Evolutionary Explanations

Home , Soulmate

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS Specification: The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, including the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline what is meant by an evolutionary approach, including the terms: natural selection and sexual selection 2. Explain how sexual selection influences human reproductive behaviour, including: a. Anisogamy b. Inter-sexual selection c. Intra-sexual selection d. Sexual selection and mates’ choice 3. Evaluate evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

KEY TERM DEFINITION Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences focus on sexual selection as the driving force of human reproductive behaviour, as those who manage to reproduce successfully will pass on their genes. Sexual selection operates in two main ways: 1) intra-sexual selection, where members of one sex have to compete with other Evolutionary members of their sex in order to gain mates and reproduce; 2) Explanations intersexual selection, where members of one sex evolve with preferences for particular characteristics in the opposite sex, because these characteristics will increase the chance of passing on genes. For example, males will be attracted to females who display signs of fertility and females will be attracted to males who can provide resources and protection. Human reproductive behaviour is a term used by evolutionary psychologists to refer to the different behaviours that humans exhibit in order to increase their reproductive success. Examples Human Reproductive include competing with other members of the same sex for access Behaviour to the best possible mate (intra-sexual competition), and selecting the best possible mate from the opposite sex (inter-sexual competition). According to Charles Darwin, sexual selection is a type of natural selection and competition for mates along with the development of characteristics that aid reproductive success drive evolution. Intra-sexual selection (mate competition) is one type of sexual Sexual Selection selection, where members of the same sex compete with one other for members of the opposite sex. Those who ‘win’ are able to SAMPLEmate and pass on their genes to the next generation. Intersexual selection (mate choice) involves one sex having preferences for members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities.

1. Evolutionary Approach Evolutionary approaches explain human behaviour in terms of adaptiveness and reproductive success. These approaches argue that if a behavioural feature (for example, aggression) has been genetically inherited by one generation from another, then it must have a specific value for human species; it might either help humans adapt better to the environment and survive (natural selection) or might help to attract a mate and have healthy offspring (sexual selection).

2. Sexual Selection and Human Reproductive Behaviour Anisogamy Part of the sexual selection explanation of human romantic relationships includes explaining differences in partner preferences between males and females. One explanation comes from the concept of anisogamy – differences between male and female sex cells.

Males’ sex cells (sperm) is produced in large quantities, quickly replenished and created continuously from puberty to old age. On the contrary, females’ sex cells (eggs or ova) take a lot of energy to produce, are created in limited numbers during specific time intervals and their production only lasts for a certain number of fertile years. These differences mean that males and females need to use different strategies to achieve reproductive success. Before the invention of DNA testing, males could never be sure that a particular child is theirs, so the reproductively successful strategy for a male would involve having sex with, and impregnating, as many women as possible. For women, however, the energetically expensive process of producing an egg and then carrying a child in the womb for nine months would mean that she needs a partner who will be committed to the relationship in the long run and provide resources for her and the child, ensuring the child’s survival.

These differences in mating strategies were demonstrated by David Buss (1989), who surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. Buss found that females universally put more importance on resource-related characteristics in a partner, such as ambition, high intelligence and good financial prospects. Males, however, preferred younger mates and put more value on signs of a female’s ability to reproduce, such as attractiveness and modesty.

Intra-Sexual and Inter-Sexual Selection Anisogamy can also explain the existence of two types of sexual selection: inter-sexual selection and intra-sexual selection. Inter- sexual selection is sometimes referred to as ‘female choice', because it's based on the idea that due to the greater investment of time, energy and resources required from a female to SAMPLEraise a child, females need to be more careful when choosing a partner. They need to be sure that their partner will provide the right genetic fit and will be willing to provide resources to support the female and the child.

Female choosiness was illustrated by the study conducted by Clark and Hatfield (1989). They asked male and female student volunteers to approach opposite sex students individually on a university campus, asking the same question: ‘I’ve noticed you around the campus. I find you very attractive. Will you go to bed with me tonight?’ They found marked gender differences in the responses: 75% of male students agreed; however, not a single female said ‘yes’.

Intra-sexual selection, on the other hand, is a preferred male strategy. It refers to the evolutionarily developed features that allow a male to compete with other males for a female mate. The winner of this competition reproduces and passes on to his offspring the genes that contributed to his success. For example, a physically stronger and larger male will be able to fight off his competitors for access to the female, so he will produce physically stronger sons.

Intra-sexual selection also can explain the differences in the body size and physical appearance between males and females (this is known as physical dimorphism). As males need to compete with other males for an access to a fertile mate, sexual selection favours physically strong and aggressive males. However, females don’t need to physically compete for a mate, meaning that physical strength and aggression will hold no evolutionary advantage for them.

Sexual Selection and Mate Choice The principles of sexual selection described above mean that males and females use different strategies to select a suitable mate.

Since human females do not advertise their fertility openly, unlike some animal species (for example, redness and swelling of genitalia of female baboons), males have evolved to pay attention to other signs in a human female’s appearance that show her ability to produce healthy offspring. As was mentioned above, Buss (1989) has discovered that males universally put importance on attractive and healthy looks and youth, which are signs of fertility.

Further evidence comes from research carried out by Devindra Singh (1993, 2002) who studied preferred waist-to-hip ratio as a sign of female fertility. Studying the measurements of waist-to-hip ratio of the winners of the Miss America contest for a decade, she found that men generally found any waist and hip sizes attractive, as long as a ratio between them is about 0.7. A female having larger hips and a slim waist achieves this ratio, and men unconsciously interpret this as a sign that the woman is fertile but not currently pregnant.

Women, on the other hand, have adapted to look for the signs of male’s ability to provide resources SAMPLEand protect themselves and a child.

For example, Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) researched ‘lonely hearts’ columns in American newspapers, and discovered that women tended to describe themselves in terms of physical attractiveness and youth (‘exciting, flirty, curvy’). Men, on the other hand, advertised their resources and intelligence more than women did.

Extension: Paternal Certainty and Jealousy As mentioned above, males have much less certainty than females that the child they are raising is theirs. According to Buss (1995), this fact can explain the difference in jealousy between males and females: males tend to be more jealous of their partner’s sexual infidelity, because this could result in raising someone else's child; females, on the other hand, are more jealous of their partner’s emotional infidelity, as this may result in withdrawing of resources from the female and the child and puts the child’s survival at risk.

This idea was supported by Buss et al. (1992): male students showed greater distress (measured by galvanic skin response) when asked to imagine partner’s sexual infidelity, while women were more distressed by thoughts of emotional infidelity.

3. Evaluation of the Evolutionary explanations of relationships . Evolutionary explanations ignore social and cultural influences. For the past 100 years, Western societies have experienced significant changes in terms of gender equality and women’s independence. These changes mean that women in modern Western societies may no longer be looking for a man to provide them with resources; and other qualities in a mate become more important. Scientific research supports this argument: for example, Kasser and Sharma (1999) found in their analysis of 37 cultures that females mostly valued a mate with resources in societies where women’s access to education and workplace was severely limited. This makes evolutionary explanations limited, as they only explain human mates’ choice in terms of evolutionary adaptiveness, ignoring other important factors, such as culture and social norms.

. Another criticism of evolutionary psychologists’ claim that women universally prefer high-status and well-resourced men comes from the methodological weaknesses of research to support this claim. Most of the studies into females’ choice of mates were carried out on undergraduate students. As these women were expected to achieve a high education status leading to a secure income, their preference for high-status men may stem from similar interests and prospects, rather than be a search for a resourceful mate. Furthermore, research into evolutionary explanations also may suffer from a problem of validity, in terms that it measures expressed partner preferences rather than real-life ones. It is also a retrospective approach, largely based on speculations about what may or may not have been evolutionary adaptive for our ancestors. There is no reliable way to check whether these suggestions are valid. o Counter-argument: Buss’ study of actual marriages in 29 countries found that men do express marked preference for younger women.

. Yet another criticism of evolutionary explanations is that it is a retrospective approach, largely based on speculations about what may or may not have been evolutionarily adaptiveSAMPLE for our ancestors. There is no reliable way to check whether these suggestions are true.

. Mate choice may be more complicated than suggested by evolutionary explanations. For example, research by Penton-Voak et al. (1999) suggests that females’ mate

preferences change across the menstrual cycle. They found that females preferred a partner with strongly expressed masculine features during their fertile period, but showed more preference for a partner with slightly feminised features as a long-term mate. This may be because masculine appearance suggests a healthier immune system, which would be advantageous to pass to offspring, while slightly feminine features suggest kindness and parental cooperation – very desirable traits in a long-term partner!

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . Evolutionary explanations of relationships suffer from evolutionary reductionism, as they argue that strategies for choosing a mate are the result of genetic inheritance and a striving for reproductive success. However, this is not always as straightforward in real life, where individual differences in partner’s choice play a huge part. For example, evolutionary explanations fail to account for homosexual relationships where choice of partner clearly does not result in reproductive success and so doesn't have an evolutionary advantage. o Likewise, evolutionary explanations of relationships also suffer from determinism, as they seem to claim that choice strategies are determined by a person’s gender, and that humans are attracted to people who will have, provide and/or care for offspring.

. Furthermore, evolutionary explanations of mate preference also emphasise the differences in what males and females look for in a potential partner. This exaggeration of the differences between the genders is known as an alpha bias, and the differences between males and females may be overstated. It is plausible to argue that males and females actually look for similar characteristics, such as loyalty and kindness, and such characteristics are not reported in the research, which tends to look for clear differences.

