UNIT 3 – TOPICS IN PSYCHOLOGY:

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:

RELATIONSHIPS

SPECIFICATION:SPECIFICATION CONTENT SPECIFICATION EXPLAINED

THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:

•Theories of the formation, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships: for example, reward/need satisfaction, social exchange theory

Describe and evaluate two theories for each of these three phases of romantic relationships. (it is important to note that formation and maintenance are often examined together in one question, but breakdown tends to be questioned on its own)

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR:

•The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour•Evolutionary explanations of parental investment: for example, sex differences, parent-offspring conflict

•Explain what is meant by sexual selection in the context of human reproductive behaviour•Describe and evaluate this relationship, using research studies relevant to human mating behaviour•Explain what is meant by parental investment and how this is linked to at least two areas of human reproductive behaviour. As sex differences and parental –offspring conflict are given only as examples, you might wish to consider other areas to illustrate parental investment.

EFFECTS OF EARLY EXPERIENCE AND CULTURE ON ADULT RELATIONSHIPS:

•The influence of childhood and adolescent experiences on adult relationships, including parent-child relationships and interaction with peers•The nature of relationships in different cultures

•Describe and evaluate material for different question combinations, i.e. both childhood and adolescent experiences on both parent-child relationships and interaction with peers. (worth noting that parent-child relationships and interaction with peers are preceded by the word ‘including’, which means these can be specifically asked for in an exam question

•Describe and evaluate how relationships differ between cultures. (draw comparisons between Western and Non-Western cultures)

Formation of romantic relationships:how do relationships get started?

• Physical attraction – • What makes someone physically attractive? - architectural factors (facial features,

body shape and size) and dynamic factors (how they dress, talk and facial expressions)

• Similar levels of attractiveness – Murstein (1972) ‘matching hypothesis’ look for someone similar to our level of attractiveness. Less likely to suffer rejection. Studied 99 couples and compared with randomly paired couples. Found that real couples consistently rated as more alike in levels of attractiveness. Silverman (1971) supported findings by rating dating couples in bars. McKillip and Riedel (1993) found pairs of friends also fairly closely matched in levels of physical attractiveness.

• Walster et al (1978) ‘matching hypothesis’• SIMILARITY – • Singh and Ho (2000) shared interests important, differences in attitudes can lead to

dislike• Kendel (1978) similar social background, education and socio-economic class

important. Peplau (1976) found similarity of race, class and religion in dating couples and pairs of friends

Knowledge and understanding:

• Attraction and Similarity

• Outline two key explanations of attraction• Outline a study on attraction• Describe two supporting studies on similarity• How do attraction and similarity relate to reinforcement/need

satisfaction and SET?

Theories of formation, maintenance and breakdown

of romantic relationships • REINFORCEMENT AND NEED SATISFACTION• Conditioning as explanation for relationships• Operant conditioning – reward us directly by meeting

psychological need for love and sex (reinforcement)• Classical conditioning – indirectly become associated with

pleasant circumstances- likely to form a relationship• Associate person with being in good mood or removing

negative mood then we find that person attractive.• Argyle (1994) forming a relationship can satisfy social needs:

biological needs, dependency, affiliation, dominance, aggression, sex, self-esteem

• Used to explain formation of relationships – although can apply to maintenance and breakdown.

Research on reinforcement and need satisfaction theories

• Cunningham (1988) studied males who watched happy or sad films and then interacted with a female. More positive interaction came from those watching happy film

• May and Hamilton (1980) females rate photos of males, while nice or unpleasant music played – nice music rated males as more attractive

• Griffitt and Veitch (1969) found evaluations of a stranger were positive when the evaluation was made in a comfortable surrounding.

• Relationships provide different types of rewards- Clark and Mills (1979) ‘exchange relationship’ – less reciprocal way and ‘communal couples’ rewards given as desire to please than the desire for payback.

Evaluations of reinforcement and need satisfaction theories

• Lab based research – lacks ecological validity – no reflection of real relationships. Caspi and Herbener (1990) conducted on real life couples and have supported the claims

• Reductionist – seeing rewards and need satisfaction as being involved in relationship formation and neglecting other factors

• Deterministic and oversimplified – seeing relationship formation as unconscious process based on learned associations and not allowing for free-will and cognitive processing

• Many non-western cultures do not have regard for receiving rewards. Lott (1994) in western societies socialised into being attentive to the needs of others such as husbands and children

• Does not account for gender differences – women often focus on needs of others and males and females find different things rewarding, suggesting that the explanation is oversimplified.

