Relationships

Sexual selection- Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.

Human reproductive behaviour- Any behaviour that gives us the opportunity to reproduce and therefore increase the survival chances of our genes, e.g. mate choice and mate competition.

Anisogamy

The difference between female and male sex cells (gametes).

• Sperm are extremely small, mobile, created in vast numbers from puberty-old age and does not require a lot of energy to produce.

• Eggs (or ova) are large, static, produced at intervals for a number of fertile years and require a lot of energy.

 A consequence of anisogamy for mate selection is that there is no shortage of fertile males but a fertile female is a ‘rare’ resource.

Inter-sexual selection (between sexes)

Preferred strategy of the female- quality over quantity.

• Females make a greater investment of time, commitment and resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring.

• Both sexes are choosy because both stand to lose resources if they pick the wrong partner but the female’s consequences are a lot more serious, so it pays for her to be pickier.

• Female’s best mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources.

• Female preference for a desirable characteristic in male that determines which features are inherited by offspring.  e.g. height, produce taller sons and daughters who have a preference for taller mates. (Runaway Process- Fisher, **** Sons Hypothesis)

Intra-sexual selection (within sexes)

Preferred strategy of the female- quantity over quality.

• Competition between males, the winner of the competition reproduces and gets to pass on to his offspring the characteristics that contributed to his victory.

• Anisogamy dictates that the males best strategy to reproduce is to fertilise as many females as possible. This is due to the lack of responsibilities after sex (woman carries the baby) and minimal energy required to produce the sperm.

Evaluation

Research support for anisogamy-Buss- Survey of 10,000 across 33 countries. Females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics while males preferred reproductive capacity e.g. youth, good looks and chastity.

Can be applied across different cultures, reflecting fundamental human preferences.

Research support for inter-sexual selection- Clark- University students asked “will you go to bed with me?” No female said yes, 75% males said yes. Supports evolutionary theory because it suggests that females are choosier than men and men have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.

Ignores social and cultural differences- Partner preferences over the past century has been influence by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour .Women are no longer dependent on men- growing place in the workforce.

Availability of contraception means that women don’t have to be picky with who they sleep with in fear of ‘wasting resources’.

Mate preferences therefore based on both evolutionary and cultural influences. Any explanation that fails to account for both is a limited explanation.

Self-disclosure

Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops. Self-disclosures about deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a relationship when used appropriately.

Social penetration theory

Altman and Taylor- the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else. Involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners, when they reveal sensitive info they display trust.

As they disclose more info they penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives, and gain greater understanding of each other.

Breadth and death of self-disclosure

As these increase the romantic partners become more committed to each other. The researchers use the metaphor of an onion.

• Info disclosed at the start of the relationship is mostly superficial, mostly ‘on the surface’. Breadth of disclosure is narrow because many topics are off-limits.

• If too much is revealed it could possibly threaten the relationship before it’s had a chance to get going.

• As relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, removing more and more layers to reveal our true selves. Eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate and high-risk information.

Reciprocity of self-disclosure

Reis and Shaver- for a relationship to develop as well as increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure. Once you disclose something that reveals your true self, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding, with understanding, empathy and his or her own intimate thoughts and feelings.

Evaluation

Support from research studies-Strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure. Men and women who used self-disclosure and those who believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied and committed to their relationship.

 Real-life applications - Research can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. Those who limit conversations to ‘small talk’ can learn to use self-disclosure and this can bring benefits to the relationship in terms of deepening and satisfaction and commitment.

Cultural differences-The idea that self-disclosure will lead to more satisfying relationships is not true for all cultures. Individualist cultures (e.g. USA) self-disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in collectivist cultures (e.g. China).

Therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on findings from Western cultures which are not generalizable for all other cultures.

Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness

• Evolutionary theory- Larsen- people are attracted to others with facial symmetry because it is a signal of genetic fitness (hard to make symmetrical faces)

• Attracted to baby-faces (neotenous) such as wide, large eyes and small nose, because they trigger a caring or protective instinct, valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.

• McNulty- initial physical attractiveness that bought the partners together is as important in the relationships years into it.

The Halo effect

• Pre-conceived ideas about attractive people’s personality traits are almost universally positive.

• Dion et al- attractive people are consistently rated as good, kind and successful compared to unattractive people. This makes them more attractive to us so we act positively towards them- self-fulfilling prophecy.

• Halo effect- one distinguishing feature (attractiveness) can influence our judgement of the persons other attributes.

The matching hypothesis

• Walster-The belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but we are attracted to people who ‘match’ us in physical attractiveness. We take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’ when choosing a partner.

Our choice of partner is basically a compromise, we desire a partner due to evolutionary, cultural, social and psychological reasons that is the most physically attractive, yet we balance this wish to avoid being rejected by someone who is ‘out of our league’

Evaluation

Research support for the halo effect- Peterson- people were rated as more politically knowledgeable when they were physically attractive. Has implications for the political process, as if politicians are viewed as more competent for office if they are more attractive it is a danger for democracy.

Individual differences

Some people do not attach much importance on physical attractiveness. The effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors (e.g. macho scale), so challenges the notion that it is a significant consideration for all relationship formations for potential partners.

Role of cultural influences

What is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures. Physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive. Both Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy.

Shows that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist ones.

Davis- Filter theory

A series of different factors progressively limits the range of available romantic partners to a smaller pool of possibilities. There are three filters: social demography, similar attitudes and complementarity.

Social demography (1^st level of filter)

• Includes geographical location (proximity), religion, ethnicity, social class, education etc.

• Our most meaningful and memorable interactions are with those who live nearby. (proximity=accessibility, doesn’t require much effort to meet these people)

• Realistic field of potential partners narrows because of the constraints of our social circumstances.

• Anyone who is too ‘different’ (in social demographic terms) is discounted as a potential partner.

• The outcome of this is homogamy, meaning more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially and culturally similar.

Similarity in attitudes (2^nd level of filter)

• Partners will possibly already share important values and beliefs because the field of availables has already been narrowed down in the 1^st filter, sharing social demographics.

• Davis- similarity in attitudes is important, especially in the first 18months of a relationship as it encourages self-disclosure.

• If the similarity does not exist, it may in turn cause the relationship to fizzle out.

Complementarity (3^rd level of filter)

• Similarity becomes less important as the relationship develops, and is replaced by a need for your partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own.

• E.g. one likes to nurture the other likes to be nurtured.

• At a later stage in the relationship, opposites attract. Complementarity is attractive because it gives the two partners a feeling that they form a whole.

Evaluation

Support from research evidence

Filter theory assumes that key factors of a relationship change over time, which is true, so has face validity.

Winch- found evidence that similarities in personality, interests and attitudes were typical in the early stages of a relationship.

This echoes the matching hypothesis, but not just in terms of physical attractiveness.

 Failure to replicate

Many studies have failed to replicate the findings of the original study that formed the basis of filter theory. He said this was due to social changes and the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of its length.

This shows how it is hard to apply filter theory to other heterosexual couples in individualist cultures, never mind to homosexual partners or collectivist cultures.

Rewards, costs and profits

Thibault and Kelley- We try to minimise losses and maximise gains. We judge satisfaction in terms of its profits, the rewards minus the costs.

• Rewards and costs are subjective, what one person considers a significant reward might be viewed by someone else as less valuable.

• The value of rewards and costs might change over the course of a relationship, what is seen as rewarding/costly in the early stages might become less as time goes on (or vice versa).

• Rewards include companionship, sex and emotional support.

Blau- relationships can be expensive, costs include time, energy, stress, compromise etc.

In economic terms, relationships incur an opportunity cost, your investment of time in current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere.

TWO WAYS IN WHICH WE MEASURE PROFIT IN A RELATIONSHIP:

Comparison level (CL)

• The amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get. Develops from experiences of previous relationships, which make up our expectations.

• Also influenced by our social norms that determine what is considered within a culture to be the reasonable level of reward (through media, books, films etc).

• We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high; there is a link with self-esteem.

  Low self-esteem                                  Low CL                     Small profit (or even loss)

(VICE VERSA)

Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

Question if we could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship (or being on our own). SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives.

Duck- the CLalt we adopt depends on the state of our current relationship, if the costs outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive.

If in a satisfying relationship you may not even notice that alternatives could be available.

Stages of relationship development

Thibault and Kelley-

• Sampling stage- explore costs and rewards

• Bargaining stage- romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating what is most profitable

• Commitment stage- relationship becomes more stable as the rewards increase and costs lessen.

• Institutionalisation stage- rewards and costs are now firmly established.

Evaluation

Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

Clark- theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. Work relationships involve social exchange as SET predicts but romantic relationships are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping track of who is ahead and who is behind.

Direction of cause and effect

SET argues that dissatisfaction sets in when we think the costs outweigh the rewards or when alternatives are attractive.

Argyle- we do not measure costs/rewards in a relationship or constantly consider the alternatives until we are dissatisfied with the relationship.

SET ignored equity

SET ignores fairness/equity. Much research support for equity in relatuonships, and the view that it is more important than the balance of costs/rewards.

SET is a limited explanation because it neglects this factor.

Developed in response to a significant criticism of SET.

