Relationships – Topic 5 (psychology)

Sexual selectionDifferences in mate selection are due to biological

differences between genders. ◦ Anisogamy – female sex cells require more energy to

produce, aren’t produced as frequently and only produced in a certain time frame.

Male sex cells are produced in large quantities, relatively easy to produce with very little effort. ◦ This means that there is no shortage of fertile males, women

are a resource. Research support – Buss – surveyed 10000 adults in 33 countries. He asked questions related to attributes the evolutionary theory would predict as attractive.

◦ Females placed emphasis on resource related characteristics e.g. financial prospects.

◦ Males valued reproductive capacity e.g. youth, good looks.

Inter-sexual selection Preferred strategy of females – quality over quantity. Trivers – women make greater investments of time,

commitment and resources before, during and after a child is born.

This means that she has more to lose if she has picked a bad mate. Therefore, it is in her interest to be choosey about who she mates with.

A females best strategy is to pick a genetically fit male who is able and is willing to provide resources.

Runway process – women choose males on a particular characteristic such as height, creating offspring who are tall. This also will produce daughters who will pick tall mates.

Sexy sons hypothesis – tall gene is passed on through generations, making males more attractive to potential mates.

Research support – Clarke & Hatfield – male and female university students went out on campus asking questions such as ‘I find you very attractive, would you go to bed with me tonight?’

◦ 100% of females said no.◦ 75% of males said yes

Intra-sexual selectionThe preferred strategy of the male – quantity.Competition between other males for the opportunity to

mate. The winner of the competition is able to pass his successful genes down.

Psychological consequence - males may benefit from having personality types such as aggression and one track mind as it allows them to fight of competition and protect their mates.

Anisogamy dictates that males should want to mate with as many women as possible due to the ease of producing sperm and the lack of responsibility males have after mating.

Behavioural consequence – males prefer women with signs of fertility e.g. youth and body shapes.

Supporting evidence – Singh – waist-to-hip ratio. Males are more attracted to women with an hourglass figure where the hip to waist ratio is 0.7.

Evaluating the evolutionary theory

Ignores social and cultural influences◦ Bereczkei – more women in the workplace has meant that females

preferences for a mate don’t revolve around the need for resources. ◦ Chang – mate preferences changed in china corresponding with major social

changes. Is sexual selection theory sexist? It assumes that all males are likely

to abandon their children after mating. Does the theory explain anything about same sex couples? David & Dunbar - Lonely hearts advertisement, males offered

resource based attributes and searched for attractiveness and youth, women searched for resources and offered physical attractiveness.

Application/issues - Levinger - For example, research suggests that women value resources more in cultures where their status and educational opportunities are limited. (NATURE VS NERTURE)

The theory is too deterministic, assuming that all males search for attractiveness and all women look for resources. (DETERMINISM)

Self Disclosure Revealing personal information about yourself.

Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops.

Social penetration theory – Altman & Taylor – the gradual process of revealing your inner-self to someone. It involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners. Revealing information creates trust and greater understanding of each other.

Research support – Sprecher & Hendrick – in heterosexual dating couples, a strong correlation was found between levels and perception of disclosure and both satisfaction and intimacy.

Breadth and Depth & ReciprocityAs breadth and depth increase, romantic partners become

more committed to each other. At the beginning of the relationship we disclose superficial

information that we hope the other person will like. We slowly divulge more information about ourselves and

discover more topics that were off limits. Eventually we are ready to reveal ‘high risk’ information such as memories and painful experiences.

Reciprocity of self disclosure - Reis & Shaver – for a relationship to develop there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure. We hope our partner responds to disclosure with understanding, empathy and their own intimate thoughts. This increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship.Laurenceau – daily diary entries found that disclosure and the perception of disclosure were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term couples. Less intimate couples were those who disclosed less often.

Evaluation of DisclosureReal life applications – couples may use disclosure to

improve their communication. Romantic partners can skilfully use disclosure to increase intimacy. Hass & Stafford – 57% of gay men and women said that open and honest disclosure was their main way of deepening commitment.

