relationships psych

What is intra-sexual selection?

Members of one sex (usually males) compete for access to other sex (usually females).

In many species, males are usually larger on average than females.

This implies males fought for females in the past, so natural selection has favoured males that are larger, and so large body sizes in males are now a product of evolution.

What is inter-sexual selection?

This is how people choose a possible mate. People have certain traits which increase perceived attractiveness and induce members of the opposite sex to mate with them.

e.g. females choose to mate with men who can provide resources for them and males choose to mate with females who are fertile (look youthful)

What is anisogamy?

Anisogamy refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)

What does anisogamy say about the reproductive strategies of males and females

Males - they are more promiscuous and their strategy is to mate with as many females as possible. This is because it is much easier to produce sperm and so they can mate with many women at once (in theory). Promiscuity in males increases chances for mating success.

Females - they are more choosy with who they mate with. This is because eggs are released once a month and they must ensure that they mate with someone with the best genes for the child and someone that can provide resources to take care of the child.

What is concealed ovulation and a pair bond? What are the advantages of this?

Other female primates show signs of being fertile e.g reddening of the face. This is more concealed for human females. This has led to the evolution of the pair bond.

These allow males to commit due to uncertain paternity and guard their mate from other males to ensure their offspring are his. 

For females, pair bonds increase survival chances for offspring by ensuring the male’s presence for their children.

What is sexual jealousy and how do males and females show it?

Sexual jealousy is a specific, intense emotional response triggered by the suspected or actual sexual infidelity of a partner.

Males:

• Tend to show jealousy to the possibility of sexual infidelity (unfaithfulness)

• An unfaithful female could lead to the male wasting valuable resources on offspring that are not theirs.

Females:

• Sexual jealousy tends to be triggered by emotional connections with another female

• This could lead the male to remove his support and investment from their family unit

What is Fisher’s ‘sexy son’ hypothesis

• A female mates with a male who has a desirable characteristic, and this ‘sexy’ trait is then inherited by her son. 

• Females choose the most attractive mate so their children will also be attractive and be selected… 

• Additionally, the females daughters will inherit the preference for this trait 

• This allows the genes to continue through generations - a feedback loop… 

Research support for inter-sexual selection. What did this study show?

Clark and Hatfield

They conducted a study to investigate differences in reproductive behaviour between men and women. 

Attractive male and female experimenters approached strangers on an American university campus and asked one of 3 questions.

1. Would you go on a date with me?

2. Would you go back to my apartment?

3. Would you have sex with me?

They found that males agreed to have sex 75% of the time, whereas no women said yes to this question. Women agreed to go on a date 50% of the time and this was the same % for males.

These results show that men are more interested in ‘one-night stands’ as these require little investment and increase chances of reproduction compared to going on a date with a woman and spending time and effort getting to know them.

They also show that females are more choosy with their partner. They are not interested in one-night stands as the male is showing a lack of commitment to help raise the offspring.

Research support for sexual jealousy. What did this study show?

Buss

Male and female students were asked to imagine their bf/gf either having sex with someone else OR being in love with someone else.

Their physiological responses to imagining these situations were measured.

Men became more distressed at the image of their partner being sexually unfaithful, whereas women became more distressed at the image of their partner being in love with someone else.

These results can be explained by sexual jealousy. Men are afraid of their partner having access to other mates and consequently producing offspring that isn’t theirs, meaning that they may have wasted valuable resources on offspring that isn’t theirs.

Women are afraid of their partner showing commitment to someone else. This may mean that the male will stop providing resources for her and their child.

Weaknesses of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

• Cultural relativism + environmental reasons for partner preference (Kasser and Sharma)

- Kasser and Sharma analysed 37 cultures showing that women valued their mates’ access to resources far more in cultures with limited educational opportunities and status for women.

- This suggests that evolutionary partner preferences are not the main driving force behind what sexual characteristics women may prefer in men - and that the context of their lives and opportunities affects this. 

