Relationships - Psychology Paper 3 (copy) the one i didnt completly mess up

Factors affecting attraction

• Self-disclosure

• Physical attractiveness

• Filter theory

Self-disclosure

The reciprocal process of gradually revealing personal and intimate information about yourself to another person.

This creates feelings of intimacy and trust in relationships.

What theory supports Self-disclosure?

Social Penetration Theory

Social Penetration Theory

The breadth (range of topics) will begin narrow and depth (level of detail) will begin shallow but as the relationship develops, both of these will increase. E.g. more controversial/embarrassing topics will be shared.

What is supporting research of Self-Disclosure? (p1)

Sprecher and Hendrick -

Studied heterosexual couples and found a strong positive correlation between high levels of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure (from both of them). Therefore, SD has a visible effect on relationship strength as when SD increases, so does relationship satisfaction.

What is a criticism of SD Supp. Research (p1)?

A correlation was used which cannot form cause and effect, even though SD and RS increase together, more factors could be involved so it does not prove they are related. Therefore, self-disclosure may not have much of a positive impact on relationships.

What is supporting research of Self-Disclosure (p2)?

Laurenceau -

Asked pps to write daily diary entries. They found that SD and perception of SD in a partner was linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples. Less intimate couples also self-disclosed less.

Opposing research of Self-Disclosure

Tang et al -

Reviewed self-disclosure research and concluded couples in individualist cultures (e.g. USA) disclose significantly more than couples in collectivist cultures (e.g. China). Therefore the theory may be ethnocentric toward individualist cultures and fails to explain other cultures.

What theory emphasises the importance of physical attractiveness?

The Halo Effect

What does the Halo Effect suggest?

Attractive people are typically perceived in a positive light

Who made the Matching Hypothesis?

Walster et al

What does the Matching Hypothesis state?

We choose partners who are on a similar level of attractiveness to ourselves (e.g. if you rate yourself a 7/10 you will go for a partner who is also a 7/10).

Evolutionary element to the Matching Hypothesis

• It is not always realistic to go for people far more attractive than you even if you find them the most desirable.

• To increase chances of relationship success, people assess their own attractiveness and seek partners who match that level so they can pass on their genes.

What is supporting research of Physical Attractiveness? (halo)

Palmer and Peterson -

Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people, even when pps knew these people had no expertise. This could affect people’s views as they assume attractive people’s views are right due to them having good knowledge. Therefore the halo effect can give attractive people advantages in all aspects of life.

Opposing research of Physical Attractiveness? (matching)

Taylor -

Studied activity logs of a dating site - real life test as it measured actual date choices instead of preferences.

Online daters sought meetings with potential partners MORE attractive than them, suggesting they did not consider their own level of attractiveness when deciding who to date.

This goes against the theory as Physical Attractiveness states people go for those on a similar level of attractiveness to them.

Supporting research of Physical Attractiveness (matching)

Feingold -

Meta-analysis of 17 studies and found strong positive correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners, which suggests people do pick their partners based on their own level of attractiveness as the theory suggests.

Who came up with Filter Theory?

Kerckhoff and Davis

Filter Theory

Belief that we select partners by narrowing down the ‘field of availables’ to the ‘field of desirables’ using 3 filters

First filter of Filter Theory

Social Demography - Factors that determine the likelihood/practicality of a relationship working with a person at all (e.g. proximity, age, social class)

What is the second filter of Filter Theory?

Similarity of Attitudes - People tend to be attracted to people with similar values to them. Partners self-disclose information that allows the other to figure out their attitudes in the first 18 months. If there are few similarities in attitudes, relationships tend not to last beyond 18 months.

Third filter of Filter Theory

Complementarity - When each partner has a trait the other lacks, they can feel they complete each other and fulfil each other’s needs (e.g. one has caring nature and the other likes to be cared for)

Supporting research of Filter Theory

Winch -

He found similarity in attitudes were listed as one of the main attractive features in the partners of respondents. This supports similarity of attitudes in Filter Theory.

Opposing research of Filter Theory

Rusbult -

Found that partners’ attitudes may change over time to become more aligned as opposed to partners selecting each other because their attitudes align.

Suggests the theory has an issue with cause and effect and it cannot be proven that similarity of attitudes affects a relationship.

