Relationships

AO1

Sexual selection - genes that have reproductive success passed on

Anisogamy - M = sperm produced high quantities,, less choosy / F = eggs finite quantity, selective

Leads to 2 mating strategies:

Intersexual selection: Females select the 'attractive' males so they determine features passed on e.g. runaway process/ sexy son's hypothesis

Intrasexual selection: Males compete with each other to 'win' as they seek quantity, aggression & larger body passed on. Results in physical dimorphism. 

AO3

+ Clarke & Hatfield: 75% men / 0% women accepted sexual request

+ Buss: Questionnaire, 10k ppts in 33 countries, men value youth & women resources

- Lack of temporal validity of research

- Socially sensitive for men and women​

 

AO1

Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) Field of availables (everyone) and desirables (after three filters)

1. Social demography - factors which influence chance of meeting

2. Similarity in attitudes - important <18 months. Promotes better self disclosure. Byrne (1997) Law of attraction. Similar attitudes = more attraction. 

3. Complementarity - can meet each others needs where one has traits the other lacks. 

AO3

+ Research evidence.  Similarity of attitudes <18 months & complementarity after. 

- Markey (2013) lesbian couples more satisfied when equally dominant (not complementarity)

- Perceived similarity is more impt

- Outdated with social media

AO1

Economic theory (costs v rewards)

Development of SET

Commitment is more important than satisfaction

Commitment depends on:

Satisfaction: Rewards - costs

Comparison with alternatives

Investment is the most important factor to affect commitment (intrinsic and extrinsic)

AO3

+ Supported by a meta-analysis

+ Can explain why people stay in abusive relationships

- You can be very committed without much investment

- Methodology - social desirability bias

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

AO1

Levels of parasocial relationships:

Entertainment-social: gossip

Intense personal: obsessive thoughts

Borderline-pathological: extreme

Measured by Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS)

Absorption addiction model: Escape from reality, absorb in something they lack, need higher doses

Attachment theory

Bowlby: early difficulties lead to later problems

Ainsworth attachment styles

Insecure-resistant: want a relationship with no risk of rejection

Insecure-avoidant: avoid all relationships

AO3

+ Supportive evidence attachment (McCutheon, 2016)

+ Universal finding cross culturally 

- Self report methodology

+ Real life application: identify young females with body issues

AO1

Self-disclosure is gradually revealing intimate info

It needs to be appropriate

Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) SD is limited at the start, build trust & reciprocate

 Leads to deeper penetration

Analogy of an onion: Breadth & depth is narrow to begin then widens / deepens

Reis & Shaver - need for reciprocity

AO3

+ Correlational research between SD & satisfaction

+ Real world app - Haas & Stafford found that 57% use SD to improve communication - couples therapy

- Contradictory research. Tang: USA (individualistic) SD more but equally as satisfied as China

- Incompatible with Duck's breakdown theory. SD is high in the Dyadic phase but does not increase satisfaction​

​​​​

​

​

AO1

Thibault & Kelley (1959) economic theory. Profit = satisfaction. 

Minimax principle: Minimum costs (inc. opportunity costs) v maximum rewards. 

Comparison level (for profit) - how much do I deserve? (self esteem, personal experience & culture)

CLalt - compare to alternatives

4 stages; sampling, bargaining, commitment & institutionalisation 

AO3

+ Supportive evidence (Kurdeck) -minimax and CL found in hetero and homosexual relationships

- Hard to operationalise costs and benefits - vary for individuals

- Correlational: does dissatisfaction come first or after?

- Do humans make rational decisions in relationships?

​

​

AO1

Intra-psychic phase - private thoughts, pros and cons, "I can't stand this anymore"

Dyadic phase - Dissatisfactions are aired, arguments, "I would be justified in withdrawing"

Social phase - Involved friends and families to gain support, "I mean it"

Grave dressing phase - each partner tries to create a favourable perception, "It's now inevitable"

New: The resurrection phase

AO3

- Methodology = retrospective

- Does not explain why they are breaking up

- Real life app: relationship counselling

- Cultural bias to individualistic cultures

​

​

AO1

Shackleford & Larson - symmetry = good genetic fitness

Neotenous (baby) face - triggers protective instincts (attachment)

Halo effect - attractive people also perceived positively e.g. kind, successful etc (Dion, 1972) 

Matching hypothesis suggests we go for people on a similar level.

We make realistic choices to avoid rejection.

Walster (1966) Computer Dance did not not support the MH. But when ppts selected partner themselves they selected similar attractiveness (Berscheid, 1971)

AO3

+ Halo effect: Palmer & Peterson - more attractive = more politically knowledgeable

+ Universal finding of baby face

- Taylor (2011) online dating - people went for most attractive

- Individual differences e.g. Touhey (1979)​​

​

​

AO1

Economic theory (costs v rewards)

Developed due to criticism of SET Fairness rather than profit

Lack of equity if:

Under-benefitting = anger

Over-benefitting = guilt

Perception changes over time

Dealing with inequity: realignment and redistribution (of costs and rewards)

AO3

+ Supportive evidence Utne (1984)

- Cultural differences

- Individual differences - benevolents and entitleds

- Does equity change over time in real life?

​​​

​

​

​​​

​

​

AO1

Self-disclosure

Reduced cues theory = less SD (deindividuation -> disinhibition)

Hyperpersonal theory = more SD

Selective self-presentation; hyper-honest or dishonest

Anonymity: Strangers on a train

Absence of gating

Lack of obstacles to get relationship off the ground

AO3

- Not a total lack of cues online just different e.g. emojis

-/+ Ruppel (2017) greater SD in F2F

- Many social networking sites - cannot take nomothetic approach

+ Whitty & Johnson: more SD in CMC as self presentation is manipulated

-/+ Are any relationships just on or just offline?