- In countries where the education and independence of women is not highly valued, they may be more reliant on males for resources after marriage.

• Hard to apply to non-heterosexual relationships

- Evolutionary explanations focus on the need to maximise reproductive success. As same-sex relationships cannot result in direct offspring, these explanations fail to explain why these relationships occur.

- Sexuality is more complex than ‘mate selection’. We also form relationships to seek social bonding, pleasure and emotional connection.

What are the 3 factors affecting attraction

• self disclosure

• physical attractiveness

• filter theory

What is self-disclosure?

The revealing of personal information about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops.

Which theory explains how self-disclosure affects attraction. What does it say?

Social Penetration Theory is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, or giving your deepest thoughts and feelings.

Reciprocal exchange of information occurs between intimate partners, this requires trust and causes a balance of self-disclosure between both partners, which increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship.

As they reveal more information, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ into each others lives and gain a better understanding of each other. 

The process is like peeling an onion. We start with disclosing a high amount of information but it is low-risk and superficial information. The breadth of disclosure is narrow and many topics are off-limits at the start. 

As the relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, revealing more layers to reveal our true selves. 

Evaluation of self-disclosure as a factor of attraction

Strengths:

• Research support

• Hass and Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women said self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships.

- If partners who tend to limit to ‘small talk’ learnt to self-disclose, it could bring several benefits to the relationship in terms of increasing satisfaction and commitment

- Elab - good as it considers gay people

- CP - Self-report research

• Research support

- Kleinke et al. found when people were perceived as being selective over who they shared personal info with - so that the person receiving disclosure felt ‘special’ - the person disclosing was rated to be more attractive

- CP - Cannot identify causal relationship (could’ve been affected by other factors)

- CP - Self-report research

Weaknesses:

• Lacks cultural relativism

- Tang et al. reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and found people in the USA self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in China.

- Both levels of disclosure were linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures

- suggests high amounts of self-disclosure may be an important factor in western relationships, but not so much in other cultures

- CP - Only measures sexual thoughts and not other types of info

Which parts of physical attractiveness matter in attractiveness?

• symmetrical faces

• neotenous features (baby-face features)

• matching hypothesis

Why do people find symmetrical faces more attractive?

This is because it may be an honest signal of genetics (symmetrical faces show a lack of genetic defects).

Why do people find neotenous features more attractive?

People with neotenous (baby-face) features, such as: large eyes, delicate chin, small nose are attractive.

These are valuable for females, as it makes them appear more youthful, fertile and caring

what is the halo effect?

The physical attractiveness stereotypes suggest people who are physically attractive are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful. 

The halo effect describes how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness) has a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person's other attributes e.g. their personality.

What is the matching hypothesis?

People choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar attractiveness to each other. 

To do this we make a judgement of our own attractiveness to a potential partner. It requires a balance of what we would ideally like in a partner (best genes possible) and what we are prepared to settle for to avoid rejection.

Evaluation of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction

Strengths:

• Research support for matching hypothesis

- Fiengold - did a meta-analysis and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. This supports the matching hypothesis 

- CA - it may have been better to ask third parties to rate attractiveness in order to prevent cognitive biases

• Research support for halo effect

Peterson & Peterson - found that physically attractive people were rated more as politically knowledgeable than unattractive people.

- This was a significant powerful halo effect as the participants did not know if they had any expertise.

- Therefore, the halo effect and physical attractiveness may be a strong factor affecting attraction

- CA - Towhey found that some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness. This suggests there are individual differences

Weaknesses:

• Research disproving matching hypothesis (Walster)

- Walster (1966) - 752 uni students attended a dance party. They were rated by a panel and matched by attractiveness to a partner.

- After the party, they were asked if they would go on a second date with their partner, students were likely to agree if their partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness

- This suggests that the matching hypothesis is flawed, or at least circumstantial. People may pick an attractive partner even if they themselves are less attractive. 