• Aron et al (2005) brain reward system associated with romantic love evolved to drive out ancestors to focus their courtship energy on specific individuals. Love at first sight, is a basic mammalian response that our ancestors inherited to speed up the mating process.

• Cate et al (1982) asked 337 individuals to assess their current relationships in terms of reward level and satisfaction. Results shoed that reward level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction. Only explores receiving of rewards, Hays (1985) found that we gain satisfaction from giving as well as receiving

• Lehr and Geher (2006) studied 24 male and 32 female students to test the importance of attitude similarity and reciprocal attraction in liking (it is rewarding) –Pp given a description of a stranger. Inserted in the passage was a similarity to the Pp but also a statement that the stranger liked or did not like the pp. The DV included measures of liking for the bogus stranger. Found that similar people liked more and liking was more likely to be reciprocated.

Knowledge and understanding:• Which approach suggested the reinforcement

explanation?• How does operant conditioning and Classical

conditioning explain the formation of relationships?

• What is need satisfaction? And how does it aid formation of relationships?

• How can the need satisfaction and reinforcement theory apply to maintenance and breakdown of relationships?

• Outline two studies that support and two studies that oppose the theory

• Summarise 6 evaluative points about the theory.

Formation of relationshipsFilter model

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) relationships develop through three filters – different factors are important at different times. called the ‘field of availables’ – the possible people we could have relationships with. we filter out potential partners for different reasons at different times, so field of availables is gradually narrowed down to small field of desirables. (potential partners)

longitudinal study of student couples been together for more or less than 18m. Asked to complete several questionnaires over 7month period (had to report on attitude similarity and personality trait with partner. Found that attitudes similarly was key factor up to 18m. Then after psychological compatibility and ability to meet each others needs became important. = supporting the model.EVALUATION:-Useful way of thinking about the factors that influence the development of a r’ship. A factor sucha as similar attitudes may assume less relevance later on in the same relationship-Emphasises importance of demographic factors and similarity of attitudes as filters. Sprecher (1998) found couples who matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop long term r’shiprs.-Longitudinal study of couples over 21 years found that those who were similar in educational level and age at start of their r’ship were more likely to stay together. They also became similar in attitudes as time went on (Gruber-Baldini et al,1995)-The stages fail to capture the dynamics and fluency of the nature of relationships, in real life, r’ships flow seamlessly and some may develop faster or slower than what the filter model suggests.

First filter: social /demographic - similar, live in same area, education similar, social class similarSecond filter: similarity of attitudes and values – share ideas, beliefs, communication easy. Any different attitudes are filtered outThird filter: complementary of emotional needs – r’ship established and how well they fit together as a couple and meet each others needs

Formation of relationshipsFilter model

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) called the ‘field of availables’ – we filter out potential partners for different reasons at different times, so field of availables is gradually narrowed down to small field of desirables. (potential partners)

longitudinal study of student couples been together for more or less than 18m. Asked to complete several questionnaires over 7month period (had to report on attitude similarity and personality trait with partner. Found that attitudes similarly was key factor up to 18m. Then after psychological compatibility and ability to meet each others needs became important. = supporting the model.EVALUATION:-Useful way of thinking about the factors that influence the development of a r’ship. A factor such as similar attitudes may assume less relevance later on in the same relationship.-Emphasises importance of demographic factors and similarity of attitudes as filters. Sprecher (1998) found couples who matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop long term r’shiprs.-Longitudinal study of couples over 21 years found that those who were similar in educational level and age at start of their r’ship were more likely to stay together. They also became similar in attitudes as time went on (Gruber-Baldini et al,1995)-The stages fail to capture the dynamics and fluency of the nature of relationships, in real life, r’ships flow seamlessly and some may develop faster or slower than what the filter model suggests.

First filter: social /demographic -

Second filter: similarity of attitudes and values –

Third filter: complementary of emotional needs –

THEORIES OF FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND BREAKDOWN : economic theory 1SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

• Theory is used to explain maintenance of r’ships – (can also explain formation and breakdown)

• Why do we choose to stay in the relationship or leave it?• Proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959)• Explains r’ships in terms of maximising benefits and minimising costs. • Benefits include rewards/need satisfaction (love, money, status). Costs include time

and effort to maintain r’ship and financial considerations• If both partners feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, then r’ship maintained.• Assumes that people want to maximise benefits of r’ship, while minimising costs. • Person assesses rewards by making two comparisons:• 1. COMPARISON LEVEL (CL): compare r’ship with what we expect from a r’ship on

basis of our previous experience, our view of what r’ship should be like and what we expect to gain from them

• 2. COMPARISON LEVEL ALTERNATIVE (CL ALT): make comparisons with what an alternative relationship may offer

• R’ships are dynamic and comparisons are continuous process. Might change as you go through your r’ship.