Weakness of Filter Theory

Temporal validity -

The growth of dating apps may have reduced the importance of social demography as a filter as we are more likely to talk to and interact with someone outside our social class or religion.

What are the three theories of relationships?

• Social Exchange Theory

• Equity Theory

• Rusbult’s Investment Model

Theory of relationship breakdown

Duck’s Phase Model

Social Exchange Theory

An economic theory that states we view relationships in terms of costs vs. rewards

Examples of costs in relationships

Time, effort, stress, lack of freedom

Rewards in a relationship

Companionship, sex, gifts, help

Why do people stay/leave relationships according to Social Exchange Theory?

If the rewards outweigh the costs, the relationship is ‘profitable’ and people will likely try to maintain it. However, if the costs outweigh the rewards for one of the partners, they will likely break it off as it is no longer profitable to them.

Factors besides profitability people use to determine whether they should stay in a relationship according to S.E.T?

• Comparison Level (CL)

• Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)

What is Comparison Level (CL)?

When a person compares the costs/rewards of their current relationship to how much they feel they deserve.

Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)

When a person compares their perception of the costs/rewards of other potential relationships to their current one.

Who came up with the stages of a relationship according to Social Exchange Theory?

Thibaut and Kelley

Stages of a relationship in Social Exchange Theory

1. Sampling - Thinking about costs/rewards when entering a relationship.

2. Bargaining - Relationship is tested out and partners negotiate the costs/rewards to see if they should pursue it further.

3. Commitment - Relationship is stable and costs/rewards are familiar with the partners.

What is supporting research of Social Exchange Theory?

Sprecher -

He found that CLalt was a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction.

This suggests some people seem to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on costs/rewards like Social Exchange Theory suggests.

Therefore it appears people stay in their current relationship as long as it is more profitable than the alternatives.

Opposing research of Social Exchange Theory

Hatfield et al -

Found equity to be an important factor in relationship satisfaction, which is not included in Social Exchange Theory.

Suggests there are factors that were not included in Social Exchange Theory that may mean profit is not the main factor of a relationship.

Weakness of Social Exchange Theory

Low ecological and internal validity -

• Supporting research of the theory from Emerson and Cook involved a lab experiment where 112 pps bargained with a partner to maximise a score in a computer game.

• This is nothing like a real life relationship as there is no trust-building or getting to know someone.

• Therefore the tasks are not reflective of real life and they do not study the right behaviour to test Social Exchange Theory.

Equity Theory

Fairness between partners in a relationship

Most successful relationships (Equity Theory)

Relationships where each partner equally receives the same amount of costs and benefits

Result of inequity

Dissatisfaction on both sides.

The underbenefitting partner may feel angry that they make all this effort and get little in return, whereas the overbenefitting partner may feel guilt and shame.

What does Equity Theory state is correlated with relationship dissatisfaction?

Inequity (unfairness)

Supporting research of Equity Theory

• Utne et al -

  • Sample of 118 pps - satisfied couples who had been dating for 2+ years before marriage - valued equity as a key component of their relationship success and preferred fairness over an unbalanced relationship.

  • High ecological validity as it can explain satisfaction of real-life couples which SET cannot do due to its theoretical nature.

Opposing research of Equity Theory (type)

Clark and Mills -

Suggested that Equity Theory may be a better explanation for friendship/business relationships as opposed to romantic relationships.

Researchers emphasised that drawing distinctions between types of relationships is important as each type comes with differing expectations and perceived equity levels.

Therefore this theory may not be applicable to romantic relationships.

What is opposing research of Equity Theory? (some)

Huseman et al -

Some individuals are happy to disproportionately give to the relationship (benevolents) or disproportionately gain from the relationship (entitleds). This means that equity is not universal across all relationships.

Rusbult’s Investment Model

An extension of Social Exchange Theory that also takes into account each partner’s investments in the relationship

Rusbult’s Investment Model states is the most important factor in a relationship’s success

Suggests that commitment and investment are both more important than satisfaction in determining the likelihood of a successful relationship.

Factors determining level of relationship commitment- Rusbult’s Investment Model

• Satisfaction levels - The rewards outweighing the costs leads to high satisfaction and vice versa, this increases commitment.

• Comparison with alternatives - Weighing costs/rewards of current relationship to those of the best possible alternative relationship. High comparison leads to increased commitment.