- CA - this study lacks in temporal validity and population validity as the sample is quite concentrated

- CA - you can argue that the students were asked a hypothetical question (would you go on a date with this person), therefore they may have answered ‘yes’, but in a real world scenario, would not consider going on a date with a more attractive person if they were trying to avoid rejection.

- This may suggest physical attractiveness is actually a relevant factor affecting attractiveness and that the matching hypothesis works

What are the 3 filters in filter theory? What does each mean?

• Social/Demographic - most people meet people similar to them (education, background, age)

• Similarity of Attitudes and Values -  in terms of attitudes, values, beliefs

• Complementarity of (emotional) needs - have traits we lack, meet each others needs (opposites attract)

This model argues relationships develop in three stages. For this reason, it is known as a stage theory. At each stage, people are filtered down until the individual looking for a relationship is left with the most desirable partners.

What is the final selection after filtering known as?

‘the field of desirables’

Evaluation of filter theory as a factor affecting attraction

Strengths:

• Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) tested their model using a longitudinal study of two different groups of student couples, those who had been together for more than 18 months and those who had been together for less.

• The couples completed several questionnaires over a seven-month period which reported views on attitude similarity and personality traits.

• It was identified that attitude similarity was the most important factor in relationships around the 18-month stage.

• After this period of time, the ability to meet each other’s needs took precedence over attitude similarity.

• CA - Self-report measure, low temporal validity of both theory and study

• Gruber-Baldini et al. found couples who shared similarities were more likely to be together 20 years later. 

- This shows that the first filter is important in initial attraction and may make a relationship more likely to last

- Therefore, the theory can be seen to be a useful factor affecting attraction and a good explanation for how relationships work

- CA - However, this research is correlational, the correlation could have been caused by an extraneous variable. 

Weaknesses:

• Correlation not causation (for stage 2)

- Filter theory suggests people are attracted to each other because they are similar, but there is evidence that suggests that this may not be the case, and that partners become more similar over time.

- This is known as emotional convergence.

- This means that there is bidirectional ambiguity between what causes what.

• Low temporal validity

- Nowadays ⅓ of couples meet online. Technology has had a huge impact on how we interact.

- Location is not as important now, people often engage in ‘long distance relationships’. 

- CA - however, dating apps now allow people to filter for more ideal partners online

What are the 3 theories on relationship maintenance?

• Social exchange theory (SET)

• Equity theory

• Rusbult’s investment model

Explain social exchange theory (SET)

This describes relationships in economic terms.

• Profit - rewards outweigh costs

• Loss - costs outweigh rewards

• Rewards - Happiness, gifts, physical touch etc.

• Costs - Financial, emotional etc.
  

Comparison level (CL) involves comparing the current relationship with one’s view of what a relationship should be like.

Comparison Level for Alternatives (CL Alt) involves comparing the current relationship with other potential relationships on offer.

An individual may choose to leave a relationship if they feel as though they are always in a ‘loss’ or if the comparison level for alternatives provides a better rate of interest.

What is the minimax principle (SET)

those in a relationship try to maximise profits and minimise losses.

Evaluation of social exchange theory

Strengths:

• Practical application - relationship therapy

- A therapy called Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (ICBT) aims to increase the proportion of positive exchanges within a relationship and decrease the proportion of negative exchanges. 

- This idea is based on evidence from Gottman and Levenson, who found that in successful marriages, there is a 5:1 rate of positive to negative exchange, whereas unsuccessful marriages have a lower ratio at 1:1 or less.

- The therapy helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviour that cause problems, thus making each other happier and more profitable in the relationship.

- Elab - There is research support to show that ICBT is effective

• Supporting evidence (Sprecher)

- Sprecher researched 101 couples at a US university 

- The study showed that when the comparison level for alternatives (CL Alt) was high, commitment to and satisfaction with the current relationship tended to be low for both males and females

- This supports SET as those who lack alternatives are likely to stay satisfied and committed.

