Psychology-Relationship

Most of the research takes place in American and England and there is a limited amount of research in Eastern cultures.

For example, Lott suggests that in many cultures women are more focused on the needs of others rather then receiving reinforcement.

This suggests that there are similarities between cultures and the research from Western Socitites can be generalised to other cultures.

More research into other cultures needs to be carried out to investigate the differences between and within cultures.

For example, Buss studies 37 cultures, involving over 10,000 people and found that there were sex differences between cultures. Men seemed to give a higher priority to looks and women to a 'good earning capacity'.

This recognises a difference within a culture which could be investigated further.

The model and research into relatonship formation is dominated by hetrosexual bias.

Fo example, in the filter model there is an implicit assumption that 'romantic'/'intimate' relationships involve opposite sex partners.

Homosexuals relationships might form in a different way and therefore this should not be ignored by psychologists.

The model can apply to homosexuality and bisexuality.

For example, according to Kitzinger and Cole there is now a belief in a basic underlying similarity between relationships of hetrosexuals and homosexuals.

Therefore, it is possible that the filter model could apply to homosexual and bisexual relationships in the same way that it applies to hetrosexual relationships.

The reasearch may apply more to men than to women.

For example, in many cultures there is more emphasis on females rather than on males learning to be attentive to the needs of others.

This suggests that the model is gender biased as it ignores gender differences in the formation of relationships. This could be an example of beta bias.

There are implications of gender bias in psychology.

For example, due to the beta bias of many of the formation theories, the differences between men and women are ignored and this could lead to a lack of understanding in how relationships develop in real life.

This leads to a lack of ecological validity.

The theory does not apply to all people and to all relationships.

For example, Sedikides suggests that individuals are capable of altruism. This is when an individual does something for the good of their partner rather than for themselves. This is most evident in relationships where people are emotionally close.

This shows that we dont always stay in relationships based on the rewards that we get.

Rubin claims that our attitudes towards others are determined to a large extent by how rewarding we think they are for us.

For example, the external force to reward may determine us to act in a way to seek out rewards.

Therefore, this supports the theory that we are determined by the rewards of the relationship.

Moghaddam suggest that economic theories of relationships only apply to Western relationships.

For example, often students are used in the research. They are typically very mobile and experience short term romantic relationships. It makes sense that these relationships are concerned with give and take.

Therefore, long term relationships within other less mobile population groups, particulary in non-traditional societies are more likely to value personal security than long term profit.

The idea that we maximise the rewards and minimise the costs for ourselves in oreder to maintain a relationship does not necessarily generalise to all cultures.

For example, where arranged marriages are common will be less likely to attempt to maximise rewards for the individual and more concerned with those of the group.

This suggests that more research should be done in order to create a more comprehensive theory that can be applied across cultures.

Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown reject the claim that equity is the key determinant of relationship satisfaction.

For example, they argue that it ignores the way that married people behave with respect to each other.

Therefore, quity theory is an unsufficient theory to explain marital maintenance.

Social exchange theory was criticised for presenting humans as too selfish.

For example, rather than  maximising rewards sand  minimising costs, equity theory adds fairness and people fell distressed if a relationship becomes unfair.

Therefore, this might apply more to long term relationships than social exchange theory.

The breakdown of relationships is  potentially a sensitive topic.

For example, the researcher faces the  choice of pursing valuable  information or terminating their involvement with a participant to avoid further harm to the participant.

This suggests  that researchers could cause harm to participants by researching this matter eg.distress.

Real life research is important as there is a higher level of ecological validity.

For example,  if real life situations are not used then this would rely on imagination scenerious, which would not give a realistic picture.

This suggest that it may be neccessary to upset people to get a more valid picture.

Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown.

For example, this suggest that this is a complex, two way process which is not always simple to solve.

This suggests that the theory is more advanced than others as  there is detail into the breakdown making it more valid.

This theory has led to practical applications and advancements.

For example,The importance of social skills  deficits in relationship breakdown has led to the development of the couples coping enhancement training which helps to improve a couples problem solving and communication skills.

This suggests that the theory has practical applications and which increases ecological validity.

Research has found that sex is often used as an  exchange resource in intimate relationships. The SET has been criticised for focussing too much on the individuals perspective of relationship dissolution.

For example, it ignores social aspects such as how relationships in collectivist cultures may be maintained for the good of the group rather than the individual.

This suggests that the SET is culturally  biased and more emic (whithin a culture) studies need to be done.

The theory fails to explain why some couples break up when  there is no comparison level of alternatives.

For example, not everyone has previous relationships as a basis for comparison nor does  everyone look to others relationships  as a comparison of their own.

Therefore, this suggests that the SET is an incomplete explanation of relationship breakdown.

The research provides a bridge between infant attachment theory and  theories of romantic love.

For example, Fraley conducted a meta-anaylsis of research finding positive correlations between early attachment styles and later relationships.

Therefore, this suggests that the theories of Bowlby and Ainsworth are reliable and that our later relationships are determined by our childhood relationships.

An insecure attachment in childhood does not always continue to adulthood.

