Relationships

What is Sexual Selection

An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring

What is Anisogamy

Difference between male and female sex cells

What are 4 differences in sex cells

-Women:Finite number of eggs. Men:Continuously produce sperm

-Women: Approximately 25 years of fertility after puberty. Men: Continuously fertile

-Women: Produce 1 child every 9 months. Men: produce up to 3 children a day

What is Inter-sexual Selection

Occurs when one sex (typically females) chooses which members of the opposite sex to mate with

What is Fisher’s ’Sexy Son Hypothesis’

If a female chooses to mate with an attractive male, her offspring will also grow up attractive, likely to attract females to mate with ensuring the passing of genes

What is Intra-Sexual Selection

Occurs when members of the same sex compete for mates. This is the male strategy

What is Mate Guarding

They keep an eye on and remain in contact with with their female partner to prevent them mating with other males

Strengths of Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

-Supporting Evidence for Sexual Selection: Clark and Hatfield: students asked other students: ‘I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’ 0% of female students agreed but 75% of males agreed. This supports the how that females are choosier than males in partner preferences and that males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success

-Supporting Evidence for Intra-Sexual selection: Buss surgeries over 10000 adults in 37 countries asking about those attributes predicted to be important in partner preferences. He found that females valued resources-related characteristics more than males did. Males seek signs of reproductive capacity. These findings reflect consistent sex difference in preferences even across cultures, supporting predictions from sexual selection theory

Limitations of Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

-Research in this area could be seen as socially sensitive, having negative implications for groups in society: Findings could be used as a justification for shaming women for having many sexual partners, or for condoning domestic violence towards women as simple evolved anti-cuckoldry strategies for males to retain their mate

-Evolutionary explanations can be criticised

What is the Matching Hypothesis

(Walster et al) The belief we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but instead are attracted to a person who approximately matches us in physical (i.e. facial) attractiveness this implies that we take into account our own attractiveness value to other others when seeking a romantic partner

-Avoid rejection

-Choose someone who will not leave us

Evolutionary Qualities In Men that are attractive

-Tall

-Muscular

-Broad shoulders

-Strong

-Healthy

Evolutionary Qualities in Women that are attractive

-Low Waist-To-Hip ratio

-Neotenous (baby face) features

-Clear Skin

-Flat Stomach

What is ‘The Halo Effect’

We assume that physically attractive people have other positive traits

Dion et al found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, intelligent, sociable and successful

Strengths of Physical Attractiveness as a Factor Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships

-Research support for the Halo effect Palmer and Peterson: found that potential that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than on attractive people. This Halo effect persisted even when participants were told the knowledgeable people actually had no expertise this suggests dangerous for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters

-search the report for evolutionary preferences Cunningham et al; found large eyes and small noses in females were rated as attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males. Neonatal features in female are considered physically attractive across cultures suggesting universiality.

Limitations of Physical Attractiveness as a Factor Affecting Attraction

-The matching hypothesis may be guilty of beta bias: the matching hypothesis assumes that men and women both regard physical attractiveness as an important factor in mate selection meltzer et al found that men rate their long-term relationship is more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive. For women their partners attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact how satisfied they were in their relationship. This shows that there are gender differences in how important appearance is for attraction.

-Social sensitivity: research in this area could be seen as socially sensitive as it often involves rating individuals in terms of physical attractiveness. This could cause psychological distress to participants or have ethical implications concerning unattainable expectations of how males and female females should look

-Walster et al: 752 students to attend a dance party they were randomly matched to a partner and was secretly judged by a panel for attractiveness. Students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them the most liked partners by the participants were the most physically attractive regardless of the participants own level of attractiveness. Thus the matching hypothesis was not supported.

