Relationships

Relationships

1. Evolutionary Explanation

   • Sexual Selection
     • Intrasexual - individuals must out-compete others in their gender to access those in the opposite gender
     • Intersexual - members of one sex evolve preferences for desirable characteristics in partners, thus determining the areas of competition for the other gender
     • Why is it important?
       • Random mating is stupid mating, pays to be picky
         • Genetic quality of mate determines genetic quality of offspring
           • Low quality mate = likelihood of offspring with that makeup
           • High quality mate = likelihood of offspring with that makeup
   • BUSS
     • 10,000 pps from 18 cultures rated characteristics based on importance (0 = irrelevant, 3 = indispensable)
       • Women found a mate with resources more desirable than men (good financial prospects - can care fore them)
       • Men found youth and attractiveness more important (linked to fertility)
         • However, women do account for attractiveness for short term relationships
       • Placed equal importance on kindness (indicator of wanting long term relationship) and intelligence (parenting quality)

2. Theories of Romance

   • Social Exchange Theory
     • Profit and Loss
       • Assumption that all behaviour is a series of exchanges, maximise rewards and minimise costs
         • Exchange resources with expectation/hope of reward
           • Profits in a Relationship - Companionship, being cared for, sex
           • Costs in a Relationship - effort, financial investment, time wasted (spent with this person when it could've been with someone else)
     • Comparison Levels
       • To judge whether one person offer more than another, we develop a COMPARATIVE LINE
         • This can be either a current relationship or a previous one
           • If we judge potential profit from new relationship to be greater than our CL, then it is judges as worthwhile, person seems more attractive
             • If the judgement is negative (lower than our CL) then that person is seen as less attractive
           • Those with previously unpleasant relationships will have low CL (relatively happy in poor relationship) but those with good relationships will have higher lines
       • FOR COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, SEE FLOWCHART
         • Comparison Level for Alternatives
     • KURDEK & SCHMITT
       • Investigated importance of social exchange in determining relationship quality
       • 185 couples, including - 44 married hetero, 35 co-hab hetero, 50 gay and 56 lesbian
         • All lived together but had no children living with them, completed quiz without discussion before
           • For each, found that greater satisfaction was associated with...
             • Perception that the relationships had many benefits
             • Seeing alternatives as less attractive
   • Equity Theory
     • STAFFORD & CANARY
       • Asked 220 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction
         • Also asked about use of maintenance strategies like assurances, sharing tasks and +vity
           • Satisfaction highest for the equitable, followed by the over benfited then under.
             • Under benefited husbands reported significantly lower levels of maintenance strats compared to over and equitable
             • Relationship between equity and marital happiness appears complementary, spouses treated equitably tended to be happier, thus likely to try and improve partners happiness and feeling of equity
     • Related to SET, states individuals are happiest when they perceive they are getting back roughly what deserve from the relationship
       • In theory, equitable relationship is partner 1 (benefits - costs) = their partner's (benefits - costs)
         • Inequitable relationships produce two types of dissatisfaction
           • Over-benefited - pity, guilt, shame
           • Under-benefited - anger, sadness, resent
           • Greater inequity = greater feeling and greater motivation to sort it
     • Timetable of Equity in marriages
       • HATFIELD & RAPSON
         • Three ways to deal with inequity - can RESTORE ACTUAL EQUITY, they can PSYCHOLOGICALLY RESTORE EQUITY (convince themselves) or can LEAVE IT (divorce or loss of feelings)
         • Concern for equity depends on stage of the relationsip
           • Initial stages, reward, fairness and equity are important
           • Once deeply committed, less concerned about day-to-day reward and equity, happily married couples don't tend to keep scores
       • SCHAFER & KEITH
         • Surveyed hundreds of married couples of all ages
           • Found during child rearing years, wives feel under benefited while husbands feel over
             • At this stage, marital satisfaction tended to dip
           • During honeymoon and empty-nest stages both partners more likely to perceive equity
     • Those in equitable relationships less likely to risk affairs and tend to have longer lasting relationships
   • Investment Model
     • RUSBULT
       • Developed to understand why people persist in some romantic relationships but not in others
         • Relationships persist not just because of satisfaction levels, but also the ties that bind the partners together (investment in the relationship)
         • SATISFACTION LEVEL - +ve vs -ve emotions experienced within a relationship and the extent to which the partner fulfils domestic, compassionate and sexual needs
           • QUALITY OF ALTERNATIVES - extent to which needs could be fulfilled outside relationship, could be with another person or not in a relationship
             • INVESTMENT SIZE - contributes to relationship stability, measure of all the resources tied to the relationship and the extent they'd be devalued/lost if the relationship was to end. Investments are made to create strong foundations, but also increases partners dependency on each other
               • COMMITMENT LEVEL
                 • Used to describe the likelihood that involvement will persist
                   • Commitment is high in partnerships where partners are happy with relationship (good satisfaction) and anticipate little gain and/or high losses from leaving the relationship
                 • Commitment is consequence of high dependency
     • Research
       • LE & AGNEW
         • Meta-analysis of studies from 70s-90s
           • Each study looked at different component of model and relation between them
             • Included +11,000 pps (54% male)
               • 5 countries (USA, UK, NED, ISR and Taiwan)
                 • Across all studies, the three factors on the right highly correlated to relationship commitment
                   • Satisfaction levels correlated most with commitment, and correlation between commitment and leaving/staying significant as well
   • Relationship Breakdown
     • DUCK
     • LOOK AT THE FLOWCHART ABOUT IT
       • Relationship Breakdown

