Relationships

Theories of virtual relationships on social media

--Reduced cues theory (sproul and keisler (1986) paralanguage reduced discorages SD as individuals are unable to relates or judge how they are percieved. contrasted by: Absence of Gating (Mckenna and Bargh 1999) removal of superficial distracting features of what a person looks like or their mannerisms and allows people toget to know each other. more likely to SD as judgement is rduced. peron is able to exist in second life and change themselves. --hyperpeorsonal Model (walther 1996-2011) Boon and bust phenomenon -cooper and sportolari. - hyperperson relationships cometo end more quickly as its hard to maintain intimacy and intensity. Hyper personalModel = -self-disclosure in online relationships happens earlier than in face-to-face ones, relationships quickly become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful. -people have more contol over how they present themsleves and have more time to presentthemselves in an idolised way. -Absence of gating (McKenna and Bargh 1999). due to --*anonymity* as you feel less accountable.

Theories explaining Parasocial relationships.

-Absorbtion-addition model -Maltby 2003 -Entertainmet social- - intense personal, osessive thoughts and emotional connection -boarderline pathological, stalking and criminal behvaiour -Attachment theory. (ainsworth and Bowlby)- maternal deprivation and continouity hypothesis.-insecure resistant lower risk of rejection an pain and lack of fullfillent with reallife relationships. Insecure avoidant= avaid rejection. - celebrity attitudes scale - McCutcheon 2006

Theories explaining Parasocial relationships.

-Absorbtion-addition model McCutcheon -Attachment theory. -McCutcheon celebrity attitudes scale 2002

Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown

-intra psychic phase- partner dissatisfied -dyadic phase - tells other partner -social phase -break up made public -grave dressing phase -self justification and reflection of relationship breakdown. +resurrection process (added later by rollie and duck)

Theories of factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships

-physical attractiveness: matching hypothesis(founder=Hatfiled, key research =walster 1966), Halo effect (Dion 1972)+Feingold 1988 support -filter theory (Kerkoff and Davis 1962) -social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor 1973)

Theories of romantic relationships

-social exchange theory (Tribult and Kelly 1959) -equity theory (Walster 1959) -rusbults investment model 2011 -ducks phase model of relationship brekdown

research support relating to sexual selection Buss 1989: Females were looking for ? in partner. Males were looking for ? in partner.] How these traits are explained by the evolutionary theory?

Buss 1989 study, exploring what each sex loos for in a marriage partner.closs cultural study 10,000 pps, 37 cultures .............. females were looking for: - 97% females looking for good financial ambition. =for support -intelligence -trait to pass down to offspring - all women wanted older mate= still fertile but better established financially/in status. male looking for: -younger female in 37/37 cultures -more fertile / greater reproductive value. ... (couples with Neto's baby face hypothesis - ellicit a caring responce in men. critical have stated this may be due to the ability to have greater control. -attractive- good genes to pass to offspring

Limitation of similarity and compatibility filters of the filter theory.

David and Rusbult 2001 discovered attitude alignment as relationship progresses. +Anderson 2003 emotional congruence. kerckhoff and Davis 1962- need for com plementarity was more important for LT couples. Cause and effect may be incorrect- theory suggest attraction and forming relationship is due to similarity, Davis and Rusbult 2001 disputes this. Lacks external validity.

reseach support of intersexual selection / difference in reproductive behaviour between males and females.

Hatfield and clarke 1989, will you have sex with me study. pps= uni students. Asked by attractive confederate to sleep with them Results: males =75% said yes, female= 0% said yes Explaination: female investment is higher due to risk of pregnancy and limited release of ova. males are less discriminative as the investment is lower and they have a greater chance of passing on their genes to more offspring. hip to waist ratio- fertility, Singh 2002

Ao1 filter theory of attraction- kerkoff and Davis

Kerkoff and davis 1962 Selecting potential romantic partners 1st filter social demography: social class, geographical location, ethnicity 2nd filter silmilarity: of beliefs and attitudes (incouraging self disclosure and communication) 3rd filter complementarity, having a trait the other partner lacks . similar more important in short tern relationships and complimantarity more important in longterm. Based off of study, using self report of long term and short term relationships over and under 18 months.

Evaluative weaknesses of the whole Filter theory

Levinger failed to replicate the orginial study: Methodological issues with original study: Arbitrary cut off of 18 months, individual difference and difference in pace of relationship development. Low population validity. Ungeneralisable to homosexual couples inability to establish the direction of cause and effect. Davis and Rusbult discover an attitude alignment effect on long term relationships. parnters attitude are brought in line. this may be an effect of inital attreaction and not the cause. reducing credibility of second filter of similarity.

Equity Theory

PERCIVED fairness, Distribution of reward and cost, by partners. No partner profits. comparason level used inequitable= dissatisfied consequenses of inequitable relationships: -realighnment required, chnage in behaviours. -change perception, understand why parnter give less etc. -except inequity as the norm -break up

inter-sexual selection (sexy sone hypothesis/ runaway process

Preferred stategy of females. quality over quantity. due to ANISOGOMY (difference in reproductive organs female ova are more rare than sperm) the female must be selective as the, INVESTMENT and COMMITMENT is greater. Female must choose a parner who can offer resources. sexy sons hypothesis= female chooses male with desirable characterists which will be passed onto her offspring. runawat process= adaptive feature chosen by female. over time this feature in inherited and becomes exagerated ( eg the peacocks feathers)

Evaluation of the physical attractiveness theory

STRENGTHS: Matching hypothesis: Research support- Feingold (1988) metaanlysis of 17 studies. correlation in the partners rating of attractivness. WEAKNESSES: -Contradictory findings: activity logs of an online dating site. Online dating ought out potential who were more attractive than themselves, contradicting the theory. Study done on younger people who may not have learnt their level. TAYLOR 2011 -more widely generalisable: Korean and American judged attractive people as more mature friendly trustworthy. WHEELER AND KIM 1997

Evaluation of Rusbult's investment model

STRENGTHS: -research support RUSBULT heterosexual college students. 7 months questionaires. couples stay together when.... high satisfaction, high investment, low comparison level of alternatives. -practical application in explaining why people stay in abusive relationships RUSBULT AND MARTZ= female rufuges stayed in abusive relationships when investment was high an economic alternative was low. -methodolgical strengths self report NOT a limitation as the model is based on the partner perception. LIMITATION -social desirability bias- socially sensitive info regarding relationships especially of they are abusive. Theory suggests that: satisfaction+investment+alternative =comitment level BUT: it may be that the more committed you feel to your partner the more you invest. Direction of cause and effect unestablishable.

Evaluation of: Social penetration theory

STRENGTHS: -Research support, married couples diary entries= increased diary entry. more sd = more intimate . increased valdity. LAURENCEAU (2005) -real life applications, 57% gay wo/men use SD to maintain relationships. HASS AND STRAFORD (1998) WEAKNESSES: Cultural differences, SD more important in individualist cultures rather than collectivist. US vs china -Increased SD can reduced attraction, in some situations. timing is important interms of stage of relationship development, suggesting that theory is incomplete. Ducks Phase model, suggests that this can occurs later as they reveal unattractive info and disclose what they dislkie about relationship.

Evaluation of the filter theory

STRENGTHS: -research support, social demography FESTINGER ET AL 1950 WEAKNESSES: -Failure to repliate- LEVINGER 1974 -Direction of cause and effect; attitude alighment; increased similarity in longterm partnres davis and rusbult

Evaluation of Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown

STRENGTHS: ....... WEAKNESSES: -oversimplifed. fifth stage added: *resurrection* *process*- Personal growth occuring after end of relationship. ROLLIE AND DUCK 2006 + doent explain how people re-engage in the relationship. -decriptive rather than explanitory. FLEMLEE's fatal attraction hypothesis argues attrcative qualities which brought the patners together cause the breakdown, ('they are funny"/ 'they cant take onything seriously"). Duck model doesnt attemt to explaint the cause of the dissatisfaction. Duck and Flemees model paired create a more coherant explaination -methodological isses of data collection . retropective, subjective, unreliable. lacking validity. ethnocentric toward western culture. MOGHADDAM. relationshipsin west come to end more frequenty as people more conrol. But in collectivist cultures relationships tend to be obligatory/ pocess more family involvement and are often arranged- another example (india not clasisfied as collectivist. eg in india cultural norm of arranged marrige: 1.1% end in divorce, compared to 46.8% in the US.