What is Self-disclosure

Revealing personal information about yourself. Romantic partners revealed more about their true selves as their relationship develops. These self disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when you appropriately

Examples of Self Disclosure

-Hobbies

-Families

-Insecurities

What is Social Penetration Theory

Altman an Taylor:

-At the start of a relationship there is breadth but not depth

-Depth of self disclosure at the beginning of a relationship may be off putting to potential partners (too much too soon)

-as the relationship progresses breath and depth of self disclosure gradually increases

What is Breadth

The range of topics discussed

What is Depth

The sensitivity of topics discussed

What is the Onion Metaphor

-The onion metaphor as a relationship progresses layers of the onion or removed representing deeper and more meaningful information is disclosed

What is Reciprocity in Self-Disclosure

Reis and Shaver: suggested that self-disclosure should be reciprocated. This means that both partners should reveal personal details about themselves and show empathy and understanding towards their partners self disclosure

Strengths of Self Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in Romantic Relationships

-Research support: Sprecher and Hendrick found a positive correlation between relationships, satisfaction and self-disclosure and heterosexual couples. Men and women who used self disclosure (and believed their partners also disclosed) were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. This supports the theory that reciprocated self disclosure is a key part of satisfying romantic relationship.

-Practical application: understanding that depth of self disclosure is important for satisfaction in long-term committed relationships can be used to inform relationship or marriage counselling. Encouraging couples experiencing difficulties to engage in reciprocal. Intimate self disclosure may strengthen and deepen their connection. This highlights the importance of self disclosure and suggest the theory can be used to support people having a romantic

Limitations of Self Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in Romantic Relationships

-A key methodological issue with the use of correlation studies: cause and effects cannot be established. For example the positive correlation between relationships satisfaction and self disclosure means we cannot be sure whether more self-disclosure makes couples happier or whether happier couples self disclose more

-Other explanations for attraction in romantic relationships: it is unlikely that attractiveness of a potential partner would be based only on the type/level of self disclosure. Most likely is that self disclosure would interact with other factors such as physical attractiveness or similarity of interest/attitudes thus self disclosure alone cannot explain attraction

What is Filter Theory?

By David and Kerchoff: an explanation of relationship formation. It states that a series of different factors progressively reduces the rate of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities. The filters include social demography similarity and attitudes and complementarity.

What is Social Demography

Include factors such as: age location, social class, ethnicity, level of education, sexuality economic background we filter out people who are too different from us.

People who share similar social demographic features are more likely to find each other attractive

What is Similarity in Attitudes

we choose people who have similar values/attitudes to our own. This includes beliefs about significant topics such as children and religion.

We filter out people who have too different attitudes from us.

Similarity and attitudes is particularly important in short term relationships

What is Complimentarity

We choose partners that compliment our own traits when one partner has traits that the other lacks it makes them feel like they complete each other to form a whole

-Important in long-term relationships

Strengths of Filter Theory as a Factor Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships

-Supporting evidence: couples completed questionnaires about their relationship. It was found that short-term couples were most similar in attitudes and values while long-term couples showed more complementarity of needs. This supports the idea different filters are important at different stages of a relationship.(Kerckoff and Davis)

Limitations of Filter Theory as a Factor Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships

-Difficult to establish cause and affects relationships: Research shows couples in a relationship often share similar attitudes and values. However it is not clear whether they were attracted to each other because they have similar attitudes or whether people who are attracted to each other become more similar and attitudes over the time. The direction of causality is unclear.

-lack temporal validity: filter theory was developed in the 60s. It may not be applicable to modern relationships. Modern society is highly diverse and people can meet online through dating apps or social media. This means factors such as proximity or social demography are less relevant as our relationship relationships often form across long distances and different social ethnic groups.

What is Social Exchange Theory

A theory of our relations form and develop. It assumes that romantic partners act out of self interest in exchanging rewards and costs. A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship

What is the Minimax theory

Partners aim to minimise cost and maximise rewards for themselves in a relationship

What is our Comparison Level

Our perception of what rewards we deserve in a relationship. Influenced by our previous relationship experience and relationships have served from friends ,TV or novels

What is the comparison level for alternatives

We compare the rewards and costs of our current relationship with those we might experience with potential authorities or being single

When do we stay in a relationship

If our current relationship provides us with more rewards and fewer costs than the alternatives. When a relationship is satisfying, we don’t even notice the alternatives