Possible Exam Questions 1. Explain what is meant by inter-sexual selection. [3 marks]

2. Describe one evolutionary explanation of partner preferences. [6 marks]

3. A psychologist wanted to carry out a study into the changes in partner preferences in UK between 3 generations, using interview technique. He carried out face-to-face interviews with 3 groups of participants with 30 people in each, with an equal male/female split: 20-25 years old; 40-45 years old and 60-70 years old, asking a variety of questions about their choice of partner and marital satisfaction. A psychologist found that 12 females in the 60-70 years age group valued high-status men when just 5 in the 20-25 years age group did.

a. Suggest one question to be asked in the interview. [2 marks] SAMPLE b. Explain two reasons why an interview may be a more suitable technique for this research than a questionnaire. [4 marks]

c. Explain two differences between structured and semi-structured interviews. [4 marks]

d. Calculate the percentage of females in the 60-70 years and the 20-25 years age groups showing preference for high-status men. Show your working. (4 marks)

4. Simon has recently split up with his girlfriend of 6 years and decided to place an advert on a dating website. He describes himself as an intelligent 36 years old with a stable job looking for a 25-30 years old woman with a sexy figure and a bubbly personality.

Using your knowledge of sexual selection theory, explain Simon’s advert. [4 marks]

5. Briefly outline and evaluate evolutionary explanations of partner preferences. [8 marks]

6. Discuss evolutionary explanations of partner preferences. [16 marks]

Exam Hint: It is important to organise your material for this essay question. Students who achieve higher marks usually demonstrate knowledge of evolution; review aspects of sexual selection (including intra- and inter-sexual selection), and discuss gender differences in reproductive priorities that can be linked to parental investment theory.

General Exam Tips . When answering questions on options in psychology, students often forget to mention issues and debates. Students should remember that issues and debates form an important part of evaluation, and show examiner deeper understanding of the topic studied. Within this topic there are numerous issues and debates that students can use (see above) to form effective evaluation points.

. Students often mention methodological criticisms of studies supporting evolutionary explanations, but often forget to link these criticisms back to the explanation itself. It is crucial to remember to do this, as evaluation of the studies without reference to the wider theory doesn’t gain credit.

SAMPLE

ATTRACTION: PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS Specification: Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self- disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography; similarity in attitudes, and complementarity.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships, including matching hypothesis and halo effect 2. Describe research into physical attractiveness 3. Evaluate self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships

KEY TERM DEFINITION Physical attractiveness is a key factor that influences attraction in romantic relationships. Evolutionary theorists Physical claim that men are more likely to value physical attractiveness Attractiveness as important, as it is a cue that a female is healthy and able to reproduce. The matching hypothesis is a theory of interpersonal attraction which argues that relationships are formed between two people who are equal or very similar in terms of Matching social desirability. This is often examined in the form of level Hypothesis of physical attraction. The theory suggests that people assess their own value and then make ‘realistic choices’ by selecting the best available potential partners who are also likely to share this same level of attraction.

Psychologists have long noticed that physical attractiveness plays a major part in the formation of relationships, and proposed various explanations of why this is the case. Some of these explanations are based on evolutionary theory, such as the idea that people with symmetrical faces are more often viewed as more attractive because it is a sign of health and genetic fitness.

In this section, however, social psychological explanations of why attractiveness is so important for both short-term and long-term relationships will be examined.

1. Physical Attractiveness – Matching Hypothesis & Halo Effect One explanationSAMPLE for the importance of attractiveness is the halo effect. This is the idea that people who are judged to be attractive are typically perceived in a positive light. For example, Dion et al. (1972) found that attractive people are consistently rated as successful, kind and sociable when compared with unattractive people. This means that we not only believe that good-looking people are more physically

attractive, we expect them to have other desirable characteristics as well and tend to behave more positively towards them.

However, in real life people also use common sense to estimate whether a prospective partner will find us attractive, and therefore they don't automatically go for the most attractive person around, but choose a partner who matches their own level of physical attractiveness. This is referred to as the matching hypothesis. According to the matching hypothesis, a person’s choice of partner is a balance between a desire to have the most physically attractive partner possible and their wish to avoid being rejected by someone who is 'way out of their league'. As a result, people often settle for a partner who has roughly the same level of physical attractiveness.

2. Research Examining Physical Attractiveness Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear with how they are using research in their answer. The idea of halo effect was supported by Palmer and Peterson (2012), who asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be. It was found that attractive people were consistently rated higher on these characteristics compared to unattractive ones.

Original research into the matching hypothesis was conducted by Elaine Walster (who first proposed the matching hypothesis) and her colleagues in 1966. They invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party. They were randomly matched to a partner; however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of attractiveness. During the intervals at the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them. Contrary to the matching hypothesis predictions, students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.

However, Feingold (1988) found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples. He established a strong correlation between the partners’ ratings of attractiveness, just as predicted by the SAMPLEmatching hypothesis.

3. Evaluation Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . The matching hypothesis is to some extent supported by research. For example, Feingold (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies, and found a strong correlation between partners’ ratings of attractiveness. This shows that people tend to choose a partner who has a similar level of physical attractiveness to themselves, just as the matching hypothesis predicts.

. However, in addition to Walster et al.’s original study that failed to support the hypothesis, other research has also failed to provide conclusive evidence for matching hypothesis. For example, Taylor et al. (2011) investigated the activity log on a dating website and found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them. These findings contradict the matching hypothesis, as according to its predictions, website users should seek more dates with a person who is similar in terms of attractiveness, because it provides them with a better chance of being accepted by a potential partner.

. There are significant individual differences in terms of the importance that people place on physical attractiveness in terms of relationships. Towhey (1979) gave participants photos of strangers and some biographical information about them; participants were asked to rate how much they liked the people on photographs. Towhey found that physical attractiveness was more important for participants who displayed sexist attitudes (measured by a specially designed questionnaire). This suggests that, depending on the individual, physical appearance may or may not be a significant factor in attractiveness, while the matching hypothesis suggests it is always the main one.

. Another weakness of the matching hypothesis is that it mainly applies to short- term relationships. However, when choosing a partner for long-term relationships, people tend to focus more on similarity of values and needs satisfaction, rather than physical attractiveness. This questions the validity of the matching hypothesis, as it will only describe a limited number of relationships. Furthermore, the matching hypothesis ignores the fact that people may compensate for the lack of physical attractiveness with other qualities, such as intellect or sociability. This compensation explains repeatedly occurring examples of older, less attractive men being married to attractive younger women; something that the matching hypothesis cannot account for.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . PhysicalSAMPLE attractiveness seems to be an important factor in forming relationships across cultures. For example, Cunningham et al. (1995) found that white, Asian and Hispanic males, despite being from different cultures, rated females with prominent cheekbones, small noses and large eyes as highly attractive. This universality of findings suggests that using attractiveness as a decisive factor in choosing a partner might be a genetically reproduced mechanism, aiding sexual © tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Topic Companion (Edition 1) Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015

selection. This gives support to the nature side of nature-nurture debate as it shows that human behaviour is mainly a result of biological rather than environmental influences. o On the other hand, the matching hypothesis may be suffering from a beta-bias, as it assumes that men and women are very similar in their view of the importance of physical attractiveness. Research, however, suggests that this may not be the case. For example, Meltzer et al. (2014) found that men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive, while for women their partner’s attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact on relationship satisfaction. This shows that there are significant gender differences in how important appearance is for attraction.

. The matching hypothesis is a theory that is based on a nomothetic approach to studying human behaviour. It tries to generate behavioural laws applicable to all people; however, as studies above suggest, there are significant individual differences in the importance of physical attractiveness to one’s choice of a partner. Therefore, explanations based on the idiographic approach (studying individual cases in detail, without trying to generate universal rules) may be more appropriate for studying romantic relationships.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Describe the matching hypothesis as an explanation of attraction. (6 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to test the matching hypothesis using a laboratory experiment. a) Suggest a suitable hypothesis for this experiment. (3 marks)

b) Outline one disadvantage of a laboratory experiment for studying romantic relationships. (2 marks)

c) Explain why deception of participants may be necessary in this study and how the psychologist could overcome this issue. (4 marks)

3) Mike finds Greta very attractive, but hesitates to ask her out, because he thinks she is going to reject his invitation. ‘She is way out of my league!’ he says to a friend. ‘I’d better look for someone who doesn't look like a supermodel’. Using the matching hypothesis, explain Mike’s comments. (4 marks)

4) EvaluateSAMPLE the matching hypothesis as an explanation of attraction. (10 marks)

ATTRACTION: SELF-DISCLOSURE Specification: Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self- disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships 2. Describe research into self-disclosure 3. Evaluate self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships

KEY TERM DEFINITION Self-disclosure is a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships. It refers to the sharing of personal information. Greater self-disclosure tends to lead to greater levels of Self-disclosure intimacy, and research has found that individuals tend to prefer people who are prepared to disclose intimate details about themselves, compared to those who are unwilling to disclose.

Partner choice in romantic relationships is influenced by many factors. It seems that one of the most important factors for the development of relationships is feeling secure enough around the partner to gradually reveal personal information. In turn, the other person starts revealing more intimate information about themselves as well, sharing what really matters to them.

1. Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure is the idea that relationship formation is built on trust with another person, which is demonstrated by gradually revealing personal information, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences that they might share with anyone else.

Disclosing thoughts and feelings and allowing a partner to reveal their ‘true selves’ leads to greater intimacy in romantic relationships, and ultimately to more satisfaction.

Self-disclosure is a central concept in Social Penetration Theory proposed by Altman and Taylor (1973). This theory claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences and listening to their reciprocal sharing, people gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust. SAMPLE Self-disclosure has two dimensions: breadth and depth. Social Penetration Theory uses an ‘onion metaphor’ to describe these dimensions: at first, people often share a lot of information about certain aspects of themselves (depth), but consider some topics to be ‘off-limit’ (breadth). As they build trust in their partner’s understanding, breadth increases and then depth also increases. In the beginning, people only

© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Topic Companion (Edition 1) Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015 disclose superficial details about themselves, such as their music taste, hobbies and interests, and gradually move to revealing more intimate details, such as religious and political beliefs, family values and difficult experiences.