Cultural differences – Tang – couples in the US disclosed more regarding sexual feelings, fantasies and experiences in comparison to couples in China. However, neither experienced more satisfaction than the other.

Self disclosure and satisfaction – couples often use disclosure as a way of preventing breakups. Conversations are often deep and involve intimate information yet this may not be enough to save the relationship. It may even contribute to the breakup.

Correlations vs causations

Factors affecting attraction : physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness is important in forming relationships. Shackleford & Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive. This is because it may be a signal of genetic fitness. People are also attracted to faces with neotenous features such as widely separated eyes, delicate chin and a small nose, as these trigger a caring reflex in males.

The halo effect – attractiveness may also be a matter of stereotypical personality traits attractive people must have.

Dion – attractive people are viewed as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. These stereotypes make attractive people more attractive.

Matching hypothesis – we all desire physical attractiveness, however, our common sense tells us that we cant all form relationships with the most attractive people.

People chose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness. To do this we make a judgment about our own value to a partner.

Our choice of partner becomes a compromise, to avoid rejection.

Evaluating physical attractiveness

Research support for the halo effect Palmer & Peterson – physically attractive people were rated as more politically savvy, despite participants having no expertise in politics.

◦ real life application – people tend to vote for politicians who are more attractive due to the halo effect.

Kim – Korean American students judged attractive individuals as more trustworthy, mature and friendly. Research support for the matching hypothesis – Feingold – meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.

◦ Used actual romantic partners which increases the validity. Taylor – online dating, people chose partners who are more attractive than themselves. Individual differences Towhey – people who scored highly on the MACHO scale (measure of sexism) were more influenced by physical attractiveness. Real life application – online dating; attractiveness has become the

most important factor in choosing a partner online.

Filter TheoryKerckhoff & Davis – in terms of partner choice we all have a

field of available partners, the entire set of potential partners have to be put through filters to narrow down our range.

Social demography (1st filter) – influences the chance of meeting your partner in the first place. They include proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion etc. Homogamy – likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar.

Similarities in attitudes (2nd filter) – sharing important beliefs and values. There is a need for partners to agree on basic values and things that matter to them in the beginning of a relationship as it promotes self disclosure. Law of attraction – similarity is the fundamental of attraction.

Complimentary (3rd level) – two partners compliment each other when they have characteristics the other lacks. This was important in long term couples. It is attractive because it gives the partners the feeling that they form a whole.

Evaluating filter theory Supporting research evidence Filter theory assumes that key factors in a relationship change over time, which is agreeable. Therefore, the theory has face validity. Winch – found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical at the earliest stages of a relationship. Failure to replicateLevinger – studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. This is due to social changes which change the definition of what depth in a relationship means e.g. 18 months is the length of a LT relationship, assuming that the couples are more committed and their relationships are deeper. Direction of cause and effectAnderson – in a longitudinal study that cohabiting couples became more similar in their emotional responses over time. Davis and Rusbult – attitude alignment – romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other. Lack of temporal validity – online relationships have reduced the importance

of some social demographic. Gruber-Baldini – carried out a longitudinal study of married couples, they found

that the similarities between spouses in tern of intellectual abilities and attitudinal flexibility increased over a 14 year period.

Social Exchange Theory – Thibault & Kelley Rewards, costs and profits Behaviour in a relationship reflects the economic assumptions of exchange. We try to minimise losses and maximise gains. We judge our relationships in terms of the profit it yields. Our perceived rewards are subjective meaning that our partners may not share the same costs and benefits. Likewise, our rewards change over time, what is seen as a reward or a cost may become less so later on. Blau – relationships are costly, even to the extent where you aren't able to invest your time, energy and money elsewhere.

Costs Benefits Rewards Time Love AffectionMoney Happiness FamilyEnergy Memories

madeDinner at a nice restaurant

Compromise Security Companionship

Comparison level – the amount of rewards you believe you deserve to get.