Strengths of Social Exchange Theory

-Research support for social exchange theory: Kurdeck interviewed homo and heterosexual couples. Committed partners perceived they had more rewards and fewer costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive. The findings confirm predictions of SET supporting the validity of the theory and gay and lesbian as well as heterosexual couples

-Practical applications of social exchange theory: understanding what makes partners satisfied in relationships can be used to inform relationship or marriage counselling. Therapists can use the ideas from SET to help couples identify the costs and rewards within their relationship. Couples can work together to minimise costs and maximise rewards for each person in the relationship in order to increase relationship satisfaction, the theory therefore has real world value.

Limitations of Social Exchange Theory

-Social exchange theory fails to explain all relationship relationships: SET claims that we end relationships when costs out where their rewards or alternatives seem more attractive. However this is clearly not always the case. People in abusive relationships would have high costs and very little rewards SET therefore fails to explain why many people remain in dangerous abusive relationships

-Social exchange theory is reductionist : SET oversimplifies the complex behaviour of a romantic attraction and relationship satisfaction to the rational exchange of basic rewards and costs. However, real relationships are emotional and irrational. This ignores many other factors which may influence relationships such as emotions, attachment style, cultural expectation, etc

What is Equity Theory

An economic theory of how relationships develop. As such, it acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs on relations with satisfaction, but criticise the social exchange theory for ignoring central role of equity – the perception that partners have about whether the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship is fair

When may a partner feel unsatisfied

-Experiencing more rewards than costs

-Experiencing more cost than rewards

When may the overbenefitted partner end relationship

when feeling uncomfortable or guilty

When may the underbenefitted partner end the relationship

feel anger or disatisfaction

How will the overbenefitted partner deal with equity

increase their own costs in a relationship

How may the underbenefitted partner deal with equity

Change their perception of rewards and costs so the relationship feels more fair even if nothing actually changes. What used to be a cost may be seen as a norm

Strengths of Equity Theory

-Supporting evidence: Utne et al conducted a self report survey with 118 recently married couples. Men and women who felt there was more equity in their relationship were more satisfied and those who saw themselves as over or under benefiting. Therefore, this research contradicts the minimum principle of social exchange theory and instead supports the ideas of equity theory

practical applications of equity theories: understanding what makes partners satisfied in relationships can be used to inform marriage or relationship counselling. Therapist ideas from equity theory to help couples identify and negotiate the costs and rewards within their relationship. Couples can work together to ensure that there is a balance between rewards and costs for both partners in the relationship, in order to increase relationships satisfaction. Therefore, the theory has real world value.

Limitations of Equity Theory

-Individual differences: Huseman et al suggests that not all partners are connected with equity. They benevolents are happy to contribute more than they get (under benefit). Entitleds believe that they deserve over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty. This shows that a desire for varies from one individual to another and is not a universal experience in romantic relationships.

-Equity theory is reduction: as an economic theory, equity theory oversimplified the complex behaviour of romantic attraction and relationships satisfaction with the exchange of basic rewards and cost however, real relationships are emotional and irrational. This ignores many other factors which may influence relationships, such as emotions, attachment style, cultural expectations etc

What is Rusbults Investment Model of Relationships

A development of SET romantic partners will remain in a relationship if there is high commitment

What is commitment

Dedicated to work on and maintain a relationship

What does commitment depend on

-Satisfaction

-Alternatives

-Investment

What is Satisfaction

-Based on our rewards and costs from SET. Relationship is satisfying if rewards are greater than costs for both partners

-High satisfaction equals high level of commitment

What are alternatives

-Based on comparison level for alternatives from SET. Partners compatible awards and costs of relationship with those experience with potential alternatives or being single

Alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship=?

Higher level of commitments

Alternatives are more attractive than current relationship=?