2. Research Examining Self-Disclosure Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear how they are using research in their answer. The concept of self-disclosure has been investigated in numerous studies. For example, Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual couples who were dating, and found that as self-disclosure increased, so did relationship satisfaction. This was supported by another study of dating couples, conducted by Laurenceau et al. (2005). They asked participants to write daily diary entries about progress in their relationships and found that self-disclosure and perception of disclosure in a partner led to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple. The reverse was true as well – couples who complained about lack of intimacy self-disclosed less often.

Has and Hartford (1998) studied homosexual couples and found that 57% of gay men and women considered open self-disclosure a main way to maintain close relationships.

3. Evaluation Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . One strength of the concept of self-disclosure is that is it supported by research. For example, Has and Hartford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women considered open self-disclosure as a main way to maintain close relationships. This demonstrates the importance of self-disclosure in romantic relationships, just as the theory has predicted.

. The importance of establishing trust in a partner before revealing more intimate information about ourselves is supported by the so-called ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon in online relationships, described by Cooper and Sportolari (1997). They found that anonymity of online interactions gave web-users a sense of security and made them disclose personal information much earlier in relationships than they would face-to-face, making relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’). However, because the necessary trust foundation had not been established, the intensity of the relationship was impossible to sustain, leading to break-up (‘bust’). This shows that breadth of relationships needs to be established first, before proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, just as Social Penetration Theory suggests. SAMPLE . Most support for the concept of self-disclosure comes from correlational research. While there is undoubtedly a link between self-disclosure and greater relationship satisfaction, cause and effect cannot be established, reducing the validity of the concept. However, the concept of self-disclosure has strong

everyday life applications, as it could help improve partners’ communication skills in intimate relationships. By deliberately and skilfully increasing self- disclosure, couples can achieve higher intimacy and relationship satisfaction. This shows that Social Penetration Theory can be used to enhance romantic relationship experiences.

Evaluation: Issues and Debates . Social Penetration Theory is unable to adequately explain the formation of all types of relationships and is limited by taking a nomothetic approach. By claiming that higher self-disclosure will invariably lead to greater relationship satisfaction, this theory ignores many other factors that can influence relationships, such as cultural practices and personality. Furthermore, by reducing relationship satisfaction to a single factor, Social Penetration Theory ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction, such as physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity. This suggests that research into romantic relationships could benefit from the use of an idiographic approach that studies couples’ unique experiences in detail, rather than trying to establish a set of laws that apply to all couples.

. Social Penetration Theory was developed based on research in a Western, individualist culture, so it may not apply to collectivist cultures. For example, Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than romantic partners in China; however, the level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures. This shows that self- disclosure is not a requirement for successful relationships in all cultures, making Social Penetration Theory culturally biased.

Exam Hint: When answering application questions on factors affecting attraction, students often focus on description of theory without linking it back to the stem. Therefore, students should remember to always refer to the examples from stem to illustrate the concepts they use to explain behaviour.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Define what is meant by the term self-disclosure in relation to factors affecting attraction. (2 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to investigate the role of self-disclosure in relationship satisfaction by using semi-structured interviews.

a) Outline one sampling method the psychologist could use to obtain the interviewees. (2 marks) SAMPLE b) Explain one advantage and one disadvantage of semi-structured interviews. (4 marks)

c) Suggest one question that could be asked during the interview to investigate self-disclosure. (2 marks)

3) Eve and Daniel have been dating for 4 months. Eve really likes Daniel, and suggests they move in together. She also starts mentioning her desire to start a family in the near future. Soon after that, when discussing her relationship with Daniel with a friend, Eve mentions that Daniel seemed very withdrawn on the last date, and doesn't call her as often as he used to. Using your knowledge of the role of self-disclosure in attraction, explain Daniel’s behaviour. (4 marks)

4) Discuss self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships. (16 marks)

SAMPLE

FILTER THEORY Specification: Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self- disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline filter theory as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationship, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity 2. Describe research into filter theory of attraction 3. Evaluate filter theory

KEY TERM DEFINITION Filter theory is an explanation of attraction proposed by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962). This theory suggests that people develop relationships by applying a series of filters, such as Filter Theory similarity of social demographic factors and attitudes and complementarity of needs, to narrow down the pool of available candidates. Social demography is the first filter in Kerckhoff and Davis’s filter theory of attraction. It refers to variables such as age, Social social background and proximity (where someone lives in Demography relation to us). People with whom we do not come into contact due to these variables, are ‘filtered out’ from the ‘field of availables’. Similarity in attitudes is a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships; if two people share similar views and beliefs they will be able to communicate more easily which will help a relationship to form. Similarity of attitudes is the Similarity in second filter in Kerckhoff and Davis’ filter theory of attraction, Attitudes and they found similarity of attitudes to be important at the beginning of a relationship and a good predictor of whether a relationship is likely to become stable. They also found that people with dissimilar attitudes are more likely to be ‘filtered out’ from the ‘field of availables’. Complementarity is a factor which affects attraction in romantic relationships. It is also referred to as ‘complementarity of needs’ and is the final stage of filter theory. It refers to how well two people fit together (complement one another) and meet each other’s needs. For Complementarity SAMPLEexample, young women may feel attracted to older men who have more economic resources and can provide for them. In return, the older men are able to go out with a younger woman, which demonstrates their virility in attracting such a good ‘catch’.

When choosing a partner, people start by looking at the options that are available. However, not everyone who is available will be equally attractive, so people usually apply some criteria to narrow down the ‘pool of availabilities’ to make sure they choose the right person.

1. Filter Theory Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) studied student couples (mainly in short-term relationships of fewer than 18 months) and discovered several important criteria people use to choose a partner. They call these criteria ‘filters’, as they help people to sift through all potential partners to choose the right one.

According to this theory, there are several levels of filters that people apply. The first level is that of sociodemographic characteristics, such as physical proximity, level of education, social class, religion and other important factors people are likely to pay attention to when we are meeting a person for the first time. These factors are important, because people are more likely to build relationships with people who are geographically close, and whom they are meeting frequently, as this gives them a greater chance to find out more about one another. People also find similarities in education, social class and religious beliefs attractive, as this gives them assurance that relationships are more likely to move forward.

This then leads to the second level of filters that relates to similarity of attitudes. People tend to view others as more attractive if they share the same core beliefs and values, such as views on career and importance of family. Byrne (1997) noted that similarity of attitudes is especially important in earlier stages of relationships, for couples who have been together fewer than 18 months. Presence or absence of similarities is discovered through self-disclosure, which leads to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple. If partners have very little in common, however, relationships rarely develop beyond the first few dates.

If similarities are crucial at the early stages of relationships, it seems that for long- term couples the third filter, complementarity, plays a much more important role. Complementarity refers to each of the partners having some traits that the other partner lacks, and helping each other to fulfil their needs. For example, one partner may enjoy meeting new people and being socially proactive, and the other may enjoy SAMPLEbeing introduced to people rather than initiating social encounters themselves, and thus these two people would complement one other.

2. Research Examining Filter Theory Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear concerning how they are using research in their answer. There is some research support for filter theory. For example, Winch (1957) found that similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples in the beginning of relationships, and complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships. In another study, Newcomb (1961) offered participants free accommodation for a year. They were assigned a room mate, and he found that a stable friendship developed if roommates had a similar background and similar attitudes to life.

3. Evaluating Filter Theory Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . One strength of Filter Theory is that it is supported by research studies. For example, Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) carried out a longitudinal study of couples aged 21 and found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationships. This demonstrates the importance of sociodemographic factors, such as age and location, supporting the idea that people are more likely to meet and build relationships with people who are geographically close and share similarities in terms of age, education, etc.

. The importance of sociodemographic factors, similarity of attitudes and complementarity in developing attraction is something that many people experience in their everyday life, meaning that filter theory has face validity – as people can relate to it with intuitive ‘this makes sense’ understanding. However, sociodemographic factors, in particular, may not play as big a role in the development of relationships nowadays, as the development of technology, (such as dating websites and apps) greatly affects modern relationships. Compared with 20-30 years ago, people nowadays are more likely to develop relationships with someone who is not in their geographical proximity or from the same culture, making the Filter Theory’s claims less valid.

. Some studies have failed to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ original findings. Psychologists such as Levenger (1974) claim that this may be due to the difficulty of correlating length of relationships and depth of relationships, and of determining what constitutes short-term and long-term relationships. Kerckhoff and Davis set the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months, assumingSAMPLE that if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment. However, this doesn't apply to all heterosexual couples, nor does it describe the experience of homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures. Some couples take much longer than 18 month to establish a similarity of attitudes and complimentarity, while others skip sociodemographic filters altogether and feel they are ready to commit to long-term relationships earlier

than the 18 month cut-off point. These experiences can't be explained by the Filter Theory, suggesting that other factors (e.g. the type of relationship) play a significant role in the initiation and development of relationships.

. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) have suggested that similarity of social backgrounds, interests, attitudes and complementarity of needs creates attraction. However, some researchers claim that this direction of causality should be reversed. For example, Anderson et al. (2003) argued, from the results of their longitudinal study, that the emotional responses of partners in long-term relationships become more alike over time rather than being similar from the start. Similarly, Davis and Rusbult (2001) found that attitudes in long-term couples become aligned with time, suggesting that similarity of attitudes is an effect of attraction rather than a cause. This contradicts the claims made by the Filter Theory, which claims that people need to have similar attitudes from the start for relationships to develop.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . Most research supporting the Filter Theory uses participants from individualist, Western cultures. Individualist cultures value free choice in relationships, and describe the choice of partners in terms of individual preferences. In these cultures, people may apply the criteria described by the Filter Theory freely and usually without much influence from other people. However, this is not the case in collectivist cultures, where it is common for romantic relationships to be arranged, so partners are not free to apply individual filters to select their future spouse. This means that Filter Theory suffers from culture bias, as it assumes that the rules of partner choice in Western cultures apply to relationships universally.

. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) and Anderson et al. (2003) are looking for causality, where there may only be positive correlation. It may be that the very act of being together over time sees a couple’s attitudes shift to converge as their image of themselves as the ‘type of couple they would like to be’ develops. So they start with some similarity of attitudes, but any dissimilar attitudes shift to converge during the relationship.

. Basing the explanation of such complex phenomenon as romantic relationships on the application of a series of filters is reductionist and limits the range of real life romantic experiences it can explain. For example, the Filter Theory does not explain why many people stay a long time in abusive relationships despite the lack of complementarity that is theorised as being a factor of long-term relationships. This suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining the complexity of relationships maintenance.SAMPLE

Possible Exam Questions 1) Describe two sociodemographic factors in relation to initial attraction. (4 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to investigate the role of similarity of attitudes in short- term relationships, using online questionnaires. a) Propose a suitable operationalised hypothesis for this study. (2 marks)

b) Suggest which research design would be most suitable for this study and explain two advantages of this design. (6 marks)

c) Identify one ethical issue researchers may face in this study and explain how it could be dealt with. (4 marks)

3) Sansthita and Rasheed have been dating for two years. They are so similar in their interests, hobbies and attitudes that they believe they are soulmates. Their friends sometimes tease them for finishing each other's sentences. The couple has recently decided to move in together, and when telling her friend about it, Sansthita has commented that she has recently started noticing that it's not only Rasheed’s similarities, but their differences as well that make her sure that the relationship will last. ‘It not only that we see eye to eye, but he also completes me in many ways’, Sansthita said to her friend. Using your knowledge of the filter theory of attraction, explain the development of Sansthita and Rasheed’s relationship. (4 marks)

4) Describe and evaluate filter theory as an explanation of attraction. (16 marks)

SAMPLE

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY Specification: Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe social exchange theory of romantic relationships 2. Describe research examining social exchange theory 3. Evaluate social exchange theory

KEY TERM DEFINITION Social exchange theory is a theory of romantic relationships that proposes that individuals initiate and maintain Social Exchange relationships that minimise costs (e.g. effort, time, financial Theory investment) and maximise rewards (e.g. companionship, sex, being cared for). According to social exchange theory, humans are self-centred and not concerned with equality.

Social exchange theory is one of the so-called ‘economic’ theories of relationships. Economic theories describe relationships as a series of exchanges aiming at balancing rewards and costs.

1. Social Exchange Theory (SET) Social psychologists Thibault and Kelly (1959) describe romantic relationships using the economic terminology of profit (rewards) and loss (costs). They claim that partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards (things like companionship, praise, emotional support, sex) and minimise costs (stress, arguments, compromises, time commitments). Notions of rewards and costs are subjective (what is considered very costly by one person, can be seen as low cost or even a reward by another); costs also tend to change over time (what is considered costly at the beginning of the relationships seems less so as relationshipsSAMPLE develop).

People also use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationships are. The first level, called Comparison Level (CL), is based on person’s idea of how much reward they deserve to receive in relationships. This understanding is subjective and depends on previous romantic experiences and cultural norms of what is

appropriate to expect from relationships; these norms are reinforced by books, films and TV programmes. Comparison Levels are closely linked to person’s self-esteem – a person with high self-esteem will have higher expectations of rewards in relationships, whereas a person with low self-esteem will have lower expectations. People consider relationships worth pursuing if the Comparison Level is equal to, or better than, what they experienced in their previous relationships.

The second level, called Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt), concerns a person’s perception of whether other potential relationships (or staying on their own) would be more rewarding than being in their current relationship. According to Social Exchange Theory, people will stick to their current relationships as long as they find them more profitable than the alternatives. Furthermore, according to some psychologists, such as Duck, if people consider themselves to be content in their current relationships, they may not even notice that there are available alternatives.

According to Thibault and Kelly, all relationships proceed through a series of stages. They are: . Sampling stage, where people explore potential rewards and costs of relationships, not just romantic ones, either by direct experience or by observing others.

. Bargaining stage, which is the first stage of any romantic relationship. At this stage, partners exchange rewards and costs, figure out the most profitable exchanges and negotiate the dynamics of the relationship.

. Commitment stage: when relationships become more stable, and partners become familiar with sources of rewards and costs, and each other's expectations, so rewards increase and costs lessen.

. Institutionalisation stage, when costs and rewards are firmly established.

2. Research Examining Social Exchange Theory Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear with how they are using research in their answer. Research support for Social Exchange Theory is limited; however, some studies show evidence that supports the main assumptions of the theory. For example, Floyd et al. (1994) found that commitment develops when couples are satisfied with, and feel rewarded in, a relationship and when they perceive that equally attractive or more attractive alternative relationships are unavailable to them. In addition, Sprecher (2001) SAMPLEfound that comparison levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women.

3. Evaluation Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . SET is supported by research studies. For example, Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs (in particular, Comparison Level for alternatives), just as SET suggests. Therefore, it would appear that some people do stay in their current relationship while it remains more profitable than the alternatives.

. Not only is the research support for Social Exchange Theory limited, but it is also often based on research that lacks mundane realism. The majority of research into SET is based on studying strangers that are involved in some kind of game- based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed during the game. For example, Emerson and Cook (1978) designed a laboratory experiment where each of 112 participants was bargaining with a partner to maximise personal score in a computer game. The ‘relationships’ between these partners are nothing like real-life romantic relationships, which are based on getting to know another person and establishing trust. As such, these studies lack internal validity, making SET less applicable to real-life romantic relationships.

. The Social Exchange Theory key concepts are very difficult to define. The notion of rewards and costs is highly subjective. For example, one person may find lots of praise from a partner rewarding, but another person could find it annoying, making it difficult to measure. In addition, it is not clear how much more attractive alternatives should become, or by how much costs should outweigh the rewards, for the person to start feeling dissatisfied with their current relationship. o Furthermore, SET assumes that from the beginning of a relationship partners keep some kind of tally of profit and loss, and return reward for reward and cost for cost. Clark and Mills (2011) argue that while this may be true of work interactions between colleagues (exchange relationships), it is rarely the case in romantic (communal) relationships, where rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score. More than that, other research findings suggest that it is not a balance of rewards and costs, but rather perceived fairness of relationships, that keeps partners happy and committed to the relationships. This weakens the validity of SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of social relationships. SAMPLE . Some researchers argue that there is an issue with cause and effect in regards to SET assumptions. Argyle (1987) argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them. For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships and the potential alternatives, but these

thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered. This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones.

. On the other hand, SET has many useful real-life applications. One example of this is Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), during which partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns. According to Christensen et al. (2004) about two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved and they were feeling much happier as a result of it. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . SET takes a nomothetic approach to studying relationships, trying to uncover universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples. However, as demonstrated above, the ways in which relationships are maintained vary significantly from couple to couple, so an individually based, in-depth idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships.

. Another major criticism of SET is its deterministic view of romantic relationships. According to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship. However, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships (for example, when one partner is chronically ill) without feeling dissatisfied. As a result, the predictive validity of SET is very limited; it cannot establish with significant certainty whether a person will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship, based on the costs and rewards they are getting from it. This undermines the scientific claim of SET, as an ability to predict human behaviour with a degree of certainty is one of the main objectives for psychology to be accepted as a science.

. Basing the explanation of such complex phenomenon as romantic relationships purely on costs and rewards makes it reductionist and limits the range of real life romantic experiences it can explain. For example, SET does not explain why many people stay in abusive relationships despite the lack of rewards and overwhelming costs. This suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining the complexity of relationships maintenance. SAMPLE Exam Hints . Some students tend to confuse Social Exchange Theory and Equity theory. Students need to be clear regarding the difference between social exchange and equity, and also should be able to explain what is meant by costs, rewards and Comparison Levels.

. Students should make sure they read question carefully and only bring in the theories relevant to the question; e.g. describing Duck's breakdown theory when the question asks about theories of romantic relationships, is not creditworthy.

. Students should also make sure that, while evaluating supporting evidence for the theory is a useful skill, all evaluation points need to be linked back to the theory in question, otherwise they do not earn any marks.

. Another successful way to boost evaluation marks for this section is to compare SET with the evolutionary approach.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Explain what is meant by Comparison Level for alternatives. (2 marks)

2) Psychologists decided to investigate the role of costs and rewards in relationships, using laboratory experiment. They invited 10 male and 10 female volunteers to take part in the study and organised them in male/female pairs. Each pair then played either a competitive (playing against each other) or non- competitive (playing as a team) quest computer game. After the game, participants completed a questionnaire evaluating how much they liked their partner and whether they would like to meet them again. a) Write standardised instructions for the participants in this experiment. (5 marks)

b) Explain two weaknesses of laboratory experiments for studying romantic relationships. (4 marks)

c) Identify a suitable inferential test for this study. Justify your choice. (3 marks)

3) Kim and Simon are celebrating 20 years of marriage. They are reminiscing about their relationship, and Simon says that he felt very secure and at ease from the very beginning. He claims that Kim has a unique ability to make him feel appreciated. ‘Being in a relationship with you is like being in warm bath’ he says, ‘I can’t imagine a happier couple than us!’