The role of equity

Walster- what matters most is that both partners’ level of equity is roughly the same.

• When there is a lack of equity, one partner over-benefits and the other under-benefits, which is a recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

• Under-benefitted partner likely to feel guilt, discomfort and shame. Satisfaction is about perceived fairness.

Equity and equality

It is not the size or amount of the rewards/costs that matters; it’s the ratio of the two to each other.

Satisfying negotiations are marked by negotiations to ensure equity and that rewards are distributed fairly (not necessarily equally) between the partners.

Consequences of inequity

The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the two. This applies to both the over-benefited and under-benefitted partner.

• Changes in perceived inequity

At the start of the relationship, it may seem natural to contribute more than you receive. As the relationship develops, it will not feel as satisfying as it did in the start to get less out of it.

• Dealing with inequity

Behavioural change- The under-benefitted partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so and that the relationship is salvageable. The more unfair the relationship feels the harder they will work to restore equity.

OR

Cognitive change- They will change their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing has changed. What was seen as definitely a cost in the relationship is now accepted as the norm (untidiness, thoughtlessness, actual abuse etc

Evaluation

Supporting research evidence

Studies of real-life relationships show that equity theory is a more valid explanation than SET.

 Cultural influences

Assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of all relationships. Surveys showed that couples in collectivist cultures were most satisfied in relationships were there was equity. Collectivist cultures were not satisfied when over-benefitting.

Individual differences

Not all partners in relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Some people are benevolent where they are prepared to put more into the relationship. Others are entitleds who believe they deserve to be over-benefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.

Phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases.

 Intra-psychic phase

Threshold: ‘I can’t stand this anymore’, something has to change.

Mulls over their thoughts privately, weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and the alternatives (inc. being alone).

 Dyadic phase

Threshold: ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’.

There comes a point when they cannot avoid talking about their relationship for any longer. There is a series of confrontations and dissatisfactions are aired. Characterised by anxiety, hostility and complaints about lack of equity. Two possible outcomes- breaking up or repairing the relationship.

Social phase

Threshold: ‘I mean it’

The breakup is made public. Mutual friends find they are expected to choose a side. Gossip is traded and encouraged. This is the point of no return- the break up takes on a momentum driven by social forces.

Grave-dressing phase

Threshold: ‘It’s now inevitable’

Grave dressing involves creating a personal story that you can live with, which may differ from the public one.  Allows partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation, usually at the expense of the other partner, showing them in a bad light. Gossip plays an important role in this phase- trying to retain social credit, by blaming circumstances, your partner, everyone but themselves.

Concludes ‘time to get a new life’

 Added (2006) Resurrection phase

Ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained from their recently ended one.

Evaluation

An incomplete model?

Rollie and Duckmake it clear that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable. It’s possible to return to an earlier point in the process in any phase.

These changes overcome a weakness of the original model that it is a limited explanation because it does not account for the dynamic nature of breakups with all of their uncertainty and complexity.

Cultural bias

The model is firmly based on the experience of relationships in Western Cultures, especially the USA. Relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end.

Relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, less easy to end and involve the wider family, sometimes even being arranged. The whole concept of relationships differs between the two cultures, so it is unlikely that the process of relationship breakdown is identical across the two cultures.

Self-disclosure in virtual relationships

Self-disclosure- how much personal information you reveal about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about themselves as the relationship develops. Self-disclosures about deep thoughts and feelings can strengthen a bond when used appropriately.

Reduced cues theory- Sproull and Kiesler

CMC relationships (computer-mediated communication) are less effective than FtF (face-to-face) because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on.

• Non-verbal cues such as physical appearance.

• Emotional state cues, such as tone of voice and facial expressions.

This leads to de-individualisation- reduces peoples sense of identity, which encourages disinhibition (pattern of behaviour that is characterised by impulsivity and disregard for social norms and authority)in relation to others, can explain hyper-sexuality on social media.

Therefore, relationships on social media are more likely to be blunt and aggressive.

The hyper-personal model- Walther

CMC relationships can be more personal and involve more self-disclosure than FtF ones. CMC relationships develop quicker, as self-disclosure happens earlier, being more intense and intimate once established.

They can also end more quickly, because the high excitement level isn’t matched with the trust in the relationship. Cooper- boom and bust phenomenon of online relationships.

Feature of self-disclosure- people have more time to manipulate their image online than they would in an FtF one. Walther calls this selective self-presentation. People online control what they self-disclose and what cues they send (easier to promote intimacy when presenting themselves in a positive and idealised way).

Bargh- strangers on a train effect. More likely to disclose information about yourself to a stranger because you are aware that other people do not know your identity.