Lower level of commitment

What is investment

Anything we would lose if the relationship was to end

-More investments=higher level of commitment

What are intrinsic investments

Things we put directly into a relationship for example of money, time, emotion

What are extrinsic investments

Resources arising as a result of the relationship, for example, how children mutual friends

Strengths of Rusbults Investment Model of Relationships

-Research support: Le and Agnew conducted a meta analysis involving 52 students and over 11,000 participants. They found that satisfaction, comparisons with alternatives and investments all predicted how committed partners were to their relationship. This was true for men and women across cultures were homosexual and heterosexual relationships suggesting universality

-Rusbults Investment Model can explain why people stay in abusive relationships. Rusbult+Martz studied abused women staying at a shelter. Those reporting largest investments were most likely to return to abusive partners. Therefore Rusbults Investment Model is more successful than an SET as it can explain why abused partners remain in dangerous relationships despite costs outweighing rewards.

Limitations of Rusbults Investment Model of Relationships

-Oversimplifies investment: good friends and I knew argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. Early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in the future plans. This means the original model fails to consider the complexity of investment

What is the Phase model of relationship breakdown

an explanation of the stages people go through when their relationship is not working. Once one partner is dissatisfied, there are four phases in the process each with a different focus: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dress.

What is Intrapsychic phase

-When one partner admits to themselves, they are dissatisfied with the relationship.

-They spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons of dissatisfaction.

-The individual does not disclose this to their partner.

What is Dyadic phase

-Individuals confront their partner and discussed their dissatisfaction.

-The relationship might be saved if partners resolved issues

What is the Social phase

-This satisfaction is made public to be friends and families who may take sides or offer advice.

-Practical arrangements are made such as sorting out shared finances, living arrangements.

What is the grave dressing phase

-The relationship is now completely over.

-Both partners can construct their version of why the relationship failed, usually minimising their own thoughts and maximising their partners

Strengths of Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

-Research support for grave dressings phase: Tashiro and Fraiser found that individuals who attribute the end of a relationship to the situation, rather than blaming themselves, are better able to emotionally move on. This supports ducks model, which suggests that partners construct their own narrative during the great dressing phase to make sense of the break up.

-Practical applications of ducks they model: understanding the stages of relationship breakdown can help couples work through their difficulties. Couples counselling interventions can be tailored to the specific stage or a couple is experiencing. For example in the phase honest communication is crucial as it allows partner to discuss their concerns openly and prior to resolve their issues before the relationship deteriorates further. The theory therefore has real world value.

Limitations of phase model of relationship breakdown

-Ducks phase model is descriptive rather than explanatory: Ducks model describes how relationships breakdown but doesn’t explain why relationships breakdown in the first place. In contrast, theories such a social exchange theory or equity theory focus on the causes of disaster satisfaction (costs outweigh rewards or relationship is on balanced).

-Cannot explain all relationship breakdowns: do have to phase model cannot account for sudden breakdowns some relationships to end abruptly due to major events (such as infidelity), which doesn’t fit the gradual phase progression the model suggests.

-Issues with data collection:

– retrospective data research relies on participant police self reports after the relationship has ended, meaning data may be affected by memory distortion

– social desirability participants may present themselves in a preferable light, reducing liability of the findings.

– Socially sensitive participants may feel embarrassed or distressed when discussing their personal experiences.

What is a virtual relationship

relationships that are formed and maintained using online communication platforms such as email, social media, texting, chat rooms etc

What is self disclosure

revealing personal information about yourself to others

What is reduced cues theory

Less self disclosure: virtual relationships are often anonymous or lack non-verbal cues (e.g expressions, body language).

-This needs to de-individualisation, so people online behave in a way that they usually would not (this inhabitation).

• De-individualisation= loss of personal identity.

• -This leads to be blunt and even aggressive communication and results in a reluctance to self disclose

What is Hyper personal model

More self disclosure: virtual relationships are more intense/intimate as self disclose that happens earlier than in face-to-face relationships.

-People have greater control over how they portray themselves online (that’s his self presentation) and maybe hyper honest or hyper dishonest.

-Because people feel more in control, they disclose more information about themselves, more rapidly.