Using your knowledge of Comparison Levels, explain Simon’s experience. (4 marks)

4) Discuss Social Exchange Theory as an explanation of romantic relationships. (16 marks)SAMPLE

EQUITY THEORY Specification: Theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave- dressing phases.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe the Equity Theory of romantic relationships 2. Describe research examining equity theory 3. Evaluate Equity Theory

KEY TERM DEFINITION Equity theory is a theory of romantic relationships proposed by Hatfield et al., who view it as an extension of social exchange theory. It suggests people are content in their Equity Theory relationship if the benefits are roughly equal to the costs. Relationships that lack equity (where someone is putting in more than they are getting out of it) are more likely to be associated with dissatisfaction.

Unlike Social Exchange Theory that argues how people try to maximise rewards and minimise costs in relationships, Equity Theory suggests that partners are concerned about fairness in relationships. Fairness is achieved when people feel they get approximately what they deserve from relationships.

1. Equity Theory of Romantic Relationships Equity theory proposes the winning formula of fairness in relationships: one partner’s benefits minus their costs, should equal another partner’s benefits minus their costs.

If one partner perceives a relationship as unfair, they are going to be dissatisfied with it regardless of whether they are over-benefitting or under-benefitting. According to the Equity Theory, a person who gets moreSAMPLE benefits out of relationships than they put in will feel guilt and shame, and those who think they put a lot in but get very little back will be angry and resentful. The longer this feeling of unfairness (lack of equity) goes on, the more likely a couple is to break up.

Equity doesn’t mean equality, though. It is not about the number of rewards and costs, but rather about the balance between them; if a person puts a lot into a relationship and receives a lot, it will feel fair to them.

Moreover, perception of equity changes over time. For example, it is perfectly normal for many people to put in more than they receive at the beginning of a relationship, but if it carries on like that for too long, it will lead to dissatisfaction.

Finally, a partner’s way of dealing with inequity also changes with time. What seemed unfair in the beginning may become a norm as relationships progress, or the partner who gives more may start working even harder on the relationship until the balance is restored.

2. Research Examining Equity Theory Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear regarding how they are using research in their answer. The importance of equity in relationships is supported by research findings. Utne et al. (1984) used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples. The 118 participants were aged between 16 and 45, and had been together for 2 years or more before marrying. The study found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them.

Another study, conducted by Stafford and Canary (2006), also found similar trends. In their study over 200 married couples completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction. In addition, participants were asked questions about the ways they maintained their relationships, such as by dividing chores, communicating positively and showing affection for one another. They found that partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced, followed by spouses who over- benefitted from the relationships, experienced the most satisfaction. Those who under-benefitted showed lowest levels of satisfaction.

There is some supporting evidence from animal studies as well. For example, Brosnan and de Waal (2003), in their study of capuchin monkeys, found that they if monkeys were denied their reward (a bunch of grapes) for playing a game, they became very angry. This suggests that the importance of equity in relationships has ancient origins.

3. Evaluation Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . A strengthSAMPLE of Equity Theory is that it is supported by research findings. For example, Stafford and Canary (2006) have discovered that partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced experienced most satisfaction, thus supporting Equity Theory’s suggestion that perceived fairness is necessary for happy relationships.

. However, there is research that contradicts Equity Theory. For example, Berg and McQuinn (1986), conducted a longitudinal study on 38 dating couples. They didn’t find any increase in equity over time, but discovered that a high level of self-disclosure and perceived equity in the beginning of the relationships was a strong predictor that a couple would stay in their relationship, and low equity in the beginning was a reliable predictor of a break-up. In other words, it seems that perceived fairness is either present or not in relationships from the start, and does not develop with time, contrary to the prediction of Equity Theory. These findings oppose the central claim of the theory, and contradict the idea that equity increases over time, after the initiation of a romantic relationship.

. As with many other explanations of romantic relationships, there may be a cause and effect problem with Equity Theory. Some researchers suggest that dissatisfaction may be the cause, not the consequence, of perceived inequity. However, Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) studied married couples and found that dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships increased with time, not the other way around. Furthermore, there are also some important individual differences in perception of equity. There are people who are less sensitive to inequity and are prepared to give more in the relationships (benevolents, according to Hussman et al., 1987). Other people, entitleds, believe they deserve to over- benefit from relationships and don’t feel too guilty about this.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . There are important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness that Equity Theory ignores. Researchers such as Sprecher (1992) found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting, while DeMaris et al. (1998) suggest that women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to injustices. These results indicate clear gender differences between males and females and highlight the importance of conducting research into males and females separately, to avoid gender bias. However, this may then result in an alpha bias and exaggerate differences between males and females that do not actually exist.

. Equity Theory, like other theories within the relationships topic, proposes a universal theory of romantic relationships that suggests that people are content in their relationship if the benefits equal the costs. However, Mills & Clarke (1982) argue that it is not possible to assess equity in terms of loving relationships, as a lot of the input is emotional and unquantifiable. Consequently, it may be better to study romantic relationships using an idiographic approach which focuses on the qualitative experiences of individuals, rather than employingSAMPLE a nomothetic approach to generate universal laws for human relationships.

. There are also important cultural differences not accounted for by the Equity theory. Studies such as Aumer-Ryan et al. (2006) show that the concept of equity is more important in Western cultures than non-Western cultures. They

found that both men and women from non-Western (collectivist) cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationships when they were over- benefitting from it, not when the relationships were fair. These results highlight a culture bias in this area of research and suggest that Equity Theory does not explain the development of romantic relationships in all cultures.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Briefly outline the Equity Theory of romantic relationships. (4 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to test whether there is a relation between equity and marriage satisfaction. She published a questionnaire in a newspaper, asking for couples who had been married for more than 5 years to complete it. a) Write a suitable directional hypothesis for this study. (2 marks)

b) Identify the type of sampling that the psychologist used and explain one strength and one weakness of this sampling method. (4 marks)

c) Identify an appropriate statistical test to analyse this data. Explain your choice. (4 marks)

3) Kelly and Rahim have been dating for 2 years and moved in together six months ago. While they were dating, Kelly put a lot of effort into maintaining their relationship, but since they started living together, Rahim feels that Kelly puts all responsibility for developing their relationship on him. She expects Rahim to do more than his fair share around the house, and to also make sure their relationship stay positives and fresh. Kelly feels she is entitled to this, without necessarily giving much back. Rahim is starting to feel angry and dissatisfied with their relationship. Explain Rahim and Kelly's relationship using your knowledge of Equity Theory. (4 marks)

4) Evaluate Equity Theory as an explanation of romantic relationships. (10 marks) SAMPLE

INVESTMENT MODEL Specification: Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe the Investment Model of romantic relationships, including commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment 2. Describe research examining the Investment Model 3. Evaluate the Investment Model

KEY TERM DEFINITION Rusbult’s Investment Model of commitment is a theory of Rusbult’s romantic relationships that was developed to explain why Investment Model some people might remain in a relationship while others of Commitment might not. It is based on four factors: satisfaction, investment, comparison with alternatives, and commitment. Satisfaction is one of the factors included in Rusbult’s Investment Model of commitment. It refers to the positive Satisfaction versus negative emotions experienced within a relationship and how much one partner satisfies another partner’s needs. Comparison with alternatives is part of Rusbult’s Investment Model of relationships. Rusbult proposed that if there is a Comparison with more attractive alternative (e.g. being alone or with another Alternatives possible partner), then an individual might end their current relationship. However, if a better alternative is not available, then they may remain in their current relationship. Investment refers to anything that a person has put into a relationship that would be lost if they left the relationship. Investment This can include possessions, children, time and even emotional energy.

The Investment Model was put forward by Rusbult et al. (2001), as a development of Social Exchange Theory. The rationale for developing SET further was that many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards, so there must be some other factors that keep them together. Rusbult's Investment Model investigates what these other factors might be.

1. Investment of Romantic Relationships AccordingSAMPLE to Rusbult's proposal, there are three major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.

Satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives are based on the idea of comparison levels from Social Exchange Theory. People will have a high level of

© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Topic Companion (Edition 1) Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015 satisfaction with relationships if they have more rewards (companionship, attention, emotional support) and fewer costs (arguments, time). They also tend to be committed to relationships if, when asking themselves, 'Is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?' the answer is ‘no’. Alternatives can include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all, as well as finding a new partner.

However, for Rusbult et al., the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment. Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave relationships. The model proposes two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investment comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure. Extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people's life through the relationships, such as children, friends and shared memories.

Because both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in relationships. Therefore, it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.

In addition to the factors influencing partners’ commitment, Rusbult et al. also identified maintenance mechanisms partners use to keep relationships going. These mechanisms are: . Accommodation – acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.

. Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner's interests first.

. Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner's mistakes, both minor and serous ones.

. Positive illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner's qualities.

. Ridiculing alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.

SAMPLE

2. Research Examining the Investment Model Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear with how they are using research in their answer. There are numerous research studies supporting the Investment Model. Impett, Beals and Peplau (2002) conducted a longitudinal study using a large sample of married couples over an 18 months period. They found that stability of the relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners.

Rhahgan and Axsom (2006) studied a group of women and found that all three factors identified by Rusbult et al. (satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment) featured in participants' decision to stay with their partner.

Similar trends were found in Le and Agnew’s (2003) study. They conducted a meta- analysis of 52 studies, featuring 11,000 participants in total, and discovered that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment; and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships.

3. Evaluation of the Investment Model Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . One strength of the Investment Model is that it is supported by numerous research studies. For example, Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment. This supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, and thereby increases the reliability of the model.

. The Investment Model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. According to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few. Research into abusive relationships supports this idea. For example, Rusbult and Maltz, in their study of 'battered' women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn't have any appealing alternatives. This shows that the Investment Model can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain, thusSAMPLE increasing the Investment Model’s application to everyday relationships.

. The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships. This limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment and how much investment will lead to long-

term commitment to a relationship. Lack of predictive validity also makes the Investment Model less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people's behaviour, in this case, whether or not they will stay committed to the relationship, is one of the main goals of psychology as a science.

