

-a detailed explanation which isn't capped at the first month post

-so model was an incomplete explanation

2.methodological issues lie in the retrospective data used

-as a result, inaccurate recall of the relationship due to having processed rather than just angers

-means stages cannot be depicted as accurately due to psychologists not wanting to upset pp straight after

-me this is flawed and cannot be sure of exact emotions meaning stages may lack internal validity

3.cultural bias as most of research based on experience in Western cultures

-Moghaddam-> relationships in individualist are mainly voluntary and come to an end frequently however in collectivist, more likely to be obligatory due to wider family

-concept of relationship differs so unlikely breakdown is identical

-suggesting a low population validity

Virtual relationships- reduced cues theory

-Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggested virtual relationships ace less effective than ftf ones due to the lack of cues we normally depend on

-non verbal cues such as our physical appearance

-CMC lacks cues to our emotional state eg facial expressions and tone of voice leading to deindividualisation, reduced individual identity

-virtually may be more blunt which may instigate reluctance to self disclose meaning relationships don't develop

Hyper personal model (Walther)

-online allows more personal connections and self disclosure than ftf so more intense and intimate earlier

-can also end faster due to high excitement not being matched by trust between people

-Cooper and Sportolan suggest boom and bust phenomenon

-self disclosure helped by the fact sender can manipulate their online image, self selection

-hyper personal despite anonymity in anonymity which means they feel less accountability and disclose more

Absence of gating

-gate = obstacle in formation of a relationship

-ftf is gated due to factors such as appearance

-McKenna + Bargh- benefit if cmc is absence of gating, more frequent self disclose with greater breadth and depth so forms relationship

-attention is on self disclosure rather than distracting features so people are less shy

-difficulty verifying authenticity and no physical contact

Pros?

1. Supports the absence of gating as shy and anxious people can form relationships

-McKenna suggests online communication helps those who would find face to face communication difficult

-71% of cmc relationships lasted 2 years while 49% of ftf lasted

-beneficial tool

2.online communication helps develop romantic relations develop, Rosenfeld and Thomas studied 4000pp finding 71% with internet were in a relationship whilst 35% without were

-suggesting a virtual environment helping relationships develop

Cons

3. Limit of hyper personal model is meta analysis findings

-Ruppel 2017- meta analysis of 25 studies compared self disclose in ftf and cmc relationships, a greater breath and depth was found in ftf

-however experimental studies showed no differences contradicting hyper personal ideas where cmc has greater intimacy

-challenges what the theory states

4. Idea that relationships are multimodal

-Walther (2011) argues that any theory trying to explain cmc eg role of self disclose must take into account the fact relationships are commonly carried on and offline

-isn't necessarily an either or situation

-what we disclose online is influenced by what happens offline

parasocial relationships

-McCutcheon (2002) and Maltby (2006) developed ‘celebrity attitude scale’ who identified 3 levels of a parasocial relationship

3 stages of a parasocial relationships

1.ENTERTAINMENT- SOCIAL= least intense form -celebs are sources of social entertainment/ interaction -eg. discussing stories from a magazine

2.INTENSE PERSONAL= -greater personal involvement in prosocial relationship -eg. intense feelings towards a celeb eg Tay Slay

3.BORDERLINE- PATHOLOGICAL= -uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours eg. spending large amounts of money, lawbreaking

Absorption addiction model

-parasocial relationships form from deficiencies in own life and lack of fulfilment

1.absorption= seeking fulfilment in celeb worship and focus attention onto them

2.addiction= needs to sustain commitment to relationship

Attachment link?

-form due to attachment style in childhood

-IR- likely to form due to having unfulfilled needs met without the risk of rejection

-IA- avoid the pain of relationships together

Pros?

1.supporting research:

Maltby supported absorption addiction model by investigating link between celebrity worship and body image

-suggest a deficiency in life leads to parasocial, 14-16 year year old females had intense-personal with celeb whose body they admired and had poor body image

-supports prediction of poor functioning and type of parasocial relationship

2.cultural support suggests parasocial relationships are a global phenomenon

-Schmid assessed level of parasocial relationship with Harry Potter books in collectivist Mexico and individualist Germany = similar level of worship

-suggest absorption addiction is universally applicable

cons?

3.most studies involve using self-report methods eg questionaries however they’re subject to social desirability bias that lead to inaccurate findings

-further, correlational analysis is commonly used however they cannot establish a cause and effect only a link which reduces accuracy of theories
(to improve accuracy, longitudinal studies)

4.issues with attachment theory as an explanation

-McCutcheon measured attachment styles and parasocial attitudes, 299 pp and found no found no attachment style was more likely to form an attachment, isn’t necessarily a way to compensate