• Investment size - Can be Intrinsic or Extrinsic.

Intrinsic investments in a relationship

Tangible resources that have been put into the relationship, e.g. time, money, energy, opportunities.

Extrinsic investments in a relationship

Intangible resources that have come about as a result of the relationship, e.g. children, memories, shared mortgage.

Why are Investments important to a relationship?

Partners may have low satisfaction levels and low comparison of alternatives but still stay in the relationship due to their investment size as they do not want to lose these things or feel they have wasted them by ending the relationship.

Other factors Rusbult suggested are important to facilitate commitment

• Ridiculing alternatives (being negative about tempting alternatives)

• Positive illusions (being unrealistically positive about their partner)

• Willingness to sacrifice (putting partners interests first)

• Forgiveness (letting partner off for any transgressions)

• Accommodation (promoting the relationship)

What is supporting research of Rusbult’s Investment Model? (meta)

Le and Agnew -

Meta-analysis of 52 studies that showed relationship commitment is positively correlated with all 3 elements of Rusbult’s Investment Model, this supports the theory.

What is supporting research of Rusbult’s Investment Model? (bat)

Rusbult and Martz (‘battered women’) -

They found that ‘battered women’ return to their partners due to investment size despite there being low satisfaction. RIM can easily explain abusive relationships by shifting the focus from satisfaction level to investment size. The theory therefore has high ecological validity as it can explain real-life situations like these.

Strength of Rusbult’s Investment Model research

Use of self-report measures -

Due to the theory’s focus on the individual’s perception of their investments, satisfaction and alternatives, the data has high ecological validity as Rusbult used the correct methodology to accurately reflect the subjective nature of the model’s features.

How many phases are there to Duck’s model?

Four stages, each of which marking a threshold that shifts the perception of the relationship. If the partner feels there has not been enough change, they may cross the threshold of the next stage which increases the likelihood of breaking up.

Phase 1 of Duck’s model

Intrapsychic phase

• Thinking you are dissatisfied with the relationship due to partner’s behaviour

• Begin weighing the costs and rewards of ending the relationship.

• Torn between expressing or repressing the dissatisfaction.

Phase 2 of Duck’s model

Dyadic phase

• Discussing your dissatisfaction with the relationship to your partner.

• Confront them about their behaviour.

• Perhaps attempt to resolve problem/recover relationship.

Phase 3 of Duck’s model

Social phase

• Discuss relationship with people outside the relationship.

• Seek support from family and friends.

• Negotiate terms of the break-up with partner.

Phase 4 of Duck’s model

Grave-dressing phase

• Break up and move on.

• Come up with stories of the break up for other people that place blame on partner and paint you in a good light.

What is a weakness of Duck’s Phase Model? (hint: R)

The theory is oversimplified -

Rollie and Duck found there may be a 5th stage called the Resurrection phase where partners reflect and learn from their past relationships. It also neglects to include that for some people it is not a dynamic set of stages and some people may even get back together with ex-partners. This suggests the theory lacks ecological validity as it cannot represent the progression of real-life relationships.

Weakness of Duck’s Phase Model research

Methodological issues -

• Uses retrospective self-report data from after the end of the relationship.

• Means that it relies on info the respondents give being accurate when they may try and spin the story in their favour and thus be unrealistic.

• Researchers are also strictly unwilling to intervene in the early stages of the breakdown.

• Therefore the model lacks validity as breakdown explanation

Strength of Duck’s Phase Model

Face validity-

Many people who have been through break-ups state that they have undergone the stages described in the model.

This likely means it looks like it measures what it’s supposed to at face value.

Virtual relationships

Relationships between people connected virtually, such as through the internet or social media, as opposed to physically.

Virtual communication

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

How does the Anonymity of virtual relationships impact self-disclosure?

It may increase self-disclosure as it protects the person from the potential negative social consequences of disclosing private or intimate information.

How Hyperpersonal model suggests a lack of non-verbal cues in virtual relationships impacts SD

• Increased self-disclosure

• Selective Self-Presentation - Ability to manipulate what you say and how you come across, this allows you to present the best version of yourself - this leads to reciprocity.

• HOWEVER, relationships also end sooner due to the “Boom and Bust Phenomenon” which states a high excitement level is not matched by a level of trust.