• R’ship maintained if rewards exceed costs and profit level is not exceeded by an alternative r’ship.

THEORIES OF FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND BREAKDOWN : economic theory 1SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

• Proposed a 4-stage model. Setting out how r’ships could be maintained, over time people develop a predictable and mutually beneficial pattern of exchanges

STAGE DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING Rewards and costs assessed in number of r’ships

BARGANING R’ship costed out and sources of profit and loss identified

COMMITMENT R’ship established and maintained by predictable exchange of rewards

INSTITUTIONALISATION Interactions established and couple settled down

•RESEARCH: •RUSBULT (1983) pp complete q’naire over 7-m concerning rewards and costs associated with r’ships. Found SET did not explain early ‘honeymoon’ phase of r’ship, balance of exchanges ignored. Later on costs compared to personal satisfaction – theory is relevant to maintenance of r’ships•Rusbult (1983) cost and reward compared to cost and rewards of potential alternative r’ships to decide if it should be maintained = supporting SET•Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited. Under-benefited felt angry and deprived and over-benefitted felt guilt. Supports SET but suggests regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they may not desire to maintain a r’ship.

Evaluation of SET• Argyle (1988) criticised methodologies to evaluate SET – as

artificial and little relevance to real life• Research concentrated on short-term consequences rather

than long-term maintenance• Applies to people who keep scores. Murstein (1977)

identified score keepers. They were suspicious and insecure, suggesting the theory only suits r’ships lacking confidence and mutual trust.

Equity theory• R’ships should be fair• Walster (1978)• Couples keep eye on what putting in and getting out. • Inequity leads to problems• Long term r’ships motivated to repair r;ships• Yum et al (2009)• Canary and Stafford (1992)• Van Yperen and Buunk (1990)• EVALUATION:• Horschchild and Machung (1989)• Sprecher (1986)• Mills and Clark (1982)• Moghaddam et al (1993)

Breakdown (dissolution) of relationships

• REASONS:• 1. Lack of skills – Duck (1991)• 2. Lack of stimulation – Baxter (1994)• 3. Maintenance difficulties – Shaver et al

(1995)• Evaluations:• - Extramarital affairs: Boekhout et al (1999)• - Maintenance difficulties: Rohlfing (1995),

Holt and Stone (1988)• - Gender differences

Breakdown (dissolution) of relationships• REASONS:• 1. Lack of skills – Duck (1991) individuals lacking in social skills may be poor at conversation,

poor at indicating interest in other person and unrewarding in their interactions. Others may perceive them as not being interested in relating, so relationship breaks down before it really gets going.

• 2. Lack of stimulation – Baxter (1994) according to SET we look for rewards in our r’ships. Lack of stimulation such as boredom or belief that r’ship not going anywhere is quoted when r’ship breaks down. People expect r’ship to change and develop and when they don’t – justifies end and begin new one (i.e. have an affair)

• 3. Maintenance difficulties – Shaver et al (1995) r’ship may become strained if partners cannot see each other enough

• Evaluations:• - Extramarital affairs: Boekhout et al (1999) a direct reaction to the perceived lack of skills and

or stimulation in current r’ships. Undergraduates asked to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed r’ship. PP judged sexual reasons (e.g. sexual excitement, boredom, variety) likely to be used by men whereas for women, lack of attention, lack of commitment, emotional satisfaction reasons for infidelity.

• - Maintenance difficulties: Rohlfing (1995)LDRR and LDF (long distance romantic r’ship / friendships more common. Found 90% students experienced LF and 70% LDRR, Holt and Stone (1988) little decrease in r’ship satisfaction as long as lovers are able to reunite regularly. We live in a mobile society and have now got management strategies in place

• - Gender differences:Brehm and Kassin (1996) women more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, Men upset by sexual withholding. Women desire to stay friends after r’ship breaks whereas men cut losses and move on. Akert, 1998.

Knowledge and Understanding:

• What are the main reasons for r’ship breakdown? Include relevant research studies

• i.e. reasons / models / theory

A model of breakdown – Rollie and Duck, 2006

• Processes that typify relationship breakdown rather than phases that people pass.

