relationships
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: sexual selection
Selection of characteristics that age successful reproduction
An evolutionary explanation of partner preference
anisogamy
The difference differences between male and female sex cells
Male gametes- Small, highly mobile, do not need much energy to be produced
Female gametes- Large, static, require significant investment of energy
Differences in male and female sex cells result in different strategies for reproductive success
Strategies- Courtship rituals
Series of displays performed by potential mates to attract each other, e.g. giftgiving
Call purpose is to communicate desirable qualities and determine genetic fitness
strategies- Male guarding
Use various tactics to keep a mate from reproducing with rivals
Includes vigilance, physical proximity, direct aggression, emotional manipulation
sneak copulation
cheating
When a male mates with a female without the knowledge of her long-term partner
intersexual selection (mate choice)
Used to maximise reproductive success
Preferred strategy of the female
Females make it greater investment of time and commitment
The consequences of making a wrong partner choice are more serious for the female
intrasexual selection (competition)
Preferred strategy of the male
Strategy has given rise to dismorphism (two forms)
Larger males have an advantage and are therefore more likely to be reproductively successful
Females don't compete for reproductive rights so there is no evolutionary drive towards the favouring larger females
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences ao3
strength- Research for intersexual: Researchers sent students around a uni campus asking 'I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?', No females agreed, 75% of males agreed immediately females are choosier
limitation- Social and cultural influence underestimated: Overlook the influences of social and cultural factors, Partner preferences are influenced by rapidly changing social norms of behaviour, Much faster developed than evolutionary time skills imply, women are no longer dependent on men to provide for them
Sexual selection and homosexuality: Cannot explain the partner preferences of gay men and lesbian women, This is because homosexual relationship partners are not assessing genetic fitness, Men emphasise physical attractiveness and women emphasised resources
factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness
Symmetrical faces demonstrate genetic fitness
Evolutionarily advantageous
The halo effect
Preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have
dion et al- Physically attractiveness are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, successful
We behave positively towards them
Potato effect is used to describe how one distinguishing feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgement of a person's other attributes
The matching hypothesis
People choose romantic partners of similar attractiveness to themselves
Individuals will focus attention on partners of similar level of attractiveness narrowing the range of attainable, ideal and realistic awareness
walster et al (1966)- The computer dance
Rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers
Paired up randomly
Found the strongest predictor of liking was physical attractiveness I.e. the most liked partners were also the most physically attractive, rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account
Concludes we tend to seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own, We settle on those who are 'in our league' physically
physical attractiveness ao3
strength: Physical attractiveness and evolutionary processes- cunningham et al (1995), Women who had large eyes, prominent cheap bones, small nose, high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men, what is considered attractive is consistent across different cultures
External validity- Research in this area has good ecological validity some studies use real life dating sites so it is likely that the findings have good external validity
Limitation: Research challenging matching hypothesis- Taylor et al (2011) studied popular online dating site, Found in online dating, people choose prospective partners who are much more attractive than themselves, Undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis, Contradicts the central prediction about matching attractiveness
factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure
The process of revealing personal information about the self to another person
Has a vital role in relationship beyond the initial traction
Can be superficial, low risk with breadth EG work, Or more intimate, high risk with greater depth, e.g. fears
Increases attractiveness and closeness, particularly when reciprocated
social penetration theory
altman and taylor (1973)
How relationships develop
Gradual process of revealing your inner self
Giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings
Other partner must also reveal sensitive information
Gain a greater understanding of each other
Reciprocal exchange of information
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
reis and shaver (1988)
Needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
partner will Respond in a way that is Rewarding with empathy
Balance of self disclosure
Increases feelings of intimacy
self-disclosure ao3
strength: Real world application- Can help people who want to improve communication in their relationship relationships, Some partners use self-disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond, Show psychological insights can be valuable in helping people having problems in their relationships
Imitation- Cultural differences: Self disclosure is not true for all cultures, Men and women in US self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than in China, Is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it's based on findings from individualistic cultures, not necessarily generalisable to other cultures
Research supporting self disclosure counterpoint: Assumed greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction, but correlation doesn't tell us this is valid, Could be the more satisfied the partners are, the more they disclose, reduces validity of social penetration theory as self disclosures may not cause satisfaction directly
factors affecting attraction: filter theory
kerckhoff + davis (1962)
Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term And long-term relationships
Field of availables- The entire set of potential romantic partners, All of the People we could realistically form a relationship with
Filters to narrow down our range of partner choice to a field of desirables
social demography (First level of filter)
The chances of potential partners meeting
Includes geographical location, social class, education, ethnic group, religion
Most likely to meet people who Share several demographic characteristics
similarities in attitudes (Second level of filter)
Partners will often share important beliefs and values
kerckhoff + davis Found similarity of attitude, but only for the couples who had been together less than 18 months
Similarity causes attraction
complementarity (Third level of filter)
Ability of partners to meet each other's needs
Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks
More important for long-term couples
Gives partners the feeling that together they form a hold
filter theory ao3
strength: kerckhoff+ davis support- Conducted a longitude Inul study assessing similarity of attitudes and complimentarity of needs, Measured closeness seven months later, Closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples together less than 18 months, Longer relationships- complementarity of needs predicted closeness
limitation: counterpoint research supporting filter theory- levinger (1974) Said many studies failed to replicate kerckhoff research, Due to social changes overtime and problems defining depth of relationship, Assumed partners who had been together long ago and more commited, Lack of validity
Social change- Online dating apps have increased field available so location no longer limits partners choice, Lacks temporal validity, Modern societies, highly mobile and diverse, Technology eliminate physical constraints
theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory- rewards, costs and profits
thibault + kelley (1959)
Behaviour in relationships reflect economic assumptions of exchange
Try to minimise losses and maximise gains
We focus on getting out more than what we put in
Rewards, e.g. companionship
Costs, e.g. time, energy
two ways in which we measure profit in a relationship: Comparison level (cl)
The amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get
Develops out of our experiences of previous relationships
Influenced by social norms
high cl: High expectations, high self-esteem, believe they are worth a lot more
low cl: Low self-esteem, lower expectations, satisfied with gaining just a small profit
two ways in which we measure profit in a relationship: Comparison level for alternatives (clalt)
Do we believe we could gain greater rewards with fewer costs from another relationship?