• Theory by Cooper and Sportolari

How does the Reduced Cues Theory suggest lack of non-verbal cues in virtual relationships impact self-disclosure?

• Reluctance to self-disclose

• Lacks cues to emotional state (body language, eye contact, etc.)

• Leads to de-individuation (losing personal identity)

• Encourages disinhibition in communication (bluntness and not restricting what you say)

• Theory by Keisler and Sproull

Absence of Gating

Obstacles that may have prevented a relationship in real life are not present in a virtual relationship.

Who suggested that there are ‘gates’ in face-to-face relationships and what are they?

McKenna and Bargh -

Examples include a stammer, social anxiety and facial difigurement.

Aspect of Filter Theory not present in virtual relationships due to Absence of Gating

Social Demography -

Communicating and maintaining relationships with people far away and of different social classes and ethnicities is much easier.

Opposing research of Reduced Cues Theory

Walter and Tidwell -

Computer-Mediated Communication still has non-verbal cues such as emojis and length, timing and tone of the messages sent. This refutes the point that virtual relationships may suffer due to being impersonal and having a lack of cues as there are still plenty.

What is supporting research of the Hyperpersonal Model?

Whitty and Johnson -

Due to lack of non-verbal cues, direct questions are asked more frequently than in a face-to-face relationship. This therefore suggests we are more likely to self-disclose in a virtual relationship, as well as the fact we can be selective of what we disclose virtually, so self-disclosure improves the way a potential partner views us. The importance of both anonymity and selective self-presentation are evident in this study.

Weakness of Absence of Gating

• Lack of ecological validity due to research that suggested partners use a mixture of virtual and face-to-face elements so they feel the pressure to present themselves the same way online as they do in real life. (Walther)

• May negate the effects of fewer gates in virtual relationships.

Parasocial Relationships

One-sided relationships where a person gets attached to someone they do not know in real life.

Who made the 3 levels of Parasocial Relationships and what are they?

Maltby et al -

1. Entertainment-social - Person sees celebrity as a source of enjoyment and discussion.

2. Intense-personal - Person is invested in celebrity’s life and may have obsessive thought about them.

3. Borderline-pathological - Person has delusional fantasies about the celebrity and may engage in irrational behaviour that prevents them having a normal life.

What are the 2 explanations for Parasocial Relationships?

• Absorption-addiction model

• Attachment theory

Who came up with the Absorption-Addiction Model?

McCutcheon et al

How does the Absorption-Addiction Model say people get in Parasocial Relationships?

• To compensate for deficiencies in their life, so they develop an interest in the celebrity and absorb the fun that they engage in.

• They may then become addicted and show increasingly intense commitment to the parasocial relationship, casuing irrational behaviour and delusional fantasies about the person.

• Typically the case on the borderline-pathological level.

Strength of the Addiction-Absorption Model

Practical application to real life -

• Maltby linked personality types (extraverted, psychotic, neurotic) to levels of parasocial relationships - extraverted=ES, psychotic=IP, neurotic=BP.

• This supports the Absorption-Addiction Model and suggests PS research can be used to assist professionals in helping those with psychological disorders.

Why Parasocial Relationships (Attachment Theory)

As a consequence of issues in early attachment.

What attachment type is most likely to form a Parasocial Relationship?

Insecure-Resistant as they still desire emotional bonds but do not want to risk the rejection that comes with regular relationships. Parasocial relationships allow them to achieve this.

What is opposing research of Attachment Theory?

McCutcheon et al -

Formed correlation between attachment types and celebrity worship in 229 students and found no correlation between insecure-resistant students and parasocial relationships.

This contradicts what Attachment Theory suggests about insecure-resistant people being more likely to form parasocial relationships.

Weakness of research into Parasocial Relationships

Methodological issues -

Much of the research uses self-report techniques such as questionnaires.

Participants may give socially desirable answers and not accurate ones so they may not produce valid findings. (E.g. someone who thinks about stalking celebrities may be embarrassed to admit this).

Duck’s 4 phase model (short)

• Intra-psychic Phase

  • Threshold: "I can't stand this anymore."

• Dyadic Phase

  • Threshold: "I would be justified in withdrawing."

• Social Phase

  • Threshold: "I mean it."

• Grave-dressing Phase

  • Threshold: "It's time to start a new life."

• Resurrection Phase (Added by Rollie & Duck, 2006)