• Processes may overlap• PERSONAL: first realisation could be

inequitable relationships.• GOING PUBLIC: justifying to others• ---------------------------------------

• Commentary:• Tashiro and Frazier (2003) undergrads who

had recently broken up with romantic partner – reported emotional distress and personal growth. Supported grave dressing and resurrection processes.

• Rollie and Duck stress importance of communication in r’ship breakdown.

• Paying attention to the things people say, topics they discuss and ways they talk about their r’ship gives insight into their stage and suggests interventions for that stage.

• If r’ship in intrapsychic stage then repair might be re-establishing liking.

BREAKDOWN

INTRAPSYCHIC PROCESSES

DYADIC PROCESSES

SOCIAL PROCESSES

GRAVE-DRESSING PROCESSES

RESURRECTION PROCESSES

Model of breakdown: Lee’s five stage theory

• Lee (1984) proposed 5 stage model of relationship dissolution –

• Dissolution a process occurring over time, rather than a single event

• Lee created theory after conducted a survey of 112 break ups of non-marital romantic r’ships, finding that the negotiation and exposure stage were most distressing and emotionally exhausting. Less intimate r’ships went straight to termination. Those who went through lengthy fashion felt attracted to their former partner after termination and experienced greater feelings of loss and loneliness.

• Argyle and Henderson (1984) asked pp to consider whether rule violations were to blame for personal r’ship breakdowns and found jealously, lack of tolerance, public criticism most critical. Lee’s explanation not complete as does not account for these factors

• EVALUATION:

Stage of dissolution

Description

DISSASTIFACTION Individual becomes dissatisfied with r’ship

EXPOSURE Dissatisfaction revealed to ones’ partner

NEGOTIATION Discussion occurs over the nature of the dissatisfaction

RESOLUTION Attempts are made to resolve the dissatisfaction

TERMINATION If dissatisfaction is not resolved, the r’ship ends

Knowledge and understanding

• Compare and contrast Duck and Lee’s model of r’ship breakdown

• List three studies of support and three studies that argue against the models

• AN EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN

• Read the handout and make 10 key points • Identify AO1 and AO2

• Include research studies.• You should be able to discuss how the

theory explains the dissolution of relationships.

Knowledge and Understanding: revision

• Create a mind-map of the dissolution of breakdown.

• Must include AO1 and AO2 and relevant research studies.

REVISION:• Theories of formation, maintenance and

breakdown of romantic relationships:

• On an A3 sheet of paper – map out each theory (include studies and evaluations) and draw links to formation, maintenance and breakdown.

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR

• The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour

• Evolutionary explanations of parental investment e.g. Sex differences, parent offspring conflict

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR

EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OFPHYSICAL ATTRACTION:

• Cunningham (1986) investigated the Type of female faces found attractive by males- Varied the size of female facial features – found- -Waynforth (2005) masculine features..... .. Supported by Bruce and Young (1998) preference of

symmetrical faces for both men and women.- Langlois et al (2000)- Singh (1993) investigated body shape

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR: TEACHER NOTES

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR

EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OFPHYSICAL ATTRACTION:

• Cunningham (1986) investigated the what types of female faces are found attractive by males. He varied the size of female facial features including eyes, nose & mouth and found that men were most attracted to features usually associated with young children – large eyes, small noses and chins. Some features associated with maturity such as prominent cheekbones and narrow cheeks were also found attractive as were dilated pupils and wide smiles.

- -Waynforth (2005) masculine features including square jaw, ridged eyebrows, small eyes and symmetrical face were preferred by women especially those seeking short term r’ship. Supported by Bruce and Young (1998) preference of symmetrical faces for both men and women.

- Langlois et al (2000) carried out meta analysis of 919 studies into PA found agreement within cultures as who attractive and who not. Some agreement between cultures. Langlois et al found preference for attractive faces is shown in very early childhood and emerged strongly by time child is 26m old.

- Singh (1993) investigated body shape across cultures. Body ratio’s i.e. Female waist-hip ratio of 0.7 (hour-glass shape more preferred). Males WHR preferred of 0.85 which is wide shoulders and narrow hips.

The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour

• Darwin suggested that species evolve through ‘sexual selection’ – a view that competition for mates between individuals of the same sex affects the evolution of certain traits

• Idea of natural selection was that animals should end up with physical and behavioural characteristics that allow them to perform well in competition with their rivals

• The peacock tail does not help it fly any faster or better. The elaborate plumage makes him more conspicuous to predators? However, the Peahen is attracted to the bigger plumage. Therefore, it is female choice and certain features are what make them attractive to members of opposite sex

The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour

• Males produce a lot of small, high mobile sperm and can fertilise many females at little cost to reproductive potential.