SET predicts we will stay in our current relationships only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives
stages of relationship development
Sampling stage: Experiment with rewards and costs or observe others
Bargaining stage: Beginning of a relationship, Start exchanging various rewards or costs, Identify what is most profitable
Commitment stage: More predictable, Becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
Institutionalisation stage: Now settled down because norms of relationship are firmly established
SET ao3
strength- Research supporting SET: kurdek (1995) Asked gay lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaire measuring relationship commitment and SET variables, Found that most committed perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive, Strongly confirms validity of the theory
Limitation- Counterpoint research supporting SET: Ignores one crucial factor- Equity, What matters is not just the balance of costs and rewards, But the partners perceptions that this is fair, Neglect of equity means SET is limited explanation
Direction of cause and effect: According to SET we become dissatisfied when we conclude that the cost of the relationship outweigh it's rewards and alternatives are more attractive, When we are satisfied with the relationship and commit committed to it, we don't notice potentially attractive alternatives, Suggest that considering alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse
Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory
Economic theory. developed in response to criticism of SET
Balance rather than profit in a relationship
Means fairness
walster et al (1978)- Level of profit is roughly the same for both partners
equality VS equity
Rewards and cost are equal, Roles are equal, Both partners receive the same
Not equal
It can't be equal- balance/fairness
Distribution of roles help helps provide balance- compensation/negotiations
consequences of equity
One partner puts great deal in, but gets a little out- Distressed and dissatisfied
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater than dissatisfaction
changes in perceived equity
Continue to put more into a relationship and get less out of it
Not feel as satisfying as it did in the early days
dealing with inequity
Underbenefited- Motivated, more equitable, relationship salvageable
The more unfair, the harder they will work to restore equity
Equity theory ao3
strength: Research supporting- utne et al (1984) 118 Most recently married couples, Measured equity, Being together more than two years before marrying, Equitable=more satisfied
limitation: cause and effect- Lack of equity is a cause of dissatisfaction, utne found Overbenefiting and underbenefiting lead to dissatisfaction, Other research shows opposite direction of Cause & effect
individual differences- Not all partners are concerned about achieving equity, Some partners are benevolent= More contributing to the relationship (underbenefit), Some partners are 'entitleds'= Believe they deserve to overbenefit and accept it without feeling guilty
theories of romantic relationships: rusbults investment model (2011)
Extension of SET
Three factors Lead to commitment: Satisfaction, Comparison with alternatives, Investments
Factor one: Satisfaction
Partners are generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms
E.g. companionship
Factor two: Comparison with alternatives
Partners ask themselves
Could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?
Are the alternatives more rewarding and less costly?
Factor three: Investments
Anything we would lose if the relationship were to end
Intrinsic investments: Resource resources, we put directly into the relationship, e.g. money, energy
Extrinsic investments: Previously didn't feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it e.g. possessions bought together
relationship maintenance mechanisms
Promote the relationship
They put their partners interests first
Forgiveness
Compromise
cognitive element
Positive illusions (unrealistically positive about their partner)
Ridiculing the alternatives (Other peoples relationships)
rusbults Investment model ao3
strength: Model explains abusive relationships- rusbukt + martz (1995) Studied domestically abused women, Found that those most likely to return to their partner reported having made the greatest investment and having fewest attractive alternatives, Dissatisfied but still committed
linitation: Counterpoint- it could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make, so the direction of casualty may be the reverse of that suggested by the model
Perceptions versus reality- What determines commit commitment to a relationship is not the objective reality, What matters More is what a person believes or perceives, Self-report methods may be appropriate to measure investment and comparison with alternatives
theories of romantic relationships: Ducks phase model
steve duck (2007)
Four distinct phases
Model can be applied positively by using intervention strategies
ducks phase model: Intra psychic phase
Focus of this phase is on cognitive processes
Partner ruminates on the reasons for her dissatisfaction
Mulls their thoughts over privately and may share with a trusted friend
Repair strategy: Communicate feelings early, preventing resentment
ducks phase model: dyadic phase
Focus here is on interpersonal processes between the two partners
Problems are raised openly and discussed between partners
Series of confrontations
Dissatisfactions are aired
Complain complaints about lack of equity
Repair strategy: Counselling or mediation
ducks phase model: Social phase
Focus is involving the couple social networks
Made public
Disclose their problems to others- Friends, family
Mutual friends choose a side
Some friends provide reinforcement, previously secret information, help repair
Repair strategy: Intervention, support from friends and family, facilitate reconciliation
ducks phase model: Grave dressing Phase
Focus is on the aftermath
Spinning a favourable story
Rationalising it and constructing narrative of events
'Rebuilding yourself process'
Maintain a positive reputation
Repair strategy: Promote personal growth
ducks phase model ao3
strength: Reverse potential- Relationship breakdown can be reversed, Repair strategies are more effective at some point points in a breakdown than others, These insights can be used in relationship counselling to help people through difficult times
Relationship breakdown is a process not a single event- Dissatisfaction develops overtime and multiple stages occur before relationship ends, Recognises social context as friends, family and wider social connections can influence process and outcome
limitations: Counterpoint real world application- Individualistic cultural relationships frequently and divorce, Relationships in collective this culture cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family, Conception of romantic relationships differs between cultures, access the degree of cultural bias since model is based on western individualistic relationship relationships
virtual relationships in social media: gate
mckenna + bargh (1999)
Any obstacle to forming a relationship, e.g. physical unattractiveness, facial disfigurement
There is an absence of gates in virtual relationships
benefits: Self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper, freed to be more like their true selves
Limitations: Scope for people to create untrue identities and deceive people
reduced cues theory
Virtual relationships are less effective, lack many cues from face-to-face interactions
Virtual relationships can lead to loss of emotional richness, Misunderstandings and hostility (Online disinhibition effect)
Anonymity- Personal identity is reduced (deindividuation), interactions can feel impersonal and less willing to disclose their real thoughts and feelings
The hyperPersonal model
walther (1996)
Explains why some online relationships can become more effective, more intense and intimate
Virtual relationships may develop more quickly (hyperprsonal)
1. Selective self presentation- Manage how and what they disclose, allows intensely truthful or exaggerated information
2. Reduce cues- Reduced social anxiety
3. Asynchronous communication- Delay, edit and reflect
4. Feedback loop- Ideals perceptions are reinforced as partners respond positively
virtual relationships in social media ao3
strength: Research the Of gating- Shy, lonely, socially anxious people find relationships, Able to express their truth selves more than face-to-face situations, 71% survived at least two years
limitation: Lack of support for reduced cues theory- People in online interactions use other cues, e.g. Taking time to reply, maybe more intimate act than an immediate response, Too much time can be interpreted as a snub, hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it means virtual relationship can be just as personal as face-to-face
parasocial relationships
mccutcheon + maltby (2002) Developed celebrity attitude scale
entertainment-social
Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment for social interactions
intense-personal
Greater personal involvement
Obsessive thoughts and intense feelings
Private obsession and personal connection
borderline-pathological
Uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours
Spending large sum of money on a celebrity related object
Perform some illegal act
Uncontrollable/extreme behaviour
The absorption and addiction model
Worship celebrities -> Deficiencies, Low self-esteem, Lack fulfilment in the everyday relationships
Absorption- Focus their attention as far as possible, become preoccupied/consumed, weaker personal identity
Addiction- More extreme behaviours and delusional thinking, stalking the celebrity, reciprocating the celebrity
attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships
Tendency to form para social relationship relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood
bowlbys Attachment theory- Early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles
Early experience experiences influence later patterns of relationships
Insecure-resistant types more likely to perform parasocial relationships- No risk of rejection
parasocial relationships ao3
strength: Positive correlation between celebrity worship and body image- Anxious/low self-esteem/low satisfaction/body image issues predispose forming parasocial relationships, May develop eating disorders
Research support for levels of parasocial relationships- Predictive validity, mccutcheon et al (2016) Used CAS and assessed participants problems in intimate relationships, Those who scored borderline-pathological or intense-personal tended to experience high degree of anxiety in their relationships, Suggest celebrity worshippers can be classified into three categories
limitation: Causation and correlation- mccutcheon (2016) Used correlational analysis, such studies don't show casual relationships between variables, We cannot conclude their anxiety causes borderline-pathological parasocial involvement, Suggest links between variables, even though they don't demonstrate causes