For example, Koluchova conducted a case study of Czech twins who suffered from problems in their early attachment relationships. However, as adults they were cognitively and socially ables.

This suggest that it is deterministic to suggest an early attachment relationship will dictate a later relationship.

There are problems with the measurements used.

For example, in Hazen and Shafers research adults choice of paragraphs describing attachment styles might reflect that state of their current relationship. For example, if they hvae just come out of a negative relationships they are more likely to view relationships in general to be negative.

The meaasurements were too brief and simplistic and thereofre the research lacks internal validity.

Parkes critcised the strange situation categories.

For example, the strange situation and the paragraphs give to adults in the study by Hazen and Shafers fail to measure the strength of attachment type. There must  be degrees of secruity and insecruity.

This may have an impact on individuals later attachment types and the use of graded measurees would provide more valid results.

There is research to suggest that romantic love is universal.

For example, Pinker says that romantic love is universal and  has  evolved to promote survival and reproduction amoung humans. Being in a long-term relationship offers lower mortality rates, increased happiness and decreased stress.

This suggests that romantic love is an innate action explored in humans to promote survival. Thereofre, love is universal and promote survival.

Research into romantic relationshops may lack validity due to the methods used.

For example, questionaires and interviews  are qualitative methods and limited to subjectively and participants answering according to social desirability ratherr than their true beliefs.

This suggests that alternative research methods need to be used to prevents extrenous variables affecting the results. This would make the results more internally valid.

The concept of love is difficult to define.

For example, the concept of love can be language specific and  difficult to interpret in other cultures.

This suggests that the measurement of romantic love is questionable and dmakes it difficult to compare across cultures.

The research has an intersexual bias.

For example, it doesnt take into account sub-cultures and individual practices such  as homsexuality.

This suggest that it is not reepresentative or generalisable and therefore more research needs to be done within cultures.

In conclusion the research into romantic relationships across cultures is culturally biased.

For example, it is only based on Western Socities and uses an etic construct to apply to all cultures.

Therefore, this connot take into account all cultures and to develop a cleaner study a dervied emic needs to be used, so each culture has its own specific theory.

One way of testing  evolutionary theory of human sexual selection is by carrying out a cross-cultural study of preferred characteristics in mate.

For example, Buss conducted research on 37 cultures and found across all cultures women were interessted in men with good finanaces and men looked for physical attractivness.

This suggests that sexual selection was innate as its consistent across culturess and due to nature, this could then be generalised.

However, the findings from  Buss's study are less clear cut then they seem.

For example, as a culture becomes more developed, the sex differences became less aparent and are minimised.

This suggests that, as the findings differ across cultures, the findings cannot necessarily be readily applied and are not generalisable to all relationships.

There is supporting research  to suggesst that evoltion has  played a role in sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.

For example, Buss studied actual marriages in 29 different cultures and found that men do choose younger women and that a man who divorced and remarried tended to choose a youngere women.

This suggests that it is reliable as male mate choice hass been found consistently across cultures showing it is innate.

Researchsuggests female mate choice is not always  consistent.

For example, Penton-Voak suggests that it appears that female choice of mate alters more during the menstrual cycle. For example, a masculine face was more favourable whilst women were  at the most fertile part of the cycle and a more feminised facce was preffered at other times.

Therefrore, the theory needs to be adopted in order to consider the varations of female fertlity throughout her cycle and also infertile women due to the lack of pregnancy risk.

The evolutionary theory has a hetrosexual bias.

For example, all the research is conducted on hetrosexual participants and claims that men only want to pass on genes, this theory therefore cannot explain homosexual partner selection.

Because the theory cannot account for homosexuals it may be deterministic and may not be applicable to everyone and may lack population validity.

Research into parental investment has been biased towards hetrosexual relationships.

For example, research doesn't account for homosexual relationships as it is based mainly on hetrosexual relationships which doesn't ackonowledge that  homosexual couples can now have children through IVF and surrogacy.

This suggests that the theory is reductionist as it can't explain how  homosexual couples will behave and so lacks poplation validity.

However, the kin--selective alturism hypothesis lends support to the evolutionary approach to human reproductive behaviour.

For example, Wilson found homosexual males instinctively divert their energy into supporting the offspring of a close family member.

This suggests that because they try to hellp relatives offsprng, they are still trying to pressure and  pass on their genes, which supports the evolutionary theory.

Research shows that step-parents protect themselves from cuckoldry by the liklihood of killing step children.

For example, according to Daly and Wilson, children under the age of 2 are more likely to be killed  by a step-parent than a natural parent.

This suggests that the theory is reliable  as step-parents do not want to waste their resources on children which are not theirs.

The theory does not explain neonaticide.

For example, according to  the theory females invest more in their children but some females will kill their newborn children contradicting the theory.

However, neonaticide can be explained by evolution as if  the female has a lack of  resources and already has other children, she will sacrifice a newborn in order to give the best chance of survival to her other children.

This theory suggests that all couples have an innate drive to invest in a child.

However, it does not explain couples who choose not to have any children.

This suggests that the theory is deterministic as it does not take into consideration a persons free will in choosing to have a child.