3. Attraction

   • Physical
     • Matching Hypothesis
       • WALSTER
         • Tested with 347 uni students from USA (177m 170f)
           • Invited to a dance, filled out quiz about personality and IQ, told this would match them to a partner, but was lie, done randomly
             • While they filled out quiz, 4 other students rated them on attractiveness
             • During in dance intermission and follow-up 6 months later, fill out another quiz about their date
               • FOUND NO SUPPORT FOR HYPOTHESIS
                 • Regardless of own attractiveness, respond more positively to more attractive dates, IQ and personality didn't matter
       • People assess their own value as a potential mate
         • When seeking to initiate romance, they look for mates of similar desirability to them
           • Although theoretically would match with most attractive, they go within their league to maximise chances
       • Originally included a range of assets, but has become primarily about attractiveness
   • Self Disclosure
     • Research
       • SPRECHER
         • Studied 156 pps paired (2/3 fem-fem and 1/3 fem-mal)
           • One condition (reciprocal) pps immediately to turns Q&A-ing, while non-reciprocal had one as the Q-er and the other the A-er, then swapped
             • Those in recip. condition reported (on avg.) higher levels of liking, closeness, similarity and enjoyment of interaction than the non-recip
               • Turn taking recip. more likely to lead to +ve interpersonal outcomes than extended reciprocity
         • Studied 50 dating couples
           • Levels of reception better predictor of liking/loving than giving
           • Disclosure +vely correlated to relationship stability
           • Amount of overall disclosure indicative of whether the relationship would last longer than 4 years
       • Makes distinction between SD given & received
     • Types of Disclosure
       • Relationship between disclosure and satisfaction is complex
         • This is due to different levels/types of disclosure (general vs. personal, music taste vs. fears)
         • It isn't SD per se that predicts satisfaction, but instead level/type
           • Disclosure of more intimate info (personal accomplishments, previous sexual relationships) have greater influence on satisfaction
     • Norms
       • Cannot reveal too personal information early on as they appear indiscriminate
         • However, must be somewhat personal so that the recipient knows the individual better as a result
       • Reciprocity is an example of a norm
   • Filter Theory
     • KERCHOFF & DAVIS
       • Longitudinal study of 94 US couples
         • Each person answered to quizzes, one testing the degree of filter 2 (Index of Value Consensus) and filter 3 (FIRO-B)
           • 7 Months after, answer another quiz about how close they feel to partner compared to start - believed to show progress to premenance
             • When they split data (less than 18 months & more than) found that in less than, similarity most significant predictor of closeness but in more than it was only complementarity
             • Initial analysis showed only similarity related to liking
     • Filter 1 - Social Demography (age, location, social background) likelihood of meeting in the first place, perceived similarity
     • Filter 2 - Similarity in Attitudes (agreement on attitudes and basic values) K & D - most important at the start of the relationship and best predictor of stability
     • Filter 3 - Complementarity of Needs (match up, need to care & need to be cared for) like each other due to mutual satisfaction of needs, in long-term, people want partners whose needs are harmonious with theirs