Evaluation of equity theory

STRENGTHS: research support,questionaire 200 married couples most satisfied in relationships percieved as being equitable, increased validity. STAFORD AND CANARY 2006 predicts success -(no issue of self report based on self report) -research evidence.-predicts failure qualative data. overbenfiting=gulity , underbenfiting =angry/ deprived. HATFIELD study 500 students, 3 months later all inequitable relationships had broken down. demonstating the importance of equity. showing importance. LIMITATION: - individual differeces, HUESMAN 1987, *entitleds*= belive they deserve to over benefit.. *benevolents*= prepared to contribute more than they get out. EQUity theory= over simplified, deternministic, inequity doesn't equal dissatisfatcion. culturally bound -not applicable to all culture or relationshis. short term western relationships are more concerned by give and take. economic theories cannot be applied to Longterm relationships in non western culture as other factor eg security is more inportant.

Evaluation of of virtual relationship on social media.

SUPPORT: -For the hyperpersonal model: reseach support, WHITTY and JOINSON researching online discussiongs found that questions were more direst and sometime intimate than 'small talk' in face-to-face communication and these question were answered by recipricant. ***This contradicts the reduced cues theory as pps slef disclose more online. For the Absence of Gating theory: strenth of absece of gating is that it can allow people to be their 'true selves' MCKENNA AND BARGH 2000 FOUND 70% relationships formed on line survived 2+ years, more than those formed in ftf. More anxious people are able to get to know someone before then meet face to face, limiting physical biases. LIMITATION: Of the Reduced cues theory: -**** -theory is wrong to suggest that non verbal cues are entirely absent from CMC. They maybe different rather than absent. People uses other cues such as punctuation, timing ( too quick a reply implies lack of care), arostics, emojis. WALTHER AND TIDWELL 1995 -Of all theories of virtual relationship: most relationships use multimodal communication. most relationship are not conducted only on or offline. what a person declares online will effect their ofline commincation. Too many varibles Theory in oversimplified and too rigid. Walther 2011.

Evaluative strengths of the filter theory of attraction.

Support 1st filter of social demography: festinger et al 1950 Observing friendships which formed across 17 apparent blocks for married students. Students were 10 x more likely to form friendships with other students living in their own blocks. Studying friendships not relationships, generalisation issues to filter theory. Support for the factor of geographic relationship in social demography, increasing external validity of theory

limitations of the evolutaionary explaination.

The theory ignores social and cultural influences: more working women, less reliant on resources. Chang 2011 in study of change over 25years in china found partner prerence had changed, women work and are less dependent on resorces for males. -bias towards hetrosexual couples, no attmpt to expain homosexuality or partnerprefernce diferences- not generalisable. -availability of contraception- less risk of pregnacy

Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

WEAKNESSES: -assumes all people are inherently selfish trying to maximise theie reward and minimising their costs.. ....questionaire 200 married couples most satisfied in relationships percieved as being equitable, STAFORD AND CANARY 2006 (same study used for equity) entitleds and benvolents - SET doesnt take eqity into consideration Equity theory; both parties want to percive that the realtionships is equal. cost and rewards are subjective to the individual. - much research into SET is artificial, uses snapshot studies using stangers doing game based scenario involving cost and rewards. - no emotional element, lacks mundane realism STRENGTHS: LEVENSON found that positive / negtive exchange in sucessful marriages was 5:1, - practical application; info used in integrated couples therapy to increase reward for both parites.... increased external validity. culturally bound

Trivers 1972 investment theory

When one sex in investing more than the other ( female more then male), The sex investing less (males) will have to compete with eachother the sex (female) investing more is able to be more choosy

Rusbults investment model

buils upon the SET commitment level and decision to stay or go based on: -satifaction -investment, (intrinsic- put in directly, time, money/ extrinsic-associated with, friends, pets, kids ) -comparison with alternatives =which DETERMINE commitment level. (not the otherway around- see limitation)

