Relationships Revision - AQA A Level Revision
- 2. Specification • The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, including the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. • Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity. • Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases. • Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships. • Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.
- 3. Evolutionary • Sexual selection – attributes and behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed down. • Human reproductive behaviour – behaviours that increase survival chances of genes. • Anisogamy – difference between male and female gametes. • Intersexual selection – strategies one sex uses to select the other sex. The preference will be for certain qualities of the other sex. • Consequences of making the wrong partner choice is worse or the female since she is investing more. • Research showed 75% of males answer yes to “would you have sex with me” and 0% females. • A male who offers good resources is more attractive as the child will have greater chance of survival. Food and shelter are translated in to money etc now. • Research shows that females pace greater value on resource and males on attractiveness. – Buss • On dating websites, women offer attractiveness and males offer resources. • Runaway process – the idea of natural selection doing natural selection and passing down preferences for these selected traits. • Sexy son hypothesis – women look for male traits that will make a son more likely to give grandchildren as he is more attractive. • Intrasexual selection – strategies between one sex competing. • Males compete for reproductive rights, the bigger the better. • Males show decreased attraction after sex so they don’t spend too much time with one woman, females show the opposite to try and secure a good father. • seek characteristics of youthfulness that suggest fertility. • Baby face hypothesis • Waist-hip ratio • Ignores social and cultural influences (contraception, women providing for themselves)
- 4. Factors affecting attraction – self disclosure • Self disclosure - revealing personal information, more is revealed as the relationship goes on, these strengthen the romantic bond. • Social penetration theory – reciprocal exchange of information (onion analogy), it also indicates trust as it broadens and deepens. There is breadth and depth of the onion. • There is low and high risk information. • Strong positive correlations between relationship satisfaction and levels of self-disclosure. • Only measures heterosexual couples • 57% of homosexuals said that self disclosure mainly maintained their relationship. • Cultural differences – collectivist cultures are much less disclosing • Self disclosure can contribute towards a break down “I don’t think this is working”. (ducks phase model dyadic phase) • Correlation vs causation – could it be satisfaction causing self disclosure? • Application – used in couple therapy to encourage talking about problems.
- 5. Factors affecting attraction – physical attractiveness • Attractive traits are indicators of good health. • Symmetrical faces are rated more attractive as it is an honest signal of genetic fitness. • Baby face hypothesis – the features trigger caring instincts and make us want to form n attachment. • Attractiveness is important even after relationship is formed. • The Halo effect – if someone is physically attractive we make judgements on their personality (kindness). • Were rated more politically knowledgeable – observed in real life. • Governmental effects • Matching hypothesis – choose partners of similar attractiveness. • Meta-analysis shows correlation. • Evidence against – dating websites people go for people above them. • May perceive ourselves incorrectly. • Within culture consistency – shows evolutionary race preference roots. • Physical attractiveness is subjective. • Not everyone considers physical attractiveness as significantly (limitation as doesn't’t work alone). • We may base attractiveness on how people present themselves not how attractive they actually are (makeup, clothing). • Online daters go for partners considered more attractive than them selves.
- 6. Factors affecting attraction – filter theory 1. Social demography – students 10x likely to form friendships with people in their own building. 2. Similarity in attitudes – couples less than 18 months, basic agreement on values. Relationship fades after a few days if no similarities. 3. Complimentary – more important for long term relationships, meet each others needs. • Evidence shows that similarity increases over time. • Evidence that is not always present. • Good face validity – assumes key factors in the relationship change over time which most agree with. • 18 month cut off point? – relationships move at different speeds • Homosexual couples? • Other cultures? • Direction of cause and effect - attitudes come into line as an effect of the relationship. • Temporal validity? – dating someone outside our culture is more available. • Ignores individual differences • Determinism – what about conscious decisions?
- 7. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory • It is an economic theory – maximizing profits (companionship) and minimizing costs (stress). Profitable relationships continue and non-profitable relationships fail. • The theory is more applicable to friendships and business relationships. • Comparison level – a measure of profit. A judgement of the reward level by experiences and social norms. We pursue a relationship when the comparison level is high. • Comparison level for alternatives – considering whether we will gain more from a new relationship. If a potential relationship exceeds our comparison level a new relationship may occur. • Comparison level for alternatives depends on our current relationship, other options are more attractive when costs outweigh rewards, if satisfied we ignore alternatives, as there are always alternatives around. • Comparison levels: • Sampling – explore rewards and costs of relationships. • Bargaining – negotiate costs and rewards. • Commitment – costs reduce and rewards increase and relationship becomes more stable. • Institutionalisation – the costs and rewards norms are established. • Assumes people are inherently selfish. • Cause and effect – we do not consider the profit until we become dissatisfied. • Doesn't consider equity – people are more satisfied when in equitable relationships. • Costs and rewards are judged subjectively and are unquantifiable. • Artificial tasks (game paying + snapshot studies) – more realistic studies have been less supportive.