Absence of gating in virtual relationships

Gate- any obstacle in the face of a relationship. Examples of gates include:

• Physical unattractiveness

• Stammer

• Social anxiety (shyness, blushing)

Bargh- Huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating. Relationship can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.

Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and less on superficial features, ‘I am more interested in what you tell me than what you look and sound like’.

• E.g. rationale behind the TV show ‘The Voice’.

Absence of gating also means that people are free to create online identities, e.g. cyborgs on second life.

Evaluation

Lack of research support for reduced cues theory

Wrong to say that non-verbal cues are not present, they are just different. Walther- people use different cues online, such as timing and style of messages.

Acrostics (such as LOL) and emoji’s are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice. The success of CMC is difficult for reduced cues theory to explain, because it shows that CMC can be just as personal and intimate as FtF.

Research support for the hyper-personal model

People are motivated to disclose in CMC in either ‘hyperdishonest’ or ‘hyperhonest’. Questions in online chats tend to be direct, probing and intimate, whereas real life discussions tend to involve small talk.

The way we self-disclose in CMC relationships is in an exaggerated positive light which aids relationship formation.

Types of CMC-  Self- disclosure’s extent and depth depends on the type of CMC used. On social networking sites people who interact with each other generally have relationships in the offline world. Online dating is interesting because self-disclosure is reduced because the individuals usually anticipate future meetings FtF, which is not usually a factor in online chatrooms or gaming sites.

Parasocial Relationships

Levels of parasocial relationships

McCutcheon- Celebrity Attitude Scale

Three levels of parasocial relationship:

·         Entertainment-social: least intense level. Celebs are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction, e.g. gossiping.

·         Intense-personal: Intermediate level. Reflects greater personal involvement e.g. frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings about the celeb, considering them to be their ‘soul mate’.

·         Borderline pathological: Strongest level of celebrity worship, uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours e.g. spending a lot of money on celebrity-related object, or being willing to perform an illegal act on the celebrity’s say-so.

The absorption-addiction model

Parasocial relationships allows them to escape from reality or find fulfilment that they can’t achieve in their actual relationships.

Someone who initially has entertainment-social may be triggered into a more intense involvement by a personal crisis or stressful life event.

Absorption: seeking fulfilment from celeb worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celeb, to be pre-occupied in their existence and identify with them.

Addiction: the individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger involvement with the celeb. This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.

The attachment theory explanation

Tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood.

Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in life.

Ainsworth identified two attachment types associated with unhealthy emotional development: insecure-resistant and insecure-avoidant.

Insecure-resistant types are most likely to form parasocial relationships as adults. They need to have unfulfilled needs met, but in a relationship that is not accompanied with the threat of rejection, break-up and disappointment.

Insecure-avoidant types prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether, whether they be social or parasocial.

Support for the absorption-addiction model

Maltby- investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in males and females age 14-16.

-Females reported an intense-personal parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired. These females tended to have a poor body image. Speculated that this link may be a precursor to development of eating disorders.

Problems with attachment theory

McCutcheon- measured celeb attitudes and attachment type. Insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships than participants with secure attachments.

Questions about validity of attachment theory-fails to support one of its central predictions.

Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives

A satisfying relationship is judged on the rewards and the costs and seen as profitable if it has many rewards and little costs. Alternatives are seen before as CLalt, where partners question if someone else would be a better alternative, or having no partner at all.

Investment size

Rusbalt argued that CL and CLalt from SET are not enough to explain commitment. There is a third crucial factor- investment.

Investment refers to the extent and importance of resources associated with the relationships.

• Intrinsic investment- resources put directly in the relationship. These can be anything from money and possessions (tangibles) to energy, emotion and self-disclosures (intangibles).
• Extrinsic investment- previously did not feature in the relationship but are closely related to it. Tangibles include possessions bought together, car, ,mutual friends acquired together and children. Intangibles include shared memories.

Satisfaction versus commitment 

Main factor that cause people to stay in relationships is not satisfaction but commitment. Dissatified partners stay int he relationship because they are so committed. They have put in an investment that they do not want to go to waste.

Relationship maintenance mechanisms

Commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours.

Accommodation- promote the relationship.

Willingness to sacrifice- put partners interests first.

Forgiveness- forgive them for any serious trangressions.

Positive illusions- unrealistically positive about their partner.

Ridiculing alternatives- negative about tempting alternatives and other peoples relationships.

Evaluation

Support from research evidence-

Le and Agnew- satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment.

Explains abuse relationships-

Women who had been abused- the ones most likely to return reported making the most investments and little alternatives (most committed).

Oversimplifies investment-

Agnew- early stages in relationship don't have much investment, therefore it is furture plans that motivate them to see the relationship through.