Relationships

Relationships

1. Evolutionary Explanation

   • Intrasexual Selection
     • males must outcompete other members to gain access to opposite sex
     • Successful males then able to reproduce and pass on genes
   • Intersexual Selection
     • One sex evolve characteristics desirable ad gain mating advantage
     • Low quality mates produce unhealthy offspring
   • Females = resources
   • Males = Fertility
   • KEY STUDY
     • 10,000 pp 37 cultures
     • Rate 18 characteristics. Resources important to women. Looks and youth for men
   • Cultural Traditions: Gender differences due to women being denied economic power rely on men's resources. Found more in cultures were women denied
   • Preference for high-status men not universal look for men with similar interests and prospects
   • Real life mate choice: validity problems. Questionnaires in study valid measures and support real-life statistics
   • Menstrual cycle feminised faces for long-term. High conception masculine male face
   • Human equivalent of peacock tail. Preference for creative because of adaptive value passed onto offspring

2. Physical Attractiveness

   • Peacocks tail has reproductive value
     • Signals ability to survive - pass on genes
   • When initiating seek out romantic partner with same social desirability
     • Select most likely to reciprocate attraction for successful outcome
   • Matching Hypothesis
     • People pair with those similar
     • Realistic choices where mating in their league
   • KEY STUDY
     • Computer dance
     • Evaluated on looks when walked in and allocated random partner
     • Didn't support hypothesis. Responded better to good looking and tried to arrange follow-up not in their league
   • Speed Dating: May not predict real life choices. Backed up with longitudinal study. Ideal preferences not actual behaviour
   • Complex Matching: Research fails to find evidence. people more than one desirable characteristic can compensate for looks
   • Support sex differences: Shows that males with good-looking partners are more satisfied at beginning of relationship and 4 years later
   • Matching not important for initial attraction: Aim for someone more desirable not taking into account own looks. Those who target similar = response
   • Implications sex differences women pressure on looks for longer-term relationships

3. Self-Disclosure

   • Greater disclosure means more intimacy
   • Level of disclosure received better predictor than disclosure given
     • Disclosure of sad stuff better than neutral
   • Norms about self-disclosure
     • Only engage in moderate disclosure
     • Reciprocity governs social behaviour
     • Evidence more one discloses the more expected to return
   • KEY STUDY
     • 156 undergrad two person dyads
     • engaged in reciprocal and non-reciprocal disclosure
     • In reciprocal reported more liking, closeness and enjoyment of interaction
   • Support importance: Engage in intimate disclosure more liked. Relationship disclosure and liking stronger when only with them
   • Internet boom and bust: Internet = high disclosure comfort because of anonymity. Gets intense and difficult = bust
   • Norms of disclosure: reality TV. Conflict everyday. Viewers like this that disclose early but prefer gradual and intimate
   • Lack of intimacy and non-verbal cues face to face so self-disclose more face to face
   • Cultural Differences: Western more intimate. Japanese women lower level of disclosure than men. Opposite to Western culture where women disclose more than men

4. Filter Theory

   • Different filters prominent at different stages of the relationship
   • Early = Demographic
     • Age, background and location determine meeting
   • Middle = Similarity of attitudes
     • Agreement on basic values
   • Later = Complementarity of needs
     • Mutual satisfaction
   • KEY STUDY
     • Longitudinal
       • partner completed questionnaire of shared attitudes and complement
         • At beginning and 7 months later
     • dating less than 18 months similarity of attitudes significant
     • Dating more than 18 months complementarity of needs significant
   • Lack of research support: Failed to replicate. No evidence influences progress of length. Original values changed
   • Real Value filtering: make predictions of future interaction. Strategies to gain info. Stop wrong choices
   • Perceieved similarity more important than actual. Perceived predicted romantic liking
   • Complentarity of needs: stronger support similarity attraction. Strong correlation own personality and ideal partner
   • Problem is that assumption there is no change after time and partner not notice change e.g. society marriage not that important to young adults now

5. Social Exchange Theory

   • Behaviour exchanges max rewards and minimise costs
   • Exchange resources when earn 'profit'
   • Costs
     • Time wasted
     • effort
     • Resources
   • Rewards - costs =outcome
   • Develop Comparison Level (CL) as product of past
     • New relationship exceed CL then seen as worthwhile
     • Unpleasant CL = low level stay in bad relationship
     • Rewarding relationship = high expectations
   • CLA weight increase in reward from different relationship - costs of ending current
     • Alternative applying will leave
   • KEY STUDY
     • Couples of different sexual orientation completed questionnaire
     • Found for all greater satisfaction associated with perception of benefits of CL and alternative
   • Evidence ClA: Longitudinal study. Exchange variable associate commitment CLA. Alternative negatively correlated with commitment and satisfaction
   • Problems with costs and benefits is different to each individual. Rewarding to one not another. Difficult to classify
   • Problem assessing value needs relevant way of quantifying costs and benefits. Better for business not personal interactions
   • Overemphasis costs and benefits: Ingores other factors. Own beliefs more tolerant of lower level of benefit; cost ratio
   • Real World: Therapy developed for unsuccessful marriage positive: negative exchange ratio 1:1. Raise to 5:1 to make successful

6. Equity Theory

   • Most comfortable perceived getting what they deserve
   • Equitable = costs-benefits equals partners
   • No equity = dissatisfaction
   • Over-benefitted fell guilt or shame
   • Under-benefitted feel angry or sad
   • Child rearing years women under-benefitted. Marital satisfaction low
   • Honeymoon and empty nest feel equity
   • Initial stages condor rewards and equity important. Loss concerned when more committed
   • KEY STUDY
     • 200 married couples measures of equity and satisfaction
     • Asked about maintenance strategies
     • Satisfaction highest when equitable. Under-benefitted husbands had lower levels of maintenance strategies
   • Each individual experiences tension when they perceive inequity. Not always. Three types: Benevolent, Sensitives and entitleds
   • Men and women not equally affected. Women more guilt when over-benefitted. Increase gender equality more vigilant in modern times
   • Not important for non-Western cultures. Couples in USA most equitable. Jamaica are the least equitable
   • Female monkey become angry if denied reward or saw others receiving unjust reward
   • Causality problem inequity and dissatisfaction linked but not clear. Couples don't think rewards if they do indicated a problem in the relationship with pre-occupation of equity

7. Investment Model

   • Satisfaction level positive vs negative emotions influenced extent person fulfils need
   • Attractive alternative = superior outcomes. Persist lack of better options
   • Investment size=stability of relationship
   • Measure of all resources attached which would be lost if the relationship ended
   • Invest time, energy and possessions
   • Investments increase dependence, likely to persist
   • Commitment and satisfaction low = alternative high
   • KEY STUDY
     • meta analysis 52 studies 1970s=90s
     • 11,000pp 5countries
     • Found satisfaction, alternatives and investment correlate with commitment
     • Correlation satisfaction and commitment stronger
   • Support for Investment Model: 38,000pp 137 studies 33 years. Key variable in stay or leave include commitment (high)
   • Problems measuring variables of model" Difficult to measure variables lead commitment. Scale overcame high reliability and validity but demand characteristics
   • Real-World: Victims lack alternative and too much invested means dissolution is costly. Have low satisfaction
   • Investment in future is important. Include furutr plans of investment. Persist because of motivation to see future plans
   • True across population of different cultures and relationships

8. Breakdown

   • 1. Breakdown:
     • First phases becomes distressed. Realisation no longer stand for inequity
   • 2. Intraphychic
     • Brooding focus on consideration if better out of relationship. Burdended by feelings of resenting and under-benefitted. May not say anything
   • 3. Dyadic
     • Confront partner and discuss feelings. Guilt and anger likely to surface. Partner have similar concerns. Aware of costs and investments
   • 4. Social
     • Spilling over to friends and family. Now harder to deny as public
   • 5. Grave-Dressing
     • Attempt to justify action. Present themselves as being trustworthy for future relationships. Don't want other to see an unfavourable
   • Fails to reflet personal growth: Changed model for final 'resurrection phase' move beyond distress associated with ending
   • Impact of social varies by relationship: Young adults more unstable than long-term. Receive sympathy. Older lower alternatives
   • Benefits of Grave-Dressing: Able to creat stories that down-play role in breakup so don't threaten psychological well-being
   • Ethical Issues: Vulnerability privacy and confidentiality. Benefits outweigh risks on pp. Difficult to deal with trauma
   • real-Word: Interventions paying attention= insight into feelings and maybe intervention of friends and family. Intraphychic phase involve re-establishing

9. Virtual

   • Do not disclose until confident remains confidential and not leaked to mutual friends
     • Might be violated and lead to rejection
   • Anonymity reduces risk of disclosure so share thoughts without fear 'strangers on a train'
   • Strangers on a Train will disclose more because not likely to meet again or be in same social circle
   • face-to-Face factors e.g. looks determine who we approach and develop with
     • Use factors to determine potential partners
     • Online gates are removed. Barries don't stop information disclosure
   • True self revealed. Empower shy people to present identities. Reduction of gating allows truth to be stretched
   • Importance of internet: Help form and maintain relationship. 4000 adults those with Internet 72% had spouse those without Internet only 36% had a spouse
   • Virtual as strong as offline relationship: Beleied only created superficial can't compare to face-to-face. re of lower quality and temp. Actually found no difference
   • Biological basis disclosure facebook: Increased MRI activity in Bain associated with reward. Strongly activated when talking about self triggers more pleasure
   • Facebook can help shy people: able to overcome barriers faced when trying to form relations real life. Find value in virtual
   • Virtual has consequences for offline: Not separate. Online allows bypass gating. Digital can enhance overall image and increase connect others

10. Parasocial

    • Function similarly to real-life attachment
    • Proximity-seeking to reduce distance and stay informed
    • Attachment figure provides sense security to explore world
    • PSR little-no chance of rejection. Prolonged distress following separation
    • Insecure-Avoidant answer PSR with TV characters. Concern others not reciprocate own intimacy
    • Form PSR lack of real relationships. Fills void. Appealing as has few demands
    • Three types
      • Entertainment-social
      • Intense-Personal
      • Borderline-pathological
    • Introverted nature and lack of relationships = absorbed by par asocial.
      • Invoves effortless focusing on attention leads to special relationships
      • Becomes more addictive and delusional to sustain satisfaction
    • Support for PSR: Meta-analysis found assumption people with higher level watch more TV. Positive correlation
    • PSR linked to loneliness: Substitue for real relationships and linked to isolation. Others found no relationship. Intensity is the strongest predictor
    • Absorption Addiction model: Mental health assess PSR level and personality. Entertainment = extraversion. Intense=neuroticism and anxiety
    • Loss of PSR linked to attached: Same negative response to loss of PSR as would loss of relationship relationship. Related intensity of PSR
    • Cultural similarities: Harry Potter in 2 cultures germany and Mexico had universal influence of mainstream with similar patten of PSR