It develops out of experiences in past relationships that feeds into our expectations of our current one. It is also influenced by social norms that are reflected in the media, books, magazines etc. Our comparison level changes with the more relationships we have. Somebody with a low self-esteem will have a low comparison level and so will be satisfied with very little rewards. Comparison level of alternatives – comparing whether we would receive greater benefits and fewer costs from another relationship. “Could I do better?” Duck - if costs outweigh the rewards in our current relationship alternatives become more attractive. In a satisfying relationship we do not recognise alternatives. Stages of relationship development: 1.Sampling stage – we explore the costs and rewards by experimenting with them. 2.Bargaining stage – beginning of the relationship where partners begin to exchange costs and rewards, negotiating what is most profitable.3.Commitment stage – costs and rewards become more predictable and costs lessen. 4.Institutionalisation stage –partners are now settled as the norms are established.

Evaluating Social Exchange Theory Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

Clarke & Mills argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. They suggest that exchange relationships (work colleagues) use SET but communal relationships between romantic partners are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score. The business metaphor to explain relationships is too reductionist. Direction of cause and effect Argyle – we do not measure our costs and rewards until we are dissatisfied with the relationship. We do not constantly consider alternatives. Miller – people who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people. People in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternativesIgnores equity (costs and rewards are perceived to be distributed fairly)Equity is an important factor in relationship satisfaction, SET ignores equity. Measuring SET concepts Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in order to measure them. Costs and rewards are difficult to define because they differ between individuals .It is unsure what values must come before we consider alternatives. Artificial research Participants are usually placed in an unrealistic scenario with a stranger for a partner. Studies using real couples have been less supportive of SET. Studies are often snapshots of life making it un-generalisable to every-day life. This doesn't paint a valid picture of real life couples.

Equity Theory - Walster Main criticism of social exchange theory. What matters most with equity is that partners’ level of profit is roughly

the same. This is not the same as equality where levels of costs and rewards have to be the same. Where there is a lack of equity, one person overbenifits and one underbenifits. This causes dissatisfaction and unhappiness, especially for the one who is receiving less.

It is not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters its the ratio of the two to each other. If a partner puts a lot of effort into the relationship and gets a lot out of it then that is fair.

Problems evolve when a partner puts great effort into the relationship but receives little from it, they will become distressed. The greater the perceived inequality the greater the dissatisfaction.

What makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the levels of perceived equity as time goes on.

Behavioural changes - the put-upon partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible. The more unequal the relationship the harder they have to work.

Cognitive changes will happen where the partner will re-evaluate the costs and rewards to establish new norms that are equitable.

Evaluating Equity Theory Utne – survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with

two self-report scales. The husbands and wives had been together for 2+ years. Couples who found their relationship to be more equitable were more satisfied than those who overbenifited and underbenifited.

Ryan – there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. Couples from an individualist culture considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable. Couples from a collectivist culture were satisfied with overbenifiting. This was true for men and women.

Huesman – some people are less sensitive to equity. ◦ Benevolents – prepared to contribute more towards the relationship than they

get out of it. ◦ Entitleds – believe they deserve to be overbenifiting without feeling distressed or

guilty. Clarke & Mills – it is important to distinguish between types of

relationship. Equity is more important in work colleagues and acquaintances but research is less supportive in romantic couples.

Berg & McQuinn – equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples

Rusbult’s Investment Model Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives Satisfaction = more rewards, few costsAlternatives to our relationship when dissatisfiedInvestment size – third factor influencing commitment. Investment refers to the extent and importance of the resource associated with the relationship. An investment is therefore something we would lose if the relationship ended. Intrinsic investments – resourced put directly into the resource e.g. time, money, emotion Extrinsic investments – resources not closely associated with the relationship e.g. possessionsSatisfaction VS commitment The main psychological factor that causes people to stay together is commitment not satisfaction. This is important as it can explain why dissatisfied partners stay together. They have made investments that they don’t want to see go to waste. Relationship maintenance mechanisms: accommodation, willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness (behavioural) & positive illusions, ridiculing alternatives (cognitive)

Evaluating RIM Le & Agnew – meta-analysis of 52 studies between 1970-99 which

included 11,000 participants across 5 countries. Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size were all predictors if relationship commitment. More committed couples had longer lasting relationships. ◦ This suggests Rusbult’s theory had validity as the study found the outcomes were

the same for both men and women, hetero/homosexual relationships and across all cultures.