- CA - US uni students so findings may have low population validity

Weaknesses:

• Inappropriate to apply an economic theory which quantifies costs and benefits

- Relationships are deeply emotional and not solely transactional

- They are shaped by feelings and cannot just be reduced to a ‘cost-reward’ transaction. 

- Furthermore, relationships involve unconditional support and selfless acts - things that don’t necessarily have a return compensation. 

- This may make SET reductionist and an incompetent explanation of how relationships are maintained

• Cause and effect - do we weigh costs and benefits because we are dissatisfied or the other way around?

- Argyle argued we do not measure costs and rewards or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied with the relationship.

- When we are satisfied with the relationships and committed to it, we do not even notice potentially attractive alternatives.

- SET argues that dissatisfaction sets in after we realise costs outweigh rewards and that alternatives are more attractive.

- This is how Rusbult’s investment model works

What is the basis of equity theory

If one person puts a lot into the relationship it is equitable for them to receive a lot out of the relationship, whereas their partner may only give a small amount to the relationship but receive a small amount of rewards out of it. This would be equitable but not equal.

When do problems arise in a relationship according to equity theory

Problems arise when one person puts a lot into a relationship but gets little from it.

A partner who is subject to inequity becomes distressed and dissatisfied with the relationship.

Perceptions of inequity change over the course of the relationship.

Equity theory predicts a positive correlation: the greater the inequity the greater the dissatisfaction

This applies to both overbenefitting (guilt/shame) and underbenefitting (resentment/unhappiness)

How can people deal with inequity in a relationship?

• Restoration of actual equity - restore equity by changing behaviour

• Restoration of psychological equity - distort reality and convince themselves things are fine the way they are

• Unable to restore equity - leave the relationship (physically OR psychologically)

When are problems due to inequity in a relationship more likely to arise?

• The initial stages of a relationship - this was shown by Hatfield and Rapson. In later stages, when commitment is deep, the couple tend to not keep track of how much they give and/or get

• During the child-rearing years, marital satisfaction tended to dip as wives often reported feeling under-benefitted and husbands over-benefitted - This was shown by Schafer and Keith

Evaluation of equity theory

Strengths:

• Supporting research

- Utne (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples (husbands and wives between 16 and 45 years), measuring equity with two self-report scales.

- Found couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefitting or under benefitting.

- Increases validity of equity theory as an explanation of romantic relationships

- CA - self-report measure

Weaknesses:

• Individual differences

- Some people are benevolents, equity sensitives (don’t value equity), entitleds

- Benevolents may under-benefit as the contribute more

- Entitleds may over-benefit as they contribute less and don’t feel guilt/stress

• Cultural differences

- Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction.

- Couples of individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable

- Partners in relationships from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when over benefitting.

According to Rusbult’s investment model, what are the most important factors for commitment?

• satisfaction

• comparison with alternatives (CL alt)

• investment

How is satisfaction an important factor in commitment? (Rusbult’s investment model)

• This is based on the comparison level (CL). This is the product of our experiences from past relationships as well as general expectations of what we want from a relationship. 

• What are the positive and negative emotions they feel with the relationship?

• To what extent does their partner fulfill their needs in the relationship?

• Low satisfaction = low commitment level

How is comparison level with alternative (CL alt) an important factor in commitment? (Rusbult’s investment model)

• The current relationship is compared with the potential for other current profitable relationships

• OR it is compared to having no relationship at all

• Better alternative(s) = less satisfaction and less commitment

How is investment an important factor in commitment? (Rusbult’s investment model)

• This is a measure of the resources attached to the relationship which would be lost if the relationship were to end

• These can be intrinsic investments (emotion, effort,)

• Or extrinsic investments (kids, mutual friends, house)

• High investment = high commitment

Which mechanisms may a committed partner employ in order to maintain a relationship? (Rusbult’s investment model)

• Accommodation - do not retaliate, but instead act to fix and support the relationship

• Willingness to sacrifice - put partner’s interests first

• Forgiveness 

• Cognitive mechanisms

- Positive illusions - unrealistically positive about their partner

- Ridiculing alternatives - More negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships.