. Some psychologists point out that most evidence for the Investment Model comes from interviews and questionnaires, which are known to be subjective and unreliable. However, other researchers argue that, because satisfaction, investment and commitment are subjective values and depend on people's perception, using self-report techniques is an appropriate way to test the Investment Model. Therefore, data obtained through self-report techniques may provide a more realistic picture of reasons for relationship satisfaction and how it is related to investment and commitment, therefore making Investment Model more valid.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . Even though the importance of investment was clearly demonstrated by research, some psychologists think that Rusbult’s idea of relationship investment is oversimplified. For example, Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that it is not just things we bring to the relationships that could count as investment, but also a couple's plans for their future. In their view, partners will be committed to staying in the relationships because they want to see these plans realised. This shows that investment in romantic relationships is a complex phenomenon, consisting of many different factors, which makes the Investment Model reductionist.

. Culture bias doesn't seem to be an issue for the Investment Model. Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) and in Taiwan (collectivist culture). Furthermore, the Investment Model, as an explanation of relationship maintenance, is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples, etc. This suggests the universality of the Investment Model, making it applicable to wide range of relationships.

. The fact that the evidence for the Investment Model is found across cultures may suggest that the human need for investment and commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive and reproduce. For example, parents who are committed to their relationship and invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children's survival and therefore of passing on their genes. This means that the Investment Model supportsSAMPLE the nature side of the nature-nurture debate.

Exam Hint: One way to create an effective ‘discussion’ and achieve a top response is to write a succinct conclusion that summarises the main argument you presented in the essay. For example: Despite some limitations, such as reductionism and reliance

on correlational research, the Investment Model provides a valid explanation of romantic relationships, as demonstrated by support from cross-cultural research.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Explain one difference between satisfaction and commitment in romantic relationships. (2 marks)

2) A researcher is investigating reasons for why people stay in abusive relationships. He conducts semi-structured interviews with victims of domestic abuse at the refuge centre, looking for a correlation between investment and commitment scores. a) Briefly outline one ethical issue the researcher needs to consider when conducting this study. (2 marks)

b) Explain why Spearman’s rho would be a suitable inferential test to analyse the data collected by the researcher. (3 marks)

c) Scientific research is subjected to peer review before being published in scientific journals. Describe the process of peer review. (4 marks)

3) Natasha has been married for ten years, and has been increasingly unhappy in her marriage for the last few years. She often talks to her close friends about whether she should leave her husband, saying that he is becoming more and more controlling and emotionally abusive. However, she can't quite bring herself to leave him and makes excuses to avoid conversation with her husband about her unhappiness. Using your knowledge of the Investment Model, explain Natasha's reluctance to leave her marriage. (4 marks)

4) Discuss the Investment Model as an explanation of romantic relationships. (16 marks)

SAMPLE

DUCK’S PHASE MODEL Specification: Theories of romantic relationships; Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown;: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing phases.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe Duck's model of relationship breakdown, including intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing phases 2. Describe research examining Duck's model of relationships breakdown 3. Evaluate Duck's model of relationships breakdown

KEY TERM DEFINITION Duck’s phase model is a model of relationship breakdown Duck’s Phase Model that suggests that breakdown occurs in a series of steps or phases: intra-psychic, dyadic, social, and grave-dressing. The intra-psychic phase is the first phase in Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. This is where a person Intra-Psychic Phase starts to feel dissatisfied and under-benefited in their relationship, but they don’t say anything to their partner. The dyadic phase is the second phase in Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown, and it is where a person Dyadic Phase who is unhappy in their relationship confronts their partner and explains why they are dissatisfied. This phase may also involve feelings of anger and guilt. The social phase is the third phase in Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. This is where the person begins to Social Phase make their dissatisfaction public by telling family and friends about their discontent. These may take sides, offer support or help try and mend the relationship. Grave-dressing is the final phase in Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown and takes place when a person Grave-Dressing who has left their relationship attempts to justify their Phase actions. This is often because they are attempting to present themselves in a positive light in order to attract a new partner.

Many people view relationship breakdown as a one-off event that just happens when one partner decides to leave a relationship. However, social psychologist Steven Duck (2007) suggested that relationship dissolution is a process that consists of several distinctive stages. SAMPLE

1. Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown The first phase in this process is the intra-psychic stage. This is when a person admits to himself or herself that they are dissatisfied with their relationship, and they spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons for this dissatisfaction and possible ways forward. This stage focuses on a person's internal thought process that occurs before confronting the partner. Before a person moves to the next stage, they reach a threshold of thinking 'I can't stand this anymore'.

The second phase, called dyadic, occurs when a person confronts their partner and voices their dissatisfaction. At this stage there are a lot of complaints coming from the partner initiating the break-up; common complaints involve a partner's commitment to relationships. The dissatisfied partner also rethinks the alternatives to their current relationships. The threshold that is reached at this stage is: 'I would be justified in withdrawing'.

If, up to this point, the couple generally kept their disagreements private, at the next phase they involve friends and relatives and make their distress public. This is the social phase of relationship breakdown. According to Duck, once the conflict reaches this stage, it is more difficult for a couple to mend their relationship: friends and family will take sides, intervene in the couple's relationship and offer advice, which makes reconciliation much more problematic. The threshold at this stage is 'I mean it'. The social phase usually leads to the dissolution of the relationship.

Having left their partner, both sides construct their version of why their relationship broke down, usually minimising their faults and maximising their partner's, but at the same time trying to show themselves as trustworthy and loyal in order to attract a new partner. This process is called 'grave-dressing', signifying the closure of the previous relationship and readiness to start a new one. The threshold here is, unsurprisingly, 'It's time to start a new life'.

Extension In 2006, Duck and his colleague Rollie proposed an addition to the model: the resurrection phase. They suggested that at this stage people move beyond the pain and distress associated with ending the relationship, and experience personal growth.SAMPLE

2. Research Examining Duck's Phase Model Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear regarding how they are using research in their answer. Existence of the resurrection stage was supported by Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study; participants (undergraduates who had recently experienced a break-up) reported experiencing personal growth as a result of it, as well as emotional distress.

There is also research to indicate the importance of the grave-dressing stage, as the dissolution of a relationship is a very stressful event, and many people experience anxiety and depression while going through it. However, Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that if ex-partners viewed the situation, rather than their own faults, as being responsible for the break-up, they often saw the ending relationships in a more positive light.

3. Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . The existence and role of the break-up phases described in Duck's model are supported by scientific research. For example, Tashiro and Frasier (2003) showed that viewing the situation, rather than own faults, as being responsible for ending the relationships, helps people to see the break-up in a more positive light and move on, just as Duck's model predicts. This strengthens the claims made by the model and highlights the application of the theory to everyday relationships.

. Most of the research examining relationship breakdown is based on retrospective data, using questionnaires or interviews to ask participants about the break-up some time after it happened. People's memories of the event may not be accurate, and may also be coloured by their current situation, which means that their answers are not reliable. This means Duck's phase model, even though it seems to be supported by research, does not necessarily describe how break-up happens in real life, weakening the model's ability to present an accurate picture of relationship breakdown.

. There are also significant ethical issues involved in investigating relationship breakdown, such as privacy, especially if the research involves victims of domestic abuse. There are also the ethical issues of confidentiality and protection from psychological harm, as participants may experience distress in the process of the research. This makes the topic particularly difficult to investigate,SAMPLE as researchers may find it tricky to conduct a study where the benefits of research outweigh a possible negative impact on participants.

. The social phase is greatly affected by individual differences, especially in relation to age. Dickson (1995) found that while friends and relatives tend to see teenagers' break-ups as less serious and wouldn't put much effort into

reconciling partners, the ending of relationships by older couples is seen as more distressing and those close to the couple put more effort into bringing them back together. This shows that Duck's model won't necessarily apply to all couples, and therefore suggests that the model is unable to accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship.

. However, Duck's model has useful applications, especially in relation to couples’ counselling. Couples may be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they are currently in. For example, for a person in the intra-psychic phase it may be more useful to shift their attention to the positive aspects of their partner's personality, while for a couple in the dyadic phase communication about dissatisfaction and ways to balance relationships is crucial. This shows that Duck's model of relationship breakdown can be used successfully to help couples contemplating break-up to improve their relationships and stay together.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . The model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma. However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement. This makes the relationship difficult to end, which means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck. As a result, Duck's model is culturally biased as it assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case.

. Duck's model successfully describes how relationships break down, but not why. As most stage theories, it focuses on establishing universal principles of behaviour that would be true for all people (nomothetic approach). However, as shown above, the break-up process is greatly affected by partners’ individual differences, and cultural norms and values, so a more detailed idiographic approach may reveal individual reasons for break-up and the experiences different couples go through, giving psychologists a better understanding of the issue.

Exam Hint: It is important for students to pay attention to the amount of marks allocated to the question. As a rule, there should be a separate point made per mark. For example, to achieve full marks in question 3 (see below), students need to state the correct breakdown phase (1 mark); explain why they think it is correct (1 mark); suggest 1 way to reduce unhappiness (1 mark), and explain why it would be useful at this phase (1 mark).

PossibleSAMPLE Exam Questions 1) Describe the grave-dressing phase of relationships breakdown. (3 marks)

2) Design a questionnaire to investigate the relationship breakdown process. a) Suggest 3 questions you would include in a questionnaire. (3 marks)

b) Explain why these questions would be useful in investigating the break-up process. (6 marks) c) Identify one ethical issue you need to consider when conducting this research and explain how you would deal with it. (3 marks)

3) Alina is unhappy in her relationship with Chris, and often thinks about how much less attentive and loving he has become lately. However, she can't bring herself to tell Chris about her unhappiness, fearing that it might make the situation worse. Explain what phase of relationship breakdown Alina is at, and suggest one possible way for her to reduce her unhappiness. (4 marks)

4) Describe and evaluate Duck's model of relationships breakdown. (16 marks)

SAMPLE

VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS Specification: Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effect of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe virtual relationships in social media, including self-disclosure in virtual relationships and absence of gating. 2. Outline research examining virtual relationships. 3. Evaluate research into virtual relationships.