• They cannot be sure of paternity so, natural selection favours male behaviours maximising number of potential pregnancies

• This results in ‘intrasexual’ competition between males and polygamy – a mating pattern in which one individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex. Males seek females displaying signs of fertility such as health, youth and childbearing hips

• A female produces few large eggs. Each one representing a sizeable reproductive investment. Natural selection favours female behaviours maximising changes of each potential reproduction being successful, i.e. Mate selection, monogamy and high parental investment. Females seek males displaying genetic fitness, such as strength, status and resources. Females indulge in ‘intersexual’ competition – choose males who are available

Qualities sought in personal dating advertsMALE:I'll love to turn you on Age 29 Relationship Status Single Hometown Oxford

• I'm 28, medium build, brown hair. Enjoy keeping myself fit at the gym, I like playing my guitar and socalizing where the fit takes me. I'm open minded and looking for new interests to try.

• -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• FEMALE:• Adjectives to describe me - bright & aware, witty, cheeky, sensitive, thoughtful, kind and trustworthy. I am shy but

outgoing when I need to be, which in this world is most of the time! ( my friends would think this statement highly amusing!). I don't follow fashion but am stylish in a sometimes quirky way and sometimes just very classical. I would know how to dress for any occasion and wouldn't embarrass you although I can't promise not to drag you around a few shops! Someone once said to me that I was like the cherry on top of their cake - making his world complete...I would prefer to be half the cake mixture. I am looking for a partner but we will only know when we meet whether there is any chemistry to take it past friendship. Looking for someone who is warm, amusing, perceptive, calm and thoughtful. You like to take pride in your appearance. Tall and dark is a bonus!

• -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• MALE:

Hi I am a very friendly and easy going sort of person, who appreciates people with a good outlook on life. I am having good times and would like to share with someone special. I enjoy travelling, eating out and watching films with a good bottle of wine.

• -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• FEMALE:• I am outgoing, very attractive and young at heart. I like to have lots of fun and get along with all people from all

walks of life. I enjoy meeting new people. I am looking for a partner that will amuse me, look after me. Someone who is ambitious and values their work. I would like to meet someone who wants to build a home but at the same time get out and about without being stuck in the routines of life. Come and join me for some good food – I enjoy cooking and I am good. Just want to meet someone who will value me and be able to show me the good qualities of life.

•

•

•

PARTNER SELECTION:• Partner preferences examined by looking at qualities sought

in personal adverts or dating websites.• Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) personal adverts• Buss (1989) tested pp from 37 cultures• Davis (1990) content analysis• Singh (1993) males preference• Clark and Hatfield (1989) males more promiscuous• Boone (1986) females prefer older males• Penton-Voak et al (2001) facial symmetry• Bailey and Zucker (1995) partner preference for homosexual people

(fill in the information on the worksheet)

DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR

MALE STRATEGIES FEMALE STRATEGIES

•Courtship rituals – Miller (1997)•Size•Sperm competition•Jealousy – Buss (1993)•Sneak copulation- Cerda-Flores (1999)

•The sexy sons hypothesis•The handicap hypothesis-Zahavi (1975)

evaluations• Partridge (1980) females can improve reproductive

success of their children by selecting good genes in their partners

• Can’t generalise findings of animal studies on to humans

• Evidence from animal kingdom of sperm competition. Dewsbury (1984) rats mating system

• Evolution explains male and female behaviour in terms related to maximising reproductive potential. Same behaviours can be explained in other ways i.e. female choosiness and male promiscuity by gender role socialisation

Exam style question:• Critically consider the relationship

between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour (25 marks)

• You will only have 30 minutes to answer this question in the exam.

Evolutionary Explanations of Parental investment: ‘any investment by the parent in an individual offspring that increases the offspring chance of surviving

(reproductive success) at the cost of parents ability to invest in other offspring’

SEX DIFFERENCES• Males investment smaller than females• Male can’t be sure of paternity and uses best strategy to

impregnate as many females as possible• Female investment is larger – bears the cost of pregnancy

and indulge in behaviours increasing the survival chances of her children

• OTHER EXPLANATIONS OF PARENTAL INVESTMENT:• Paternal certainty• Order of gamete release• Monogamy• Parental certainty• RESEARCH:• Gross and Shine (1981)• Krebs and Davies (1981)• Brase (2006)• EVALUATION:

Evolutionary Explanations of parental investment

Parent-offspring conflict• The behaviour of offspring can influence parental

investment. • Parents have equal investment in all offspring. • The amount invested decreases as more are born and

as individual gets older and can fend for itself• Individual offspring will try to get parents to invest

more in them at the expense of other offspring – creating sibling rivalry

• Parent-offspring rivalry can occur before birth with a mother experiencing high BP due to foetus secreting hormones to gain more nutrition

• Children use various strategies to manipulate parents into allocating resources i.e. Smiling, crying and regression. Acted as solitary or at expense of siblings needs

• Older parents will tolerate demand of young infants as they are not having any more children – centre around existing ones.