Evaluation of Rusbult’s investment model

Strengths:

• Useful for explaining why people stay in abusive relationships

- Rationally it makes sense that people in abusive relationships should stop being committed to their partner

- Rusbult and Martz studied women that had been abused in their relationship and found that those that were most likely to return to their partners (the most committed) reported having the fewest attractive alternatives and the greatest investments

- They were not satisfied, but stayed due to lack of alternatives and heavy investment

• Supporting research

- Le et al. conducted a meta-analysis that considered 11,000 participants 

- Found satisfaction, CLalt and investment all predicted relationship commitment

- Relationships where commitment was the greatest were most stable and lasted the longest.

- True for heterosexual and homosexual couples, males and females and across different cultures.

- Elab - This is very representative research → high external validity

Weaknesses

• Based on correlational research

- Strong correlations have been found between important factors predicted by the investment model. Most studies do not allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of the model.

• Investment in the future is also important

- The model should consider that the factor of investment should involve plans that the couple has made for the future. 

- The model should also consider that some relationships persist because of plans for the future, not just current investments that have already been made

Which model aims to explain relationship breakdown?

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakup

What are the 4 phases of relationship breakdown (don’t explain)

1. intra-psychic stage

2. dyadic phase

3. social phase

4. grave-dressing phase

What is the intra-psychic stage in relationship breakdown?

One partner is dissatisfied, keeps it to self, ruminates.

What is the dyadic stage in relationship breakdown?

The problem is raised openly and discussed between partners. There are two possible outcomes – renewed desire to repair the relationship or go on to the next phase.

What is the social stage in relationship breakdown?

Friends/family are told. It is difficult to come back from this phase.

The partners negotiate any practicalities that they have invested into the relationship (division of assets, childcare responsibilities etc.)

What is the grave-dressing stage in relationship breakdown?

• Post-relationship rationalisation of events and re-building. Focus on the aftermath .

• Spinning a favourable story to the public to save face and protect their reputation.

Evaluation of Duck’s model of relationship breakdown

Strength:

• Useful real world application

- Suggests way of reversing breakdown and which stages are best to attempt relationship recovery

- Duck recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on positive aspects of their partner

- Dyadic phase – improved communication and social skills would be beneficial to create more stability in relationship

 - Stages used in relationship counseling, a real life application


Weaknesses:

• Incomplete model?

- Rollie and Duck modified it to add 5th stage after grave-dressing – the resurrection phase

- This is when ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experience gained from their recently ended one

- Rollie and Duck also argue that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable and couple can turn to an earlier point of the process at any phase

- These changes overcome a weakness of the original model because it does not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups with all their complexity and uncertainty.

• Methodological issues

- Most of the research used for Duck’s model is retrospective.

- Participants give experience of the breakup process sometime after it has happened.

- Recall may not be accurate or reliable – earliest stages of break up likely to be distorted

- Hard to research earliest stages of breakup as researchers do not want to make things worse

- Incomplete description as earliest stages inaccurate/avoided in research

What is different in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face relationships

Psychologists have found that self-disclosure is an important part of relationships in the offline world. In online relationships, there may be:

• Reduced cues theory - less self-disclosure online

- This may be because people don’t know how or what to disclose

- Or because they are worried to disclose too much information in fear of being exposed online

• Hypersonal model - more self disclosure online

- Some people may find it easier or less awkward to disclose online and so are likely to disclose more information quicker

What is reduced cues theory?

Online relationships are less successful than face to face ones because they lack many of the cues we depend on in face to face relationships e.g emotional states like facial expressions and tone of voice

This leads to de-individuation as it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which in turn encourages disinhibition (creating a hostile environment) in relating to others. 

As a result, virtual relationships are more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication leading to a reluctance to self-disclose. 

You are unlikely to want to form a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, or reveal your innermost feelings to them.

Which are the 3 features/reasons for the hyperpersonal model of self-disclosure

• Selective self presentation

• Anonymity 

• Absence of gating

What is selective self-preservation?

Sender of a message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send than they would in a face to face situation 

• Sender manipulates their self-image to present themselves in an idealised way

• Self disclosure can be both intensely truthful (hyperhonest) and/or intensely false (hyperdishonest)

The receiver gains a positive impression of the sender and may respond or give feedback that reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation 

Why can anonymity cause more self-disclosure in virtual relationships

We are more likely to disclose personal information to people we don’t know and probably will never see again…

• In face to face relationships trust is usually built before information is disclosed e.g. to ensure the other person does not share confidential information or respond negatively to self disclosure

• Anonymity online means there is less fear of these consequences of self disclosure

• Because a stranger has no access to an individual’s social circle, the confidentiality problem is less of an issue 

• Relationships can develop more quickly as self disclosure happens earlier

Why can the absence of gating cause more self-disclosure in virtual relationships

A gate in this context, is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship.

• Face to face interaction is said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with early development of a relationship. 

• Examples of such gates include physical unattractiveness, a stammer, and social anxiety (shyness, blushing etc). 

A huge advantage of online relationships is the absence of gating. 

• This means that a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper. 

• This absence of gating allows an online relationship to ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen in a face to face situation 

• It eliminates superficial and distracting features.

Evaluation of virtual relationships

Strengths:

• Online relationships can be as strong as offline relationships

- It is often claimed that the nature of communication on the internet can lead to superficial relationships that cannot compare to the richness of face-to-face interactions

- It is believed that these relationships are of lower quality and temporary

- However, Rosenfeld and Thomas found no evidence for this claim. In their research, they found no difference in quality of online and offline relationships, nor did they find that online relationships more fragile

• Research support for the absence of gating causing hyperpersonal model

- Zhao et al. (2008) found that online social networks such as Facebook can empower ‘gated’ individuals to present the identities they hope to establish but are unable to in face-to-face situations.

- The reduction of gating obstacles in the online environment also enables people to ‘stretch the truth a bit’ in their efforts to project a self that is more socially desirable than their real ‘offline’ identity

- Yurchisin et al. (2005) interviewed 11 online daters, and found that these individuals tended to give accounts of both their real and better selves in dating profiles as a way of attracting potential patterns.

- Some interviewees even admitted that they would steal other people's ideas or copy other people’s images, as a way of making themselves more popular. Yurchisin did, however, find that most online identities were still close to a person’s true identity in order to avoid unpleasant surprises in a possible real-life encounter. 

Weaknesses:

• Lack of research support for reduced cues theory

- Theory is wrong to say nonverbal cues are entirely missing from virtual self disclosure

- Walther & Tidwell said that people in online interactions use other cues such as style and timing of their messages e.g thinking time, delay in replies

- Acrostics like LOL, emoticons and emoji’s also used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice in face to face communication.

- Goes against reduced cues theory as interactions can be just as personal as those conducted FtF

• Lack of research for hyperpersonal model

- Ruppel et al. conducted a meta analysis and found that studies showed that self disclosure was either greater or the same compared to online relationships

- CA - some of these studies were self-report

What is a parasocial relationship?

Parasocial relationships are one-sided, unreciprocated relationships, usually with a celebrity. This is when the ‘fan’ expends a lot of emotional energy, commitment and time.

What are the levels of parasocial relationships

1. enterrtainment-social

2. intense-personal

3. borderline pathological

What is the entertainment-social stage of a parasocial relationship

This is the least intense level of celebrity ‘worship’. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction. E.g people like to gossip about their favourite celebrities

What is the intense-personal level of parasocial relationships?

• This is an intermediate level, which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity. 

• The person may have a private obsession or a feeling of personal connection

What is the borderline pathological level of a parasocial relationship?

• This is the strongest level of celebrity ‘worship’, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. 

• These might be spending lots of money on a celebrity-related object, stalking, or being willing to perform illegal acts for/on the celebrity

How were the levels of a parasocial relationship identified

the celebrity attitude scale (CAS) developed by McCutcheon et al.

Why do parasocial relationships form according to the absorption addiction model?

Parasocial relationships occur to make up for dissatisfaction or deficits with a person’s real life or relationships and can give a sense of identity. 

They might form due to:

• Poor personal identity

• Poor real-life relationships

• Desire to escape real life

What does the absorption addiction model say about how someone’s investment in a parasocial relationship changes?

• Absorption - people with weaker personal identity may become preoccupied or consumed with the life of the celebrity and begin to identify with them
  

• Addiction - at the extreme end, the person seeks ever greater involvement so the parasocial relationship becomes all-consuming

Initially, interest in the celebrity is at the absorption level, but if the level of absorption is high enough, the person may maintain the parasocial relationship through a psychological addiction.

Evaluation of the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships

Strengths:

• Research support for absorption addiction model and poor mental health

- Maltby used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to assess the relationship between parasocial relationship level and personality

- They found:

- entertainment social - linked with extraversion

- intense-personal - linked with neurotic traits

- borderline pathological - psychoticism

- Neuroticism is related to anxiety + depression so this explains why high levels of PSRs are linked to poor mental health

- This suggests that understanding of the absorption addiction model could help improve professionals' understanding of psychological disorders and help people struggling with these.

• Explains behaviours across different cultures

- Schmid and Klimmt identified similar levels of parasocial relationships with Harry Potter in individualistic and collectivist cultures (Germany and Mexico)

- This was measured using an online questionnaire

- This suggests that the model has universality

- CA - self-report measure

Weakness:

• Parasocial relationships can be explained using attachment theory

Who explained how parasocial relationships can form through attachment style. What was the theory?

Cole and Leets explain why some people are more likely to develop parasocial relationships through the concept of adult attachment style. 

Insecure-resistant types are most likely to form parasocial relationship as adults

• They need to have unfulfilled needs met

• Parasocial relationships are not accompanied by the threat of rejection, breakups and disappointment which are associated with real-life relationships

Insecure-avoidants are the least likely to form parasocial relationships as adults. 

• They prefer to avoid pain and rejection from all kinds of relationships, whether social or parasocial.

Which attachment behaviours do people in parasocial relationships display?

• Secure base - The presence of the attachment figure provides a safe place for the individual to explore the world and other relationships in a safe way. This is because there is no rejection/disappointment from a parasocial relationship.

• Proximity seeking - This is when individuals reduce distance between themselves and the attachment figure. In PSRs, they do this by arranging time to see them on TV or at real life events. In extreme cases, they may stalk the person online or in real life.
  

• Protest at disruption - If there is a separation/loss from the attachment figure, people in PSRs may undergo a period of prolonged distress. This was shown after the axing of Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘Top Gear’ by the BBC as many fans ‘mourned’ this loss online.

Evaluation of attachment theory as an explanation of parasocial relationships

Strengths:

• Loss of a parasocial relationship is linked to attachment style

- Cohen et al. took responses from 381 Israeli adults about how they would react if their favourite TV characters were taken off air.

- They also asked questions about attachment style and the intensity of the PSR

- Viewers anticipated quite negative reactions to this ‘loss’ and this was linked to higher intensity of PSR and to resistant attachment styles.

Weaknesses:

• Parasocial relationships can be explained using the absorption addiction model

- McCutcheon measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 300 pps.

- The researchers found that the pps with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than pps with secure attachments. 

- These findings fail to support a central prediction of the attachment theory, raising doubts about its validity.

- CA - Conflict of interest? McCutcheon is behind the absorption/addiction model!