Relationships

• Sexual selection 


  Darwin (1871)

  Selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction

  Physical characteristics sign of genetic fitness

  Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring
• Anisogamy 


  The difference between male and female sex cells (gametes)

  Sperm small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age, don’t need much energy

  Eggs, large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require significant energy

  Females rarer resources
• Inter-sexual selection 


  Between sexes

  Females use to select partner

  Female more selective about partner who must provide resources and pass on advantageous characteristics

  Children more likely to have reproductive success as they have attractive characteristics
• Intra-sexual selection 


  Within each sex

  Male prefer

  Quantity over quality

  Competition between males to mate and characteristics leading to success passed on

  Dimorphism

  Males and females look very different as different characteristics more advantageous

  Behaviours may also improve competition
• Self-disclosure


  Revealing personal information about yourself
• Social penetration theory 


  Irwin Altman + Dalmas Taylor (1973)

  Gradual process of revealing inner self to someone

  Reciprocal

  Shows trust

  Increasingly disclose know eachother more
• Disclosure elements 


  Breadth and depth

  First disclose superficial surface level

  Eventually reveal intimate, high-risk information
• Depenetration


  Dissatistied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship
• Physical attractiveness 


  Shackelford and Larsen (1997)

  Symmetrical faces rated more attractive, honest signal of genetic fitness

  Neotenous attractive, features trigger protective or caring instinct valuable for reproductive females
• Halo Effect


  Preconceived ideas about the personality traits, positive

  Dion et al.

  Physically attractive people consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive

  Self-fulfilling prophecy
• The Computer Dance Procedure

  Elaine Walster et al. 1966

  Male and female students invited to dance

  Rated for physical attractiveness at the start by objective observers

  Completed questionnaire about themselves

  Told the data about themselves and told data used to find partner

  Actually paired up randomly
• The Computer Dance Findings

  Hypothesis not supported

  Most liked partners were the most physically attractive rather than taking their own level into account
• Replicated Computer Dance


  Berscheid et al. (1971)

  Participants able to select partner from people of varying attractiveness

  Tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
• Filter theory


  Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)

  Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term (<18 months) and long term

  Series of different factors progressively reduces the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities
• Field of availables


  Entire set of potential romantic partners

  All people we could realistically form a relationship with
• Field of desirables Factors

  Social demography

  Similarity of attitudes

  Complementary
• Social demography Filter


  First level

  Influence the chance of meeting in the first place

  Geographical location

  Social class

  Level of education

  Ethnic group

  Religion

  Those who live closer are most meaningful and memorable interactions, also most accessible

  Anyone too different discounted

  Homogamy, more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar to you
• Similarity in Attitudes Filter

  Second

  Share important beliefs and values

  Important to the development of relationships less than 18 months old

  Encourages greater and deeper communication and promotes self-disclosure

  Byrne (1997)

  Similarity causes attraction

  Law of attraction
• Complementarity Filter


  Third

  Ability to meet partner’s needs

  Trait the other lacks

  More important in long term couples

  Feeling that together they form a whole which adds depth
• Social Exchange Theory 


  Thibault and Kelley (1959)

  Behaviour in relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange

  Minimise losses, maximise gains (minmax principle)

  Judge satisfaction by profit

  Subjective value between people and times

  Opportunity cost, cannot invest resources elsewhere
• Comparison level 


  Way to measure profit

  Amount of reward you believe you deserve

  Develops from previous relationships and social norms

  Changes over time as we experience more

  Relationship worth pursuing if the CL is high

  Self-esteem associations
• Comparison Level for Alternatives

  Measure of profit

  Wider context for our current relationship

  Stay in relationships only if we believe it is more rewarding than alternatives

  Duck (1994)

  Relies on current state of our relationship

  Costs outweigh rewards then alternatives more attractive
• Stages of relationship development

  Thibault and Kelley

  Sampling stage, explore rewards and costs by experimenting in our own relationship or observing others

  Bargaining stage, marks beginning of a relationship, start exchanging, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable

  Commitment stage, sources of cost and reward more predictable, relationship more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen

  Institutionalisation stage, partners settled because norms of rewards and costs firmly established
• Equity Theory


  Walster (1978)

  Matters most that partners level of profit is roughly same

  Overbenefit - guilt, discomfort, shame

  Underbenefit - anger, hostility, resentment, humiliation

  Not about amount of reward or cost but ratio of two

  If they put a lot in and get a lot out they are satisfied

  Negotiations
• Consequences of inequity


  Strong correlation between perceived inequity and dissatisfaction

  Changes in perceived equity as relationship progresses

  Under benefited motivated to make the relationship more equitable if they believe it is possible and the relationship is salvageable

  Correlation between unfair relationship feels and harder work to restore equity

  May revise cognitively perception of rewards and costs so relationship more equitable

  Costs = norm
• Investment model 


  Rusbult et al. (2011)

  Development of social exchange theory

  Three factors:

  Satisfaction

  Comparison with alternatives

  Investment
• Satisfaction Factor


  One

  Based on comparison level

  Comparing rewards and costs to judge if profitable

  Satisfied if they receive more than they expect based on previous experience and social norms
• Comparison with alternatives factor

  Are alternatives more rewarding

  May be another relationship or none at all
• Investment factor 


  Three

  Comparison level and comparison with alternatives not enough to explain commitment

  Many more relationships would end as soon as costs outweighed rewards or more attractive alternative appears

  Investment - anything we could lose if the relationship were to end

  Intrinsic and extrinsic investments
• Intrinsic investment 


  Resources put directly into the relationship

  Tangible things like money and possessions

  Resources less easy to quantify such as energy, emotions and self-disclosures
• Extrinsic Investments


  Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it

  Tangibles include possessions bought together, mutual friends and children

  Intangible like shared memories
• Commitment 


  Main factor people stay in relationships

  Maintenance mechanisms

  Promote relationship, put partners interests first and forgive them

  Cognitively positive illusions are unrealistically positive about their partner and ridicule alternatives
• Phase model of a relationship breakdown

  Duck (2007)

  Four phases marked by one or both partners reaching a distinct threshold where their perception of the relationship changes

  Intra-psychic phase

  Dyadic phase

  Social phase

  Grave dressing phase
• Intra-psychic phase


  Cognitive process occurring within the individual

  Worrying about reasons they are dissatisfied

  Think privately and with trusted friend

  Evaluate relationship

  Begin to make plans for the future
• Dyadic phase


  Interpersonal processes between two partners

  Cannot avoid talking about their relationship

  Confrontations where it is discussed and dissatisfactions aired

  Anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles, rethinking of commitment

  Outcome: continue breaking up or renewed desire to repair it

  Self-disclosure may be deeper
• Social phase


  Wider process involving couple’s social networks

  Public

  Seek support and try forge pacts

  Mutual friends expected to pick a side

  Gossip traded and encouraged

  Friends may reinforce and reassure or help try to repair the relationship

  Usually point of no return
• Grave dressing phase


  Aftermath

  Favourable story about the breakdown for the public

  Allows partner to save face

  Gossip

  Retain social credit by blaming everything but themself

  Creating a personal story you can live with

  Believe it is time to find a new life
• Reduced Cues Theory


  Sproull and Kiesler (1986)

  Virtual relationships are less effective than face to face because they lack many of the cues we depend on ftf

  Nonverbal cues like physical appearance and cues to emotional state

  De-individuation where they lose sense of individual identity which leads to disinhibition

  People communicate more freely as blunt and aggressive

  People unlikely to want to express real thoughts and feelings to someone who is so impersonal
• Hyperpersonal Model


  Walther (1996, 2011)

  Virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than ftf

  Can develop quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier and once established more intense and intimate

  Greater control over disclosure and cues, selective self-presentation

  Positive feedback that reinforces behaviour

  
  

  Bargh et al. (2002)

  Anonymity

  Strangers on a train effect

  Aware people don’t know identity so less accountable
• Gate


  McKenna and Bargh (1999)

  Any obstacle to forming a relationship

  Ftf gated as many features can interfere with early development of a relationship