AQA A Level Psychology - Relationships

Anisogamy

Refers to a difference in gamete size in males and females. Eggs large and costly, sperm small and cheap

Inter-sexual selection

members of one sex choose mates on the basis of certain traits

"Quality over quantity"

Preferred method of females

Intra-sexual selection

competition between members of the same sex for mates

"Quantity over quality"

Favoured by males

male-female dimorphism

traits selected by both genders, making them more common in the population

traits preferred by females

resources, physicality

traits preferred by males

signs of fertility, youth, 0.7 hip to waist ratio

strengths of evolutionary explanations

Clark and Hatfield - male and female students asked 'will you go to bed with me tonight?' with 75% of males saying yes and all females saying no

Content analysis on 900 dating ads - 42% of males looking for 'youthful'. Men emphasised their economic status and women emphasised their looks

Cunningham - men most attracted to pictures of youthful faces

Singh - cross-cultural preference for 0.7 hip-waist ratio

limitations of evolutionary explanations

legitimises a gender double standard (Alpha bias), socially sensitive

criticised for not explaining homosexual partner preferences

Self-disclosure

revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others

social penetration theory

Altman and Taylor's model that you gradually reveal information about yourself to others by peeling back or penetrating into each other's lives

breadth and depth of disclosure

as both of these increase, partners become more committed to each other

depenetration

dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship

Reis and Shaver

there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure for a relationship to develop

strengths of self-disclosure

Sprechen and Hendrick studied heterosexual couples and found strong correlation between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure

helps those who want to improve communication in the relationship

weaknesses of self-disclosure

correlation does not equal causation

cultural differences - men and women in the US (individualist) disclose more sexual thoughts than those in China (collectivist)

Physical attractiveness

The combination of characteristics that are evaluated as beautiful or handsome at the positive extreme and as unattractive at the negative extreme.

features seen as attractive

symmetrical faces as it is hard to fake symmetry - an honest sign of genetic fitness

neotenous features

Neotenous features

big eyes, widely separated eyed, delicate chin, small nose

The Halo Effect

physical attractiveness gives us preconceived ideas about the personality traits one might have

Dion

physically attractive people consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful

Matching hypothesis

Walster and Walster - we look for partners who are similar to ourselves

matching hypothesis procedure

-Male and female students invited to dance,

-rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start, completed a questionnaire about themselves,

-told the data about themselves (personality, self esteem etc),

-information would be used by a computer to decide their partner for the evening (but paired up randomly)

matching hypothesis findings

>hypothesis was not supported,

>most liked partners were also the most physically attractive, rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account,

strengths of physical attractiveness

Palmer and Peterson - halo effect so powerful it persisted even when people knew the attractive people weren't more knowledgeable

what is considered attractive is consistent across societies

limitations of physical attractiveness

matching hypothesis not supported by real world research as online daters sought those who were more attractive even after being rejected

Filter theory

we all have a set of availables (those we could realistically form a relationship with) but not all are desirable

Kerkhoff and Davies

compared the attitudes and personalities of students in short-term (<18 months) and longer-term relationships

proposed levels of the filter theory (social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity)

Social demography (1st level of filter)

Refers to variables such as age, social background and location, which determine the likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place.

Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter)

We find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of a relationship, so we tend to discount available individuals who differ markedly from us in their attitudes.

important in the early stages of a relationship

complementarity (3rd level of filter)

Similarity becomes less important as a relationship develops, and is replaced by a need for your partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own and meeting each other's needs

more important for long-term couples

strengths of filter theory

a longitudinal study where partners in couples completed a questionnaire assessing similarity in attitudes and complementarity of needs - reassessed 7 months later where similarity in attitudes more important in those together <18 months and complementarity more important in those together longer

limitations of filter theory

Levinger - many studies failed to replicate findings + Kerkhoff and Davies assumed an 18 month cut off. lacks validity

complementarity may not be central to all longer-term relationships as lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied

actual similarity matters less when partners perceive themselves to be similar - may be an effect of attraction not a cause

social exchange theory

our behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumption of exchange

- attempt to minimise losses and maximise rewards (minimax principle)

- satisfaction is judged in terms of profit yielded (rewards minus the costs)

opportunity cost

investment of time and energy unable to be used elsewhere

comparison level

the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get out

develops from our experiences in past relationships and influenced by social norms

comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

do we believe we could gain greater rewards from another relationship (or being on our own)

if the costs in our current relationship outweigh the rewards alternatives are more attractive

stages of relationship development

Sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation

strengths of social exchange theory

most committed partners perceived the most rewards, fewer costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive

limitations of social exchange theory

ignored equity therefore SET is a limited explanation

we don't monitor rewards and costs or consider alternatives until we become dissatisfied

vague concepts = hard to quantify, superficially defined

equity theory

the need for balance rather than profit

a lack means one partner overbenefits whilst the other underbenefits

underbenefitting in a relationship

dissatisfaction shown by anger, hostility, resentment

overbenefitting in a relationship

guilt, discomfort and shame

consequences of inequity

Changes in perceived equity and dealing with inequity

changes in perceived equity

e.g. at the start of a relationship it may feel natural to contribute more than you receive but over time it will not feel as satisfying

dealing with inequity

Underbenefitting partners either work hard to restore equity or they lower their standards so the relationship feels equitable even though nothing has changed.

strength of equity theory

Utne et al - survey of 118 recently married couples aged 16-45 that had been together at least 2 years. Those most satisfied were the those who felt their relationship was equitable

limitations of equity theory

Berg and McQuinn - found equity did not increase overtime nor did relationships that ended or continued have different levels of equity

may not apply to all cultures - individualist considered equitable relationships most satisfying and collectivist most satisfied when overbenefitting

not all partners concerned about achieving equity - benevolants and entitleds

benevolants

prepared to contribute more than they get out

less concerned about equity

entitleds

believe they deserve to overbenefit and do so without feeling guilt

less concerned about equity

Rusbult's investment model

Commitment depends upon 3 factors: investment size, CLalt and satisfaction level

satisfaction (Rusbult)

based on comparison level, comparing rewards and costs

comparison with alternatives (Rusbult)

includes more rewarding partners or no partner at all could be more rewarding

investment (Rusbult)

CL and CLalt are not enough to explain commitment

two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic

intrinsic investment

Anything put into the relationship directly (e.g. money) but can also be things like energy, emotion or time.

extrinsic investment

Resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but are now closely associated w it. Includes possessions bought together (e.g. house, children, mutual friends)

commitment to the relationship

high levels of satisfaction + less attractive alternatives + high levels of investment

why are partners committed?

so as not to see their investment go to waste

what are enduring partners

promote the relationship, put their partners interests first and forgive them for serious transgressions

are unrealistically positive about their partner and negative about alternatives

strengths of Rusbult's investment model

meta-analysis of 52 studies, 11,000pps found satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment and were the most stable and long-lasting relationships

explains abusive relationships - Rusbult and Martz studied domestically abused women and found the ones most likely to return to an abusive relationship had invested the most into it and had the fewest alternatives but were still dissatisfied

limitations of Rusbult's investment model

correlation studies do not equal the cause of commitment

oversimplifies investment

Duck's phase model

The ending of a relationship is a process that takes time and goes through 4 phases

Intra-psychic phase

Threshold = 'I can't stand this anymore'

Focus of this phase is on cognitive processes occurring within dissatisfied individual

Partners mulls thoughts over privately (maybe sharing with trusted friend)

Weigh up pros and cons and compare to alternatives

Dyadic Phase

Threshold = 'I would be justified in withdrawing'

Focus on interpersonal processes between partners, series of confrontations over a period of time

Relationship discussed and dissatisfaction aired, characterised by hostility, complaints, resentment etc.