Intra-sexual selection

male-male competition for a female. quantity over quality. *dimorphism*= difference between female and male traits. characteristics males have to impress the female, giving the impression of good genes. eg (large antlers/ brightly colour feathers)

Evaluation of theories of parasocial relationships

maltby personality types/socially sensitive / klimt and schmid culture/ contract attachment/ STRENGTHS ABSORBTION ADICTION MODEL: -research showing that people who lack fulfilment in their lives due to negative self image. *correlation between eating disorders and intense personal parasocial* relationships. ----People with certain personality trait are more likely to have a higher level of parasocial relationships. MALBY 2005 entertainment social....extrovert intense-personal .... neurotic boarderline pathological.... psychotic correlation between level of celebrity worshipnd *poor psychologicl functioning* -not culturally bound. Similar levels of parasocial attachent in Germany individulist and Mexico collectivist. KLIMT and SCHMID 2011 LIMITATION: socially sensitive, personal nature, suggestive of having an issue. Uses a nomothetic approach attempting to establish universal principles which may fail to develop deep insights into behaviour LIMITATION OF ATTACHMENT THEORY contradictory evidence against attachment theory that insecure resistant people are more likely to form para social relationships to fulfil their need avoiding rejection. -MCCUTCHEON 2006 found that in 299 pps insecurely attached people were were no more likely to form pararelationships with celebreties than secure attachments. - use of questionaires.-social desirablity bias, may not be honest. -ethical issue issue of intrusive nature of research into relationships. Theory suggests people who have parasocial relatioships have someting wrong with then- insecure attchment (parent blaming) of neurosis or psychosis - this may upset people.h

define reproductive value and fertility

reproductive value= exptected future reproduction fertility-currentability to reproduce.

SET - Thibault and Kelly

rewards OUTWAY cost= satisfaction comparison level comparison level of alternatives. -Stages developing relationships go through, sampling, bargining, commintment, institutionalisation.

factor affecting attraction; self disclosure ao1

self disclosure ( jourade 1971)= revealing personal information about yourself. *altman and taylors social Penetration Theory*. 1973, relationships are the gradual proces of revealing your innerself to someone. -the RECIPROCAL exchange of information - deeper CONNECTION \ BREDPTH AND DEPTH OF INFORMATION -risk of information increases as the relationship progresses. Reis and Shaver: disclosure must be reciprocal and balanced.

Fcators affecting attracting: physical attractiveness ao1

symetrical face: associated with good genes, so are deamed attractive. Baby face: females neotenous faces; small nose, big eyes. Implies fertility. Triggers a caring and protective instinct within males. The halo effect: Dion) One distinguishing factor(attractiveness) has a diproportionate influence on our judgements of the individuals attributes ( their personality and capabilities) PALMER AND PETERSON 2012; Attractive people voted as more competent than less attrcative people. Wheeler and kim- korean and americans The matching hypothesis: -Walster 1966: couple seem to match each other in physical attractiveness, tpo avoid rejection for others who are 'out of our league'. ideally we all want the 'perfect partner but must 'compomise' partnes who are match are more likely to ahve enduring relationship as there in less risk of disatisfaction or selfconsiousness. -FEINGOLD 1988 metanalysis: 17 studies,correlation between ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. looking at actual partners-realistic.

Fcators affecting attracting: physical attractiveness ao1

symetrical face: associated with good genes, so are deamed attractive. Baby face: females neotenous faces; small nose, big eyes. Implies fertility. Triggers a caring and protective instinct within males. The halo effect: Dion) One distinguishing factor(attractiveness) has a diproportionate influence on our judgements of the individuals attributes ( their personality and capabilities) palmer and anderson; Attractive people voted as more competent than less attrcative people. The matching hypothesis: Hatfield 1966: couple seem to match each other in physical attractiveness, too avoid rejection for others who are 'out of our league'. ideally we all want the 'perfect partner but must 'compomise' partners who are match are more likely to have enduring relationship as there in less risk of disatisfaction or selfconsiousness.

limitations of the evolutaionary explaination.

theory ignores social and cultural influences: Chang 2011 in study of change over 25years in chine found partner prerence had changed, women work and are less dependent on resorces for males. study done in italy showing change in recent years availability of contraception. alternative theory - matching hypothesis -