4. Virtual

   • Gating
     • In face to face, factors like looks and mannerisms determine who we approach and who we develop romantic relations with
       • Use factors such as attractiveness, age and ethnicity to decide potential romantic partners, these are gates that act as barriers
         • Such gates don't exist in online relationships, removing the limits for the less attractive, shy or less socially skilled to form relationships
           • Previously mentioned anonymity means that gates don't restrict potential relationships from beginning
             • Consequence of gate removal is that the persons true self is more apparent in online interactions than face-to-face, contributes to close relationships on the internet
           • Gated individuals empowered by social networks and can present identities they hope to est. but cannot in face-to-face
             • People tend to stretch the truth about themselves
               • Research found 11 online daters presented their real and better selves (still close to true self to avoid unpleasant surprises in real life encounter)
   • Self Disclosure
     • JOURARD
       • 'Broadcasting self-disclosure' is the difference between disclosure to a partner and public disclosure
         • When displaying to the public, display edited version of ourselves
     • Social network
       • If disclosing intimate info, done in DM due to increased control over disclosure
         • With general/non-intimate info, will go publicly (on a feed for all), more selective content, what they want seen
           • Compensate for lack of control over target audience by exercising increased control over info audience can access
     • Why disclose more on the internet?
       • Most explanations focus on psychology of anonymity
         • In face to face, won't engage in SD until they are confident what they disclose remains secret and isn't leaked to mutuals, danger is that secrecy might be broken or a -ve response from recipient (possible ridicule)
           • Relative anonymity of internet reduces risks of disclosure, can reveal thoughts/feelings without risking -vity from other person
             • Similar to 'Strangers on a Train' (RUBIN) will disclose more due to likelihood of seeing again low, as is risk of leak to mutuals

5. Parasocial

   • Absorption Addiction Explanation
     • PSRs formed for a number of reasons - lack of real relationships, fill void caused by shyness/loneliness, relationship makes few demands
     • PSRs more likely to form based on perceived attractiveness and perceived homophily (similarity)
     • GILES AND MALTBY
       • Using Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS), identifies three levels of PSR
         • Entertainment-Social - attracted to celeb, will watch, keep up with and learn about for purposes of entertainment
         • Intense-Personal - deeper level of involvement and reflects intensive/compulsive/obsessive feelings about celeb
         • Borderline-Pathological - characterised by empathy (identify with celebs success and failures) but also over-identification & uncontrollable behaviours/fantasies about their lives
         • LANGE
           • Suggested a lack of meaningful relationships or difficult social circumstances may lead some to become increasingly absorbed
             • Absorption involves effortless focusing of attention, fans then believe they have special connection, motivated to learn more about object of attraction
               • If level of absorption high enough, driving forces of PSR may become addictive, leading to more extreme/delusional behaviours to sustain satisfaction from PSR with celebrity
   • Attachment Explanation
     • May function similar to IRL relationships in terms of attachment behaviours (WEISS)
       • Proximity Seeking - seek to reduce distance between themselves and attachment figure (stay informed/collect trivia, rearrange schedules to see them, attempt to contact
       • Secure Base - Their presence provides safe haven that allows them to explore, in PSRs, little chance of rejection from figure, can explore relationships in a safe way
       • Protest at disruption - Prolonged distress following separation from/loss of attachment figure (#cutforzayn)
     • COLE & LEETS
       • Attachment Type
         • Insecure-Resistant most likely to enter PSRs, characterised by concerned of non-reciprocal, bonds formed is simply manifestation of desire for intimacy
         • Insecure-Avoidant least likely to enter, difficulty in developing intimate relationships, less likely to seek it IRL or in PSR
   • Person attracted to someone (usually celeb) who is usually unaware of the existence of the person who has created the relationship