Explains abusive relationships – Rusbult & Martz – Battered women, women suffering from domestic violence, were likely to return to their partners due to great investment levels and few attractive alternatives. Therefore, satisfaction isn't the most important factor.

Goodfriend & Rusbult – making future plans was also an important factor in new relationships, partners invest in making the goals happen.

The original model is very limited at explaining the complexity of investment including how planning for the future influences commitment.

Much of the research conducted uses self-report techniques which are a questionable method to use due to the lack of objectivity when analysing them and memory effect.

Based on correlation research,

Duck’s Phase Model – Relationship Breakdown

Intra-psychic phase – partner broods on the reasons for their dissatisfaction, focusing mainly on their partner’s shortcomings. They begin to weight the costs and benefits.

Dyadic phase – interpersonal phase where the partner comes clean about their problems. There may be heavy arguing which results in a definitive strive to end the relationship or repair it.

Social phase – the break up is made public. Gossip is traded and encouraged, friends will provide reassurance. This is the definitive stage.

Grave-dressing stage – once the relationship is dead, the time comes to bury it, by spinning a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption. This allows a partner to save face at the expense of the other. Partners will blame the other for all the misfortunes. Privately a partner will try to come up with a story they are happy with, by drawing upon their partners traits much more negatively.

Evaluating Duck’s Model Rollie & Duck – the model is oversimplifiedA stage is added following grave-dressing, the resurrection stage. This is when ex-partners turn to future relationships using the experience gained from the previous one. Progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable, during earlier phases it is possible to prevent breakdown. Therefore, the model does not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups with their inherent uncertainty and complexity. Methodological issues – Most research is retrospective, couples have given their accounts some time after the break-up. This means their recall may not be reliable. It is hard to study the early phases of a relationship as researcher involvement may make the situation worse resulting in the break-up. Real life applications - The model is useful because it recognises that different

repair strategies are more effective at particular points in a breakdown. E.g. focusing on communication during the dyadic phase.

Description rather than explanation – why do breakdowns occur? Flemlee – fatal attraction hypothesis – getting too much of what you were looking for e.g. sense of humour becomes ‘cant take anything seriously’.

Cultural bias – Moghaddam – relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and come to an end easily, whereas collectivist cultures are likely to be obligatory, less easy to end and in some case arranged without involvement.

Cont. Tashiro and Frazier - surveyed undergraduates who had

recently broken up with a romantic partner. They typically reported that they had not only experienced personal distress, but emotional growth. These students reported that breaking up with their partner had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. 

Gender differencesWomen are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by 'sexual withholding'. Women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship, whereas men want to 'cut their losses' and move on.Ethical issues in breakdown researchCarrying out research in this sensitive area raises many particular issues of vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality. Ultimately, the researcher faces the choice of pursuing valuable information or terminating their involvement with a participant to prevent any further harm befalling them.