KEY TERM DEFINITION Virtual relationships are relationships where people are not physically present but communicate exclusively using Virtual relationships online methods such as e-mails, social media, or even by texting. Absence of gating refers to the way that virtual relationships are relatively anonymous. People are unable to use physical features such as attractiveness or age when Absence of Gating considering whether or not they wish to form a relationship with someone else online. Therefore, the ‘gates’, which are potential barriers that might limit the opportunities for shy or less attractive individuals, are removed (absent) online.

During the last decade, social media has increasingly become an important part of everyday life. Websites such as Facebook and Twitter have millions of people logging in every day; many of them communicate daily with people with whom they have never met face-to-face.

The prominence of virtual relationships in people's life has made it a fascinating topic for psychologists to study; even more so as initial research suggests that the nature of online communication is distinctly different from our social interactions in real life.

1. Virtual Relationships in Social Media One prominentSAMPLE difference between face-to-face and virtual relationships is the fact that self-disclosure tends to occur much faster. One reason for this is the anonymity associated with online relationships; people tend to hold off disclosing personal information in real life for fear of ridicule or rejection, unless they are confident that they can trust the person and that information won't be leaked to mutual friends. However, there is much less risk of this in virtual relationships, so people can share

personal experiences and thoughts without much risk of the intimate information getting to the people they know.

Walther (1996, 2011) proposed the hyperpersonal model of virtual relationships, suggesting that, as self-disclosure in online relationships happens earlier than in face-to-face ones, relationships quickly become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful. They can also end more quickly, however, as it is difficult to sustain the same level of intense self-disclosure for a long time. Walther also suggests that virtual relationships may feel more intimate because it is easier to manipulate self disclosure online than face-to-face. Participants in online conversation have more time to 'edit' their responses to present themselves in a more positive light; Walther calls this 'selective self-presentation'. Projecting a positive image will then make an online partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing the intensity of the relationship.

Social psychologists suggest that nature of virtual relationships is very close to the 'stranger on the train' phenomenon, described by Rubin (1975). He suggests that we are more likely to share personal information with a stranger because we are likely never to see them again.

However, Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggested that online relationships might be less open and honest than face-to-face ones, because in real life we are relying on a lot of subtle cues, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, and these cues are absent in virtual communications (Reduced Cues Theory). According to this theory, reduction in communication cues leads to de-individuation because it diminishes people's feelings of individual identity and brings on behaviours that people usually restrain themselves from displaying, such as aggression. This may make online communications more aggressive, and the consequence of this is less self-disclosure from other people, as they may fear becoming victims of verbal violence.

Another difference between online and face-to-face interactions is absence of gating. In real life, our attraction to other people is greatly influenced by their appearance, mannerisms and factors such as age and ethnicity, limiting our choice of potential partners. In virtual interactions, however, these barriers ('gates') are absent; this creates more opportunities for shy and less attractive people to develop romantic relationships. Even when these factors are discovered later, when relationships move from virtual to the face-to-face phase, they rarely decrease an already-developed attraction, as a result of the feeling of intimacy brought by more open self-disclosure.

The absence of gating also means that people can establish virtual identities they could neverSAMPLE create face-to-face. A shy person can become outgoing and extraverted, for example.

2. Research Examining Virtual Relationships

Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear regarding how they are using research in their answer. Whitty and Joinson’s (2009) research clearly demonstrates the effect of virtual environment of self-disclosure. The discovered that in online discussion forums both questions and answers tend to be more direct, probing and intimate than in everyday face-to-face interactions.

Furthermore, Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012) showed the importance of online communication for developing romantic relationships. They investigated whether there was a link between having internet access at home and being involved in a romantic relationship. Out of 4,000 participants studied, 71.8% of those with internet access were married or had a romantic partner, compared to only 35.9% of those without internet access. These findings suggest that a virtual environment helps people to establish and maintain romantic relationships.

Baker and Oswald (2010) suggest that the absence of gating in virtual relationships may be particularly useful for shy people. They asked 207 male and female participants to complete a questionnaire, scoring their answers in terms of shyness, internet use and perception of quality of their friendships. They found that those people who scored highly on shyness and internet use, perceived the quality of their friendships as high; this correlation was absent for people with low shyness scores. The findings imply that as online communication helps people to overcome their shyness, so the quality of their face-to-face communication also improves.

Zhao et al. (2008) claim that the absence of gating, and more meaningful self- disclosure online also has positive effects on people's offline relationships. As they can create an online identity that is appreciated by others, it enhances their overall self-image and increases the quality of their face-to-face relationships as well. This supports the suggestion about the positive effect of virtual relationships on face-to- face ones.

3. Evaluation of Virtual Relationships Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . The positive impact of virtual environments on developing romantic relationships is supported by research. For example, Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012) found that out of 4,000 participants studied, 71.8% of those with internet access were married or had a romantic partner, compared with only 35.9% of those without Internet access. The findings suggest that the virtual environment helps people to establish and maintain romantic relationships, endorsing explanations for virtualSAMPLE relationships.

. Paine et al. (2006) suggest that the degree of self-disclosure depends on whether a website user anticipates the information to become available to a wider audience or just to close friends. In the first case, people present an

'edited' version of themselves, trying to create a socially desirable identity. In the second case, however, people are willing to disclose more personal information, as they are relatively confident in their friends' acceptance. This contradicts the claim that gating is absent in all virtual relationships, as there is the possibility that information can become publicly available which may reduce the quantity and quality of self-disclosure.

. People are involved in both online and offline relationships every day; it's not an either/or situation. As such, our offline relationships tend to influence what and how we choose to disclose online, and vice versa. This means that there are fewer differences between online and face to face relationships than explanations seem to suggest, and research examining online relationships often fails to take into account the effect of these relationships on a person’s offline interactions, and vice versa.

. Researcher such as that by Sproull and Kiesler (1986) argues that, instead of increasing self-disclosure, online relationships often lead to a decrease in it. The claim that this is because virtual relationships lack many subtle cues, such as facial expressions, tone of voice and reaction times, which lead to deindividuation (a feeling of complete anonymity and loss of control) and this increases aggressive behaviour. People rarely want to disclose personal information to an individual who is blunt and aggressive. o However, this claim has been rejected by Tidwell and Walther (1995), who argue that in virtual relationships people also use subtle cues, such as the time taken to respond to their post, or emoticons and emojis. According to them, non-verbal cues in online interactions are not absent, they are just different.

. Most of the research examining virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As technology is changing rapidly, so is the nature of online relationships; therefore, psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated by the time it is published. This lowers the temporal validity of research into online relationships, meaning that the findings may not necessarily apply to the current situation.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . Research into virtual relationships is based on the experiences of mainly Western, technologically developed cultures. Internet technology is not readily available in some countries, so the conclusions about the development and effects of virtual communication on romantic relationships cannot be applied to them. In addition, attitudes to self-disclosure are different in different cultures. ForSAMPLE example, Nakanishi (1986) found that, in contrast to American culture, women in Japan preferred lower levels of self-disclosure in close relationships. This demonstrates that the level of self-disclosure depends on cultural norms, and may affect the communication styles online. This lowers the validity of research into virtual relationships, limiting the range of relationships it explains.

. There are also important gender differences in virtual relationships. McKenna et al. (2002) found that women tended to rate their relationships formed online as more intimate, and valued self-disclosure, especially in regards to emotion, more highly than men. Men, on the other hand, preferred activities-based (such as common interests in motorsports) disclosure, and rated their online relationships as less close than face-to-face ones. This suggests that research into online relationships may show alpha-bias, as it assumes that males' and females' experiences on virtual relationships are different. However, it could be that male and female experiences of virtual relationships are similar and there are methodological issues with the research in this area that exaggerate the differences (e.g. the choice of interview/questionnaires as a research tool).

Exam Hints: . As suggested previously, it is important for students to pay attention to the amount of marks allocated to the question. As a rule, there should be a separate point made per mark. For example, to achieve full mark in question 3 above, students need to state the correct breakdown phase (1 mark); explain why they think it is a correct one (1 mark); suggest 1 way to reduce unhappiness (1 mark) and explain why it would be useful at this stage (1 mark).

. Students should make sure that each point in application and extended writing questions is fully explained. It is useful using connectives such as: 'this is because', 'this shows', 'this suggests' etc. to gain the full mark.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Explain what is meant by the term 'gating'. (2 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to investigate relationships between shyness and success of romantic relationships initiated online and offline (measured by whether or not a couple was still together two years after the relationship started). a) Explain why the researcher decided to propose a directional hypothesis for his study. (2 marks)

b) The researcher set the level of statistical significance at 5%. What is the chance of the researcher making a Type I error? (1 mark)

c) Suggest a suitable sampling method for this study. Explain how the researcher could obtain their sample. (3 marks)

3) Alex is very shy and finds it difficult to initiate conversations with other people faceSAMPLE-to-face. However, when participating in discussions on his favourite forum he feels much more confident and has no problems expressing his opinions and asking questions. He became friends on Facebook with some of the forum members, and is comfortable with disclosing some personal information to them. Using your knowledge of virtual relationships, explain Alex’s behaviour (4 marks)

4) Discuss research into virtual relationships. (16 marks)

SAMPLE

PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Specification: Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe parasocial relationships, including the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation 2. Outline research examining parasocial relationships 3. Evaluate research into parasocial relationships

KEY TERM DEFINITION Parasocial relationships are one-sided, interpersonal relationships in which an individual knows a great deal Parasocial about another person (usually a celebrity), while the other Relationships person is unaware of their existence. The most common

form of such parasocial relationships is between a fan and a celebrity. Giles and Maltby (2006) identified three levels of parasocial relationships that a person might have with a celebrity. The first level is the entertainment-social level, where the person keeps up with their celebrity and finds out information about them for the purpose of entertainment. Levels of Parasocial The second level is the intense-personal level, where the Relationships person has intensive feelings for the celebrity and might appear obsessed. The third level is borderline-pathological, and this is where the person has over-identified with the celebrity and their fantasies and behaviour may have become uncontrollable; their absorption is more like an addiction.