- 8. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory • Another economic theory that suggests fairness is the key to a good relationship (SET doesn't account for this), both partners levels of profits should be the same. • Inequity leads to dissatisfaction (strong correlation) – an under-benefiting partner may feel anger, and over- benefiting partner may feel guilt. • Inequity doesn't mean inequality, its about ratios. • Equity changes throughout the relationship, at the beginning its natural to give more than you receive. If this continues it may cause dissatisfaction. • Inequity has to be addressed to save the relationship the change could be cognitive or actual. • Revision can lead to abuse being accepted as cruelty is a for your own good. • Research support – more equitable relationships were more satisfied – validity. • Culturally bound - collectivist cultures were more satisfied when over-benefiting. • Individual differences – some partners are happy to contribute more or less (benevolents and entitled). • Theory is more applicable to friendships and business relationships. • Self disclosure is more important on long and lasting relationships. • Study showed that equity doesn't increase with satisfaction.
- 9. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult’s Model – a development of SET • Commitment to a relationship depends on: • Satisfaction level – extent of rewards outweighing costs. • Comparison level with alternatives – judgement if different relationship would increase satisfaction level. • Investment size – resources associated with romantic relationship. • Intrinsic investment – any resources put into the relationship (money, self-disclosure). • Extrinsic investment – investments which previously didn't feature (house, children, memories). • Fails to consider complexity of investments (investing in future plans) • If satisfaction is high, alternatives are less attractive, and investments are increasing then there should be a high commitment level. • Results were true for homosexual couples too – more valid. • Rusbult argued that people stay in relationships because of commitment not satisfaction. They have made an investment they don’t want to waste. • Explains why people stay in abusive relationships. • Relationship maintenance mechanisms 1. Accommodation (promoting the relationship) 2. Willingness to sacrifice 3. Forgiveness 4. Positive illusions 5. Ridiculing alternatives • Based on self report techniques – gets the subjective perceptions of investment. • Correlation vs causation, so we cannot conclude if any factors cause commitment.
- 10. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Duck’s Phase Model • Phases of a breakdown: 1. Intra-psychic phase – becomes dissatisfied so weighs up pros and cons. 2. Dyadic phase – discuss dissatisfaction with the partner. 3. Social phase – seek support and encourage “side-picking” of friends. 4. Grave dressing phase – favourable story is made. • The model is incomplete – a 5th stage was later added where partners use what they have learnt for other relationships. • Unreliable data as interviews are usually conducted after break u not during, so rely on memory and perception. • Focuses on how rather than why the break up occurs. • Much of the research is based on individualist cultures (less voluntary to start or end). • Application to helping reverse the process in therapy.
- 11. Virtual Realtionships • Computer mediated communication may lead to: • Less self disclosure (reduces cues theory)– absence on non-verbal cues lead to de-individuation and bluntness. • There are cues but they are different (emoji's) so may be no differences between ftf and cmc. • More self disclosure (hyperpersonal model) – relationships become more intense quicker so disclosure is easier. • Research support for hyper-honest and hyper-dishonest conversations. • Self disclosure is manipulated – feeling of anonymity makes us less accountable • An advantage of computer mediated communication is the absence of gating (a physical obstacle e.g. unattractiveness, stammer, anxiety). A relationship can develop first. • This can be good as shy people can express themselves etc. • Can be helpful in supporting weaker people – online started relationships survived more than off-line ones. • This can be bad as people could pretend to be people they are not. • Doesn't distinguish between types of cmc – validity • Underestimates complexity of relationships as doesn’t recognize that relationships are usually both on and off-line.
- 12. Para-social relationships • Celebrity attitudes scale: • Entertainment-social – source of entertainment. • Intense-personal – personally involved and has thoughts of them. • Borderline-pathological – behaviour is extreme and fantasies are uncontrollable. • Absorption-addiction model: • Parasocial relationships make up for deficiencies in a life. • Absorption – focus of attention and become absorbed in their life. • Addiction – the individual needs to increase their dose for satisfaction. • Maltby makes correlation between the stages and psychological malfunctioning. • Limited explanatory power as it describes characteristics but not why. • Attachment theory explanation: • Bowlby’s theories of attachment (IWM) • Insecure-resistant are most likely to form para-social relationships to have their unfulfilled needs met. • Insecure-avoidant are less likely to seek any relationship type to avoid pain. • Lacks support – study found that people with insecure attachments were no more likely to form PSRs than securely attached people - has little predictive strength. • Evidence that it is innate – across culture types there are similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter. • Most research uses self report. People may lie, or be influenced by demand characteristics and social desirability.