What is Absence of Gating

Face-to-face relationships often failed to form because of obstacles such as spatial disagreements but some people might find offputting. These barriers or “gate” are absent in the virtual world a relationship relationships to begin when they might not off-line.

Why is it important gates remain hidden

Makes it possible for relationships to develop that might not have in real life

Strengths of Self Disclosure in virtual relationships

-Social benefits – the effects on loneliness: online platforms provide easier access to social interaction, helping those with social anxiety abilities to sync out meaningful company. This highlights the real world benefits of virtual relationships in reducing loneliness

Limitations of Self disclosure in virtual relationships

-Contrasting evidence: Tidwell and Walther argue that in virtual relationship people also use subtle cues, such as the time taken to respond to their message, punctuation, acronyms (LOL) and emoji emojis. Therefore non-verbal cues in online interactions are not absent, they are just different to face-to-face interactions. This limits the usefulness of the reduced cues theory.

-Much of the research investigating virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000: technology and online communication platforms are changing rapidly. Therefore, psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated quickly. For example, online communication is no longer purely text space. The theory argues that there is a lack of non-verbal cues in virtual relationships, which is obviously not the case with more modern platform such as Snapchat and FaceTime where individuals can be seen live. This lower as the temporal validity of research into online relationships.

-Mediating effects of type of virtual interaction on self disclosure: there are many different virtual communication platforms, which may or may not encourage self disclosure. There is evidence that self-disclosure occurs more on gaming sites than on dating website, because the last involves the anticipation of face-to-face meetings in the future. This weakens explanations of disclosure in virtual relationships, as they may not see not be applicable to all types of virtual communication

Strengths of the effects of the absence of gating on Virtual Relationships

-Relationships that begin online are more durable than face-to-face relationships: McKenna and bar found that 70% of romantic relationships that formed online last more than two years – a higher proportion than relationships formed in the real world. It supports the absence of gating being a key factor in the success of online relationships – there that would have prevented a relationship forming in real life are hidden online.

-Social benefits – the effects or lowliness: online platforms provide easier access to social interaction, helping those with social anxiety or disabilities to seek out meaningful company. This highlights the real world benefits of virtual relationships in reducing loneliness.

Limitations of the effects of the absence of gating on Virtual Relationships

-Much of the research investigating virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s: technology and online communication platforms are changing rapidly. Therefore, psychological research in this area wrists becoming outdated quickly. For example, online communication is there no longer purely text based. It is argued that gates are absent in virtual relationships, but this is obviously not the case with more than platforms such as Snapchat and FaceTime when individuals can be seen life. There’s low as the temporal validity of research into online relationships.

-Negative effects of the absence of gating – can encourage dishonest online: because online interactions remove many of a typical gates that exist in face-to-face encounters (such as appearance and age) individuals can present a false version of themselves. This challenges the idea that the absence of gating always leaves more genuine also successful relationship relationships.

What is a parasocial relationship

One sided, unreciprocated relationships usually with a celebrity on which the fan expends a lot of emotional energy, commitment and time

Who are parasocial relationships likely to be with

• Celebrities

• Influencers

• YouTubers

• Musicians

• Fictional Characters

What are the 3 levels of parasocial relationships

• Entertainment-Social

• Intense-Personal

• Borderline Pathological

What is Entertainment-Social

Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and encourage gossip and social bonding

What is an example of Entertainment-Social

Friends with an interest in reality TV might enjoy discussing drama between characters in love island

What is Intense-Personal

Taking an interest in the celebrities personal life such as their dress sense or food they like

This may also include frequent thoughts and daydreams about the celebrity

Example of Intense-Personal

A fan of Kylie Jenner may know her favourite meal or think they’re soulmates

What is Borderline-Pathological

-Fantasies are uncontrollable and behaviour is extreme or illegal

-An individual may spend large sums of money to obtain memorabilia and may engage in illegal activities such as stalking

-It is usual for people to believe that of only they were given a chance to meet the celebrity the feelings would be reciprocated

Example of Borderline-Pathological

A fan of cristiano ronaldo might spend large sums of money for signed boots or be willing to perform illegal acts to see him