Relationships Psychology

• Universal tendency CP


  >other evidence is not supportive,

  -McCutcheon et al. (2006) measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 American ppts,

  -found attachment security did not affect the likelihood of forming a parasocial relationship with a celebrity,

  -ppts with insecure attachments were no more likely to form such relationships than ppts with secure attachments,

  L: shows that parasocial relationships are not necessarily a way of compensating for attachment issues.

  Also socially sensitive to base theory on attachment types as it blames the parents.
• Universal tendencies


  P: explain why ppl all over the world have a desire to form parasocial relationships,

  E: Juliet Dinkha et al. (2015) compared contrasting cultures,

  -collectivist (Kuwait) and individualist (US) cultures,

  -found ppl with insecure attachment tule most likely to form intense parasocial relationships with celebrities,

  -true in both types of culture,

  >the 'driver' for forming a parasocila relationship is independent of cultural influences,

  L: supports the view that attachment type may be a universal explanation for the need to form parasocial relationships.
• Low temporal validity (2005), Alpha bias


  link to absorption addiction model

  P: exaggerates the differences between men and women, by the particular interest in girls,

  -this minimises the impacts of male intense-personal parasocial relationships and fails to explain them in relation to the absorption addiction model if men don't lack low self-esteem and have high fulfilment,

  -just focusing on one example of girls who have low self-esteem and an intense-personal parasocial relationship, and not men who have self esteem and the same relationship,

  >also fails to account for individual differences and the idea that the low self esteem could come after the intense-personal parasocial relationship, and become a result of this focus on celebrity's body type,

  -alters from the absorption addiction model prediction, that low self esteem is a cause for an intense-personal parasocial relationship.
• Support for absorption addiction model

  P: link between celebrity worship and body image,

  E: addiction-absorption model suggests deficiency in a persons life (poor body image) would predispose them to forming parasocial relationships,

  >John Maltby et al. (2005), body and girls aged 14-16,

  -interested in girls who reported intense-personal parasocial relationship with an adult female celebrities body shape they admired,

  -girls tended to have poor body image,

  -speculated may contribute to development of an eating disorder,

  L: supports the models prediction of an association between poor psychological functioning and the level (type and intensity) of parasocial relationship.
• Evaluation extra RS, correlation is not causation


  >McCutcheon et al (2016) study (+ others), correlational analysis,

  >studies do not show casual relationship between variables,

  -cannot conclude that anxiety in relationships causes borderline-pathological parasocial involvement,

  -casual relationships could be un the other direction,

  -third factor, not measured in study could be cause if both variables,

  >correlations can be valuable because they suggest links between variables even though they don't demonstrate causes,

  -methods may be the only option we have when studying ppls behaviour in their everyday lives.
• Parasocial relationships RS for levels,

  P: Strength of the levels 'model' is that its predictions are supported by research support (predictive validity),

  E: McCutcheon et al (2016). used CAS (Celebrity attitude scale) to measure level of parasocial relationships,

  -assessed ppts problems in their intimate relationships,

  -ppts scored as borderline-pathological or intense-personal tended experience high degree of anxiety in intimate relationships.

  -entertainment-social level generally did not,

  L: suggests that 'celebrity worshippers' can usefully be classified into three categories, these are predictive of actual behaviour.
• Attachment theory explanation
• Absorption addiction model
• parasocial relationships
• Virtual relationships AO3, (+) support for absence of gating

  >shy, lonely and socially anxious ppl find virtual relationships valuable,

  >Katelyn McKenna, John Bargh (2000),

  >online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious ppl,

  >able to express 'true selves' more than F t F,

  >formed online relationships,

  -71% lasted 2 yrs,

  >compares well with relationships for shy ppl formed in offline world

  -49% by Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994),

  L: suggests that shy ppl do not benefit online presumable because gating that obstruct F t F relationship is absent online.
• Virtual relationships AO3, (-) lack of support for hyper personal model, CA


  >SR techniques, subjective way of measuring data,

  >F t F relationships described the frequency, breadth and depth of SD because they were bias and wanted F t F relationships to seem superior to virtual ones,

  >ppts subject to social desireability bias, feel should please public and show relationship as deeper, when not,

  L: means the findings that suggests F t F relationships are more broader, showing them as superior to virtual ones are subject to bias, therefore challenging the idea that virtual relationships are more personal +greater SD—> hyper personal model as invalid.
• Virtual relationships AO3, (-) lack of support for hyper personal model,

  >Erin Ruppel et al (2017),

  >meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosure in F t F and virtual interactions,

  >self-report studies showed that frequency, breadth and depth of SD are all greater in F t F relationships,

  >experimental studies showed no significant differences between F t F and virtual relationships in terms if SD,

  >contradicts hyper-personal models view that greater intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to more and deeper SD than in F t F relationships,
• Virtual relationships AO3, (-) lack of support for reduced cues, CA

  >John Walter and Tidwell didn't account tone of message,

  >Sarcasm, sorrow (emotions) cannot be easily presented over message as it lacks the tone that a F t F interaction has,

  >emotions may be a substitute, cannot truly represent the tone of a message due to different ways it can be interpreted,

  >tone of voice F t F, much more clear and easy to distinguish, no confusion,

  L: therefore virtual relationships cannot be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure if there is miscommunication hindering the intensity and intimacy of relationship.
• Virtual relationships AO3, (-) lack of support for reduced cues

  >online nonverbal cues are different rather than absent,

  >Joseph Walther and Lisa Tidwell (1995), ppl in online interactions use other cues, eg style and timing of message,

  >eg taking time to reply to status update may be more intimate than an immediate response,

  >however taking too much time could be interpreted as a snob,

  E: nuances in virtual relationships that as subtle as F t F one's,

  >eg emoticons and emojis can be used as substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice,

  >hard fir reduced cues theory to explain—> means virtual relationships can be just as personal as F t F one's.
• Negative of lack of gate, catfishing


  >ppl can create false identities and deceive ppl in ways they couldn't manage in F t F,

  >person can change age, gender eg second life.
• Benefits of lack of gate, SD


  >virtual relationship can develop to point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper,

  >relationship can 'get off the ground' in way that's less likely to happen face-to-face,

  >absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features,

  >virtual relationship more interested in what saying tuns look and sound like,

  >can also be 'true selves' more than F t F,
• Gating in virtual relationships


  >Katelyn McKenna and John Bargh (1999),

  >a gate is any obstacle to forming a relationship,

  >F f F relationship is gated, involves physical un attractiveness, facial disfigurement, a stammer or social anxiety, shyness, blushung etc... that a interfere with early development of a relationship.
• anonymity causing hyperpersonal

  >John Bargh et al (2002),

  >outcome is like strangers on a train effect in F t F relationships,

  >when aware that others don't know your identity, feel less accountable for your behaviour,

  >disclose more about yourself to a stranger than your most intimate partner.
• 2)

  >receiver gains a positive impression of the sender,

  >may give feedback,

  >reinforces senders selective self-presentation,
• 1)

  >Sender of message has greater control over what to discuss ans cues to send than in F t F,

  >selective self-presentation,

  >sender manipulated self-image to present themself in an idealised way,

  >self-disclosure can be both intensely truthful (hyper honest) and/or intensely false (hyper dishonest).
• Hyper personal model


  >Joseph Walther (1996, 2011),

  >virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure that F t F one's,

  >because virtual relationships can develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier, once established more intense and intimate,

  >two key features of hyperpersonal self-disclosure in virtual relationships,
• Virtual relationships, reduced cues theory

  >Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler (1986),

  >virtual relationships are less effective than F t F ones as lack maru cues we depend on in F t F interactions,

  >nonverbal cues eg physical appearance, emotional stage (facial expressions, tone of voice),

  >reduces a persons sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (de-individualisation), leads to disinhibition,

  >many ppl feel freer to communication in blunt and even aggressive ways,

  >ppl unlikely to express real thoughts and feeling to someone who is so impersonal.
• Ducks phase model, early phases are less understood


  >under explains the early phases of breakdown,

  >because much of research is retrospective, ppts in research studies generally report their experiences so,E time after the relationship has ended,

  >what they recall might not always be accurate of reliable,

  >especially true of early stages- by definition the early phases occur 'longer ago,'

  >partners can be in the intra-psychic phase for a long time so recall may not explain the early part of the breakdown process + later phases,

  >retrospective data is difficult to analyse, subjective, vague and untestable (link to question + study).
• Ducks phase model, incomplete model, CA


  >gender bias,

  >both ducks phase model and the Rollie and Duck further evaluation fail to consider the whole person and reduce relationship breakdown to either 4 or 5 stages,

  L: this means the model is reductionistic and therefore lacks accuracy,
• Ducks phase model, incomplete model, link


  >therefore the original model does not account for the complexity of breakdown and it's dynamic nature,
• Ducks phase model, incomplete model,


  >Rollie and Duck (2006) stated that the original model was oversimplified, added a fifth stage,

  >called 'resurrection stage,'

  >ex-partners turn their attention to figure relationships using experiences gained from their recent one,

  >progression from one stage to another is not inevitable- you can turn back,

  >the new model also emphasises processed that occur in relationship breakdown (gossip), rather than the linear movement from one phase to another,
• Stage 4: grave dressing phase, focus


  >focus is on aftermath,

  >'spinning' a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption,

  >allows partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation,

  >showing other partner in a bad light,

  >gossip plays an important role, each partner tries to retain some 'social credit,'

  >La Gaipa 1982, by blaming circumstances, partner other ppl,

  >involves creating personal story to love with, may differ from public one,

  >tidying up memories of relationship, certain degree of rewriting of history,

  >traits endearing at start now reinterpreted in more negative fashion,

  >'wild and unpredictable nature' is now seen as an 'irresponsible failure to settle down,'

  >dissatisfied partner finally reaches the threshold, 'time to get a new life.
• Stage 4: grave dressing phase, threshold

  'It's now inevitable
• Stage 3: social phase, focus


  >focus on wider processes involving the couples social networks,

  >break-up is made public, partners will seek support and try to forge pacts,

  >mutual friends are expected to choose a side, gossip is traded and encouraged, some friends provide reinforcement and reassurance ('I always said you were too good for him'), others will place blame on one partner,

  >some may hasten the end if the relationship by providing previously secret information ('I didn't want to mention this but...'),

  >others may pitch in NS Tey to help repair the relationship (acting as a go-between),

  >this is usually the point of no return- the break up takes momentum driven by social forces,
• Stage 3: social phase, threshold


  The dissatisfied partner concludes, 'I mean it.
• Stage 2: dyadic phase, focus


  >interpersonal conflict between the two partners,

  >comes a point when they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer,

  >series of confrontations in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired,

  >these are characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resentment over Imbalanced roles and a rethinking of the commitment that kept the partners together,

  >two possible outcomes

  -a determination to continue breaking up the relationship,

  -renewed desire to repair it,

  >if rescue events fail, another threshold is reaches,

  >ironically self-disclosure may become deeper and more freeing in this hose as partners express thoughts and feelings they have been withholding in the intro-psychic phase.
• Stage 2: dyadic phase, threshold


  They eventually come to the conclusion, 'I would be justified in withdrawing.
• Stage 1: intra-psychic phase, focus


  >focus on cognitive processes occurring within the individual,

  >dissatisfied partner worried about the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partners shortcomings,

  >the partner mulls their thoughts over privately and may share them with a trusted friend,

  >they weight up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives (including being alone),

  >they begin to make plans for the future,
• Stage 1: intra-psychic phase, threshold


  'I can't stand this anymore,' indicating a determination that something has to change.
• Ducks phase model


  >Duck (20077), argues that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases,

  >each phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a 'threshold,' a point at which their perception of the relationship changes (usually for the worst),

  >the road to break-up begins once a partner realises that they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed about the way things are going.
• RIV, perception Vs reality

  >model is supported by self-report methods (questionnaires), which can be influenced by biases and subjective beliefs or respondents,

  >however, these may be appropriate methods to measure investment and comparison with alternatives because what determines commitment to a relationships is not rue objective reality,

  >what may matter more is what a person believes or perceived (eg, one partner thinks they have made a big investment but that isn't objectively the case.
• RIV, oversimplifies investment

  >Wind Goodfriend and Christopher Agnew (2008), more to investment than just resources already put into a relationship,

  >in early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments (may not even live together),

  >Goodfriend and Agnew extended Rusbelts original model by including the investment partners make in their future plans,

  >motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out,

  L: this means the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment.
• RIV, explains abusive relationships

  >Caryl Rusbelt and John Martz (1995) studies domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (presumably most committed) reported having made the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives,

  >these women were dissatisfied with their relationships but still committed to them,

  L: therefore the model shies that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why ppl stay in relationships- commitment and investment are also factors.
• Relationship maintenance mechanisms,


  >commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours,

  >enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation,

  >instead promote the relationship (accommodation),

  >forgive them for serious transgressions (forgiveness),

  >cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair,

  -committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in specific (and predictable) ways,

  -unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions),

  -negative about tempting alternatives and other peoples relationships (ridiculing alternatives), much more so than less committed partners.
• Satisfaction versus commitment

  >Rusbelt et al argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction a contributory factor,

  >help to explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship- because they are committed to their partner,

  >committed because they have made an investment that they do not want to see go to waste,

  >therefore will work hard to maintain and repair a damages relationship, especially when it hits a rough patch.