The Absorption Addiction Model was proposed by McCutcheon et al. (2002) and suggests that people pursue Absorption parasocial relationships due to deficits within their real life. Addiction Model Relationships with celebrities are seen as an attempt to cope with or escape from reality. People may follow celebrities to gain a sense of personal identity and achieve a sense of fulfilment. The attachment theory of parasocial relationships suggests that some people are more likely to form parasocial relationships due to their attachment style. Cole and Leets Attachment Theory (1999) found that individuals with an insecure-resistant of ParasocialSAMPLE attachment style were more likely to engage in parasocial Relationships relationships with their favourite TV personality, and insecure-avoidant individuals were less likely to engage in parasocial relationships.

Parasocial relationships refer to one-sided relationships with celebrity, a prominent person in the community or a fictional character, when a fan knows everything about the subject of their adoration and feels very close to them, but there is no chance of reciprocity.

1. Explanations of Parasocial Relationships Absorption Addiction Model Giles and Maltby (2006) identified three levels of parasocial relationships, using the Celebrity Attitude Scale in a large-scale survey.

Stage 1 Entertain – Social: Giles and Maltby suggest that most people engage in parasocial relationships at some point in their lives, but most stay at the first level (Entertainment – Social), where celebrities are seen as a source of entertainment and as a topic for lighthearted gossips with friends. This is the least intense level of celebrity worship.

Stage 2 Intense – Personal: This is a deeper level of parasocial relationships. At this level a person has a more intense relationship with a celebrity. For example, they may see them as a soulmate and they have an intense interest in the celebrity’s personal life, such as their dress sense, food they like and entertainment in which they take part. This type of parasocial relationship is typical for teenagers who seem to be obsessed with every little detail of their favourite celebrity’s lifestyle.

Stage 3 Borderline pathological: This is the most intense level of parasocial relationships. At this level, a person takes celebrity worship to an extreme, has obsessive fantasies about the celebrity, spends large sums of money to obtain memorabilia and may engage in illegal activities such as stalking. At this level, it is also usual for people to believe that if only they were given a chance to meet their favourite celebrity in person, their feelings would be reciprocated.

McCutcheon (2002) proposed the Absorption-Addiction Model to explain parasocial relationships. She suggests that people engage in celebrity worship to compensate for some deficiencies in their life, such as difficulty forming intimate relationships, poor psychological adjustment and lack of identity. Forming parasocial relationships with a celebrity allows them to achieve the fulfilment they lack in everyday life and adds a sense of purpose and excitement.

McCutcheon explains that looking for satisfaction in celebrity worship makes a person focus intensively on parasocial relationships and achieving a sense of fulfilment motivates them to become even more intensely attached to the celebrity. This is SAMPLEthe first stage of the model, absorption.

This sense of fulfilment then becomes addictive for the person, leading them to engage in more risky behaviour such as stalking, in order to get mentally, and sometimes physically, closer to the celebrity they worship.

Attachment Theory Explanation Other psychologists use Bowlby’s attachment theory and Ainsworth’s types of attachment to explain celebrity worship. Bowlby’s theory predicts that individuals who didn’t form a strong bond with a primary caregiver in early childhood will try to find an attachment substitute as adults, and engaging in parasocial relationships allows them to do so.

Moreover, according to the description of attachment types described by Ainsworth suggest that individuals who formed insecure-resistant relationships with their caregiver in early childhood will be more likely to form parasocial relationships, as they are too afraid of the criticism and rejection that are a part of real life relationships. As was demonstrated by Ainsworth’s findings in Strange Situation study, insecure-resistant children were very clingy to their mothers, showed less explorative behaviour than children of other types, as they didn’t feel safe enough to leave a parent, and showed great distress when their mother left the room.

According to Hazan and Shaver, this behaviour translates into clingy and jealous behaviour in adulthood, making it difficult for such people to developed committed and lasting romantic relationships. Intensive celebrity worship allows them to engage in fantasy about the perfect relationship, without heartbreak and rejection.

2. Research Examining Parasocial Relationships Exam Hint: Research studies can be presented as both knowledge and evaluation in the exam; however, it is important that students are clear regarding how they are using research in their answer.

Psychological research offers some support for absorption-addiction model. Maltby et al. (2005) measured the relation between celebrity worship and body image in teenagers. They found that teenage girls who were at the intense-personal level of celebrity worship tended to have a poor body image, especially if they particularly admired a celebrity’s physical appearance.

Schiappa et al. (2007) found a significant positive correlation between the amount of TV participants watched, the degree to which they perceived a TV character as ‘real’ and the level of their parasocial relationship.

Research also supports a link between loneliness and engaging in parasocial relationships. For example, Greenwood and Long (2009) found some evidence that people may develop celebrity worships as a way of dealing with a recent loss or loneliness. However, other research (e.g. Chory-Assad and Yanen, 2005) failed to find anySAMPLE significant correlation between intensity of loneliness and intensity of a parasocial relationship, so the evidence is not conclusive.

Attachment theory explanation is also supported by research studies. Kienlen et al. (1997) supported the idea that disturbed attachment in childhood may lead to the development of borderline-pathological level of parasocial relationships. They © tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Topic Companion (Edition 1) Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015 investigated the experiences of stalkers and found that 63% of their participants experienced a loss of a caregiver in early childhood while 50% experienced emotional and physical abuse.

Cole and Leets (1999) investigated parasocial relationships that adolescents developed with TV personalities, and found that teenagers with insecure-resistant attachment types were more likely to develop such relationships than those with insecure-avoidant and secure attachments.

3. Evaluating Parasocial Relationships Exam Hint: The first evaluation point demonstrates how research (see above) can be used to write effective evaluation. . Research into parasocial relationships has useful applications. Maltby (2003) linked types of personality (extravert, psychotic and neurotic) to levels of parasocial relationships. He found that extraverts were more likely to be at the entertainment-social level, neurotics at the intense-personal level and psychotics at the borderline-pathological level, supporting the absorption-addiction model. This suggests that research into parasocial relationships can be used to improve professionals' understanding of psychological disorders and help people struggling with psychological disorders.

. There is a lack of support for attachment theory explanations. McCutcheon et al. (2006) examined the correlation between attachment type and celebrity worship levels using 229 participants, and found no link between insecure-resistant attachment and more intense levels of parasocial relationships. This contradicts the claim made by attachment theory explanations and suggests that there is no link between attachment type and parasocial relationships.

. However, most research into celebrity worship/parasocial relationships is correlational. This means that cause and effect cannot be clearly established, lowering the scientific explanatory power. For example, while a significant correlation was found between poor body image and intensive celebrity worship in teenage girls (Maltby et al., 2005), this does not mean, however, that intense celebrity worship causes poor body image. It may as well be that girls who already have a poor body image tend to engage in a more intensive level of parasocial relationships to enhance their self-esteem.

. Another weakness of studies into parasocial relationships is that they rely heavily on self-report methods, such as interviews and questionnaires. These methods may not reflect the true picture, as participants may want to answer in a way that reflects them in better light (social desirability bias) and may not respond truthfullySAMPLE to the questions. This means that the reasons for developing parasocial relationships may be different from the ones uncovered by research, which lowers the validity of these explanations, making them less applicable to real life.

Evaluation: Issues & Debates . The Absorption-Addiction Model is better suited to describing levels of celebrity worship that explain how people develop these attitudes. This model attempts to establish universal principles of behaviour (nomothetic approach) and as such misses out on deep insight into the reasons for behaviour. An idiographic approach, looking into particular instances of parasocial relationships, may be better suited to the reasons for why people develop them.

. Despite some weaknesses, research into celebrity worship seems to be describing a universal phenomenon. For example, Schmid and Klimmt (2011) studied levels of parasocial relationships with characters from the Harry Potter books in different cultures, and found similar levels of worship in Germany (individualist culture) and Mexico (collectivist culture). This suggests that the absorption-addiction model is universally applicable.

Exam Hint: It is important that students understand the difference between reliability and validity and explain how criticisms of a theory reflect on its reliability and validity.

Possible Exam Questions 1) Explain what is meant by parasocial relationships. (2 marks)

2) A psychologist decided to replicate Maltby et al.’s (2005) research into relationships between celebrity worship and body image, using a longitudinal study. a) Explain what is meant by a longitudinal study. (2 marks)

b) Describe two disadvantages of a longitudinal study. (4 marks)

c) The researcher decided to use an online questionnaire to gather data. Explain why an online questionnaire would be a more suitable method for this research than a postal one? (2 marks)

3) Georgia is 17 and is a big fan of the band ‘One Direction’. She spends most of the money she earns at her part-time job on their concert tickets, posters and signed t-shirts. She spends a lot of time on the band’s fan forums, discussing the band members’ personal lives with other fans. Last month Georgia decided to skip her maths exam to attend the group’s concert in a different city. Identify the level of parasocial relationship which Georgia is at, and explain her behaviour using the absorption-addiction model. (4 marks) SAMPLE 4) Outline and evaluate explanations of parasocial relationships. (16 marks)