Parental-offspring conflict:

• RESEARCH STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS

• READ THE HANDOUTS AND SUM UP THE KEY STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS

EFFECTS OF EARLY EXPERIENCE & CULTURE ON ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

• THE INFLUENCE OF CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENT EXPERIENCES ON ADULT RELATIONSHIPS, INCLUDING PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIPS & INTERACTION WITH PEERS

• THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES

Influence of early childhood and adolescents on adult relationships

• CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES:Parent-child relationships

• Bowlby (1969) argued that early relationships with our primary caregivers provide the basis for later adult relationships – ‘continuity hypothesis’

• According to attachment theory, young children develop an internal working model from their first relationship with their primary carer.

• Consists of view that they are loveable, or people not to be trusted• Ainsworth and Bell (1971) strange situation (type A, B,C)• Hazan and Shaver (1987) love quiz – early attachment patterns affect adult romantic

relationships: securely attached had happy, lasting relationships in adulthood• Simpson et al (2007) longitudinal study on individuals from childhood into their 20’s. securely

attached were more socially competent, developed secure friendships and had more positive emotional experiences

• McCarthy (1999) women who had insecure-avoidant att. Did not have successful later romantic relationships. Insecure-av had poor friendships.

EVALUATIONS:• Steele et al (1998) contradicted the continuity hypothesis• Attachment types do not appear to be fixed. Hamilton (1994)• Rutter et al (1999)• Levitt (1991)• Temperament hypothesis• Causal link

Influence of early childhood and adolescents on adult relationships

• CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES:Interaction with peers

• Qualter and Munn (2005) children learn from their experiences with other children• Nangle et al (2003) close friendships training ground for important adult relationships• Peer r’ships are horizontal r’ships - individuals of equal status RESEARCH STUDIES:• Hartup (1993) popular children with many friends were socially able at forming

r’ships• Bagwell et al (1996) poor-quality friendships linked with low self-esteem• Connelly and Goldberg (1999) level of intimacy in peer relationships laid the

foundation for the degree of intimacy in young adult relationships EVALUATION:• Hartup (1993) difficult to calculate the impact of children’s peer r'ships on adult

r’ships – need to take into account who friends are and the quality of f’ship• Wood et al (2002) subtle but important difference between way individs relate to one

another (because of their attachment type) and interaction of two different attachment styles

• Furman (1999) altruism• Leaper (1994) Gender differences

Influence of early childhood and adolescents on adult relationships

• ADOLESCENT EXPERIENCES:• Parent-child relationships

• Lerner and Sternberg (2004)• Eriksons (1968) theory of psychosocial development• Post-divorce parental relationships• Mother-daughter relationships• Father-son relationships

• Interaction with peers• Frey and Rothlisberger (1996)• Blos (1967)• Peers become attachment figures who provide a secure base for independent

exploration in the adult world

• Evaluations• Research evidence • Negative side of adolescent r’ships

The nature of relationships in different cultures

• Individualistic cultures• Collectivist cultures

marriage divorce

Individualisticcultures

Collectivistcultures

The nature of relationships in different cultures

Arranged marriages• Iwao (1993) one in four marriages in Japan was arranged• Batabayal (2001) – processes involved in arranged marriages

• Arranged marriages in collectivist cultures: - Umadevi et al (1992)- Gupta and Singh (1982)- However, Xioahe and Whytle (1990)

• Arranged marriages in individualistic cultures:- Zaidi and Shuraydi (2002) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jankowiak et al (1992) found evidence of romantic love across cultures – - Marrying for love: Levine et al (1995) collectivist cultures (Thailand, India and

Pakistan) – students willing to compromise and marry someone they did not love

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• EVALUATIONS:

Issue of divorce• Stigma attached. Betzig (1989)• Huang (2005): rapid urbanization,

education/employment, loosening of social control over marriage, increased leniency in divorce laws, importance of romantic love, growth of individualism.

• EVALUATIONS: