Relationships

Relationships

1. Evolutionary explanations for Partner preferences

   • Sexual selection
     • Intrasexual selection (mate competition)
     • Intersexual Selection (mate choice)
   • Preferences
     • Short term
       • Clarke and Halfield (1989) - 3 questions= 0% women said yes to sex, 75% of men
     • Long term
       • Buss (1989) Females= men with resources Males= women physically attractive

2. Factors affecting attraction

   • Self-disclosure (Talk too much)
     • Altman & Taylor (1973)
       • 1. Appropriateness of the disclosure
       • 2. Attributions for the disclosure
         • tell everyone= less attraction tell just you= more attraction
       • 3. Gender differences
         • women disclose men don't. Men disclose= more attraction
       • 4. Content of the disclosure
         • disclosure of highly intimate info= inappropriate
     • Altman & Taylor (1973)
       • disclosing personal info in intial stages= inappropriate= less attractive
     • Dindia & Allen (1992)
       • men disclose= attractive
   • Filter theory
     • Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)
       • choice of partners is affected by factors limiting availability
       • Three filters thin down our choice of partner
         • Social demography (are we going to meet?)
         • Similarity in attitudes (Do you believe in what I believe in?)
         • Complementarity (Do we meet each others needs?)
     • Festinger et al. (1950) = live near stairways- meet more and mkre relationships
     • Byrne (1961) = strangers with same attitudes more liked than other strangers
   • Matching hypothesis
     • search for mate= influenced by what they want in partner and who they think they can get as a partner.
     • 2 hypothesis’s that explain why we form relationships
       • 1) More socially desirable a person is the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be
       • 2) Couples who are matched (ie. Both partners are likely to have happy enduring relationships than couples who are miss matched in terms of social desirability)
     • Murstein (1972) = we want more attractive partners- in reality we go for someone our own level
     • Walsters dance study (1966) =told been matched- not really- random pairs- more physically attractive> more likely try and arrange further dates
     • Murstein (1972) Silverman (1973)> multiple psych judges judge coupkle attractiveness> sim levels o attractiveness

3. Theories of Romantic Relationships

   • Social Exchange Theory
     • Economic theorists= we run our relationships according to according to a balance sheet principle and aim to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs.
       • Rewards- exchanged for resources that are pleasurable gratifying.
         • • security • companionship • sex
       • Costs exchanges that result in a loss or punishment
         • • abuse • boredom • missed opportunities for other relationships
       • Interactions between partners can be ‘expensive’ as they take time, energy and commitment and may involve unpleasant emotions and experiences. Therefore for a relationship to be maintained, individuals must feel they are reciving more than they put in.
     • The 4 stage model of long term relationships (Tribaut and Kalley)
       • 1)Sampling
         • couple explores rewards and costs in a variety of relationships
       • 2) Bargaining
         • couples ‘costs out’ the relationship and identifies the sources of profit and loss
       • 3) Commitment
         • couple settles into a relationship, the exchange of rewards becomes relatively predictable
       • 4) Institutionalisation
         • interactions are established= couple have ‘settled down’
     • A person assesses their rewards by making 2 comparisons
       • Comparison level (CL)> where rewards are compared against costs to judge profits
       • Comparison level for alternative relationships (CLalt)> where rewards and costs for possible alternative relationships
     • Hatfield (1979) = looked at over/ under benefitted people in relationship> under ben= angry// over ben= guilty= supports theory suggesting that wheter indiiduals ben or not they desire a equal relationship
     • Rusbult (1983)= questionnaire concerning rewards and costs= social explain theory didn't consider honeymoon phase of relationship
     • Rusbult and Martz (1995)= Abused women likely to go back to abusive husbands
       • This supports SET (Social Exchange Theory) as even though the women were in abusive relationships the profits were seen to exceed the costs
   • Equity Theory
     • Equity theory is an extension of social exchange theory and applies to real life relationships.
     • Equity theory suggests that people expect relationships to be fair and equal.
     • There are four principles of the equity theory
       • 1) People try to maximise their rewards and minimise negative experiences within any relationship
       • 2) The disruption of rewards is negotiated to ensure fairness. This may be achieved through trade-offs or compensations (i.e. a ‘favour’ or ‘privilege’ for one person is paid back by an equivalent favour/ privilege
       • 3) Unfair (or unequitable) relationships produce dissatisfaction. Not surprisingly, the ‘loser’ feels the dissatisfaction more acutely, the greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the sense of dissatisfaction
       • 4) As long as the loser feels there is a chance to save the relationship, he/ she will endeavour to re- establishing equity. Furthermore the greater the degree of inequality that the loser perceives, the greater will be the effort of realignments
     • Stafford and Canary (2006) asked over 200 married couples to complete a questionnaire based on measures of equity and relationship satisfaction. The results showed that satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationship to be equitable.
     • Feeney et al (1994) found that equity theory failed to predict relationship satisfaction. This is because it does not take in to account the variance of modern day relationships.
   • Investment Model
     • model developed by Rusbult to understand why some people persist in some romantic relationships but not others.
     • Satisfaction (product)
     • Quality of alternatives (better alt- stray from relationship)
     • Investment
     • In addition there are two variables linked to commitment
       • Equity (fairness)
       • Social support (if others approve= good)
     • Le and Agnew (2003)
       • Measured Satisfaction= Satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment were highly positively correlated with commitment
       • However, the strongest correlation was between satisfaction and commitment There were no sex differences in these trends. Also gay men’s investment and commitment were lower. Further research: Rusbult et al. (1998) administered the IMS questionnaire to participants in homosexual relationships, finding support for all factors of the model.

4. Virtual Relationships

   • a relationship that conducted through the internet rather than face to face, for example through social media.
     • Self-disclosure in virtual relationships
       • Because people are able to be anonymous online they can reveal intimate personal information with less fear of being socially embarrassed. This is similar to Rubin’s (1975) ‘strangers on a train’ phenomenon, where individuals reveal more personal information to a stranger as they do not have access to the individual’s social circle.
       • McKenna & Bargh (2000) surveyed 568 internet users to find that 54 per cent had gone on to physically meet virtual friends and 63 per cent had talked on the phone. In a two-year follow-up study, 57 per cent revealed their virtual relationships had continued and increased in intimacy. Romantic relationships fared even better, with 70 per cent of relationships formed online enduring beyond two years compared with more than 50 per cent of physical relationships that fail within two years.

5. Absence of gating and virtual relationships

   • Gates are barriers which limit opportunities for the less attractive, shy or less socially skilled to form relationships in face to face encounters
   • In virtual relationships visible features, such as level of physical attractiveness, stuttering, social inadequacy/ shyness, etc., are not seen. This means less physically beautiful and socially skilled individuals have a greater chance to build relationships to the point where intimate self-disclosure can occur.
   • McKenna (2002) found that the removal of physical gating features, such as level of physical attractiveness, allowed certain disadvantaged people, such as those who were less attractive, to bypass obstacles which hinder them from developing intimate relationships in face-to-face settings. Supporting the idea of the absence of gates making virtual relationships more desirable to certain types of people.
   • Bargh et al. (2002) found that intimacy developed more quickly with virtual than face-to-face relationships because of a lack of gating features which often prevent intimate disclosures in face-to-face relationships. This supports the idea that a lack of gating helps virtual relationships to grow more quickly than face-to-face ones.

6. Models of Breakdown

   • Steve Duck (2007) suggests relationships are like cars, they can have ‘accidents’ for many reasons. Sometimes it is the ‘drivers’ fault and sometimes it is a mechanical failure that causes the accident and sometimes it is the actions of other road users. Like a car, a poorly maintained relationship is at more risk of breakdown. Reasons for Breakdown
   • Lack of Skills (like social skills, poor convo etc)
   • Lack of Stimulation (not as rewarding)
   • Maintance Difficulties (strained, e.g. one going to uni= great strain)
   • A Model of Breakdown (Rollie and Duck, 2006)
     • Duck suggests that the breakdown of a relationship is a gradual process that happens in stages.
       • Breakdown >One partner feels unsatisfied of the relationship> it leads to ‘progression’ (next set of processes)
         • Intrapsychic processes >Refers to the social withdrawal and resentment of the dissatisfied partner> they focus on the faults of partner> research suggests that when people are depressed because of an unhappy relationship they tend to with draw from social interaction. As a result they may re- evaluate their relationship
           • Dyadic processes >These processes occur when the dissatisfied person confronts the other partner
             • Social Processes >This is when the break up is aired publically
               • Grave dressing processes > As relationship dies, we can create an account of how it came to be, what you liked and why it failed, Ex partners begin to publicise their own accounts of the breakdown
       • Basically...
         • Breakdown ‘I can’t stand this anymore’
           • Intrapsychic processes ‘I’d be justified in withdrawing’
             • Dyadic processes ‘I mean it’
               • Social processes ‘It’s now inevitable’
                 • Grave dressing processes ‘time to get a new life’
                   • Resurrection processes> reframing of past relational life ‘what I learned and how to improve from it
   • Tashiro & Frazier (2003) surveyed 92 students about their experiences after relationship breakdowns. They found a number of personal growth factors that helped with future relationships, such as feeling stronger, more independent and better off emotionally. Participants also felt they had gained wisdom that would help them with future relationships and that their relationships with friends had strengthened. This supports Duck’s idea that through grave-dressing processes people are able to recover and move on after relationship breakdown.
   • Argyle (1988) found that women identified lack of emotional support as a reason for breakdown, while men cited absence of fun, again suggesting gender differences that the model does not explain.

7. Parasocial Relationships

   • Horton and Wohl (1956) A Para-social relationship is one in which an individual is attracted to another individual, but that person is unaware of the existence of the person who has created the relationship.
   • Levels of parasocial relationships
     • McCutcheon et al (2002) created a Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) based on the findings of a set of questionnaires which asked participants to score 23 items describing different aspects of celebrity worship. A higher score indicates over identification and obsession with celebrities.
     • McCutcheon identified three levels of increasingly intensive stages of celebrity worship – these are known as the levels of parasocial relationship:
       • Entertainment social- fans are attracted to a celebrity because of their ability to entertain, and to become a source of social interaction and gossip)
       • Intense personal – the fan develops intense and compulsive feelings about the celebrity (obsession)
       • Borderline pathological – fans display uncontrollable behaviours and fantasise about their celebrity
   • Parasocial Relationships and Attachment
     • Cole and Leets (1999) discovered that individuals with anxious-ambivalent attachment were most likely to form a parasocial relationship. This is because they are concerned that others will not reciprocate their own desires for intimacy. They therefore turn to TV characters to satisfy their ‘unrealistic and unmet relational needs’.
   • McCutcheon et al's Absorption addiction model
     • suggests that people form parasocial relationships when they have a weak sense of identity, they therefore follow a celebrity as a source of fulfilment.
       • Absorption – an individual becomes absorbed in following a celebrity as a form of escapism. This is the entertainment social level.
       • Addiction – parasocial relationships become addictive and the individual becomes more and more obsessed with the celebrity. This can lead to extreme behaviours such as stalking. This is often linked to poor mental health. This is the intense personal or borderline pathological level.
     • Maltby et al (2003) used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
       • found that people who had an intense personal level parasocial relationship were associated with neuroticism.
       • found that the significant relationship between celebrity worsjhip and poorer psychological well being is the result of failed attempts to escape/ cope with the individuals daily life
       • Intense personal and borderline pathological subscales correlated positively with anxiety and depression score