Relationships

• Inter/Intra Sexual Competition(Evolutionary Theory)

  Intersexual - One sex having preferences for members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities.

  Intrasexual - Members of the same sex competing with one other for members of the opposite sex.

  Weaknesses - Heteronormative, low in temporal validity

  Strengths - Supported by Clark and Hatfield
• Anisogamy (Evolutionary Theory)


  The difference between male and female sex cells. Men are promiscuous as they have practically unlimited sex cells, whereas women are choosy because they can only reproduce around once a year.
• Factors influencing attraction

  Female -

  Young, hourglass shape (symbolises fertility)

  Large eyes, rosy cheeks (symbolises health and fertility)

  Male -

  Committed, strong (symbolises resources)

  Facial symmetry (symbolises good genes)
• Factors influencing attraction pt.2

  Halo Effect - People who are perceived as physically attractive are assumed to be more successful/intelligent/have a better personality (Dion et al)

  Matching Hypothesis - People will form relationships with people of a similar level of physical attractiveness (Feingold meta analysis)
• Sexy Son Hypothesis (Fisher)


  When a female mates with a male that has attractive/desirable traits, those "sexy" characteristics get passed down to the son. This increases the chances that successive generations will mate with her offspring.
• Clark and Hatfield


  75% of men agreed to have sex with a woman they have never met before on a college campus, whereas 0% of women said yes to a man they had never met before. However, 50% of women agreed to go on a date This demonstrates how men are promiscuous, whereas women are choosy.
• Evaluation of the Evolutionary Explanation of Partner Preferences


  Weaknesses:

  Heteronormative, Low temporal validity due to the progress of gender roles

  Strength:

  Supported by evidence (Clark and Hatfield, Feingold)
• Self Disclosure 


  The reciprocal and gradual exchange of information between two people. It is necessary to build intimacy and for a relationship to progress, and begins with a high amount of superficial info, which slowly turns into small amounts of intimate, high risk info. (Altman and Taylor - Breadth and Depth)
• Evaluation of Self Disclosure Theory

  Strength:

  Supported by research evidence: Hass and Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women said that self - disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened the intimacy of their committed relationships (high generalisability)

  Weakness:

  Culturally biased - American people self disclose more about sexual thoughts and feelings than Chinese people (individualistic vs collectivist)
• Filter Theory


  Potential partners are filtered through three stages until you're left with the most desirable people who you would start a relationship with.

  Filter 1 - Social demography (location, class, religion etc.)

  Filter 2 - Similarity in attitudes (interests, beliefs)

  Filter 3 - Complementarity (meeting eachother's needs)
• Evaluation of the Filter Theory

  Weakness:

  Bidirectional ambiguity (Dave and Rusbult - partners' attitudes align over time)

  Strength:

  Supported by research evidence (Gruber - Baldini - found that couples who share more similarities, e.g educational level, at the start of a relationship are more likely to be together twenty years later)
• Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut and Kelley)


  Minimax Principle - The belief that you try to maximise your profit/reward (praise, sex, companionship) and minimise your cost/losses (arguments, compromise, commitments)
• Social Exchange Theory pt.2

  Individuals have to keep an eye on the "balance" in their relationship

  Comparison Level (CL) - Involves comparing the current relationship with one's perception of what a relationship should be like

  CL for Alternatives (CLAlt) - Involves comparing the current relationship with other potential relationships on offer
• Social Exchange Theory pt.3 (Stages)

  Stages of relationship development:

  Sampling - You try out the potential rewards and costs associated with being a couple

  Bargaining - New partners negotiate a dynamic, exchange rewards and costs, and figure out a profitable exchange

  Institutionalisation / Commitment - When partners become familiar with sources of rewards and costs, costs decrease and rewards increase
• Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory

  Weakness - Bidirectional ambiguity (Do we measure rewards and costs and then dissatisfaction, or feel dissatisfaction and then begin to notice the balance of costs and rewards)

  Strength - Real world applications (Gottman and Levenson found that the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was around 5:2, but unsuccessful marriages this ratio was at 1:1 or less)
• Equity Theory


  Developed in response to criticism of the SET - Total equality is not necessary, instead both partners' level of profit should be fair e.g if one partner puts less in to a relationship they will receive less, it is not an equal balance of rewards/costs between both partners, but it is a fair one.
• Equity Theory pt.2

  If inequity (underbenefitting compared to overbenefitting) occurs, people will deal with it in two ways:

  Behavioural Shift - You will work heard to try and restore equity, but you must believe that change is possible

  Cognitive Shift - You change your perception of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels equitable again, even if nothing really changes
• Evaluation of Equity Theory

  Strength:

  Supported by research evidence - (Utne - couples who viewed their relationship as equitable were more happy than those who perceived themselves as under/over benefitting)

  Weakness:

  Not generalisable to everybody (Huesman - some people are "benevolents" or "entitleds" who don't care for equity and are happy under/over benefitting)
• Rusbult's Investment Model


  Emphasises the importance of commitment in relationships, addresses the limitations of SET:

  Satisfaction Level - Positive cost/reward balance

  Comparison with Alternatives - Could my needs be better met/better cost/reward balance

  Investment Size - The resources which you would lose if the relationship ends

  These three factors determine your Commitment Level
• Rusbult's Investment Model pt.2

  Investment Size:

  Intrinsic - Resources put directly in to the relationship

  Tangible - money, gifts

  Intangible - energy, emotion

  Extrinsic - Resources that previously did not exist in the relationship but are now closely associated with it

  Tangible - Possessions bought together

  Intangible - Shared memories
• Rusbult's Investment Modelpt.3


  Argues that the main factor that causes people to stay together is not satisfaction but commitment - Some people may choose to stay in an unsatisfying relationship because they have committed a large investment which they don't want to lose now
• Rusbult's Investment Model pt.4

  If you have a high commitment level, you will be more likely to engage in certain "relationship maintenance mechanisms"

  Accommodation

  Willingness to sacrifice

  Forgiveness

  Positive illusion

  Ridiculing alternatives
• Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Theory


  Strength:

  Supported by strong research evidence (Le and Agnew - meta analysis of 11k straight and gay PP's from 5 countries found that satisfaction and CLAlt and investment size predicted relationship commitment)

  Weakness:

  May oversimplify the concept of investment (There is more to investment than what you have already put into a relationship, e.g those in a new relationship will have few actual investments, "future plans" should be integrated in to the model to improve it)
• Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown


  Duck Argued that there were four key processes of a relationship dissolution:

  1. Intra - Psychic Phase ("I can't stand this anymore") A cognitive process occurs within the individual, they think about the partner's shortcomings and evaluate the alternatives
  2. Dyadic Phase ("I would be justified in leaving") Confrontations lead to the individual revealing their relationship dissatisfaction, leads to anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity etc.
• Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

  3. Social Phase ("I mean it") Focus widens to social networks, partners seek support and friends choose sides

  4. Grave Dressing Phase ("It's inevitable") Focus on the aftermath, spin a favourable story, blames other partners / circumstances
• Evaluation of Duck's Phase Model

  Strength:

  Has real world applications (Stages can be used in relationship counselling)

  Weakness:

  Not applicable to all cultures (Moghaddam - relationships in individualist countries are generally voluntary and are more likely to end, whereas collectivist relationships are more likely to be obligatory, harder to end and include the wider family)
• Virtual Relationships

  FtF Relationships - Face to Face

  CMC Relationships - Computer Mediated Communication
• Reduced Cues Theory 


  Sproull and Kiesler state that CMC relationships are less successful than FtF because they lack many of the cues we depend on in FtF such as facial expressions and tone of voice. This leads to de-individuation which encourages disinhibition in self disclosing to others. You are less likely to reveal intimate details to somebody who seems impersonal, leading to a lack of strong relationships
• Hyperpersonal Model


  Walther argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self - disclosure than FtF ones. Self disclosure happens faster and is more intense and intimate. They also end more quickly as the high excitement isn't matched by high levels of trust ("Boom and Bust Model"). You can also manipulate online images in order to self disclose in a positive idealised way, which doesn't promote trust (Selective self - presentation)
• Absence of Gating


  A gate is any obstacle which is in the way of forming a relationship, such as a speech impediment or social anxiety. An advantage of CMC is the absence of gating because it facilitates frequent and deep self disclosure. The absence of gating allows for an online relationship to "get off the ground" in a way that is less likely to happen in a FtF situation.
• Evaluation of the Absence of Gating

  Strength:

  Supported by research evidence (Mckenna and Bargh found that lonely and socially anxious people were more able to express themselves using CMC, and relationships formed online were more likely survive two years than those formed in the offline world

  Weakness: Low temporal validity, due to the development of things like facetime which allow for you to express facial emotions
• Evaluation of the Hyperpersonal Model

  Strength:

  Supported by research evidence (Whitty and Joinson found that questions asked online were more direct, probing and intimate compared to questions asked in FtF conversations

  Weakness:

  Low temporal validity due to Facetime etc.
• Evaluation of Reduced Cues Theory

  Weakness:

  Low temporal validity