Virtual Relationships in Social Media Self-disclosure in virtual relationshipsSelf-disclosure is a crucial feature of face-to-face (ftf) relationships in the offline world. Therefore, how does disclosure work for online relationships? Reduced Cues Theory Sproull & Keisler – online relationships are less effective than ftf ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on. These include nonverbal cues such as appearance. Online relationships lack cues to our emotional state such as our facial expressions and tone of voice. This leads to de-individualisation. Online relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication and so are less likely to want to initiate a relationship. Hyperpersonal Model Walther - Online relationships cane be more personal and involve greater disclosure. This is because self-disclosure happens sooner and is often more intense.Cooper & Sportolari – they are more likely to end as the excitement level isn’t met by the level of trust between relationship partners. (boom & bust phenomenon). Selective self-presentation – people have more control over what to disclose and what cues they send. Bargh – strangers on a train effect – when you’re aware that other people don’t know your identity so you feel less accountable for your behaviour. So you may disclose more to a stranger than your most intimate partner. Absence of Gating in Virtual Relationships Online relationships are said to have no gates unlike ftf. Examples of gates include; attractiveness, a stammer and social anxiety. Online relationships lack those cues and this means a relationship can develop to the point where disclosure is frequent and deep. Absence of gating also means that people can create online identities that are different from real life, this may be superficial but allows for people to overlook features that would interfere with forming ftf relationships.

Evaluating Virtual Relationships Lack of evidence for reduced cuesWalther & Tidwell – people in online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of their messages. E.g. taking longer to reply to not appear overly interested. Abbreviations, emoticons and emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice. Skype calls are removing the absence of cues by being able to see the person and hear

their tone of voice. Research support Whitty & Joinson – people in online relationships often are motivated to self-s disclose in ways which are hyperhonest or hyperdishonest. Questions asked in online discussions tended to be very direct, probing and intimate. This is different to ftf which often revolve around small talk. Types of online relationships and computer mediated conversation Paine - Will determine the amount of information a person discloses. For example, when online dating disclosure is reduced because the communicators anticipate future meetings offline, which is something not entirely considered on chatrooms and gaming sites. Relationships are multimodal – CMC is conducted both online and offline, it is not an

either/or situation, therefore what we decide to disclose in our online relationships will be dependent on our offline interactions.

Support for the absence of gating McKenna & Bargh – lonely and anxious people were able to use online communications to express their true selves. Of the romantic relationships that formed online, 70% lasted for more than two years which is a higher proportion than those in the offline world.

Parasocial Relationships – McCutcheon One sided, unreciprocated, relationship usually with a celebrity on which a fan

expends a lot of emotional energy, commitment and time. Stages based on the Celebrity Attitudes Survey:1. Entertainment-social – least intense. Celebrities are a source of entertainment

and social interaction. Giles – fruitful source of gossip in the workplace. 2. Intense personal – intermediate level which reflects greater personal involvement

in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity. This may include obsessive thoughts and intense feelings, ‘soul mates’.

3. Borderline pathological – strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours.

Absorption – addiction model - The tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives. A parasocial relationship allows then an ‘escape from reality’ or a way of finding fulfilment that they cant achieve through normal relationships.

Absorption – seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity. Addiction – the individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity, this may result in irrational behaviour and delusions. The attachment theory Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested such early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in life. Ainsworth identifies two attachment types associated with unhealthy emotional attachment: insecure resistant & avoidant. Insecure resistant attachment types are more likely to form parasocial relationships due to the desire to have unfulfilled needs met but in a safe environment where they aren't likely to experience rejection. Insecure avoidant try and avoid rejection at all costs whether they are social or parasocial.

Evaluating Parasocial Relationships Maltby – link between body image and celebrity worship. Girls who had an

intense parasocial relationship with a celebrity whose body shape they admired had poor body Images – link to anorexia (RLL).

Maltby – entertainment social stage was linked to extraverted personality traits, those with intense social with neurotic traits and the borderline pathological with psychotic personality types.

Problems with attachment theory – McCutcheon measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 participants, the researchers found no link between attachment and development of parasocial relationships.

Methodological issues – most research uses self-report methods to collect data, this will impact the validity of the results as participants may lie or exaggerate.

Most studies are correlational e.g. body image, does it cause parasocial relationships or does parasocial relationships cause poor body image? Longitudinal research to better results.

Problem with the absorption, addiction model – provides a description rather than an explanation of why people become addicted or absorbed into celebrity worship.

Cultural influences – Schmind & Kilmmt report that this tendency is not culturally specific, attachments to the fictional character Harry Potter, were found in individualist (Germany) and collectivist (Mexico).