2 options: break up or repair

Social phase

Threshold = 'I mean it'

Focus on wider processes involving couple's social networks break-up made public, partners seek support, mutual friends expected to choose sides, gossip, reassurance or judgement, previous secret information may be revealed, some try help repair but usually point of no return

Grave dressing phase

Threshold = 'It's now inevitable'

Focus on aftermath

Individuals spin favourable story about breakdown for public consumption allowing them to save face and maintain positive reputation (lots of gossip) retaining 'social credit'

Also personal story that tidies memories

Strength of Duck's phase model

Suggests ways in which breakdown can be reversed. Insights support relationship counselling

Limitations of Duck's phase model

Based on relationships in individualist cultures which are generally voluntary but relationships in collectivist cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family

Incomplete explanation - 5th phase introduced (resurrection phase) where experiences gained from ended relationship are applied to future one

Underexplains the early phases of breakdown

Virtual relationships

Partners who have communicated and connected only online.

Reduced cues theory

Sproull and Kiesler - VR relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many cues we normally depend on (appearance, emotional state). This allows deindividuation which leads to disinhibition

Hyper personal model

Walther; virtual relationships are more personal and involve greater self-control; manipulated to promote intimacy

features of hyperpersonal self-disclosure

1. the sender of a message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send - selective self-presentation. Sender manipulates their self-image to present them self in an idealised way. Self-disclosures are therefore hyperhonest or hyperdishonest

2. receiver's feedback reinforces the sender's selective self-presentation

Bargh

Anonymity significant as it makes people feel less accountable for their behaviour

Benefits of absence of gating in virtual relationships

Refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features. Individuals feel freer to reveal their 'true selves'

Drawbacks of absence of gating in virtual relationships

Create untrue identities and deceive people

Strengths of virtual relationships

- Whitty and Joinson - questions asked in online discussions tend to be direct and open whereas FtF interactions consist of small talk. Therefore, FtF and VR differ in in type of self-disclosures used - supports hyper honesty and hyper dishonesty

- Mckenna and Bargh - Shy, lonely and anxious people find virtual relationships especially valuable - 71% of VR formed lasted over 2 years in comparison to 49% formed offline

Limitations of virtual relationships

- Online nonverbal cues are different, not absent. Walther and Tidwell - style and timing of messages.

- Lack of support for hyper personal model - meta-analysis 25 studies comparing self disclosure in FtF and VR found frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures greater in FtF relationships (however experimental studies showed no significant differences)

parasocial relationships

One-sided, unreciprocal, usually with a celebrity

Celebrity Attitude Scale

Developed by McCutcheon and used by Maltby

Levels of parasocial relationships

Entertainment-social

Intense-personal

Borderline pathological

Entertainment-social level

Least intense, celebrities viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction

Intense-personal level

Intermediate, reflects a greater personal involvement e.g. frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings

borderline-pathological

strongest, uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours e.g. spending money on a celebrity object or willingness to break the law for a celebrity

Absorption-Addiction Model - McCutcheon (2002)

links deficiencies people have in their own lives to the levels of parasocial relationships. Someone at the entertainment-social level may be triggered into more intense involvement by some personal crisis

absorption (absorption-addiction model)

seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible, to become preoccuppied with the celebrity and identify with them

addiction (absorption-addiction model)

individual needs to increase their 'dose' to gain satisfaction. this may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking

attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships

tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood.

Bowlby - early difficulties lead to later emotional troubles

Ainsworth - attachment types

insecure-resistant most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults because they seek to have unfulfilled needs met

insecure-avoidant prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether, social or parasocial

strengths of parasocial relationships

>levels predictions are supported by research - pps scoring as borderline-pathological or intense-personal tended to experience a high level of anxiety in intimate relationships

>research showing a link between celebrity worship and body image - Maltby assessed boys and girls aged 14-16. Girls scoring as intense-personal had poor body image

>explains why people all over the world have a desire to form parasocial relationships

limitations of parasocial relationships

in 299 pps McCutcheon found attachment security did not affect the likelihood of forming a parasocial relationship with a celebrity - so shows parasocial relationships are not necessarily a way of compensating for attachment issues