Psychology a level - PART 2 relationships

ao1 and ao3

what is Rusbult’s investment model

the theory of romantic relationships that commitment depends on three factors: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment

what is satisfaction in Rusbult’s investment model

rewards, like a comparison level in social exchange theory

what is comparison with alternatives in Rusbult’s investment model

considering other options, like CLalt in social exchange theory

what is investment in Rusbult’s investment model

anything that would be lost if a relationship ended; these can be intrinsic or extrinsic

what is intrinsic investment

resources that are put directly into the relationship e.g. money, self-disclosure

what is extrinsic investment

resources that were not put directly into the relationship but are closely associated with it e.g. mutual friends, children, possessions bought together

what did Rusbult argue is the main psychological reason people stay in relationships

commitment

3 behaviours partners show to maintain relationships, according to Rusbult

accommodation

willingness to sacrifice

forgiveness

study on the investment model of relationships

Le and Agnew (2003) meta-analysed 52 studies which included 11,000 p’s from 5 countries

found that satisfaction, CLalt, and investment size all predicted romantic commitment

true across genders, cultures, and sexualities

does Rusbult extend his idea of investment to future commitments?

no, but Agnew suggests this is the case

what is Duck’s model

a phase model of relationship breakdown, featuring four phases: intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave-dressing

what is Duck’s intra-psychic phase

a cognitive process where a dissatisfied partner worries about their dissatisfaction, weighing up the costs and rewards of the relationship and considering alternatives

what is Duck’s dyadic phase

an interpersonal process between two partners where the relationship is discussed. two possible outcomes: desire to maintain the relationship or determination to end it

what is Duck’s social phase

a wider process involving the partners’ social network where the individuals seek support, such as by forcing friends to choose a side. the break up is now inevitable

what is Duck’s grave dressing phase

the aftermath of a breakup, involving spinning a favourable story about it for public consumption, as each partner attempts to maintain social credit

which fifth phase did Duck and Rollie add after grave dressing

the resurrection phase, when ex-partners apply past experiences to new relationships

2 elements that are thought to be different in virtual relationships

self-disclosure

the absence of gating

what does reduced cues theory suggest

self-disclosure is lower in virtual relationships because of a lack of nonverbal cues about a partners physical and emotional state

creates deindividuation which leads to disinhibition so people are more likely to be blunt or aggressive, but less likely to reveal their real thoughts

what does Walther’s hyper-personal model suggest

virtual relationships will have more self-disclosure than FTF ones because they develop more quickly

also due to the ability to selectively-self present and its positive reinforcement from others

why is there an absence of gating in virtual relationships

a gate is an obstacle in forming a relationship e.g. physical unattractiveness, social anxiety

selective self-presentation means these are not present on social media

study challenging the hyper-personal model

Ruppel et al (2017) meta-analysed 25 studies that compared self-disclosure in virtual and face to face relationships.

found breadth, depth, and frequency of S-D was higher face to face

2 studies on the absence of gating in virtual relationships

McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at the online communication of shy, lonely, and anxious people. found they were more likely to be their true selves online. of the romantic relationships that formed virtually, 71% lasted at least 2 years

a 1994 study showed only 49% of shy people’s relationships lasted this long if started FTF

what are parasocial relationships

an unreciprocated relationship, where the ‘fan’ expends much emotional energy, commitment, and time

3 levels of parasocial relationships

entertainment-social

intense-personal

borderline-pathological

what is the absorption addiction model

a model of parasocial relationships proposed by McCutcheon that links the levels of PSR to individual deficiencies e.g. low self-esteem

what is absorption in the absorption addiction model

seeking fulfilment in the PSR, the ‘fan’ focuses all their attention on the individual not engaging in their relationship

what is addiction in the absorption addiction model

the individual in the PSR has to increase their ‘dose’ to fulfil their psychological addiction, so behaviours become more extreme and thinking more delusional

what is the attachment explanation for parasocial relationships

type A and type C identified by Ainsworth as associated with unhealthy emotional development

type C are the most likely to form PSRs, although type A may also do so out of a fear of rejection

study on levels of para-social relationships

McCutcheon (2016) used the celebrity attitude scale to measure PSR levels

p’s who scored as intense-personal or borderline-pathological had high levels of anxiety about intimate relationships

study on absorption addiction model

Maltby et al (2005) assessed boys and girls 14-16 years old. found that girls tended to have a poor body image. this is an example of a deficiency that could lead to PSR

shows the link between poor psychological functioning and PSR

did Dinkha et al (2015) find a difference in parasocial relationships between individualist and collectivist cultures

no, both Kuwait and the USA had similar levels of PSR and insecure attachment associated with PSR cross-culturally

study undermining the attachment explanation of PSR

McCutcheon et al (2006) measured attachment in 299 American p’s and found no link with PSR

study showing cultural variations in relationship breakdown

Moghaddam et al (1993) found that relationships are ended frequently and voluntarily in individualist cultures, but in collectivist cultures they end less frequently and involve wider family